Substantive, Likable, and Relatable Heroines in Contemporary Romance
By Chloe Field (2025)
This comparative history explores the portrayal of femininity in works of three award-winning authors of contemporary romance novels across different periods. I selected these specific authors solely because of their commercial success in the contemporary romance genre. For the 1960s–70s time period, I selected Rosamunde Pilcher because of her early prominence in shaping the romance genre, which led her to widespread recognition and numerous awards, including Romantic Novel of the Year by the Romantic Novelists’ Association.[1] Judith McNaught represents the 1980s–90s, as she was a successful historical romance writer who transitioned to contemporary romance with Perfect, a New York Times bestseller.[2] Similarly, Lisa Kleypas, writing primarily in the 2000s–2010s, also moved from historical to contemporary romance and reached the New York Times bestsellers list with Sugar Daddy, her debut contemporary novel.[3] In this essay, I identify recurring themes across their novels by focusing on book reviews, interviews, author reviews, and newspaper articles. In this paper, I will argue that Rosamunde Pilcher, Judith McNaught, and Lisa Kleypas’ representation of femininity is characterized by substantive, likeable, and relatable women.
In novels written by Pilcher, McNaught, and Kleypas, their heroines are substantive and multidimensional. In a genre where happily ever after is often expected, as mentioned by the reviewer from the All About Romance blog, the character’s personal development is integral to the plot.[4] This encourages writers to construct complex, often troubled characters. Rosamunde Pilcher began writing what she described as “wet little novels” in the early 1950s under the pseudonym Jane Fraser.[5] In the 1960s, she began writing under her own name, signed with an American publisher, and quickly grew in popularity; her most notable book at the time was The End of Summer (1971). In a 1975 New York Times review, Martin Levin characterized Jane, the heroine of The End of Summer, as “plain Jane”. He noted that, as the novel progresses, “Jane becomes less plain,” and ultimately attracts many incredible suitors.[6] Her physical appearance didn’t change, but her experience enriched her. Pilcher’s heroine is no longer a boring woman but rather a developed character whose lived experience shapes her decision-making.[7] Similarly, Pilcher wrote Louisa, a short story romance in the Good Housekeeping magazine. In an introductory piece to the short story, Pilcher wrote “What is a woman? Ask James Harper. He’s married to Louisa, whose many facets sometimes escape him, sometimes amaze him.” The story goes on to show James in awe of the sheer amount that Louisa does in a day in regards to homemaking and taking care of the family. The magazine captioned an illustration of Louisa featured in the story, “A vision of beauty. Yes, but so much more! Oh, ever so much more.”[8] These quotes encapsulate Pilcher’s view of beauty and feminism: layered, complex, and much deeper than just physical. This recurring theme was noted in Pilcher’s obituary, with a reference to “Pilcherdom” which consists of “a world of strong women.”[9]
Judith McNaught transitioned to contemporary romances in the 1990s with Paradise, which allowed her to write a new kind of heroine. As she described in an interview with USA TODAY, her heroines are “intelligent, sensitive, witty women that hold their own in life.”[10] McNaught goes on to say how she intentionally makes it so that her heroines deal with conflict in a mature and respectful way. Later in the article, the author writes that McNaught “sees her work as a contribution to women,” which reinforces the heroine-focused mindset she has when writing.[11]
In addition, McNaught has spent time understanding how readers’ expectations shape her writing of her female characters.[12] In an interview with All About Romance, McNaught discusses how the expectations placed on romance writers and readers shape the way they interact with the material, and mirror the same expectations that they face in real life. Romance writers recognize that they will never satisfy the expectations of each of their readers because “women are incredibly unique individuals with strong opinions… that are transforming and improving every day.”[13] This is difficult for Romance writers because women feel obliged to live up to expectations set on them. At the end of the interview, McNaught proudly claims that she is an author for women.[14] Understanding McNaught’s perception of women and how she views her audience is integral to analyzing her view of feminism. She recognizes that women are substantive and possess depth, and she feels honored to write for them.
Kleypas, like McNaught, began her successful career in historical romance and transitioned to contemporary romance. She made this shift because contemporaries offered the opportunity to make the characters more “issue-oriented”, as outlined in the Q&A section of her website, meaning they can engage with modern social dynamics and issues.[15] In a Washington Post article that Kleypas wrote defending the romance genre, she described her Victorian era novels as a time “when women were restricted in what they could wear, what they could learn, what they could earn.”[16] She emphasized that “women deserve to be recognized as multifaceted,” advocating for complex female representation in fiction.[17] Kleypas wrote this article in response to a demeaning comment Hillary Clinton made about the romance novel industry, and concluded at the end that Clinton is “an honorary romance heroine” because of her accomplishments and fearlessness.[18] Similarly, in an interview with Jezebel, Kleypas talks about the key ingredient in creating chemistry between a hero and a heroine is a baseline of respect, which comes from the hero recognizing the empowered heroine. “The hero is not going to be turned on by a doormat heroine. He’s got to respect her as an equal,” Kleypas writes.[19] The emphasis on mutual respect clarifies the type of femininity Kleypas aims to portray; it underlines the rich, empowered women she writes for her heroines.
Across the works of Pilcher, McNaught, and Kleypas, the authors prioritize writing likeable heroines. In Rosamunde Pilcher’s work, the likeable nature of her heroines can be seen in Martin Levin’s review of The End of Summer, featured in the New York Times. As Levin concluded in his review, readers should “trust the author to arrive at the right decision.”[20] Much of that novel revolves around the progression of Jane’s character, and by the time she has to decide between different love interests, the reader has developed a sense of trust in her judgment. This speaks to the substantive character that Pilcher has built, as well as the strength of the writing. By this point, the reader is invested in the well-being of the heroine and is rooting for her to make the “right decision”.[21]
Similarly, in a review of Paradise by Judith McKnaught, All About Romance raves about the emotional complexity of the novel. She attributes its impact to the likability of the characters themselves. In addition to them being physically beautiful, their personalities were just as attractive “…both are the kind of people you can root for,” the reviewer wrote.[22] She goes on to explain the different hardships they have endured and how that has contributed to the complex characters they have become. Because of this, the reader truly wants them to succeed.[23]
Lisa Kleypas achieves a similar effect with her heroine in her most popular contemporary romance Sugar Daddy. As told in a review on Reading Books Like A Boss, the heroine, Liberty, is described as “ a fighter and views the world with a maturity far beyond her years.”[24] Throughout her young adult life, she endures numerous personal traumas that contribute to the depth of her character. These experiences not only serve as part of the plot but also deeply affect who she is. “Liberty’s voice is completely charming, so much so that I wanted to be her best friend,” she wrote.[25] Again, this is in part due to the award-winning writing, as well as the substantive heroine that Kleypas developed, which leads the reader to feel connected and want success for the heroine.
The third recurring theme in the works of Pilcher, McNaught, and Kleypas is that their heroines are highly relatable. While this quality can overlap with the likability and substantive, relatability adds an essential layer of realism to their novels. In a New York Times review of The Shell Seekers, a bestseller by Pilcher, Maeve Binchy writes, “It’s the story of a woman who must have been like a lot of other people. Her ordinariness is what gives her strength and defines her.”[26] The heroine, Penelope, didn’t live a particularly interesting life, but that is what added to her appeal. Binchy claimed that it was her strong moral compass that contributed to her appeal, and described her as a woman “never motivated by greed.” Her relatability and strong morals allowed readers to both see themselves in her character, as well as to take inspiration from her. Pilcher developed a sense of femininity that felt accessible to the average reader.
McNaught similarly prioritizes relatability, but approaches it by interacting with her audience. In her bestseller Perfect, the heroine struggles with illiteracy and goes on to become an English tutor. Featured in a New York Times column in 1993, McNaught partnered with The Adolph Coors Company on a project to combat illiteracy in American women. The project consisted of different ads that advertised McNaught’s new novel, Perfect, while donating a portion of the proceeds of her book to combating illiteracy. The advertisement featured the slogan, “To most women, it’s the year’s greatest romance. To 1 out of 5, it’s a mystery.”[27] By referencing the statistic that one in every five women struggles with illiteracy, McNaught brought her storyline outside of the novel. Not only did she use her platform to shed light on the issue, but she also contributed positively to mitigating it. This project highlights McNaught’s effort to address real-world issues, which parallels the relatable struggles her heroines face within her novels, like illiteracy in Perfect.
That same year, McNaught interacted with her fans again in a feature piece with Woman’s Day magazine. Barbara Sofer wrote the piece “Love Letters Red Roses Candlelit Dinners,” which highlights the different opportunities to include acts of romance into everyday life. McNaught, along with other romance authors, acted as an expert voice on simple acts of romance and encouraged readers to take inspiration from her books.[28] Her frequent engagement with her readership showed that McNaught views her novels as part of a broader cultural conversation, which shapes the characters she writes and the stories she creates.
Even when McNaught writes characters who are idealized, she ensures that they retain a sense of relatability. As written in the All About Romance book review of Paradise, both the hero and the heroine are “stunning” and “rich”. However, they are also “real”, meaning that they possess emotional depth and flaws that make their experiences believable and resonate with readers.[29] Their wealth and attractiveness may draw a reader in, but their “realness” is what allows the reader to fall in love with them and become enthralled in the book.
Lisa Kleypas prioritizes writing relatable characters so the readers can connect to them. In an interview with Jezebel she said “At the very beginning of any story that you’re telling, the protagonist, you have to immediately identify with them”.[30] She also works to write books appealing to a wide and diverse audience. On the Q&A section of her website, she notes, “I try to challenge myself with a situation I’ve never written about before,” later mentioning music, movies, books, and other forms of media as sources of inspiration.[31] However, these efforts at inclusion do not always succeed. As reviewer Aishwarya Saxena points out on her blog, At Least I’m Well Read, “Her mixed race heritage is brought up repeatedly throughout the book but never dealt with,” highlighting how certain aspects of representation can feel superficial if not fully developed.[32]
The works of Pilcher, McNaught, and Kleypas offer a snapshot of the different aspects of femininity represented in contemporary romance. Although the authors are from different time periods, there are certain similarities between their heroines; they are substantive, likable, and deeply human. Readers connect with them, embracing the full depth of their femininity. Collectively, these sources affirm the success of writing about well-loved heroines.
Footnotes
[1] Felicity Bryan, “Rosamunde Pilcher Obituary,” The Guardian, February 7, 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/feb/07/rosamunde-pilcher-obituary.
[2] Judith McNaught, “Interview with Judith McNaught,” interview by All About Romance, All About Romance, September 7, 1999, https://allaboutromance.com/author-interviews/interview-with-judith-mcnaught/.
[3] Lisa Kleypas, “An Interview with Historical Romance Legend Lisa Kleypas,” interview by Kelly Faircloth, Jezebel, May 13, 2015, https://www.jezebel.com/an-interview-with-historical-romance-legend-lisa-kleypa-1703917812.
[4] McNaught, “Interview with Judith McNaught.”
[5] Laurel Graebel, “No More Wet Little Novels,” The New York Times, February 7, 1988, 86.
[6] Martin Levin, “New & Novel,” The New York Times, April 20, 1975, 139.
[7] Levin, “New & Novel.”
[8] Rosamunde Pilcher, “Louisa,” Good Housekeeping, February 1979, 116–117, 160, 162, 164, https://login.proxy.lib.duke.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/magazines/louisa/docview/1866663423/se-2.
[9] Bryan, “Rosamunde Pilcher Obituary.”
[10] Nanci Hellmich, “Judith McNaught Finds Hardcover Success in ‘Paradise’: [FINAL Edition],” USA Today, June 25, 1991, https://login.proxy.lib.duke.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/judith-mcnaught-finds-hardcover-success-paradise/docview/306444687/se-2.
[11] Hellmich, “Judith McNaught Finds Hardcover Success.”
[12] McNaught, “Interview with Judith McNaught.”
[13] McNaught, “Interview with Judith McNaught.”
[14] McNaught, “Interview with Judith McNaught.”
[15] Lisa Kleypas, “Readers Ask,” accessed April 7, 2025, https://lisakleypas.com/readers-ask/.
[16] Lisa Kleypas, “Hillary, Please Don’t Reject Romance Novels—You Are a Romance Novel Heroine,” The Washington Post, August 9, 2017, https://login.proxy.lib.duke.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/blogs-podcasts-websites/hillary-please-don-t-reject-romance-novels-you/docview/1974503374/se-2.
[17] Kleypas, “Hillary, Please Don’t Reject Romance Novels.”
[18] Kleypas, “Hillary, Please Don’t Reject Romance Novels.”
[19] Lisa Kleypas, “An Interview with Historical Romance Legend Lisa Kleypas,” interview by Kelly Faircloth, Jezebel, May 13, 2015, https://www.jezebel.com/an-interview-with-historical-romance-legend-lisa-kleypa-1703917812.
[20] Levin, “New & Novel.”
[21] Levin, “New & Novel.”
[22] Blythe Smith, “Paradise by Judith McNaught,” All About Romance (blog), February 11, 2001, https://allaboutromance.com/book-review/paradise-by-judith-mcnaught/.
[23] Smith, “Paradise by Judith McNaught.”
[24] Megan, “Book Review – Sugar Daddy by Lisa Kleypas,” Reading Books Like a Boss (blog), December 20, 2017, https://readingbookslikeaboss.com/review-sugar-daddy-lisa-kleypas/.
[25] Megan, “Book Review – Sugar Daddy by Lisa Kleypas.”
[26] Maeve Binchy, “War And Change Come to Temple Puddley,” The New York Times, February 7, 1988, 86.
[27] Stuart Elliott, “Novelist Enlisted for Literacy Drive,” New York Times, April 8, 1993, 74.
[28] Barbara Sofer, “Love Letters Red Roses Candlelit Dinners,” Woman’s Day, February 23, 1993, 82–86, https://login.proxy.lib.duke.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/magazines/love-letters-red-roses-candlelit-dinners/docview/1824590342/se-2.
[29] Smith, “Paradise by Judith McNaught.”
[30] Kleypas, “An Interview with Historical Romance Legend.”
[31] Lisa Kleypas, “Readers Ask,” accessed April 7, 2025, https://lisakleypas.com/readers-ask/.
[32] Aishwarya Saxena, “Review: ‘Sugar Daddy’ (Travises #1) by Lisa Kleypas,” At Least I’m Well-Read (blog), January 7, 2017, https://atleastimwellread.wordpress.com/2017/01/07/review-sugar-daddy-travises-1-by-lisa-kleypas/.
Bibliography
Binchy, Maeve. “War And Change Come to Temple Pudley.” The New York Times, February 7, 1988, 86.
Bryan, Felicity. “Rosamunde Pilcher Obituary.” The Guardian, February 7, 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/feb/07/rosamunde-pilcher-obituary.
Elliott, Stuart. “Novelist Enlisted for Literacy Drive.” New York Times, April 8, 1993, 74.
Graebel, Laurel. “No More Wet Little Novels.” The New York Times, February 7, 1988, 86.
Hellmich, Nanci. “Judith McNaught Finds Hardcover Success in ‘Paradise’: [FINAL Edition].” USA Today, June 25, 1991. https://login.proxy.lib.duke.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/judith-mcnaught-finds-hardcover-success-paradise/docview/306444687/se-2.
Kleypas, Lisa. “An Interview with Historical Romance Legend Lisa Kleypas.” Interview by Kelly Faircloth. Jezebel. Transcription. May 13, 2015. https://www.jezebel.com/an-interview-with-historical-romance-legend-lisa-kleypa-1703917812
Kleypas, Lisa. “Hillary, Please Don’t Reject Romance Novels—You Are a Romance Novel Heroine.” The Washington Post, August 9, 2017. https://login.proxy.lib.duke.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/blogs-podcasts-websites/hillary-please-don-t-reject-romance-novels-you/docview/1974503374/se-2.
Levin, Martin. “New & Novel.” The New York Times, April 20, 1975, 139.
Lisa Kleypas. “Readers Ask.” Accessed April 7, 2025. https://lisakleypas.com/readers-ask/.
McNaught, Judith. “Interview with Judith McNaught.” Interview by All About Romance. All About Romance. Transcription. September 7, 1999. https://allaboutromance.com/author-interviews/interview-with-judith-mcnaught/.
Megan. “Book Review – Sugar Daddy by Lisa Kleypas.” Reading Books Like a Boss (blog), December 20, 2017. https://readingbookslikeaboss.com/review-sugar-daddy-lisa-kleypas/.
Saxena, Aishwarya. “Review: ‘Sugar Daddy’ (Travises #1) by Lisa Kleypas.” At Least I’m Well-Read (blog), January 7, 2017. https://atleastimwellread.wordpress.com/2017/01/07/review-sugar-daddy-travises-1-by-lisa-kleypas/.
Smith, Blythe. “Paradise by Judith McNaught.” All About Romance (blog), February 11, 2001. https://allaboutromance.com/book-review/paradise-by-judith-mcnaught/.
Sofer, Barbara. “Love Letters Red Roses Candlelit Dinners.” Woman’s Day, Feb 23, 1993, 82-86, https://login.proxy.lib.duke.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/magazines/love-letters-red-roses-candlelit-dinners/docview/1824590342/se-2.
Pilcher, Rosamunde. “Louisa.” Good Housekeeping, 02, 1979, 116-117, 160, 162, 164, https://login.proxy.lib.duke.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/magazines/louisa/docview/1866663423/se-
