The prevalence of rough heroes in fiction has certainly become a genre of its own in recent years. The completely immoral, evil, and irredeemable character of a rough protagonist seemingly manages to attract audiences and marries a conflicting relationship of sympathy and disapproval (rather than an opposition) and there are now several candidates for such examples in both literature and film. However, although the philosophies of achieving such a moral contrast have been widely discussed, the more complex structures of the rough hero have rarely been explored. What we may find, is that it is much more difficult to both create, as well as generate the sympathies characteristic of the rough hero, in the equalled rough *heroine*.Â
A rough hero is defined as a character who is intentionally morally flawed: his immorality is central to his personality as well as the storyline, he feels absolutely no remorse for his misdeeds, and his flaws are not justified or overcome by redeeming qualities. Importantly, the audience is not prescribed to be sympathetic or forgiving towards the rough hero, as there are no ambiguities in his intentions and actions, giving viewers or readers no justified reasons to root for the rough protagonist. The paradox lies in the inevitable sentiments cooccurring with these characters. Rough heroes are attractive, possibly grounded in qualities (though morally irrelevant and therefore not redeeming) of wit, intelligence, and strength. Think Joe Goldberg from the Netflix series *You.* Consciously and knowingly engaging in horrific murders and violence, rarely feeling remorse (and if so, it is unimpactful to the story), yet achieving a moral transgression within the viewers leading to a presence of support and favouring directed at him.
Now, itâs fairly easy to think of more examples along these lines, but why do mostly, if not only, male rough heroes come to mind? It is no secret that being âbadâ and âdangerousâ has frequently been romanticised as attractive qualities in men. Moreover, it is commonly accepted that men will deviate from morality or as the saying goes, that âboys will be boysâ, This is much more uncommon for women. âMean girlsâ donât fit the category of rough heroes – first, they usually undergo a moral transformation typically in which their true selves are revealed, their insecurities overcome, and they reconcile with their enemies. So what characteristics are required of a rough heroine? Neglectful of her family? Apathetic? The problem with this, and the problem with an audience engaging with such rough heroines, is that rough heroines inherently challenge gender norms, and this is often met with discomfort and disapproval. Clavel-Vasquez draws attention to a similar point in âSugar and Spice, and Everything Nice: What Rough Heroines Tell Us about Imaginative Resistanceâ, claiming that â audiences display pro attitudes toward flawed female characters in as much as they are carers, objects of the male gaze, or victimsâ. It is generally accepted that rebellious and dangerous men in fiction make them the lone-wolf type, twisted but hot. On the other hand, a rebellious or dangerous woman would seem psychopathic, unstable, distasteful even. Her transgression would not merely be a transgression of social norms and care, but a transgression of gender roles that many – consciously or subconsciously – are sensitive to. And this is only one point that the rough heroine struggles from, though most obstruction can be observed through a social perspective of gender.
Are rough heroes then another patriarchal ploy demonstrating the power men hold? The failure and difficulty of rough heroines is certainly bound by gender expectations, but it is entirely possible for them to achieve the same effect rough heroes do. The sociocultural perspective on gender roles plays an important role here, and if these assumptions of strict categorisations are changed, the rough heroine would undoubtedly parallel the rough hero in cinema and literature. And this is already being set in motion, especially by much of the younger generations, brought up in less categorically strict societies, who are able to consider the intricacies and depths of the rough heroine, without experiencing the automatic social disapproval of the rough heroine opposing female gender roles.