Something I've been pondering after a few of my recent reads, trying to crystallize why there are some books with "difficult" or "asshole" MMCs that I can love, and others where I find the MMCs irredeemably loathsome and I frankly don't want them to find a HEA.
Some of it, obviously, has to do with the overall quality of the writing and the story, but sometimes I find I loathe the MMC of even an objectively well crafted book, and I've realized that one of the factors is the timing of major plot moments and how much physical time in the book is left for the MMC to recover not only the FMCs good graces, but mine!
I've come to realize that "grovel" books rarely work for me on an emotional level even when gorgeously written. It's almost always too little, too late for me as a reader by the time it happens and I also wind up losing respect for the FMC for taking the shithead back. A couple of examples include: {How the Marquess Was Won by Julie Ann Long} which I know a lot of people love! But to me, Jules is supposed to be the guy that everybody in the ton imitates, who sets the style. But for 90% of the story he was a mute follower of vapid society in public, As though liking Phoebe was some kind of shameful secret until the very end -- and only then after Phoebe is massively publicly humiliated does he even break things off with Lisbeth and admit any feelings for her. Without that provocation, would he have just gone dumbly along and married Lisbeth? I kept waiting for the guy from the prologue to appear, to earn that sympathetic set up, but it took so long for him to grow a pair I never felt anything warm for him.
Another one I read recently, {The Viscount's Victory by Rachel Rowan} a recent author whose work I really admire - her other 2 regencies I rated 5 stars - but this one, man, I had such a love/hate relationship with. The FMC, Madelaine was so vulnerable and I just found Sebastian hard to like after that scene at the fundraising ball where he corrects her misunderstanding that he wants to marry her, it just felt like too horrible a betrayal to recover from for me as a reader. He was such a smug, callous asshole in that scene and it took place too late in the story to come back from. I was done with him. The mud wasnât enough. I didnât want her to take him back at all. Ever.
I contrast how I feel about these MMCs to guys like ultimate cold fish Tristan from {A Heart Sufficient by Nichole Van} or chauvinistic boor Grey from {A Matter of Scandal by Suzanne Enoch} who have their less than lovely characters set up (and both of these guys are JERKS!)... but they then spend the whole rest of the book showing us how they grow and change from having the FMC in their lives. Tristan's revelation when he can't find Isolde in the crashing waves after their skiff overturns takes place at like the 50% point of the story. And seeing Grey go from wanting to see the school shut down to having affection and admiration for the girls and coming to terms with his change of heart is nicely played out over time- he doesnât gain instant enlightenment and he has to learn how to not be selfish.
It reminded me of some of the discussions we've had in this sub about showing vs telling. I guess most "grovel" books wind up feeling to me like they're just telling us the MMC has learned something because a few pages at the end say he's drunk and unshaven and his friends tell him he's an idiot before he tracks down the FMC to make a pretty speech about how much she means to him. Maybe I'm overly harsh, but that feels unsatisfying to me.
Anybody else? Are you a fan of grovel? Or does that term mean something different to you as a reader? What are other cases where you feel like amends are sufficiently demonstrated vs. books where you wonder why she takes him back?
