headline news

Loyalty is Considered Key in Heroism.

now there's a fluff veteran's day piece. But it explains why the heroic cynical loner is the more intriguing character. Someone who works against his natural instinct is more interesting than someone who jumps in like the family dog. Not that I think pack animals are no fun, but there's less thought involved.

On the other hand, for hero, you can't beat that Tom Hanks character. So never mind.

Which sort of character do you prefer?

And do you find yourself a sexist about it? In other words, is the concept of a loner, damaged male more interesting appealing than a loner female? I think I used to be wary of those damaged women, long, long ago, but then the Gratton** Grafton's character came along and so did all those other tough female cynics. And what works in mysteries trickles down to romance. It goes both ways, of course. (As soon as one mass-market trend successfully hits a particular subgenre, it'll work its way over to another. Seriously, look at all the chick-lit mysteries.)

**sorry, Vivian!


  1. I would prefer the loner, damaged female, but then, I prefer tough broads. Explain the Gratton reference. I need something new to read.

  2. whoops. Gratton's my sister-in-law. Grafton's a well-known mystery writer. Gratton's a fine writer, too.

  3. I love Kinsey Milhone!

  4. Carolyn Jean10:29 AM

    I think it's sexist, but I am more into the damaged male than the damaged female...maybe I need to check out the Grafton thing. I do, however, really enjoy Harper, the damaged heroine of Charlaine Harris' Grave Sight/Grave Surprise etc. series. Harper's totally screwed up and has this murky relationship with her stepbrother, and it's all amazingly delightful.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

what I'm talking about above--the letter in RWR

My Writing Day with an Unproductive Brain