Joe Morelli: Bad Boy
One for the Money, Janet Evanovich (Scribner, 2001)
Let me just put it out there. Joe Morelli or Ranger? Most women I’ve talked to fall into either one camp or the other. Love Joe, or think he’s no good for Steph. Hot for Ranger, or think he’s just plain scary.
Today let’s look at Joe.
STATS:
A cop in Trenton, NJ and the on-again, off-again boyfriend of bounty hunter Stephanie Plum. He started out as the wild one in Stephanie’s life, taking her to play “train” in his garage when she was six and only letting her be the tunnel, but has settled into the stabilizing force. He’s “street tough and dangerously alluring” on the outside, “a sexy guy with a toaster” on the inside.
Rival to Ranger, a camo-wearing, ponytailed, man who’s like smoke in Stephanie’s life—blowing in and out without warning and messing with Joe in the process.
Calls Steph ‘cupcake’, and other assorted terms of endearment.
THE LOOK:
Frightening in a spending-time-on-the-dark-side kind of way. Yet he owns a quaint little house, and as mentioned above, a toaster.
Six feet, lean and mean and muscled. Olive skin tones, black hair with a touch of curls at his neck, and brown eyes that turn to liquid when he’s turned on. “He had an eagle tattooed on his chest, a tight-assed, narrow-hipped swagger, and a reputation for having fast hands and clever fingers.”
“Stay away from those Morelli boys,” [her] mother had warned [Stephanie]. “They’re wild. I hear stories about the things they do to girls when they get them alone.”
“What kind of things,” [Stephanie] eagerly ask.
“You don’t want to know,” [her] mother had answered. “Terrible things. Things that aren’t nice.”
From that moment on, [Stephanie] viewed Joseph Morelli with a combination of terror and prurient curiosity that bordered on awe.
LEADING LADY:
Stephanie Plum, the woman Joe ‘had’ behind the eclair counter at the Tasty Pasty bakery where she worked when they were in high school.
Stephanie Plum, the woman who, a few years later, ran him over outside the meat market while driving her father’s Buick.
Stephanie Plum, bounty hunter extraordinaire—or not—and the woman who has Joe’s rival, Ranger, breathing fire.
Stephanie and Joe do a little dance, have a little fun, then cool off. It’s their pattern. Is Stephanie the one for Joe? I guess we’ll have to wait until J.E. gives us another book and takes us on another adventure with the hot cop and the bounty hunter.
BOTTOM LINE:
Joe Morelli is a good guy, even if he’s rough around the edges. He has a dog named Bob. He’s in the habit of trying to protect Stephanie when she gets herself into trouble. He may not be ‘smoke’, but he’s certainly hot and a good match for Stephanie Plum.
And he has a toaster.
And he indulges Stephanie’s Grandma Mazur and the rest of the wacky characters in Steph’s family. Not to mention his own spooky grandmother.
Whether Joe ends up with Stephanie is anybody’s guess, and, as stated above, there are a lot of people rooting for Ranger in that arena.
But me? I’m rooting for Joe.
QUESTION OF THE DAY:
Are you a Ranger or Joe fan?
April 17th, 2008
Misa 
in
Bad Boys, Misa's Columns, Misa's Heroes |
Everyone loves a good hero, but what do readers, agents, editors, and writers love most? Join us as we delve under the covers and find out!
April 17th, 2008 at 7:28 am
I’m a Ranger girl. Joe has always impressed me as a control freak. Yes, Steph may be a bit on the incompetent side, but she knows enough to utilize her resources (even if that resource is a loud “HELP!”) as necessary to get it right in the end. Ranger trusts her to do that. Joe wants to lock her up “for her own safety.” I really hate that.
Plus… Ranger’s quiet, mysterious, smokin’ hot, and Cuban. Come on!
April 17th, 2008 at 9:32 am
I know there are a lot of Ranger girls out there! I never see Joe as a control freak [although I admit I haven’t read the last two installments of the series]. I always see him as protector in a ‘it’s for her own good’ kind of way. Ranger doesn’t communicate beyond grunts usually…I like my man to have conversations! He is smokin’ hot, though.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:47 am
I do not like the device of two (continuing) love interests. A little competition’s fine, but when even the readers strongly disagree who the heroine should wind up with, it ruins the love story for me. The whole soul mate thing is tough enough to sell. Add “poor old” Stephanie “burdened” with the choice of picking Joe or Ranger? Too much. I mean, come on, how many women actually have that dilemma?
April 17th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
I’m rooting for Stephanie. She should pull a Kelly Taylor and tell both guys to take a hike. Neither of them are boyfriend material at the moment.
I’ve always thought Morelli was a much better antagonist than boyfriend. He’s the kind of guy who has the potential to really screw things up big time. A formidable foe…but who has the time to date someone who’s always trying to get one over on you? The distrust between the two of them is tiring.
I don’t like the way Morelli incessantly throws in her face that if it weren’t for her, he could have a better girlfriend. I don’t like that he thinks of her as “convenient” — when is love ever convenient? I don’t like the way he uses her to boost his own ego, or the way he puts her down, or how every time she accomplishes something, he lets her know it’s not something he’s proud of… and not something she should be proud of, either. A jerk who looks good naked isn’t automatically a hero; he’s just a jerk with no clothes on.
But most of all, I don’t like the idea Evanovich has thrown out there that a bad boyfriend is better than no boyfriend at all. That women like Stephanie should take what little they can get, because they’re not in the position to be picky. It’s 2008–are we not past that already?
Maybe it’s just me, but I think a hero should empower a heroine by challenging what she knows and by helping her help herself, not by chaining her to a toaster and telling her all those things she thought she could do, she really can’t, so grow up and stop trying.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Such divergent thinking! And everyone raises great points. “A jerk who looks good naked isn’t automatically a hero; he’s just a jerk with no clothes on.” This is great, Liz, and I totally agree. Maybe I should reread the Evanovich series with a more discerning eye. Her books have always been pure escapism for me. I think Stephanie herself is so screwed up, and plays so many games, that Joe’s behaviors seem justified in a way.
…”a hero should empower a heroine by challenging what she knows and by helping her help herself”–a fantastic statement and very true. And neither Joe or Ranger really do that for Stephanie. This is going to become a central question I ask myself as I write! Well done, and astute observations.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
…“poor old” Stephanie “burdened” with the choice of picking Joe or Ranger?” LOL!!! Yeah, we should all be so burdened, although after Liz’s comment, I’m thinking they both might be TOO much of a burden.
April 20th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
With all due respect, and without intentionally encroaching on anyone’s opinion on the matter, men, like cars, do not always appreciate once you’ve secured a title. How many women would buy a lemon from a sleazy used-car salesperson and expect it to morph into a brand new Jag once the drove it off the lot? The idea that any man, fictional or not, is somehow justified in his mistreatment or belittlement of a woman for ANY reason is as absurd as rooting for said man because he owns a particular kitchen appliance.
April 20th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Never hold back your opinion, Liz!!
“The idea that any man, fictional or not, is somehow justified in his mistreatment or belittlement of a woman for ANY reason is as absurd as rooting for said man because he owns a particular kitchen appliance.”
In reality, of course this is absolutely true, but in fiction, don’t half the heroes we read about in romance mistreat the heroine in one way or another before he realizes that he loves her? Whether they’re vampires or simple bad boys, have a tramatic past or have been betrayed by one too many women, are subtly condescending or outright rude, many of these men behave far worse toward the heroine than Joe Morelli or Ranger [only my opinion, of course].
With that said, I read these books for escapism and pure enjoyment and the appliance ownership was a touch of levity in the column, not a reason to overlook a man’s other characteristics! Don’t get me wrong, belittlement or mistreatment of women [or of anyone] is no laughing matter, but honestly I never see that to a great degree in the Stephanie Plum books because they are escapist fiction to me and nothing more.
I absolutley respect your opinion, Liz, and think you’re absolutely right. I don’t believe I’ve written a “lemon” of a man
and definitely don’t plan to.
April 21st, 2008 at 1:01 am
LOL. Okay, so I came out with both arms swinging, so let me clarify a few things:
My opinion is heavily colored by experience in dealing with women in both physically and emotionally abusive relationships. And these women share a very common opinion: that there’s something wrong with them that somehow justifies their partners’ actions. That if they were smarter, blonder, had shorter hair or bigger boobs or a smaller waistline, if they kept the house clean and the dishes washed and dinner on the table at the specified time, if they didn’t talk to other guys or hang out with the “wrong” friends or kept their mouths shut like they were told, then maybe then they would be worthy of this person’s love. So that’s what they strive for. They dream of the day where their partners will finally be good to them, proud of them, love them unconditionally, but at the same time, they don’t trust the good days. They’re like mice in a maze, hopeful that when they press that button they’ll get fed, and terrified of the shock that may come instead.
There’s nothing wrong with reading for escapism, but the last book in the series was so heavy with that sort of thing, I never did make the transition. I’ve seen so many young women wither and die in the name of unrequited love that I don’t think I’ll ever be able to see past the fact that this particular character (whether the author realizes it or not) is a textbook sociopath, simply because I can put several faces to Stephanie’s name. I just think it’s dangerous to reinforce that kind of behavior, no matter the medium. And considering it came from a woman author, it irks me a little.
“In reality, of course this is absolutely true, but in fiction, don’t half the heroes we read about in romance mistreat the heroine in one way or another before he realizes that he loves her?”
You make a good point, but the key word here is “before”. What about such treatment after? Is it still excusable then? Would it not ruin all of our fantasies if we found out Darcy claimed Lizzy wasn’t handsome enough to tempt him after their meeting at Pemberley? Or if Benedick had mocked Beatrice after they they were engaged? Or if Spike had tried to kill Buffy after he got his soul? (That last one’s a bad example, because I think he actually did.) Point is, there’s a difference between flirtatious hair-pulling and being just plain old mean. This particular couple crossed that line a long time ago.
The appliance dig was just my attempt at bad humor. I’ve heard of women dating a man for his car, for his money, for his home, even for his dog… but for his toaster? Since when did that become a selling point? Unless toaster is a penis metaphor, in which case, I think I’d rather have a microwave.
April 21st, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Liz, I really like you!!!! =) Your opinion has to be framed by your experience, so I can totally see why you feel very strongly about this subject. Not that you need a reason, but your work with women in abusive situations certainly gives you reason to take issue with abusive [sociopathic] characters.
I haven’t read the last several Stephanie Plum books, but am going to soon just to see the way Joe and/or Ranger have changed or how their traits have magnified. Like anything, the books got old for me and I stopped, and maybe JE should have, too, if the characters have become so distasteful.
Going back to Virna’s comment that the waffling back and forth between two love interests is a core problem in the ‘hero’ thing with these books. As far as I read, neither Joe or Ranger ever declare true love for Stephanie, or visa versa, and so there is only the ‘before’ treatment that persists. And at this point it’s too late for either to make that declaration and for it to be meaningful since it’s been so drawn out. I ceased to care a long time ago!
It’s great that you hold us all to high standards, Liz, and I appreciate that!!!!
May 29th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
I just started listening to the series a few weeks ago. I just completed Hot Six today. I am a little horrified when I heard they are going into the Ranger and Stephanie direction. I never really cared for the character of Ranger. I do think he is controlling at times as well. In Hot Six, he seemed more controlling than Joe has ever been. I see Joe’s actions as concern and frustration more than anything. Ranger really got on my nerves in Hot Six. I haven’t read further so I don’t know if the change Joe’s character drastically. In the first book, I feel for Joe, and I continue to listen to the series because of him and Lula and not so much for Stephanie herself. I don’t think I am going to like this triangle coming up. Ranger seems more like lust and someone you want to try the night before you get married just to see. I couldn’t see him as anything permanent. I think when Stephanie is off with Ranger, Joe should have someone else too. For those that are up to date on the series, can someone tell me if Joe gets another girl?
May 29th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Hi Candice! I haven’t read the last couple SP books, but as far as I can remember back, Joe hasn’t ever had anyone serious except Stephanie. Ranger is a ‘lust’ guy. I can’t see him in anything for the long haul. I think that’s why the series has dragged for me a bit…because there’s never a promise of that happily ever after.
–Misa
June 1st, 2008 at 11:50 am
Don’t hate me, Misa! But any man who refers to women he’s slept with as sluts will never be a hero in my book. It’s too close to that old double-standard of men being “experienced” and women being “whores”, and since that I subscribe that radical notion that women are people too, it rubs me the wrong way.
A person who’s truly “reformed” not only steers clear of the poor choices and bad behavior of his youth but also feels a sense of remorse for having done them in the first place. I don’t see any remorse in this character. His prior mistreatment of women is still a source of pride for him. He still boasts about it. He still uses it to boost his ego. It’s very similar to a guy I went to high school with, who, ten years after graduation, still talks about the 1996 State Championship as if it were the highlight of his life (and everyone else’s too). And maybe it is, since in his mind, he hasn’t evolved past being The Football Captain.
I feel like Janet has had ample opportunity to flesh this character out, and yet she hasn’t. He’s still snagging waitresses by their tank tops (excuse me?), still flirting with women to get information (are you for real?), still looking back on the days where he slept with so many women he can’t remember all of them. And he does it not with regret, but with a fond admiration of none other than himself.
Sorry. As a hero, I just don’t buy it.
And as for Stephanie, I’m starting to really not like her, either. I find it very hard to respect a heroine who can’t respect herself. And how much self-respect can a woman have when she sits idly by while her boyfriend reminisces about his good old days of slutty women and scant morals? Throw in the fact that she was, in fact, one of those slutty women, and well, there you have it.
June 1st, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Never, Liz! Having read many of the JE books quite a few years ago, I’ve obviously seriously blocked out some of Joe’s less admirable qualities [or deplorable qualities]. Your memory is MUCH better than mine! I have no recollection of his ’slut’ references. I really need to reread with my new enlightenment.
I do agree with you, also, about Stephanie herself. The lack of development on all fronts is why I haven’t read the last few books and why I lost interest in the series overall. Good insight for how to manage my own characters in my own series. =)
June 9th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Big Tits Asian Boobs Lactating Tits…
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view…
August 12th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
I found your site on technorati and read a few of your other posts. Keep up the good work. I just added your RSS feed to my Google News Reader. Looking forward to reading more from you down the road!
August 14th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Your blog is interesting!
Keep up the good work!
October 8th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
I am totally a Morelli fan. I never think Joe treats Stephanie bad. I mean how many of you have guys that sit outside your apartment with food on more than one occasion. Morelli doesnt like her putting her life in danger daily and he makes that obvious but he has never locked her up and thrown away the key (other than one for the money,but thats a different matter). He gets jealous sometimes but who doesnt. He is never a crazy jealous lunatic. I think the way he playfully teases her is cute, he is never really forceful with her. Plus Ranger stalks her and has people watch her every move and does lock her up and makes out with her every chance he gets when he knows she is seeing Morelli. Dont get me wrong I dont dislike Ranger but I think he is more a hot body than anything else. Morelli cleans her up, cuts her hair, watches her pets and family and friends, brings her food, always gives her a place to stay, provides other essentials(if you know what i mean) and cares for her.
October 17th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Morelli all the way! Ranger might have that mysterious sexy thing going on, but he’s not boyfriend/husband material. Joe is a great guy, and he seems real and comfortable…Ranger is just a fantasy man and I don’t think Stephanie would ever be fulfilled with him.