Seanan McGuire (seanan_mcguire) wrote,
Seanan McGuire
seanan_mcguire

  • Mood:
  • Music:

The art of the breakup.

I am a media consumer; I consume media. I watch more hours of television a month than is probably strictly healthy (especially given how much of it is "reality" television). I go to the movies an average of once every three weeks. And as for reading, well...let's just say that there's a reason the city I live in considers my house to be a library, rather than a residence. (The cats appreciate my reading habit, as it causes me to build many interesting stacks of books for them to knock over. The housemates do not, as it causes me to build many interesting stacks of books for the cats to knock over. There's no pleasing everyone.) My interests are broad and easily modified to suit the type and quality of the work at hand. If you're looking for someone to consume your media, I'm probably your girl.

All this media consumption, however, comes with a price, and that price is a tendency to notice—and sometimes be bothered by—trends. Most recently, it's been an unexpected consequence of that old fairy tale saw, the happily ever after. You know the one I mean. Where they meet and kiss and marry and run off to live forever and ever in unchanging bliss. At least until the sequel, where she dies and he remarries and the new wife is horrible but luckily their daughter is beautiful and smart and looking for a husband, and...

Yeah.

This seems to have created the belief that once a couple hooks up, that's it, it's over, no more fun, no more fantastic adventures, no more anything but a rapid excuse to break them up. They can get together for good at the end of your story, but dude, once they're together? The happy ever after kicks in, and your options are "breakup" or "death." And it's not limited to the shows and stories aimed at a female audience, since we're supposedly the ones who are only in it for the smootchies; most of the relationships in male-targeted media meet the same end, which seems weird to me. After all, once you're together, you have access to regular sex, and you don't have to do all that sentimental "building a relationship" stuff. Maintaining, yes, but building, no. And yet only the sitcom couples who were married before the show started (or got married in the premiere) seem to stay together.

As Dave Davenport once said: "Where do I want to be in five years? Sleeping with a homicidal maniac, or sleeping with a homicidal maniac who occasionally cleans my toilet?"

I find this trend deeply upsetting. I mean, maybe this is my romantic streak showing through, but I like to believe that once I have invested in the relationships of fictional people—fictional people who were, in many cases, willing to spend years flirting and falling and feinting toward finally hooking up—that maybe I'll get some of the payoff. Not three episodes or one volume of the writers realizing they never figured out how this would work beyond "sweaty kitchen sex and SCENE" and breaking them up in a prefunctory, often utterly silly way. You sold me this relationship! It was for sale, and I wanted it, and now that I have it, I don't want a factory recall! By the time most fictional couples hook up, I am sick and fucking tired of the longing looks, the swooning sighs, the silly banter, all of it. I want them to get it out of their systems, settle down, and get on to telling whatever larger story they used to lure me in in the first place. What I don't want is another five seasons of sighing and swooning. What I don't want is the sort of breakup that could be resolved with thirty seconds of conversation and maybe a flowchart.

Romantic tension is awesome. But seriously, people! So is having a lasting romantic relationship! Where can I find the Nick and Nora Charles of today? No, really, where?

It doesn't help that, again thanks to the fairy tale structure, things get rushed like whoa as they try to give the media consumers "what they want." And yeah, we're a filthy-minded lot; we want Character A and Character B naked and sweaty five minutes after they walk in. But we're willing to wait if you'll promise to give us something that lasts for more than fifteen minutes. Promise me four seasons of Veronica and Logan making out after every successful case, and you will have my full attention for the four seasons it takes to get me there.

This is why I take my time. This is why I let my characters figure out what they want. Because I refuse to take it away from them just because I never bothered to consider the long-term consequences. And no, I don't believe that romance only belongs in the happy ever after.

I want my Nick and Nora.
Tags: contemplation, literary critique
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 113 comments
Previous
← Ctrl ← Alt
Next
Ctrl → Alt →
"What I don't want is the sort of breakup that could be resolved with thirty seconds of conversation and maybe a flowchart."
This, alone, would have me following your every word.
I tend to think of this as a problem with the American-episodic system. And more importantly, the multi-author nature of that system.

Different writers write different episodes and they act as if they have lists to work from to describe the characters.

"Character X, is brave, like playing poker, and has previous romantic history with character Y. They can't get together because Character Y needs to be able to have romantic tension with bit characters encountered in each new episode."

And then the writer goes to the appropriate supervisor and says "Hey, could we do a special episode where Character X and Y get together?"

And the supervisor says "Well, alright. But they reset to normal at the end of this story-arc."

That's how I picture it working anyway.
That...makes a sad amount of sense.
Agree with choices of Eve Dallas and Rourke, and Harriet Vane and Lord Peter Wimsey.

"Tiger and Del" books by Jennifer Roberson? They manage to do plenty as a couple, incuding explore the differences between their respective cultures.

David Eddings has characters who manage to maintain relationships despite severe challenges - Polgara, for one. And Sparhawk.

Having said that, only Eve Dallas and Rourke are 'recent'.

Definitely an identified slot in the market here - a couple who manage to lead kick-ass lives, despite being in a committed relationship!
a couple who manage to lead kick-ass lives, despite being in a committed relationship!

I'd like to see an action series where the main characters, married to each other, continue their lives as international jewel thieves or face-changing superspies or whatever, but now knowing that they always have a partner to count on.

Could be fun if they have to juggle their high-octane profession with a bland suburban neighborhood facade, or bringing up kids, or facing down HOAs and so forth.

Re: Couples

lonotter

7 years ago

Re: Couples

seanan_mcguire

7 years ago

Deleted comment

That's sort of my take on things, too.

Deleted comment

It still is. And it confuses the crap out of me.

Deleted comment

The man can be an idiot; the woman has to be a saint. It's crazy.
Booth and Brennan on Bones might be the closest to Nick and Nora that I've found.
And they can't resist messing with that, which drives me buggy.
Wrong genre, but I'll throw in Barbara and Tom Good from the 70's British comedy _The Good Life_ as a shining portrayal of a married couple managing the Happily Ever After.
Excellent addition.
I was going to comment on the effect this has on real people, and how they think about/pursue relationships, but it wound up being it's own post.

http://ash-of-roses.livejournal.com/45499.html
And an excellent post it is. Thank you for sharing.
On our train home today me and my fella sat next to this lovely old couple. They where on thier way down to london to celebrate 201 years. She had just turned 80, he had just turned 71 and they had just had thier 50th wedding annivercery :). They where funny and interesting, she called him her toy-boy and rolled her eyes when he told us about the history of fencing, he went off to get her a coffee and brought back extra milk because he knows that train coffee is stronger then she would normaly have it.

Anyway, it was a pretty great thing to see...

Also, this gives me hope that Toby will get some flow-chart action at some point!

Awww, fantastic!
I think I really haven't seen couples who are loving romantic couples (not just married) AND something else since Hart to Hart, with Jonathan and Jennifer, those rich, jet-setting folks solving mysteries back in the seventies.
Sadly, I think you're right.
Frankly, inability to write married romance is a sign that the author doesn't really know how to handle realistic romance. (Or if they think it is realistic, they may have serious real-life relationsihp issues).

"What I don't want is the sort of breakup that could be resolved with thirty seconds of conversation and maybe a flowchart" -- this is considered bad romance writing over at Smart Bitches, Trashy Books. (Love a romance review site where Nora Roberts regularly turns up to comment on the entries!)

Other people have pointed out some of my favorites at writing successful, married romance:

- Nora Roberts's "In Death" series (Eve & Roarke)
- Elizabeth Peters's Emerson & Peabody.
- Lois McMaster Bujold's Vorkosigan saga.

I'd like to also mention Beatrice Small, whose "Heiress" series is a multi-generational historical story about a remarkable woman and her equally remarkable daughters and their husbands. Their mother is still happily married to her last husband and lover by the time we get through the story of the third daughter, and the senior daughters are still happily married in the later daughter's stories, usually with kids and are in and out of the stories as secondary characters.
Very nice additions. Thank you.
Damned straight. This bothered me in Buffy (over, and over, and over again) and it bothered me a bit in B5 (though at least they managed the Sheridan/D'Lenn relationship right). I'm fine with not all relationships last -- that's normal. But their lifetime in TVland is just ludicrious, apparently because the screenwriters only have one story (in that region, anyway) to tell.
Sadly true.
As for me, I like happily married couples. And I don't really like infidelity in stories, as too often it turns into 'oh my wife/husband is soooo boring, I think I'll have sex with this guy/girl instead'. Honestly, there was one book I read that was supposed to be about interracial friendship, but the adulterous love story the main character was having with her brother-in-law took over the whole thing. Not to mention the fact that she complained a lot. And she was forty-one and he twenty-nine.
And I have at least three stories planned that don't really have any romance EXCEPT between already-married people.
I've read only one book about them (Men at Arms), but Sam and Sybil Vimes from Discworld have been happily married for quite a few books now.
True.
Previous
← Ctrl ← Alt
Next
Ctrl → Alt →