Iris, the heroine of a story I once wrote, is of average intelligence, average appearance. Recovering from a bad relationship and a rough patch in her life, she fails to recognize that her best friend (Russ) wants to become her lover. And in the face of what she thinks may be an earth-shattering crisis, her imagination goes overboard, often approaching humorous hysteria.
A couple of years back, a fellow writer asked to read this ‘pending’ manuscript. (‘Pending’ sounds so much nicer than ‘rejected’, dontcha think??) :smile:
The story was a romance, with elements of pseudo-horror/erotica/humor. I sent the document to her, and she said she enjoyed reading it very much. The plot kept her turning pages, the conflict undulated enough to keep her interest…
“And I really loved Russ,” she said. “He was strong, sensual, sexy, and romantic…
However—in all honesty, I thought Iris (the heroine) was perilously close to being T.S.T.L.”
If you’re an author or reviewer or reader who hangs out on message board, you’re probably aware that T.S.T.L. stands for “TOO STUPID TO LIVE”. 
It’s a peculiar place that heroines sometimes go, uncomfortably close to the Blonde Zone. But since I appreciate honesty, I had to start wondering…
If a character’s over-the-top behavior aids the humor in the story, is she just silly, or is it a legitimate plot device (assuming that the story is tongue-in-cheek)? Would the hero have seemed quite so strong if not for the heroine’s antics? Is it too far beyond ‘suspension of belief’ to think someone might not recognize a subtle change from friendship to romance, or to be unable or unwilling to deal with a romantic relationship? If the heroine becomes a stronger character by the end of the story, would you, as a reader, be willing to spare her stupid life? :poof:
I’m just using this story as an example because I’m curious…
Where is the line? What makes a heroine likeable or free-spirited or naive or zany, as opposed to nauseating or silly? Is it all in the eye of the reader, or are some stupid things just universally accepted as unacceptable?
What’s your definition of “too stupid to live”?
Over-the-top gets a thumbs down from me. Most of the time, such heroines just annoy me.
Basically, if there’s something obvious to me that the heroine doesn’t notice (and is critical to the plot), it’s over.
Well, over-the-top gets on people’s nerves.
Frankly, I have a TSTL friend, so I know these people aren’t just in stories and a book with a character like that IS realistic, but that kind of character just pushes too many buttons on people, I think.
Kinda like in real life, actually. :-)
I suppose all I can say is that it’s a very fine line between just a blonde character and a TSTL one. And I’m not quite sure where that line is.
Interesting post, Raine. I have a character that is beyond naive and she annoys the reader to the point they don’t want to read the story anymore. I think, as readers, we don’t want to read about a stupid heroine who accidentally gets the hot guy. Because that’s just dammed annoying (and we know this happens in real life…the point of fiction is to suspend disbelief and lose ourselves in someone else’s more interesting life). We want to read about the gal who is strong, quick-witted, and gives the hot hero HELL before she gets him. I mean, after all, he should work for it, shouldn’t he? ;)
Mik has it right in my case. :yesyesyes:
What gets to me is that I want to invest in this character, but I can’t if she’s stupid!
I’m with May…you can’t miss the obvious.
>>and we know this happens in real life…
ALL THE FUCKING TIME. Just ask me about my ex. He’s definitely not the brightest lighbulb in the box but he’s managed to snag four wives.
Sadly it seems as if most men prefer helpless females–goes back to ancient hunter/gatherer times
And from what I’ve read of Russ and your heroine (whose name I can’t remember *blush*) I don’t think she comes off TSTL. I love over the top as long as it’s fun and tongue in cheek IE Stephanie Rowe’s book or the movie Legally Blonde. :thumbsup:
My definition of TSTL only kicks in when there is danger and the heroine deliberately puts herself or the hero in danger due to not thinking or purposeful careless behavior. That is the only time I’ll toss a book across the room.
I can suspend disbelief if the heroine has an underlying inelligence, and just acts silly occasionally. I think if she knows that Russ wants to change their relationship, and just isn’t emotionally ready to deal with it, and gradually comes around. I think a story like that would be worth my time and money. If on the other hand I get halfway through and she refuses to get a clue, I would definately classify her as T.S.T.L.
Thanks for the input ladies!
All interesting points of view.
I didn’t mean to make my example so case-specific. I was more interested in how people generally felt about the subject, and what would lead them to classify a heroine as TSTL.
Again, thanks!
Valuable info. :waving:
A little late to the party, but …
The Reese Witherspoon character in Legally Blond wouldn’t work in the TV series Supernatural, nor would Lucy Ricardo in CSI. I think it really depends upon the tone of the book. This doesn’t bother me if everything else fits. Like Jordan – the TSTL heroines in slasher movies who walk off by themselves after 15 bodies have shown up does deserve to get slashed to death. As far as not noting the change in relationship – I love the friends to lovers books. I don’t know how obvious the signals he’s sending are, but I would assume it’s like living with someone who is losing weight gradually – so you don’t really notice the pound or two until someone points it out – AND if she’s not looking for it, she might not notice it. There endeth my .05 (inflation, you know).
The cop heroine who chokes at the sight of a gun.
The librarian heroine who stands up in the middle of a gun battle, determined that if the two just got together for a chat, everything would be fine.
The schoolmarm who is suddenly capable of firing 8 different weapons with pinpoint accuracy — though that’s a case of the author being TSTL, not the character.