In Defense of D'Elmont

After class today, I was thinking about how readers may be inclined to dislike or be unsympathetic towards the character of D'Elmont as he bumbles through his life leaving a trail of romantic wreckage behind him. While I honestly had similar feelings towards him during my reading, I feel the need to defend D'Elmont from excessive badgering in light of some of the things I learned in Manley's preface to "The Secret History of Queen Zarah" and Ballaster's "Seductive Forms."
First, Manley's directions on how writing, and even reading, should be done show that as a new type of genre, and a new type of author, were being heralded into the literary market, so too was a desire for a "realistic"character. Manley states that "The Heroes in Ancient Romances have nothing in them that is Natural; all is unlimited in their Character; all their Advantages have Something Prodigious, and all their Actions Something that's Marvelous; in short, they are not Men." While I think we can all agree the plot of "Love in Excess" is exceedingly unbelievable and fantastic, here Manley is saying that it is the "character" that is becoming more realistic or more "Natural." So if we try and distill what qualities of men are Natural from Haywood's depiction of D'Elmont, we can see that he is loyal (he has many interal conflicts when he has to compromise male friendships for that overpowering outside force of love), persuasive (even when does not mean to be), and glaringly naive (oblivious to signals the women lay before him, and easily manipulated, i.e. the Baron convincing him that "no means yes"). So the question is, why demarcate these qualities for the lead male of "Love in Excess"? To educate, of course.
Haywood is writing in a time when a reason needed to exist to read, beyond that of pure entertainment. Even Manley concedes that while everything should exist to be believable and recent for an audience, "the chief End of History is to instruct and inspire into Men the Love of Vertue, and Abhorrence of Vice by the Examples propos'd to them; therefore the Conclusion of a Story ought to have some Tract of Morality which may engage Virtue." This novel is clearly Haywood's class on true love and how to attain true love. D'Elmont, with his flaws and with his attributes, is the prize for throngs of women throughout the story. Yet the only one that can capture the heart, rather than just the body, of D'Elmont is the one who puts up the most resistence (albeit D'Elmont had all but conquered this resistence if not for some clever moves by the author) to his advances. In my last entry, I referred to a theme that is consistent throughout the novel that women, according to the times, should not profess their love unless the man has done so first. When Ballaster is elucidating on letter-writing, she says that "the woman's letter/body is then more erotic because more concealed than that of the man [Since they can't outright say what they want in order to save their virtue]. Like clothing, the letter's cloaking devices serve to enhance the appeal of the body by the very act of concealment." It is this concealment of her true feelings throughout the book that is like a trace blood in the water for D'Elmont to hunt down and conquer.
Our "realistic" and Natural man in the book is a ploy for Haywood to show us how to win a man's heart. His characteristics are those of a "prototypical" man, holding true even today. In this timeless peice about love, restrict yourself from blaming D'Elmont (naive and stupid in the web of guile laid by the women) for the romantic wreckage.