Writing Love

[Gribba]

Ok I am very late joining in here but... :wub:

I am madly in love with LOVE!!! I love LOVE!!!
I write all kinds of love. When I write about love in my stories, love is something that either drives my character/s and/or is part of the development of that person.
Love is this amazing thing that happens between people! I am not going to go through all the types as they have been mentioned in this thread, anyway...

What I find fascinating and amazing about romantic love, is that it begins with facing the possibility of rejection. Allowing oneself to either receive love as well as give it and begin living the story and writing the memories, of that love. Or taking the rejection and closing the book on it and be prepared to allow another book to open, regardless of the pain of former rejection. That is the first bravest parts of love.
But romantic love is also deeply based in trust, giving someone your trust before it is earned, trust in love, and by doing so you are trusting another person with, all of you. Trust that, that person will treat it with care and proof worthy of it. It is incredibly vulnerable thing to do, which is the other brave thing about love. Choosing love is such a brave choice and I love when it is done well in a story.
I do not always include romantic love in my stories but I tend to like having some form of love in my story, often as a small part of the story for the overall growth of a character (because love in general, is also about growth as a person, compromise, hard work and well, SO much more and that provides a large room for a character to grow in).

I tend to like all kinds of love in stories i read and I mean fantasy & sci fi novels (I have only read very few romance novels so I can not say much about that genre).

 

[FifthView]

FifthView,

The example I gave on that post was Richard and Khalan from the Sword of Truth series. I know, I know, people will give me a hard time about liking the series (sheepish face) but as a kid I LOVED it.

Y'know, I loved the series too--in the Legend of the Seeker version, heh. Haven't read the books.

Richard and Khalan often had to fight to stay together, or had to split up to beat the bad guy, and sometimes they fought and questioned their relationship and to me (as a teenager) it felt very real.

Ha, y'know, I've thought of commenting on the teen/YA vs __________ aspect of things. There are a lot of songs that I once loved but now when I listen to them, I'm somewhat meh. An awful lot of music is written from a teen/YA point of view which, honestly, probably shouldn't be restricted to those real age groups but still....The themes don't have the same kind of pull for me now as before. This might be a serious digression however.

I do think that the way love is used in a subplot can be very interesting.

I'm going to take a look at Blake Snyder's story types, because I've been thinking that "love story" or "revenge tale" more often describe a story archetype than a genre, per se. Either, for instance, can fit within the broader genres like fantasy, sci-fi, western, period-historical, and so forth. Kinda like romance stories. Perhaps on one level (or sub-sub levels, heh) they could be called genres. Let's add "heist story" to that mix. But the romance story also happens to have become a well-recognized genre slot for marketing reasons—people like reading that kind of a story. (So it's easier to find a romance story than, say, a revenge tale? I mean, beyond using a Google or Amazon search for the term? Amazon does have a "heist" category, I've just discovered.)

Used as a subplot, a love story or romance can do a lot for characterization, theme, etc. But sometimes, the relationship is just the relationship, a flavor, not a subplot, and might provide an opportunity for improving these things without also needing an emotional rollercoaster ride, breaking up and getting back together, doubting and turmoil in paradise. Did Mr. and Mrs. Weasley ever go through that or contemplate divorce? Honestly, it's been so long I don't remember.

 

[TheCrystallineEntity]

I highly suggest [to those of you who can stand violence, blood, and nightmare fuel] to read the epic manga Claymore. It explores many aspects of love as well as the truth of what humanity is.
Here are the twin goddesses of love, Teresa and Clare:

[Don't watch the anime; it's terrible.]

 

[Heliotrope]

Y'know, I loved the series too--in the Legend of the Seeker version, heh. Haven't read the books.



Ha, y'know, I've thought of commenting on the teen/YA vs __________ aspect of things. There are a lot of songs that I once loved but now when I listen to them, I'm somewhat meh. An awful lot of music is written from a teen/YA point of view which, honestly, probably shouldn't be restricted to those real age groups but still....The themes don't have the same kind of pull for me now as before. This might be a serious digression however.

I do think that the way love is used in a subplot can be very interesting.

I'm going to take a look at Blake Snyder's story types, because I've been thinking that "love story" or "revenge tale" more often describe a story archetype than a genre, per se. Either, for instance, can fit within the broader genres like fantasy, sci-fi, western, period-historical, and so forth. Kinda like romance stories. Perhaps on one level (or sub-sub levels, heh) they could be called genres. Let's add "heist story" to that mix. But the romance story also happens to have become a well-recognized genre slot for marketing reasons—people like reading that kind of a story. (So it's easier to find a romance story than, say, a revenge tale? I mean, beyond using a Google or Amazon search for the term? Amazon does have a "heist" category, I've just discovered.)

Used as a subplot, a love story or romance can do a lot for characterization, theme, etc. But sometimes, the relationship is just the relationship, a flavor, not a subplot, and might provide an opportunity for improving these things without also needing an emotional rollercoaster ride, breaking up and getting back together, doubting and turmoil in paradise. Did Mr. and Mrs. Weasley ever go through that or contemplate divorce? Honestly, it's been so long I don't remember.

Ha! I didn't have the channel that the show aired on here in Canada so I bought the dvd's lol. Not as good as the book, they changed a lot, but I still reread the series every couple years. Usually when I go camping. There is still something about it I really like.

If you liked the show try the first book. There is a lot there to like in a cliche fantasy sort of way. I always find it funny I've been on this site for a few years now and that series rarely comes up. Same as Robert Jordan's series Wheel of Time...

Edit: omg just started watching the first episode again for fun. Craig Horner! Talk about love. I'm way too old for him lol. I can't watch the opening scene without tearing up a bit though, as it was such a part of my childhood. It was the first book I bought for myself that was a grown up book when I was thirteen. My dad read it at the same time as me and there is so much in it a child shouldn't read (some serious BDSM with the Mord Sith) but my dad didn't say anything and didnt tell me not to read it. He was a fantasy nut too though. He probably just prayed I wouldn't tell my mom.

 

[Christopher Michael]

I just think that the idea of a romantic relationship never being unstable is completely unrealistic. There's always something going on that could lead people to separate. Always. Even outside influence such as a family member's death. Anything could cause it, really. But I rest my case.

Late to the discussion- wasn't near a computer all day, didn't get to involve myself in any conversations. This makes me sad. lol

Anyway, I'm going to vehemently, even violently, disagree with you here. The idea of every romantic relationship being inherently unstable and on the edge of exploding into separation is the conceit that is unrealistic. There are relationships, I am in one and so were my parents (until the death of my Father), where separation is not possible. We won't even use the word "divorce" in a joking manner, because it is something we refuse to entertain. 50% of marriages end in divorce, but that also means 50% do NOT.
It's a large part of the reason I stopped reading comics, especially Marvel. They took relationships that had survived the worst the writers could throw at them for 50 years and threw them away because "marriages are boring." (That is literally the reason the Spider-Man writers gave.)
I don't mind people writing about an unstable relationship where anything could cause it to fall apart. Those exist, and do make interesting reading. But so do relationships that nothing short of death could cause to separate.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

There does seem to be a conceit these days that there is always something wrong beneath the surface, and this doesn't just apply to romantic relationships, just look at settings. It is part "makes a better story" and part humanist dogma that can blur into a strange form of propaganda.

 

[TheKillerBs]

I think you're doing a false equivalence by saying that being unstable means it's on the verge of blowing up. Uranium-235 is an unstable isotope, but that doesn't mean that it's on the verge of a fission chain reaction.

 

[Russ]

Late to the discussion- wasn't near a computer all day, didn't get to involve myself in any conversations. This makes me sad. lol

Anyway, I'm going to vehemently, even violently, disagree with you here. The idea of every romantic relationship being inherently unstable and on the edge of exploding into separation is the conceit that is unrealistic. There are relationships, I am in one and so were my parents (until the death of my Father), where separation is not possible. We won't even use the word "divorce" in a joking manner, because it is something we refuse to entertain. 50% of marriages end in divorce, but that also means 50% do NOT.
It's a large part of the reason I stopped reading comics, especially Marvel. They took relationships that had survived the worst the writers could throw at them for 50 years and threw them away because "marriages are boring." (That is literally the reason the Spider-Man writers gave.)
I don't mind people writing about an unstable relationship where anything could cause it to fall apart. Those exist, and do make interesting reading. But so do relationships that nothing short of death could cause to separate.

Actually something less than 50% of marriages end in divorce, and the way they count is kind of odd.

But on a cautionary note, I think we should perhaps refrain from discussing the inherent stability or instability (by the way these are sword fencing terms as well) of marriages by way of personal examples. It doesn't really help the conversation (either way) and risks people personalizing things too much.

Just a thought.

 

[FifthView]

There does seem to be a conceit these days that there is always something wrong beneath the surface, and this doesn't just apply to romantic relationships, just look at settings. It is part "makes a better story" and part humanist dogma that can blur into a strange form of propaganda.

Maybe part of the issue is with the idea of stability, in a stable=boring kind of way.

Elsewhere, I've mentioned that I think all stories are essentially about change. If everything is in stasis, that's bad; something needs to break.

But what needs to break, where is the change — ah, the $24,000 Question.

Sometimes I think there's a bias toward seating this change in deep character mind/heart. It's not enough for a character to want to steal the evil king's most treasured magical bauble (heist); no, some long-held cherished dream, childhood trauma or loss, etc., must be behind this effort motivating the character, and better yet, maybe the character will "learn a lesson" and grow as a person during the heist. The heist is not a heist but merely an occasion for showing character growth/change. Similarly, if those planning the heist are a married couple, well, having them bicker, fight, dredge up their long-buried baggage, and possibly split as a couple would be great, right? Adds tension, because how are they going to finish the heist if they break up, how can the man work with the woman on such a delicate, dangerous mission if he's just discovered she's been having an affair with his brother?

Of course, those things can work marvelously, heh. But I think some character change can be less intense, less primal or deep-seated, and still allow interesting, engaging stories and characters.

I've also been wondering if the strength of teen/YA characters, and what makes them a go-to source when building a cast, lies in the fact that those ages are natural periods of growth, instability, change, and emotions like doubt, insecurity, narrow-sightedness, possessive love, etc. So, there's a measure of built-in instability. Not that all adults have progressed far from those periods, heh, and perhaps like that Fremen Bene Gesserit Reverend Mother, many who are old are still "young" inside.

 

[Heliotrope]

Maybe part of the issue is with the idea of stability, in a stable=boring kind of way.

Elsewhere, I've mentioned that I think all stories are essentially about change. If everything is in stasis, that's bad; something needs to break.

But what needs to break, where is the change — ah, the $24,000 Question.

Sometimes I think there's a bias toward seating this change in deep character mind/heart. It's not enough for a character to want to steal the evil king's most treasured magical bauble (heist); no, some long-held cherished dream, childhood trauma or loss, etc., must be behind this effort motivating the character, and better yet, maybe the character will "learn a lesson" and grow as a person during the heist. The heist is not a heist but merely an occasion for showing character growth/change. Similarly, if those planning the heist are a married couple, well, having them bicker, fight, dredge up their long-buried baggage, and possibly split as a couple would be great, right? Adds tension, because how are they going to finish the heist if they break up, how can the man work with the woman on such a delicate, dangerous mission if he's just discovered she's been having an affair with his brother?

Of course, those things can work marvelously, heh. But I think some character change can be less intense, less primal or deep-seated, and still allow interesting, engaging stories and characters.

I've also been wondering if the strength of teen/YA characters, and what makes them a go-to source when building a cast, lies in the fact that those ages are natural periods of growth, instability, change, and emotions like doubt, insecurity, narrow-sightedness, possessive love, etc. So, there's a measure of built-in instability. Not that all adults have progressed far from those periods, heh, and perhaps like that Fremen Bene Gesserit Reverend Mother, many who are old are still "young" inside.

Oddly enough, speaking of Blake Snyder's story types, he also is adement that story stakes should be "primal" (even using that same word). He argues that stories should appeal to the most primal human natures. A caveman should be able to understand the stakes. This makes the story more universal.

For example, pretend we have a story about Joe, a used car salesman. Joe hasn't been doing so well lately and is about to lose his job.

Ok. So sort of interesting, maybe. Except people lose their jobs all the time. Many readers will say "So what? So he loses his job? he can just go work at Walmart for a while until he gets back on his feet. What's the big deal. Suck it up Joe. Stop being a whiny baby. We've all been there."

So, what the writer needs to do is make Joe's plight more primal. It's not so much that he is going to lose his job... it's that he lost a bunch of money to a poker game and if he loses this job he will also lose his house.

Ohhhhhh, losing your home is pretty primal. Even a caveman could get worked up about that.

But that is not all.

He has a know it all father in law who has been constantly telling his daughter what a good for nothing Joe is. If Joe loses this job, and his house, he will likely lose his wife too.

And to add the icing on the cake, his wife is pregnant.

Even worse. His home and his wife? His baby! Hell no! Now the caveman is banging on his chest. Come on Joe! Pull it together! You have to keep this job!

Primal = Universal stakes that people actually care about.

 

[FifthView]

[Edit: @Helio, I was writing this when I noticed you'd commented, so...maybe this relates?]

Eh, I'd just follow-up

But I think some character change can be less intense, less primal or deep-seated, and still allow interesting, engaging stories and characters.

It's difficult for me to parse through the importance of deep-seated character traits, because I do like my characters to have depth. I think the roles those traits play in telling the story can make a difference, i.e., how we use them.

Still waters run deep. I think of how a largely-unchanged and unchanging character might still have depth, including insecurity and fears and hopes, and how these traits might inform the character and the story. Something like William Munny in The Unforgiven. The fundamental character changes and growth happened before the story even begins. And yet, he has a depth that informs so much about the story and the decisions he makes. He does undergo some small bit of change during the course of the movie. He'd begun in a state of having solidly chosen to forsake his old outlaw ways, he thought—a promise he'd made to his wife—and at the end of the movie he reverts a bit to those old ways, breaking his promise. But it's not a fundamental change (in fact, could be proof of the absence of a fundamental change) so much as a decision he makes that will be a temporary decision.

But what would be the "opposite" of Still waters run deep? Heh, constant turbulence at the top. Again, children, teens and YA characters make this fairly natural. You want auto-baked tension, "change," stakes written at a "10" regardless of what they may be? Here you go.

I'd never read this before, but today I did a search for "still waters run deep" and found this use of the idea in a fable from 1692:

A Country-man that was to pass a River, sounded it up and down to try where it was most fordable: and upon Trial he made this Observation on't: Where the Water ran Smooth, he found it Deepest; and on the contrary, Shallowest where it made most Noise. There's More Danger in a Reserv'd and Silent, than in a Noisy, Babbling Enemy.​

—well, that last bit was true of Munny, heh. But sometimes, when I read that constant emotional turbulence in other stories, the constant bickering, the bursting forth of charged words inspired by baby-selfishness and insecurity, and....etc., there's a shallowness to it.

So for me, it's not so much a question of whether a character has fundamental character traits, whether positive or negative traits, etc., but how these are put to use in the telling of the story.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Yeah, change is the bread and butter, and "risk" is the cheese, in the grilled cheese story, heh heh. And writers tend to be messed up troublemakers just itching to make their characters' lives miserable! Muwahahahahahaha! And the seemingly idyllic blowing up is fun... Such as I watched a Bones the other night where John Ratzenberger (Cliff from Cheers) is married to a woman in this ideal, loving marriage, a sweet older couple, together forever sort of thing... who end up being thieves and unrepentent murderers, it was beautiful.

The troubling part is art tends to reinforce a growing cynicism in society, but hey, what can you do... a good story is a good story, LOL.

Maybe part of the issue is with the idea of stability, in a stable=boring kind of way.

Elsewhere, I've mentioned that I think all stories are essentially about change. If everything is in stasis, that's bad; something needs to break.

But what needs to break, where is the change — ah, the $24,000 Question.

Sometimes I think there's a bias toward seating this change in deep character mind/heart. It's not enough for a character to want to steal the evil king's most treasured magical bauble (heist); no, some long-held cherished dream, childhood trauma or loss, etc., must be behind this effort motivating the character, and better yet, maybe the character will "learn a lesson" and grow as a person during the heist. The heist is not a heist but merely an occasion for showing character growth/change. Similarly, if those planning the heist are a married couple, well, having them bicker, fight, dredge up their long-buried baggage, and possibly split as a couple would be great, right? Adds tension, because how are they going to finish the heist if they break up, how can the man work with the woman on such a delicate, dangerous mission if he's just discovered she's been having an affair with his brother?

Of course, those things can work marvelously, heh. But I think some character change can be less intense, less primal or deep-seated, and still allow interesting, engaging stories and characters.

I've also been wondering if the strength of teen/YA characters, and what makes them a go-to source when building a cast, lies in the fact that those ages are natural periods of growth, instability, change, and emotions like doubt, insecurity, narrow-sightedness, possessive love, etc. So, there's a measure of built-in instability. Not that all adults have progressed far from those periods, heh, and perhaps like that Fremen Bene Gesserit Reverend Mother, many who are old are still "young" inside.

 

[Heliotrope]

[Edit: @Helio, I was writing this when I noticed you'd commented, so...maybe this relates?]

Eh, I'd just follow-up



It's difficult for me to parse through the importance of deep-seated character traits, because I do like my characters to have depth. I think the roles those traits play in telling the story can make a difference, i.e., how we use them.

Still waters run deep. I think of how a largely-unchanged and unchanging character might still have depth, including insecurity and fears and hopes, and how these traits might inform the character and the story. Something like William Munny in The Unforgiven. The fundamental character changes and growth happened before the story even begins. And yet, he has a depth that informs so much about the story and the decisions he makes. He does undergo some small bit of change during the course of the movie. He'd begun in a state of having solidly chosen to forsake his old outlaw ways, he thought—a promise he'd made to his wife—and at the end of the movie he reverts a bit to those old ways, breaking his promise. But it's not a fundamental change (in fact, could be proof of the absence of a fundamental change) so much as a decision he makes that will be a temporary decision.

But what would be the "opposite" of Still waters run deep? Heh, constant turbulence at the top. Again, children, teens and YA characters make this fairly natural. You want auto-baked tension, "change," stakes written at a "10" regardless of what they may be? Here you go.

I'd never read this before, but today I did a search for "still waters run deep" and found this use of the idea in a fable from 1692:

A Country-man that was to pass a River, sounded it up and down to try where it was most fordable: and upon Trial he made this Observation on't: Where the Water ran Smooth, he found it Deepest; and on the contrary, Shallowest where it made most Noise. There's More Danger in a Reserv'd and Silent, than in a Noisy, Babbling Enemy.​

—well, that last bit was true of Munny, heh. But sometimes, when I read that constant emotional turbulence in other stories, the constant bickering, the bursting forth of charged words inspired by baby-selfishness and insecurity, and....etc., there's a shallowness to it.

So for me, it's not so much a question of whether a character has fundamental character traits, whether positive or negative traits, etc., but how these are put to use in the telling of the story.

Yeah, again, I think a lot of this comes down to primal stakes actually. Stakes that actually matter vs. having a character get worked up about shallow things like a breakup with a casual girlfriend. Deeper/more primal stakes = deeper character that then doesn't have to be all teen angsty all the time.

I was trying to think of a writer known for being "cool" emotionally vs. "warm". Some writers love to explore feelings on the page, others loathe it. Hemingway is the best example I can think of as a "cool" writer. If I think of the book The Sun Also Rises the main character is rather stoic. In fact, I would argue that not a whole heck of a lot happens as far as "shallow turbulence" through the entire story. There is very little action. Only a few arguments. The rest is sort of left to the reader to figure out... and boy, what a story it is.

We see this character as missing something. But we don't know what. He was in an accident in the war. That is all we know. We see that he loves this woman, but he does nothing to get her. In fact, he plays the "friend" almost to a fault, while she sleeps around with almost every man they meet. She is constantly flirting with other guys around him, going off with other men, getting engaged (but they never last)... and the whole time this guy picks her up and drops her off and buys her drinks and longs for her. The whole book is heartbreaking and the reader wonders why? Why doesn't he do anything about this? Why doesn't he tell her how he feels? But all the turbulence is under the surface. Still waters running very deep. Nothing happening on the surface.

It isn't until the end they are in the cab together. He has picked her up once again from a hotel room and she hints that they should have been so happy together. They should have been more than they are.

But they can't be. Because, the most primal (I think) of all primal stakes... He had his *thing* blown off in the war. And so he believes he can't be anything to her, and she sleeps around but never settles on anyone else.

I'm pretty sure a caveman could understand having his *thing* blown off and the psychological and physical repercussions of that.

So when the stakes are primal not a lot has to happen on the surface.

 

[Nimue]

But what would be the "opposite" of Still waters run deep? Heh, constant turbulence at the top. Again, children, teens and YA characters make this fairly natural. You want auto-baked tension, "change," stakes written at a "10" regardless of what they may be? Here you go.

...

But sometimes, when I read that constant emotional turbulence in other stories, the constant bickering, the bursting forth of charged words inspired by baby-selfishness and insecurity, and....etc., there's a shallowness to it.

To run with this, and head in a direction that possibly-maybe brings us back around to the OP...

I very much enjoy reading and writing romance, but I find myself gravitating towards characters who are kind and courteous in love. Relationships that you could see lasting for a long time, quiet though they might be. What I don't particularly like is characters that are controlling, mercurial, bickering or distrusting, and stories where these flaws are blamed on being in love. Power imbalances, coercion, or deceit as a central plot element of a romance? Not my cup of tea. But all these things are often used in romance lit and rom-coms and subplots of other works because they bring inherent conflict. Things that would be rather undesirable in real life are currency for the storyteller.

I don't know that I would go so far as to call this route shallow--another viewpoint might call a reliance on external conflict and a lack of deeply-flawed characters shallow writing, to be honest. Neither is easy to do well and in a compelling way. I just know that bickering doesn't appeal to me in the same way that people being consistently good, trusting, and honest with their partners does. Fortunately, I'm currently writing for an audience of one, so nobody need agree with me on this...

 

[TheCrystallineEntity]

It's funny; on this other forum I frequent, I usually say random things or try to insert something meaningful while everyone else is having conversations around me.

^

I very much enjoy reading and writing romance, but I find myself gravitating towards characters who are kind and courteous in love. Relationships that you could see lasting for a long time, quiet though they might be. What I don't particularly like is characters that are controlling, mercurial, bickering or distrusting, and stories where these flaws are blamed on being in love.

Kind and courteous works well for me, as well. I highly dislike couples in stories who seem to always be at each other's throats, so to speak, or are sarcastic or actually mean to each other, as if they aren't really loving.

 

[Svrtnsse]

It's kind of to my surprise that I found myself enjoying writing the romantic parts of my stories. It didn't match at all with my original idea of what I wanted to write. It's a pleasant surprise though, and it gives me ideas for stories I previously wouldn't have thought of.

 

[Christopher Michael]

I think you're doing a false equivalence by saying that being unstable means it's on the verge of blowing up. Uranium-235 is an unstable isotope, but that doesn't mean that it's on the verge of a fission chain reaction.

Although I don't disagree, we're responding to the concept Chessie raised that "There's always something going on that could lead people to separate. Always." Because that's a blatant falsehood.

 

[Christopher Michael]

But on a cautionary note, I think we should perhaps refrain from discussing the inherent stability or instability (by the way these are sword fencing terms as well) of marriages by way of personal examples. It doesn't really help the conversation (either way) and risks people personalizing things too much.

Valid point. I was simply bringing up the point that not all marriages are inherently unstable. Personal experience is all I've got by which to prove that, well that and the aforementioned statistics.

On a completely impersonal note, I don't see how stating "all marriages are inherently unstable" makes a good premise for writing love or romance. I'm not arguing that the unstable relationships, the ones that do face potentially relationship ending situations and manage to either survive, or end up back together, are somehow bad. I just get bored with every single relationship in fiction having to go through that. Give me a married, unioned, or whatever bonding/pairing you feel like having, who is rock steady. They disagree, argue, sometimes even fight. But there's never any doubt, at all, that they are committed to each other and that they're going to be together through the entire story. They face the worst life has to throw at them in the fic, and they don't budge in their commitment to each other.

 

[Christopher Michael]

It's kind of to my surprise that I found myself enjoying writing the romantic parts of my stories.

It's always kind of surprised me how much I enjoy writing that aspect. I can't write, and have precisely zero interest in writing, a pure romance. But that interplay inside my genre or cross-genre fic? I love it, and live for that interplay between characters. It's almost more fun when the romance catches me by surprise.

 

[TheKillerBs]

Although I don't disagree, we're responding to the concept Chessie raised that "There's always something going on that could lead people to separate. Always." Because that's a blatant falsehood.

Not only do I disagree about it being a falsehood, I feel that calling it such is belittling the labour that the people involved in these healthy for-life marriages put into their relationships to keep them healthy and for-life.