Sardonic, sneering, wealthy, and wearing immaculate linen. Preferably ruffled.
Carol Dyhouse’s Heartthrobs, A History of Women and Desire, looking at the possibly changing faces of masculine desirability, as expressed in literature, film and pop culture is interesting, though I’m not certain it is really saying anything particularly new. She certainly backs up what she chooses to say by reference to much other material. Heartthrobs is 190 pages, plus a full 50 pages of cited references plus 7 of index.
Tracing the changing views of sexy, desirable men, from the earliest of novels (whether written by men, or particularly, women) we are shown that, whether in Richardson’s Pamela, the first novel, Austen’s novels, (especially Pride and Prejudice, with Darcy, the pinnacle of desirability) or Bronte’s, what set female hearts a flutter was a dominant, dominating, often ‘sardonic’ (a favourite adjective) on the verge of cruel, man, ultimately to be tamed, reformed in some way by the virtuous love of a good woman. Love tames the beast into marriage. And, rescuing him from being merely bestial, was of course, wealth. Easy to see why, in a time when a woman’s ability to make wealth for herself was lacking. So it is a little depressing to see how little has changed….she reminds the reader of a more than on the verge of cruel man in that runaway viral success, 50 Shades of Grey. What of course stopped the – I can’t bring myself to name him hero – of that, from merely being a thug, was – (sighs) wealth and fine linen denoting wealth, rather than grubby grease stained overalls.
Rudolph Valentino and Vilma Banky, throbbing
Others, in films, followed the trend, from Valentino to Rhett Butler. I found it interesting, and, depressing too, as explained with Valentino (The Sheik) though his Arabian mien is exotic, and in part gives his allure, it was necessary that the character turned out to have Caucasian ancestry – there was, surely, an inherent racism in this.
Later sections in the book look at sexual desire in early teens and pre-teens, and examines the pretty boy/boy band phenomenon – David Cassidy is particularly focused on – the allure for his young fans his unthreatening, androgynous, not quite developed sexuality. It’s the other end of the spectrum from the adult female’s object of desire who masters.
Unknown man wearing a fine linen shirt. Not many ruffles though.
There are some amusing anecdotes – I particularly enjoyed the revelation of the potency of Austen’s Darcy – perhaps not unconnected with Colin Firth’s wet shirt, but, of course, P+P was an enduring literary romance before THAT BBC adaptation – as evidenced by the following quote :
scientists working on pheromones in mice discovered a protein in the urine of the male mouse which was irresistible to females. They named it after Jane Austen’s character.’Darcin’. There are many ways in which Darcy has proved a money spinner
I received this from Amazon Vine UK, as a review copy. The text also has some great black and white illustrations showing the changing appearance of ‘throbs’ (and melting women) though these are done as text page pictures, rather than photos. There are some wonderful illustrations from ‘Romance Magazines/stories from early in the twentieth century, and pin-ups of the nineteenth century – portraits of Nelson and Wellington (!).
It is available as wood book and digital download in the UK, but Stateside, though available on Kindle does not get published in hard copy till next month
Sounds interesting, Lady F, if perhaps a little slight. As you say, most of this kind of things has been said by feminist critics for years, but it *is* a shame that so little has changed. I can’t tell you how sick I got of encountering supposedly intelligent women I knew reading 50 Shades of Cr*p…..
I had a look, when everyone was raving about it, on ‘look inside’ and the first few pages of writing were so unbelievably dire there was no way I would go further. I did however read a very funny savaging of it somewhere, which basically pointed out the offensive class politics. Yes, slight was the word, but it did make itself interesting enough for review – I think it was the illustrations really, film stills and old magazine covers of chaps looking granite jawed and females wilting. Kind of amusing and irritating all together
I did the same ‘look inside’ thing – or possibly read a quote in a review trashing it – and I couldn’t believe it was so badly written!
Rudy! David!! Darcy!!! Oh, be still, my beating heart!!! Goodness, you should put a health warning at the top if you’re going to do that, so we can make sure we’ve all taken our blood pressure medication… *goes for a wee lie down*
See, with David, I think it’s the teeth. You just never saw teeth like that in Britain back in those far-off days…
I thought Rudi was dreamy, but (whispers) neither David nor Colin fluttered my stint heart
Oh wretched wretched predictive which I don’t even notice till too late – I typed in stony, why on earth did stint appear? I would have thought stony a much commoner word than stint. Though it does make a weird kind of sense , as far as you might be concerned – you might think my heart was stingy not to succumb to Colin!
See, you shouldn’t have owned up! I assumed it was some lovely archaic word, perhaps culled from the Brontes or that ilk, and was quietly admiring your extensive vocabulary. But now… *shakes head sadly*
I’m glad it’s well-referenced; so many books I’ve read recently have had severe referencing issues, or, indeed, a rubbish index (like one I read recently where I couldn’t check for the answer to a question someone asked after my review!). It does sound well-done and it’s interesting to have all that info in one place, too.
Yes, frustrating when refs aren’t given or easy to find. It seems particularly frustrating with digital. Footnote links which don’t lead to the desired place. But this was hard copy, which I prefer anyway
Were all of Austen’s “dominant, dominating, often ‘sardonic’ ” – not sure that applies completely to Henry Tilney in Northanger Abbey or George Knightly in Emma.
Well, yes you are right, but Darcy is the one nearer to that ‘heartthrob’ genre.
Agreed re Darcy. I thought your author was making a broader comment about all of Austen’s work which is why I challenged it for some other ‘hero’ figures.
I should perhaps have made it clearer – she does talk about other heroes, in both Austen and Richardson, who were not cut from that pattern – but is really looking at the enduring popularity of the wealthy dominant male, and of course Northanger Abbey, and Tilney, is talked about – and the kinds of heroes in the romances Catherine loves
Got you. thanks for the clarification
This sounds an interesting dip into, as you say, is a much wider debate. I could yell from my soapbox for hours about how unhealthily romantic love is figured in our culture (so co-dependent! ‘I’m nothing with you’ etc etc) and the highly dubious nature of heart-throbs. Love the fact about Darcin though 😀