I’ve been loving all the thoughtful comments on my Love & Protectiveness post. I blogged about the topic on History Hoydens as well this week. Isobel Carr commented, “It’s a fine line issue. I think PEOPLE (male and female) have a natural impulse to try and protect those they love. If the “hero” is willing to accept this from the “heroine”, and his own protection doesn’t simply come down to sidelining the heroine as though she were a child, then I think it can work either way.”
I’ve been working on the copy edits for Imperial Scandal, and in light of Isobel’s comment a particular exchange between Charles/Malcolm and Mélanie/Suzanne, shortly before the battle of Waterloo, jumped out at me.
“How long?” she asked, keeping her voice level. After all, she had known for months that this day would come.
“A few days at most, I should think.” His fingers tightened over her own. “Sweetheart, if you want to go to Antwerp–“
She jerked her hands from his clasp. “Don’t you dare suggest I run away.”
“I’m not. But your hands are like ice.”
She hugged her arms over her chest. “War is about to break out. I’m worried about our friends. I’m worried about my husband.”
“I’m not going to be anywhere near the fighting.”
“Liar.” Screams echoed in her ears. Blood glistened on the cobblestones before her eyes. “I’ve already gone through one war with you, don’t forget.”
His gaze moved over her face. “I can’t, Mel.”
“Can’t what?”
“Promise to stay here in Brussels with you.”
She swallowed. She’d made her choices a long time ago. She would have to live with them. “I wouldn’t ask that of you. Any more than you’d ask it of me.”
“Well then.” He touched her arm. “This is nothing we haven’t been through before.”
For a moment she was sitting beside a camp bed where her wounded husband lay a few months into their oddly begun marriage, holding Malcolm’s hand and staring at his ashen face, wondering if she’d ever have the chance to speak to him again. But even then– “It was different,” she said, her voice rough. “We weren’t– We didn’t– We mean more to each other now. We have more to lose.”
Later, during the hell of the battle, Charles/Malcolm has this exchange with Geoffrey Blackwell in the midst of a British infantry square filled with wounded men:
Blackwell cast a glance round the square. “I’d give a lot to have Suzanne here.”
“So would I. ” Charles shook his head. “Odd. A man should want to protect his wife from this.”
“Not a man who knows his wife as well as you do.”
Do you think protectiveness cuts both ways for heroes and heroines?
I’ve just posted a new Fraser Correspondence letter from Geoffrey Blackwell to Lady Frances asking for Aline’s hand in marriage. It was a challenge to get into Geoffrey’s head to write what could not but be a difficult letter. Let me know what you think.
Tracy Grant - Novelist 
September 13, 2011 at 1:31 am
I think a smart hero knows that if he tries to protect his heroine too much, she is bound to go off having a bit of fun without him – because what greater fun is there than the risk of danger??
September 13, 2011 at 1:42 am
I think that’s an excellent point, Amanda. Especially characters who are involved in an adventure and/or mystery are likely to be drawn to intrigue and adventure, and it’s often better for both the hero and the heroine to face it together than to go off on their own.
September 15, 2011 at 2:55 am
I think Amanda summed it up quite nicely. The key word was ‘smart’ hero. It seems like many heros go the extra step of protecting their women from danger by also keeping from them the reality or the knowledge of the danger. The heroines seem to think the danger will be fun, and thus run right into it, and have to be rescued. The not-so-smart heroes seem to think they only need to say “stay away because I said so” and that is all it will take. The heroines have no grasp of how bad the consequences could be.
Charles & Mel have seen and lived through very real danger. They aren’t playing at heroism. If they mess up, they are very aware of what the consequences will be. They’ve already lived through some of the worst of them. They both know the other is intelligent and will not make any hasty or irrational decisions. In a way, they protect each other by trusting each other. If they are working together, they don’t have to worry that the other will go off & do something stupid.
September 15, 2011 at 3:21 am
I love your response, Susan!
Charles & Melanie are a great example of a couple who strike the right balance! And, naturally, the longer they are together, the more experiences they will have together, and the trust will continue to grow – not at all unlike real relationships. Its couples like Charles & Melanie who bring books to life – with the extra fun of danger and hero & heroine side by side!
A hero who says ‘stay away because I said so’ is a drag!
September 15, 2011 at 3:37 am
Thanks for the nice words, Amanda! I think it’s true that real life couples find a balance in sharing responsibilities (though hopefully not so much danger!) as the relationship develops. I’m glad if Charles & Mel’s growing trust comes through in the series. It’s one of the things that makes them fun to write about (and part of why it’s interesting to go back in time to when that trust wasn’t as fully developed).
September 15, 2011 at 3:34 am
I think that’s a great point that couples can protect each other by trusting each other, Susan. Working together the couple can look out for each other. Of course there are times when one partner goes into danger without the other, as in the Waterloo example I quoted in the post. Mélanie/Suzanne knows this is one adventure she won’t be able to share with her husband. She’s struggling, from early on in the book, both with fears about the danger he may be in and with frustration at feeling she’s on the sidelines.