Masculinity in Romance Fiction: Redefining the Romance Hero
By Carter Lambert (2025)
In this paper, I will discuss how best-selling contemporary romance authors Janet Dailey, LaVyrle Spencer, and Jennifer Crusie depict masculinity from the 1960s to the 2020s. These authors, Crusie, Dailey, and Spencer, believe that there is such a thing as a traditional romance hero and that he has qualities of dominance, aggression, and emotional detachment. For example, Jennifer Crusie cites, “Traditional romance heroes are often characterized by emotional stoicism and dominance, which are outdated and unrealistic representations of masculinity” (Crusie, 1997). Similarly, Janet Dailey has publicly challenged traditional genre expectations. In her 1997 interview with Kay Mussell, Dailey explained that publishers would often tell her what was expected, namely that she would write against the mold of being a wealthy, powerful, stoic man. This opposition to traditional masculine ideals was not limited to how characters the three authors wrote but also reflected how each author discussed her creative choices. In a 1978 profile in the Billings Gazette, Dailey stated that she wrote the kinds of stories she wanted to read but could not find —ones where men had emotional weight, and their actions reflected moral rather than physical strength (Peterson, 1978). Spencer echoed this sentiment in her Romance Writers Report piece, stating that she “was tired of reading about men who saved the day but could not express a real thought or feeling”(Spencer, 1994). These initial insights provide a critical context for understanding how each author works within and purposefully challenges the conventions of the contemporary romance genre.
Instead of relying on the stereotypical qualities of dominance, aggression, or emotional detachment, it is evident that these male characters exhibit a more complex version of masculinity. These reimagined male protagonists lie in opposition to the traditional male archetype. I will draw from interviews, essays, articles, and novels that show the authors’ nuances of masculine identities in contemporary romance fiction. While their individual approaches vary, Dailey, Spencer, and Crusie all emphasize three recurring traits in their male leads: vulnerability, listening, and equality in relationships. Therefore, I will argue that the three authors challenge masculinity by portraying vulnerability, empathy, and mutual respect that move away from stereotypical depictions of male characters. In doing so, they help move the genre away from the formulaic romance writing and towards more non-stereotypical depictions of men.
Vulnerability
In their own novels, these three authors write, male protagonists who experience or express vulnerability. For Janet Dailey, vulnerability is rooted in a character’s background or emotional history. Elaborating on Dailey’s depiction of vulnerable male protagonists, she mentioned in an interview with The Washington Post that she writes her characters based on her own believable experiences (Kernan 1977). Her writing relied on dynamics that mirrored real conflict and vulnerability. In an interview with Kay Mussel, Dailey stated, “I don’t write fairy tales. I try to make characters real, and real men hurt too” (Mussel, 1997). Dailey uses the phrase “real men” to frame vulnerability as authentic rather than weak, as she consciously wrote her male characters who experience emotional pain. (Mussel, 1997). Dailey additionally emphasized that the tension between her and her publisher became a “source of story ideas” (Mussel,1997). For instance, she would hear that “Heroes have to be rich” and then “write a book where the guy was not a millionaire,” which highlights her intention to challenge traditional norms that tend to be reflected in romance novels (Mussel, 1997).
LaVryle Spencer similarly writes vulnerability through her book, The Fulfillment. The male protagonist’s infertility becomes a central obstacle that symbolizes a loss of power associated with masculinity (Spencer 1979). According to a 1994 Romance Writers Report, Spencer emphasizes that she deliberately portrays men as emotionally transparent, stating that her male protagonists “cry, feel ashamed, and ask for forgiveness” (Spencer, 1994).’. This deliberate choice challenges the traditional stoic and emotionally distant male protagonist often found in romance fiction (Crusie, 1997). Furthermore, she writes that when readers see male characters express weakness, “they don’t lose respect for him- they trust him more” (Spencer, 1994). An article in the St. Petersburg Times further supports this, emphasizing that readers were drawn to her depiction of the “vulnerable male” (Hammond, 1992). Spencer’s fiction was praised for showing “tender, emotionally available men,” illustrating how her deliberate writing choices reflected the readers’ desires to see this depiction of male protagonists (Hammond, 1992).
Jennifer Crusie emphasizes the importance of portraying masculine vulnerability in her personal essays and novels. In her 1998 essay, “Defeating the Critics,” Cruise argues that romance fiction is valuable because it involves emotional risks that are central to her work. She then claims that heroes “risk rejection and pain for love,” which exemplifies courage (Crusie 1998). Continuing her argument, she writes that many male characters in traditional genre romance fiction “act instead of feel” and that one of her goals is to create heroes who “own their emotions and learn from them” (Crusie, 1998). She intends to challenge certain traditional romance genre traits and emphasize the importance of incorporating vulnerability into romantic heroes. Additionally, in her essay “Romancing Reality,” Crusie argues that the men in her novels are emotionally present and aware of their environment, which is uncommon in many romance books that emphasize the emotional unavailability of the male protagonist (Crusie, 1997). Crusie believes that authentic heroes communicate openly and acknowledge their mistakes. She argues that male characters who suppress their emotions are unlikable and challenging to develop in her writing, as she says, “A hero who cannot express emotion is not just hard to love, he is hard to write.” (Crusie 1997). Similarly, in her 2020 interview with the Pixel Project, she reiterates her point that “a hero who can’t be emotionally available is not someone I find interesting to write.” Through vulnerability, these characters grow more likable, which is a central strength of her novel, Bet Me, which I will discuss below (Lipman, 1999). A New York Times book review by Elinor Lipman also provides additional perspective on Crusie’s male characters, describing them as “gentle, funny, and refreshingly self-deprecating ” (Lipman 1999). Emotional humility is highlighted as a quality often missing in other traditional romantic heroes, according to Jennifer Crusie in her “Romancing Reality” essay in 1997. Lipman notes that men in Crusie’s novels are more likable, which is a choice that deliberately supports the opposition of an emotionally distant or aggressive male lead.
Empathy and Compassion
In addition to vulnerability, empathy, and compassion are emphasized in the three authors’ male protagonists. Janet Dailey has discussed how she prefers to write heroes who were “products of their surroundings,” noting that Dailey’s heroes lie not in perfection but in their willingness to adjust their actions (Mussel, 1997). According to the Billings Gazette, Dailey’s male leads are often attentive to the feelings of others and act from a place of emotional responsibility rather than dominance (Peterson, 1978). In a 1980 Toronto Star article, Dailey’s husband mentions “I adore listening to him talk about his carryings-on” and how the male characters talk about their experiences, reflecting empathy (Rasky, 1980). In this scenario, Dailey creates empathetic men who reflect and communicate rather than dominate (Rasky, 1980).
LaVyrle Spencer’s portrayal of Will Parker in her New York Times best-selling novel, Morning Glory, offers detailed examples of male empathy being used in novels. Will is described in the St. Petersburg Times as gentle and attentive, helping Ellie around the farm and caring for her children (Hammond, 1992). Spencer reinforces this intention, writing in the Romance Writers Report, that “They nurture, listen, they feel things deeply” regarding her male protagonists (Spencer, 1994). She views caregiving as an expression of masculinity rather than a reversal (Spencer, 1994). Spencer further elaborates on this statement, saying that tenderness means awareness rather than weakness, suggesting that emotional attentiveness is a strength (Spencer,1994). Lastly, in a 1994 Washington Post article, the authors mention, “writers like LaVyrle Spencer create heroes who are gentle and tender, men who can express their feelings without losing their masculinity” (Kerpelmen et al. 1994).
Jennifer Crusie uses empathy and compassion through the lens of emotional literacy. In “Romancing Reality,” she writes that her male protagonists must “recognize and respond to emotional needs,” reinforcing that empathy is not a passive act but a responsive one (Crusie, 1997). In Crusie’s 1998 essay, “Defeating the Critics,” she expands on this point, suggesting that men in her fiction show compassion through reflective behavior. She critiques the tropes that prioritize action over connection and asserts that her characters succeed in romance by showing emotional literacy (Crusie, 1998). In 2020, Crusie cited in an interview with Pixel Project, “The man who knows how to listen is the man who wins,” emphasizing her advocacy for compassion and empathy in male characters.
Mutual Respect
Dailey, Spencer, and Crusie each individually describe romantic relationships as evolving through shared growth and respect. First, Dailey notes in an interview that her characters must “grow together” (Mussel 1997). This phrase is repeated in Billings Gazette and Washington Post articles, where the relationships in some of her novels are described as products of negotiation and mutual learning (Kernan, 1977; Peterson, 1978). Kernan notes that Dailey’s characters rarely follow a formula and that their relationship arcs reflect personal change, not patterns (Kernan, 1977). Her male leads do not dominate or control the plot’s emotional energy; instead, they adapt, listen, and make changes(Kernan, 1977).
Spencer’s fiction emphasizes growth and respect in relationships. Spencer writes that love is about “mutual understanding” and that both relationships thrive when both partners share responsibility (Spencer, 1994). Hammond’s St. Petersburg Times article observes that Spencer’s male characters evolve alongside their partners and refrain from dominating their relationships (Hammond 1992). The absence of power dynamics reflects Spencer’s broader vision of romantic equality, where both partners have caregiving qualities and emotional transparency (Kerpelmen, 1994).
Jennifer Crusie articulates growth and respect in relationships through communication and negotiation between her characters. In “Romancing Reality,” she explains that romantic partners must “earn each other’s trust,” and healthy relationships are made through mutual respect (Crusie, 1997). Similarly, in her essay, “Defeating the Critics: What We Can Do About the Anti-Romance Bias,” she critiques traditional romance’s power dynamics, instead advocating for relationships where both characters learn from mistakes and grow through troubles together (Crusie 1998). This is exemplified in her novel Bet Me, where boundaries and open conversations define the relationship between the female and male protagonists (Crusie, 2004). Elinor Lipman’s New York Times review of Bet Me also captures this transformation by highlighting the evolution of the male lead throughout the narrative (Lipman, 1999). She describes him as “ a buttoned-up professor who ends up charmed and transformed by love,” and the joy of the novel lies in watching him “become emotionally available and, most of all, listen (Lipman, 1999). Crusie also critiques dominant power structures more directly in a 2020 interview with The Pixel Project. She emphasizes that her books are “not about dominance and submission” but rather about “partners who work together to build a relationship.” Moreover, in that interview, she explains that she “writes men who are equals. They make mistakes, but they grow. That’s the point” (Crusie 2020). Crusie explicitly states that writing equals is her main point, an essential aspect of her writing process.
While I cannot say with certainty that Dailey, Spencer, and Crusie consciously set out to redefine masculinity in every novel they wrote, the consistent patterns across their work suggest they wanted to do something different from what they have read in romance novels. Through interviews, essays, and especially their fiction, it is clear that each author has represented themselves to challenge dominant masculine ideals that pervade romance literature. Instead of writing heroes who embodied Crusie, Dailey, and Spencer’s ideas of stereotypical hero traits, such as dominance or emotional unavailability, they created men who express vulnerability and build meaningful, equal relationships. These authors showed that male protagonists could be emotionally complex, vulnerable, and empathetic. Ultimately, these portrayals of masculinity challenge us to reconsider what can be admired in romantic heroes and to embrace the version of masculinity presented in these authors’ works of romance fiction.
Bibliography
Crusie, Jennifer. “Romancing Reality: The Power of Romance Fiction to Reinforce and Re-Vision the Real.” Paradoxa 3.1-2 (1997): 81-93.
Crusie, Jennifer. “Defeating the Critics: What We Can Do About the Anti-Romance Bias.” Romance Writer’s Report 18, no. 6 (June 1998): 38–39, 44.
Crusie, Jennifer. Bet Me. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2004.
Crusie, Jennifer. “The Read For Pixels Blog Interviews 2020: Jennifer Crusie.” Interview by The Pixel Project. The Pixel Project, March 27, 2020. https://www.thepixelproject.net/2020/03/27/the-read-for-pixels-blog-interviews-2020-jennifer-crusie/.
Hammond, Margo. “Packaged Reality: A Happy Ending Does a ‘LaVyrle Story’ Make.” St. Petersburg Times, March 1, 1992.
Kernan, Michael. “She Writes Books in 16 Days.” Washington Post, October 25, 1977.
Kerpelman, Sunnie, Emily Mieras, Lodeen Smith, and Elaine Chase. “Isn’t It Romantic?” The Washington Post, March 6, 1994. https://login.proxy.lib.duke.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/isnt-romantic/docview/750911497/se-2.
Peterson, Victoria. “Queen of Romance’ Writes of Love ‘Under the Big Sky.” Billings Gazette, July 26, 1978.
Lipman, Elinor. “Tuneup: The Heroine of This Novel Walks Out on Her Boyfriend and Falls for an Auto Mechanic.” The New York Times, April 11, 1999. https://login.proxy.lib.duke.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/tuneup/docview/110136171/se-2.
Mussell, Kay. “Paradoxa Interview with Janet Dailey.” Para.doxa: Studies in World Literary Genres 3, no. 1–2 (1997): 214–218.
Rasky, Frank. “She’s Queen of Fantasy Romances.” Toronto Star, April 7, 1980. Reprinted on Reformed Rakes. Accessed April 12, 2025. https://reformedrakes.com/episodes/janet-dailey-1.
Spencer, LaVyrle. The Fulfillment. New York: Jove Books, 1979.
Spencer, LaVyrle. “An Author Speaks: Writing Real Men.” Romance Writers Report 14, no. 3 (July 1994): 12–14.
