I’ve been reading a book by an author I truly do like, Catherine Anderson, but this morning I ran across a line that won’t stop rattling through my head: “She’s a lady, not some cheap Saturday night bar floozy.”
I admit that I’ve never been into the bar scene and have not personally met anyone I would call a bar floozy, but this line froze me cold. It is a clear expression of an attitude I can’t bring myself to accept, not even for the sake of suspending disblief in a romantic fiction novel.
In contemporary novels, it’s a bar floozy or a slut. In historicals, it’s a whore, maid, or serving wench. Whatever the time period, and whatever the label, it all amounts to the same thing: dehumanization.
The reason I love Catherine Anderson’s books is that she writes about women, strong in some ways, vulnerable in others, that need saving — and of course, the men who rescue them. Maybe they’ve been abused by men before, physically or emotionally, or maybe a disability is to blame, but whatever it is, they need compassion and understanding, and men who can see there really is something special within them.
Which brings me back to the cheap Saturday night bar floozies. You can try to dismiss them if you want, but the second you mention them, my mind fills in details, and being the hopelessly naive/overly romantic person I am, I think of every single bar floozy as woman, no different from your heroine in her essential humanity. Maybe she’s been hurt and she needs rescue. Maybe if that same hero who is swooping in now to rescue your heroine had taken a few minutes to see past a convenient warm body on a Saturday night, he would have discovered a treasure there, too. And even if that woman wasn’t right for him, even if she isn’t a very nice person after all, she still deserves two things: First, the benefit of the doubt and second, the same respect that any other person deserves.
I agree with you. I think it depends on the characterization of other characters. If all the other characters are perfect, that quote would stop me cold because there is obviously a judgment there. Who is good/bad and who deserves saving. However, if it is an author that is good at creating grey areas, if that quote is there, I will take it differently because I feel like there is a lack of judgment but really a truth in a character’s perception/characterization. The bias is the characters and part of their weakness. Does this make sense? Or am I loopy.
I definitely see what you mean. It’s the difference between a sentiment that characterizes a protagonist, and one that feels more like a general judgment. Of course, it’s never a good idea to assume author motives. A character said that, not the author. I just see the sentiment so often it feels more like a widespread judgment.