Okay, I'm a prude. I'll admit it. :-)
Now that that's out of the way... (LOL)
Why, pray tell, do so many romance writers feel obligated to mention (in some cases in particular or humorous detail) how their hero reacts, anatomically speaking, to an attractive female?
You know what I'm talking about without my having to use the "e" word.
To their credit, many of them don't use that word, either. That is to their credit, because that word isn't romantic. Period. It can be erotic. Romantic? Nope.
But, with very few exceptions--even among so-called "sweet" romance writers--it seems that a romance writing female can't resist mentioning how "uncomfortable" her hero gets around her heroine.
Or how he has to "shift positions" in his chair.
Or how, in one phraseology I just read, "...her smile raised more than his spirits."
To which I say, "Really? Was that necessary?"
Because guess what? It's not.
Worse than that, though...in my mind, it works against the portrayal of your hero as...heroic.
Why?
Because at that point, the hero slips a little off his pedestal and becomes just another Neanderthal guy who thinks with his hormones.
Most authors do at least differentiate between complete-stranger females and females the man has some acquaintance with, and they do seem to want to attach an emotional component to this reaction.
But that attempt fails. Because a biological or anatomical reaction is not an emotion.
Erotic attraction? Yep.
Chemistry? Yep.
But is it specific chemistry between that hero and that heroine?
Often, not at all. Because it happens way before there's a meaningful emotional connection.
It's kinda like reducing hero/heroine attraction to the old pop tune, "Nothing But Mammals."
There's nothing romantic about that song--and there's nothing romantic about hearing that the hero is turned on by the heroine.
No, not even if you portray it humorously, or as something he "can't help" and considers an annoyance.
Not even if you claim you're attaching an emotion to it.
Because conveying emotion doesn't happen by focusing below a guy's belt.
If revulsion is what you're going for, then, that works admirably.
But I doubt you want me to be revolted by your hero.
I think you want me to fall in love with him.
And I do want to. Honest.
So why distract me from the important stuff by focusing on the adolescent?
I'm an adult woman. I know what, anatomically speaking, is going to happen to him if he allows his thoughts to stray in a certain direction.
But I'm interested in those thoughts and emotions...not in the chemical reaction that results.
And there is absolutely nothing about that reaction that's going to convince me he's falling in love.
At. All.
If a man's feeling the right things in an organ considerably higher in his body, the rest of it is a given.
But I want to hear about that higher organ.
Not the lower one.
And especially not as one of the first reactions he has to the woman who's supposed to turn into his soulmate.
Any man can and often will react that way to any woman.
Sometimes for some very sinister reasons.
Our heroes need to be focused on higher things than that.
And so should our prose.
Thoughts?
Janny
