You know that feeling when you get one thing, or one subject, or even just one word fixedly stuck in your head, and no matter what you do you can’t get rid of it?
I have it.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present for your pleasure, a couple questions for you on the subject of fictional heroes. And remember, questions are asked to be answered, so please don’t forget to comment with your feedback.
Question 1. Upon reading over the comments on my Little Women review, a common consensus was Professor Bhaer was much too old to marry Jo March (he was said to be around forty, I believe, and Jo was in her early twenties). I heartily agree with this conclusion, but then I thought of something… there are other “older” heroes out there whom we love and adore and treasure and don’t have a problem with, but they are just as old as Professor Bhaer. The two examples which came to mind are Arthur Clennam from Little Dorrit and Mr. Jarndyce from Bleak House (yesyesyes, I know he doesn’t actually get the girl, but he almost does and he’s still a hero, so there). Arthur, who is one of my personal favorite heroes, is said to be twice the age of twenty-year-old Amy Dorrit, but we say, “Who cares about that? Age makes no difference when there is wuv, TWU WUV!” Same with Mr. Jarndyce. Obviously, he and Esther Summerson don’t actually marry, but they were supposed to and I’ve never heard anyone put up a fight about his age. So my question is, why is the Prof “too old,” but other older heroes aren’t?
Question 2. In period dramas, the heroes are usually dashing, gentlemanly, and, more often than not, rich. Their dress is impeccable, they are excellent riders, their cravats are never shabby, and if you are very lucky, they have upwards of five thousand a year. Examples are Mr. Darcy, Mr. Knightley, Sir Percy, and Mr. Thornton. But I must confess I’m often drawn to the more rugged heroes, the ones who work with their hands, the farmers, the “plain” men. A couple of my favorite “rugged” heroes are Nicholas from North and South, Alf Arless (swoon) from Lark Rise to Candleford, and even Robert Martin from Emma (although why he ever fell for a ditz like Harriet is beyond me). Don’t get me wrong, I still adore Mr. Darcy and Mr. Thornton; but there is something even more noble about a man when he’s forced to work in order to survive, but never complains. When his clothes are often dirty, but his character shines. When he has to struggle and sacrifice merely to provide (I’m looking at you, Alf), but does so willingly. So what is your preference for your fictional heroes: the rich, dashing gentleman, or the poor, rugged type? (*And I want to clarify that there is nothing at all wrong with heroes who are rich. My favorite Jane Austen heroes are Mr. Knightley and Mr. Darcy, and they’re about as rich as they come. 
But I love them for their character, not for their money.)
Alright, lovely readers. Now it’s your turn! Give me your thoughts and replies, and let’s get a good ol’ heroical discussion going. I’ll be around to throw in my two cents as well.
country girl
(p.s. speaking of heroes… the other day, i created a captioned picture for the amusement of a few friends, and somehow it ended up on the prestigious “sink me” blog, which is operated by the even more prestigious amy dashwood. so. if you have a sec, you should go check it out.)
Question 1: I haven’t seen any of the period drama’s mentioned (:( ) so I don’t think i can answer that one unbiasedly… but I think that most Little Women fans who would think that way would have preferred Jo to marry Laurie. It’s been many many years since I’ve read the book, but I have to admit that I preferred Dr Bhaer to Laurie. Laurie was too immature. Sorry Laurie-fans!
Question 2: There is a certain charm about the rich, dashing fellow. I don’t find their money particularly attractive, but perhaps it is the fact that their clothes are always just so, they always know just what to say, and they have a mysterious air about them. But I do like the hard-working, rugged fellow too. Like you said, a man that works hard to provide is quite attractive.
I just watched North and South the other day and I really like Thornton. Right now, he is my favourite PD hero; but there is something about Nicholas Higgins that shines ‘hero’.
To me it is the character that matters. I don’t care if the fellow is rich or poor… if he has the character of a gentleman, he’s a gem.
Oh, I certainly agree! The dashing fellows are always so charming and distinguished and well-mannered. And it’s hard for me to overlook a nicely arranged cravat or a well-sitting top hat.
NORTH AND SOUTH. It could very well be the best period drama evah. And I lovelovelove Thornton (and Richard Armitage, hehehehehe), but I have to say…… Nicholas steals the show for me. I love his character and his passion and his depth and his fire. I’m not saying Margaret should have married Nicholas (although I think their friendship is just adorable), but still… he’s a cool guy.
Oh, I hope it didn’t come across in my post that I thought we should like the rich heroes simply because they have money. I definitely don’t think that! It just seems like there are usually two types of heroes in period dramas: rich ones or poor ones, and the rich ones are just as much heroes as the poor ones… they’re just heroes who happen to be rich.
LOL!
No worries, you didn’t come across that way. You nailed it.
Q.1
I don’t think it’s the age that makes a difference, it’s fact that there was a young and handsome suitor that she turned down. Preferably, all of our girlish minds would have chosen the handsome over the older.
Q.2
I have to say, comparing Mr.Thornton to Nicholas Higgins is a very hard choice. Both men play their parts so very extremely good. I usually prefer the rugged type; the get down and work for my food kind of fellow. He just has a sense of security about him.
I would agree with your first reply, but in both the examples I gave (Little Dorrit and Bleak House), there was a young and handsome suitor that the heroine turns down. In Little Dorrit, Amy turns down John Chivery. In Bleak House, Esther Summerson turns down Alan Woodcourt (initially, but she does marry him in the end, though). Still, I see your point.
Ah, YES. Comparing the two gents in really unfair. They’re both amazing and incredible characters. But like I said above, Nicholas wins for me.
Posts like these make me happy indeed. Good post, dearie.
Well lets think…(You’re gonna get some answers, hope you’re okay with that. haha.)
Question 1: I think the reason why half of us disapprove of the Fredrick/Joe relationship is because it was never portrayed right, and in the movie, who would want Fredrick when you’ve got Christian Bale professing love as LAURIE?! No offence to Fredrick. Laurie was this….Hero to Joe. Everything she had ever wanted…And whats more, he doesn’t just want to be friends, this guy who’s got it all, wants to marry her. He was there for years, he was that close kindred spirit to Joe, so it feels wrong having Fredrick so suddenly capture Joe’s affections, especially after Laurie has proposed, and he was so much closer and more special to Joe in the first place. I think it just doesn’t make matters any better that he’s like twice her age, and he sometimes seems sorta….stuffy. Write of him as a hero, a prince charming that’s a little ruff around the edges, (but just as handsome as Laurie) and perhaps, people would be okay with it. That’s just my take on it.
Question 2: It all depends on what’s inside. Most of the time a man that’s rich and “has it all” hasn’t learned the sweet, almost school boy ways of love…Hasn’t learned how to get dirty, how to work for the girl, how to charm her in the same way. Doesn’t totally realize the sacrifice, the work, but the idea that he’s gonna work his whole life to provide for his love, but hey, its for love, he’d do anything, and he does. The love is genuine. He doesn’t have her because of position, he knows she certainly isn’t loving him for his money, cause he doesn’t have any…She realizes its gonna take work, but the love is true, so they can do anything.
he became hard, but he knew what work was like, but I think he got lost in it….I admire him though. He needed someone like Margret, but wow, here I am, going way to far.
Then there’s the rich guys…Proper…Dashing. Rich. And because of it, they could pretty much get any girl they wanted for those things. That can be a draw back, definitely. Sometimes its like they’ve got this….Ego thing.
Mr Thornton….Well he’s not exactly rich. He came from a rocky up bringing and had to provide for his family because his father wasn’t there. He worked for everything he got, but he had fathering wounds, never was taught properly (and lets admit, with the mother he has….*dot dot dot* Is there any reason to go farther?
I agree with you, that there’s something about the rugged, and the ones that don’t mind working for their loves. I like that. I like endurance in a dude. Who’s someone that I love? Willie Lahaye. (Logan Bartholomew) And Marius Pontmercy…Yep, so they are awesome. Nuff said.
And there are my thoughts….I’m sooo sorry that was soo long!
Um, how you described Laurie in your first paragraph? PERFECT. Couldn’t have said it better meself.
YES. Maybe that’s why the poor guys are always my favorites… they work so hard to win the girl’s heart. And they love her enough to work hard to provide for her for the rest of their lives.
Hey, no need for an apology. The long comments are the best.
Oooh yes… heroes. Personally I’ve never had much a problem with the age difference, as long as true love is involved. Sometimes it is weird to think about ( particularly when you contemplate how old HE was when SHE was a baby); but I usually shrug it aside as a cultural gap between our two time periods. As long as she isn’t marrying him for money, it is all good.
I don’t believe a man should be judged by the amount of money he makes or inherits, be it high or low. So for example, I have a lot of favorite poor heroes: Gilbert Blythe, Robert Martin, and I personally LOVE professor Bhaer ( but THAT’s another topic). I like the idea of hardworking men and tend to be more easily impressed by them. And yet, I can never rule out a good hero simply because he is too rich. One of my all time favorite heroes in the history of ever is: John Knightley. He is rich, he is old, but he is also good, sweet, honest, caring, respectable, and true.
So I suppose my conclusion is that men ( and women ) should be judged by what is within them and how that is expressed towards those around. Never judge someone by their looks, age, or salary.
Oh, I know, especially in Emma when Mr. Knightley says, “Perhaps it’s the difference in our ages. I WAS sixteen-years-old when you were born.”
But still, those love stories are always so sweet, when the heroine doesn’t care how much older the hero is because she loves him so much.
Totally agreed, Dr. Sus! My favorite hero list is a mix of both poor and rich (Gilbert Blythe… LOVE).
Remember, average life expectancy in the mid-1800′s was around 35. Men fought wars and many didn’t return, so older men who had already fought were who was left. Marriage wasn’t by personal choice as we have it today. Who a young lady married was determined by the elder women in the family, usually dependent upon the amount of the dowery that could be expected in many cases. For a young woman who was not an aristocrat, (coming from a family of means or former means), marriage wasn’t guaranteed, as there were always more women than men due to wars and disease. While we speak freely of such things as “love” today, unless you came from means, “love” was nothing more than a silly notion.
As ridiculous as today’s “glass ceiling” in corporate and government gender discrimination is for us to consider today, in the mid-1800′s, women were considered little more than something a man owns. The Dowery was “paid” and the man took possession of that which he bought and owned.
Little Women was written by a person of rare foresight during that time, a woman with vision and imagination. the book became wildly popular because it allowed women to (briefly) escape the realities of a harsh and unjust life. The amazing part of this tale is that Louisa May Alcott never married, so her vision and imagination wasn’t realized until the book was debated by “man” scholars much later.
At the time Louisa Alcott wrote “Little Women”, she did so in almost record time for money. In truth, Louisa Alcott never enjoyed writing novels for women or girls and thought her writing was dull, boring and could never be successful.
The second reason it became wildly successful was it was based on Protestant Principles, that Louisa “predicted” with remarkable accuracy, since some of these principles wouldn’t be accepted for twenty to thirty years. yet.
The final reason the it’s success was that Little Women was really the first literature by man or women that gave some measure of hope that life could somehow be better in the future. The world, (Concord, Mass) wasn’t ready for a female protagonist and, although the books were well received by women, critiques were another matter, entirely. The “ambitious” woman was not a concept men were ready to embrace, yet, and many young ladies who struggled for a better tomorrow were severely punished by men who were threatened by the near thought that a woman could consider herself even almost an equal.
This was the very first piece of literature that separated young women from children in literature, starting an entirely new genre which, as much as men tried to play it down, quickly filled will many more books, inspired by the writings of Louisa, Alcott.
From my standpoint, to be able to write any piece that is accepted and successful is a lifetime achievement, but to write a piece that changes the course of history is a concept reserved and worshipped as truly exceptional.
Sorry for the long and boring introspection. My passion for natural leaders sometimes gets the best of me.
Sincerely
Terry Southern
Hmmm, that is very interesting! Thank you for taking the time to share all that info. I hadn’t really considered the reasons for Little Women’s success, so it was very interesting to read your thoughts.
It is most interesting to hear what other writers have to say about classics. After reading the rich and detailed synopsis written by you and others, I’m beginning to understand why I’m not very good at writing romance. I guess I’ll stick to writing adventure. My doctoral journey is turning me into an academic where facts trump fiction. Hmmmm, I’ll have to watch out for that.
On another note; could I give your blog address to a couple writers that asked for it. Both are veteran women writers with multiple books on the market. I was talking about your blog yesterday in a writers conference and they asked me for the address. I told them I’d need your permission before I give it to them. I realize the Internet is public domain but I still like to ask, first.
Sure! I don’t mind you giving out my blog address at all. In fact, I’d appreciate it! Thanks!
(I know I should probably go to bed and catch up on sleep, but I was too excited to comment
Okay, question 1:
(FYI, I haven’t read Little Dorrit, so I’m basing my analysis off the movies)
A. Arthur is played by MM – hello, who wouldn’t want him to be the hero, even if he was a bit older!
B. I think that purely asthetically, you get the sense that Bhaer is older than Arthur. Bhaer looks like he would be her father’s friend (in my opinion, he’s getting close to the line of “creepy old guy”), while Arthur looks like a suitable bachelor. (I know this is just from the movies, but that’s the picture we have in our heads for them)
C. I think we find reasons not to like Bhaer because we compare him to Laurie, who we think she should’ve married. He’s young, lively, and handsome(ish), and Bhaer really isn’t any of those things, so we don’t like him cuz he’s not Laurie. And being old is a big one on that list.
Question 2:
I have to admit that I think I fall for the dashing, rich gentlemen more than the others. I don’t think I really have a reason for it, I just do. In the cases you mentioned, I love all the dashing ones, and never even really stopped to take notice of Nicholas or Mr. Martin. I do admire the admirable qualities the poorer ones have and the struggles they overcome, but maybe I’ve just never taken much notice since they aren’t the main characters and I’m too focused on the dashing gentlemen
Anyway, so there’s my two cents! I really like this type of post! You really should do it more often – it’s a lot of fun!
Love,
Mal
Haha I’m going back and reading my answer to question 2, and it sounds very materialistic
I was really just addressing the men you mentioned, and you mentioned three of my top favorite gentlemen, so that kinda explains my answer. I do like the ones who work for the women they love, and I think that character really matters too. I prefer the Darcy who proves his love through his actions after the first proposal to the Darcy who just expects that cuz he’s rich he can have any girl he wants. (Kinda like in Love’s Enduring Promise with Grant and Willie, if you’ve seen the Love Comes Softly Series)
Anyway, I just wanted to clear it up in case it sounded like all I care about is a handsome face and a full wallet
Yeah, that really makes sense. In the movies, Mr. Baher looks like he could be her uncle, Arthur appears more like Tip’s age.
BAHAHAHAHAHA. Well, I know that I, for one, have no problem with Arthur being played by MM! He’s one of my favorite actors. I see what you mean about how the Prof just seems and appears older to us. If I remember correctly, in Little Dorrit (the book), Arthur is never described as old-looking, while in Little Women, the Prof is. Don’t quote me, though, I need to read Little Dorrit again!
Oh, don’t worry, I never thought you only cared about the money!
There is certainly a charm to the impeccable dress and fine manners of the rich gentlemen, and there is nothing wrong with that! 
Oh and yes I have seen the Love Comes Softly series. We have all of them, and I used to watch them all the time. My favorite one is the first movie. But I kind of lose interest in the series after Willie dies.
Thanks! I thought my readers would enjoy something like this, and turns out, I was right!
So I’ll probably be doing another post like this another time. 
Question Numero Uno: This question has always bugged me, because…. I confess, I love movies and stories with older heroes – Colonel Brandon of Sense and Sensibility, Cary Grant in Charade, Ike in Runaway Bride… call me crazy, but I find the professor utterly endearing. I think people are just pining for Laurie.
Question Numero Dos: I really care for both…. something awesome about the hard-working hero… yet, I think all of us aren’t opposed to the idea of a wealthy Prince Charming either hahaha
I totally didn’t even think of Colonel Brandon! *face-palm* Silly me. I love him, though!
I LOVE ARTHUR. SO MUCH. you know, I’ve never ever had a problem with the whole age thing between heros and heroines. I mean…arthur and amy, emma and knightley, jane and rochester – most heros are quite a bit older than the heroines in a LOT of the classics. besides, you know that I have to find my rich old man one of these days…namely richard. and richard. and richard.
YOU FORGOT RICHARD!
Haha I have those awkward moments when I realize that Richard is old enough to be my dad, but then I just move on and remember how awesome he is
-mal
Yeah, you’re right, Jessy dear. I didn’t think of Jane and Rochester until after I’d published the post. (Wow, I love them. Jane Eyre is a pretty amazing book.)
Don’t worry, mah sheep. You’ll find him one day.
HELLO. (the first time I typed that it came out as “hellow” which I like to think of a combination of “hello” and “yellow” which is quite bright and sunny, don’t you think?)
anyway your first question. honestly I haven’t a clue what makes the difference. probably people complain about Bhaer because there was the OPTION of Laurie, and so many girls fall for Laurie, you know. but alas Amy is to get him in the end. (I was in a play of Little Women and I was Amy ehhehe) another example that comes to mind is Knightley, who’s what–16 years older than Emma? (I was also Emma in a play…weird…) but there’s no other GOOD options for Emma, so maybe people don’t care as much as long as there’s not some other tempting bait elsewhere. (did I just call a man tempting bait?)
I don’t know why I’m using so many parentheses.
second question. seriously Petie, can’t we have a rich AND rugged type? geez you’re making life so rough for me here, killing all my dreams. hahah another of the poor-ish type is that dude…what’s his name…from Cranford…? ahhhwhatishisname. Dr. Harrison…? yeah him. (I certainly hope you’ve seen Cranford, because it is wonderful and beautiful and so is Dr. Harrison.) anyway I like him. I’m not sure if I could pick between the two, though I will admit Darcy’s never been a favorite of mine (I do adore Knightley though) and there IS something that gets old when evvverryyy period drama has a rich dude come waltzing in (mostly jealousy of course). but. but. of course it’s mostly about personality and charm and–let’s be honest, looks. hahaha ahem.
those are my long rambly thoughts at much too late at night. byyyee.
HELLO JENN. Yes. Bright and sunny, indeed. hehehe.
hey. I never said you couldn’t have both! Now, now, do not go putting words in my mouth.
haha. oh, and yes, I love Cranford and Dr. Harrison is just so presh. Yeah, I think I like the poor guys the best because they’re different from the regular period drama. Because all of Jane Austen’s heroes, as much as I love her books, are the rich type (although Henry Tilney’s kind of in-between).
hahahahahahaha. yeeaaahhhh, the looks kinda weigh our decisions more than we know, eh?
TILNEY IS LIKE MY FAVORITE AUSTEN HERO THOUGH. goes to show. ahh I love him so much, he’s literally flawless.
I agree with Jennoelle. Tilney is the best. He’s not flawless though…
I think Mr Thornton is a pretty darn amazing hero, because not only is he rich and dashingly handsome
but he has also worked extremely hard to get to where he is, even honest enough to go to the extent of paying off his father’s debts long after people had given up hope of being repaid. What he has, he’s worked himself to the bone for.
But to answer the questions:
1. The age kinda bothers me if I actually think about it. I think in films it’s not as big of an issue because they never look way older. Little Women, Little Dorrit, Emma…none of the heroes actually look twenty years older. But if you read it on paper, it can be a little squicky. I prefer a smaller age difference.
2. Can I be allowed to like both? Or a mixture of the two? I think for me, character is the determining factor, and my perception of how handsome/rugged a hero is changes as I decide whether I like his character or not. The first time I saw Alfie Arless I was like “uggh…really???!?” – but by the end of the series I was a wee bit in love with him and though him the cutest thing ever. I like handsome and rugged. Just to be difficult. I don’t think they’re mutually exclusive… (Although I agree, there is something noble about a hero who works with his hands to survive. On the other hand, there’s nothing wrong with a rich hero, so long as he works for it and isn’t idle.).
MR. THORNTON. I know I’m an unabashed Nicholas fan, but John Thornton… be still my beating heart. He IS pretty amazing. And the amount of love I have for Nicholas does not lessen Mr. Thorton’s epicness in the slightest.
The age never really bothers me except in the Little Women movie because Professor Bhaer does look really old. Like, he-could-be-her-grandfather-old.
Yes, of course you can! I find myself liking a mixture as well.
And ALF. OHHH goodness. I wasn’t really crazy about him in the first season either, but after that… yeah, he definitely won me over.
Which version of Little Women do you watch? I have the Winona Ryder version, and I didn’t think he looked that much older. Or maybe I was just won over by his intense glances and awesome accent…
I watch the Winona Ryder version, too. I don’t know, he just seems pretty old and wrinkly to me.
Haha!
No. 1 : As far as Mr Clennam and vs. Prof. Bhaer go…Yes, both of them had a heart of gold, but I could NOT get it out of my head that Proffessor Bhaer was so so old! Mr Clennam I kept on forgetting. And the illustrations of him with a wild beard in my book didn’t help at all. Maybe it’s because he always “acted” old, or I was constantly reminded that he was old.
No. 2 : I liked Nicholas a lot more than Mr Thornton (But Mr Thornton just had his own issues). I like Robert Martin and Mr Knightley equally. It really had more to do with their character than anything. I don’t mind if a hero is a hired hand, as long as his character’s good. Of course, I have nothing against the richer heros.
You’re right. It’s the beard. It has to be.
YUSSSSS. Another person who likes Nicholas even more than Thornton! High-five, Kate!
Question 1: I actually liked Prof. Bhaer in both the movie and the book, even though he was older. Don’t get me wrong, I still wanted Jo to end up with Laurie, though! The love story between Jo and the Prof. would have been just lovely if the first part of the book hadn’t gotten me set on the love story between Jo and Laurie. Does that make sense? In general, for me, the age thing has a limit. If the gap is too big, I find it creepy – otherwise, it’s okay. All the classic pairings people have mentioned (Arthur & Amy, Emma & Knightley, Jane & Rochester, and Jo & Prof. Bhaer) don’t bother me with regard to age gap.
Question 2: For fictional heroes, it’s entirely dependent on the personality and character of the hero. I don’t care much for wealth, status, or clothing. I confess handsomeness is a factor. Even the heroes who are described as not handsome, in my mind, I see them as attractive, at least in a way. But the biggest thing for me is character and personality and how the hero interacts with those around him. Here is a link to my list of favorite male “heroes” with explanations, which might give some insight as to why someone becomes a favorite hero to me: http://wxroz.wordpress.com/2012/11/16/favorite-male-literary-characters/
Great questions for discussion!
I really enjoyed looking at your post! You have a great mix of heroes on your list.
Thanks!
Oh, goodness. There are like, a million comments, but I’ll add my two cents worth.
Well, I’ve already given my opinion on Jo/Laurie/Professor B. I’m glad Jo and the professor married; age was never an issue for me (I guess because I’ve grown up on Elsie Dinsmore and Emma:) and I’ve always found it a little hypocritical of people to say that the professor was too old for Jo but then go into raptures about Mr. Knightley or Arthur Clennam. (who I both love, BTW) For some random reason I always root for the older guy (which worries me.,. Either I’m not going to marry until I’m older or I’m going to end up with someone 15 years older than me…scary. It doesn’t bother me in books but it does scare me just a little in real life
For the second question… I think, in general, most of the classic books I read have a hero is is rich, so I just don’t come across many “rugged” heroes. However, wealth doesn’t really have any sway over me. Whether or not i love a guy in fiction really depends on how *heroic* he is. What lengths will he go for the heroine- or for the world, no matter the cost to himself? (That’s probably why i love the Avengers so much, haha) It’s the reason I love Sir Percy and Robin Hood. I also like guys who have a sense of humor- that’s why Knightley and Tilney outrank Darcy for me. So I don’t think wealth really has anything to do with it, In my case at least.
And I’m glad I’m not the only one who wondered how Mr. Martin fell for Harriet. She is a little ditzy…
Haha! If there were a million comments when you posted, then there’s a BILLION now.
I grew up on Elsie Dinsmore too, and although I enjoyed those books, I must say that Elsie and Edward marrying was always a little… weird. I mean, she sat on his knee and played with him when she was a little girl. And he was like, what, in his early twenties at the time???
I love Henry Tilney’s humor! He just rocks.
Q.1 I don’t have anything against Mr. Baher when I really think about it, But he always seems so old! Arthur just seems…Not that old. Just had a thought, I have’nt read Little Dorrit(yet), but does it say Arthur’s actual age anywhere? In the movie he says “Twice your age” a few times, but maybe that’s just because people don’t usually say “30% older than you” or “one fourth your age”(that would’nt really work, though, would it) or (maybe on the part of the younger party) a third of your age. But anyway, maybe he’s younger than it sounds.
Q.2 Hmmm…I like in-between heroes best. Like Henry Tilney, and John Julius Hanford Rokesmith Harmon, and Robert Hamley, and Mr. Thornton(He DID make his money through trade, after all. He’s not a complete “Gentleman of Leisure”), and… that other one, and the fellow in such and such, the names of whom I can’t think of just now. But anyway, you get the idea.
Nicholas Nickleby.
It has been quite a while since I’ve read Little Dorrit, but I think I recall it saying Arthur was around forty-years-old. Pretty much the exact same age as Professor Bhaer! But Arthur just doesn’t seem like an old guy, while the Professor seems VERY old, even in the book. I mean, if I hadn’t seen the movie, he would still seem old purely by the descriptions in the book.
Ahhhhh, Roger Hamley. I love him!
So I’m coming in on all this INSANELY late… but I must answer the questions.
1- So, first of all, I don’t think Professor Bhaer and Jo are ill-matched at all… *ducks and covers head* In fact, you’ve now inspired me to write a post defending myself, soooooo… probably more on that next week. ‘Nuff said at present.
2- I’m not going to answer this question because you claimed Alf and I’m still mad at you…
…okay, FINE. I prefer a mix. Heehee. I have nothing against rich guys with monocle thingys who save the world every day before breakfast, buuuuuuuuuuut I do think there is something to be said for the guy who has to work so hard to get the girl. And has everything against him. Which is why I’m such a Gilbert fan. Heehee. (okay, so not like he’s starving on the streets or anything… but still…)
Better late than never, Chauvie dear!
Hmmmm… well, I’m looking forward to your post! Don’t worry, I won’t throw anything at you.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Yes, he totally is mine. Hands off. Though if you already love him and you’re only in the first season… you’re gonna be swooning in about every episode once you hit the third season.
Hey, SO late.
Okay, first of all…I always liked Professor Bhaer. At least in the ’94 movie. The old-man-with-a-beard weirded me out, but frankly I’m one of those few fans who don’t ship Jo and Laurie. He was her best friend but I think she was totally right – they’d never get along as husband and wife. Plus I think that Laurie could be…cough…a bit immature at times. *ducks* ALSO I think a lot of it had to do with the way LMA wrote him…with his weird English and the way she described him as if he was a decrepit grandpa. Reading the sequels and seeing Jo and Bhaer happy together kind of reconciled me to their relationship.
As for the age – there is always the niggle in my head that’s like, you used to sit on his knee and now you’re marrying him. Ewww. As in like, Elsie Dinsmore and that kind of thing (although I did realize a few years ago that Mr. Travilla and Elsie from the series were roughly the same age gap as Emma and Mr. Knightley…still weird.
)
Like everyone else said, I think half of it is that they don’t *look* old (and think about it -thirty-seven doesn’t seem THAT old…the beloved RA who’s praise everyone has been singing (and rightfully so) is what, forty-one now? It’s not like the heroes are THAT old (I personally think men are in their prime in their mid thirties. Juuuuuust my POV
). Gosh, it’s been so long since I’ve read Little Dorrit, but she was like, what, late-teens or early twenties? Arthur couldn’t have been that old, then. (And I will admit at twenty-three being attracted to guys in their late twenties/early thirties over guys my age…maturity thing, you know. 
)
As for rich vs. poor…I totally get what you’re saying (and my favorite scene in TSP is when he’s disguised and all rugged-looking…). I think that in period drama, the poor guys look more rugged and masculine vs. the rich guys covered in lace (NO bashing intended towards my most-ever-belovedest-Percy), which just gives them an unfair advantage. I liked Lauricia’s thoughts…a lot of times the poor hero has character built from struggling in life vs. having life given to him on a silver platter. I’m NOT trying to say that there was no good rich guys, just that you DO build character through hardship. At the same time, the rich hero was often driven by an insanely strong sense of chivalry, which I find very attractive as well (sends hugs Percy-ward). So I *do* love my rich heroes. But there is something really sweet too about the poor dude who works so hard and loves the girl so much. Sniffers.
End of nonsensical ramble.
Maybe I would agree with you if I had read the sequels, but I’ve never been able to bring myself to read the sequels because I was always so mad that Jo didn’t marry Laurie.
Haha!
TOTALLY agree with your rich vs. poor paragraph! Couldn’t have said it better and all that.
Ha! If you can get past it, the sequels are adorable…I really enjoyed them (minus a few twists that were like…man!
). But really love them.
Q #1. To be honest, I haven’t read either “Little Dorrit” or “Bleak House” yet, but I think it just depends on the person’s opinion of the characters. I’ll let you know sometime if I finally read the books, and get to know the characters a bit more.
Q #2: Definitely the more rugged type (as you already know).
Haha! Mr. Darcy is one of my favorite literary characters EVER but like you said, “but there is something even more noble about a man when he’s forced to work in order to survive, but never complains. When his clothes are often dirty, but his character shines. When he has to struggle and sacrifice merely to provide (I’m looking at you, Alf), but does so willingly…. (*And I want to clarify that there is nothing at all wrong with heroes who are rich. My favorite Jane Austen heroes are Mr. Knightley and Mr. Darcy, and they’re about as rich as they come. But I love them for their character, not for their money.)
Agreed! *high-fives*
Did I mention….This post is just so fun? Yeah…it pretty much is.
Wow. A lot to think about. (in a good way, of course. I mean we’re talking about heroes here). As far as the age difference between heroes and heroines…..it doesn’t really bug me when I watch a movie (Like “Emma”) because A. IT’S MR. KNIGHTELY and B. He really doesn’t appear *THAT* old in both the BBC “Emma” or the 2007 movie. However, Jane and Rochester…now that was a bit weird for me to watch…but still sweet, nevertheless.
I usually prefer heroes that are younger…..to older ones…I mean personally, I wouldn’t want to marry a guy who is like 10-20 years older than me, but it seems perfectly normal in any time period drama. I constantly go back and forth between which type of hero (the dashing, rich gentleman, or the lowly, poorer hero) I love both, but I pick different ones in each time period drama I watch.
I died laughing at the comment about Elsie Dinsmore and Travilla. I thought that whole situation was REALLY weird. I’m mostly used to it, since I grew up reading those books, but I occasionally shudder when I think of them marrying each other. It still horrifies me at times.
Sigh. I just love heroes in books. Great. Now I have unreal expectations for my future husband.
Jk. NO. I refuse to lower standards. HE. WILL. BE. PERFECT. hehe. 
Somebody slap me and wake me up. I must be dreaming.
Lovely post, Petie.
♥ Jo
I know this is not the most recent post, but it was so interesting I wanted to comment too.
Plus, now the number of comments can be an even fifty (if that matters to anyone else…)
1. I’d say because the professor looks and acts older, while other guys relate to the younger person much more naturally despite the age difference. In many heroes, age brings wisdom and maturity, but the guys still has wit and charm.
2. I like the rich heroes because of their gentlemanly manners and their leadership skills. But I agree with the many ones of you who point out that strong character is more important and can often be found in the poorer ones. Obviously that is the priority, but usually the rich heroes I like are men of character too, they just happen to be rich. Admittedly I’m not familiar with all the above referenced stories, so my opinion on this may very well change as I meet more and more characters.