Romance writers shape the American dream… so tell me, is hyper-wealth truly that sexy?
Cherished historical romance author (and reader!) colleagues,
Something has been niggling at me for a while, and I wanted to
share and ask what you think. One sexy attribute of historical heroes that
seems nearly mandatory in our genre is “great wealth and a title.” A lot of
authors of the stories set in Byron’s time also seem to enjoy playing with the
irresponsible reputations some heirs had.
Drinking. Carousing. Spending money. Not caring about their estates.
My question is this: In a world where the 8 people at the top are
holding more wealth than 3,600,000,000 people at the bottom, hasn't the
acquisition of hyper-wealth become a bit of a sign of mental illness? Is
hyper-wealth truly that sexy, or is it just a sign of someone who is unbalanced
and can’t see what’s going on around him?
In light of our current world’s problems, when we're describing
a hero being sexy, saying something like “he owns half the county of Sussex”
has started to turn me off.
And here’s why: What is the American dream? Owning a house and a
huge amount of land and, especially, more than your neighbour? Or living in a
community of people who help and cherish each other? For many immigrants to
America, it was the latter. But it feels like many of the historical novels we
are writing are slanted towards the former.
And what we write shapes our readers’ minds. So let’s think on
this for a minute. What we write,
collectively, shapes our readers’ minds, and the society we all create
together.
Hyper-wealthy heroes in many historical romances I have read have
more estates than they can reasonably visit. They leave their manor houses
unvisited and their estates untended. Let's be clear and realistic – in the
true version of this history we right about, lords who behaved like that let
farms and buildings run down and turn into ruins, and left their tenants struggling
to make things work and living miserable lives in extreme poverty. None of it needed
to be that way, if they had had an intelligent lord who paid attention.
With the income gap increasing in our society again now, do we
really still think people who own so much that they don’t bother to pay
attention to it or visit it, is sexy?
Isn't it Way More Sexy
to show that rich guy doing good works and caring for his estates, instead of
owning loads of estates he doesn't even visit? Perhaps, reasonably selling some
at decent rates to good caretakers to make sure that the people and industries
of those estates are compassionately run? I mean it's all in the way we portray
it. Young people are reading our books and shaping their thoughts and dreams as
they read what we write. It's a responsibility.
How about this real-life guy, Titus Salt, as a hero?
Yes, he was stinkin' rich, but he was also an innovator. He was
one of the first guys to take a chance on Alpaca wool in England. He cared for
the people who worked for him and the quality of their environment (yes, in
1853), and built them decent places to live (in fact, 823 houses, shops, a
school, recreational facilities, and places of worship).
Titus Salt made sure the people associated with him had a liveable
way of life instead of simply buying luxuries for himself while they starved
(as we can assume these hyper-wealthy historical heroes we have created who offhandedly
haven’t even visited half their estates, probably did).
When Titus Salt died, so Wikipedia reports, the newspapers
said, "Estimates vary, but the number of people lining the route [of the
funeral] probably exceeded 100,000."
Now that’s a romantic
hero. A hero of the people, for the people.
Even if hyper-wealthy people existed then and exist now... do we
have to present it as the sexiest possible thing? In our role as writers, idea
mongers, society shapers, shouldn't we start portraying compassion and
intelligence as sexier than the mere acquisition of things? Won’t that affect
how young women who read our books learn to choose their mates and what people
do with their money? Won’t that affect what we expect of others around us? I
believe it will.
But then, I’d much rather have a man who can build me something,
than buy me something. As a spinster who has looked from the outside at many
marriages, the ones with husbands who DO things for their wives are so much
happier than husbands who can just BUY things. So why are we teaching our
readers the opposite of that?
The future needs more compassion than it needs people who value
and defend a right to hyper-wealth. As writers, we fuel hopes and dreams and
create our society’s future. If you ask me, a sexy powerful man is one who thinks
of others – even his servants – pays his factory workers a living wage, builds
liveable villages, educates his serfs, and extends a hand to help!
Or is this historical Byronic version of the “bad boy” hero
simply too irresistible to so many readers that we feel it sells better? What
am I missing here? I know I’m missing something in understanding this issue. I
would love to know your thoughts.
Christa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titus_Salt
Comments
Post a Comment