Romantic love vs. platonic love in a novel

It depends on the story. But personally, I do tire of the notion there must be a romantic subplot. Mine doesn't have one. Forcing a romantic love would destroy the characters' integrities. Platonic love is a good way to describe it.

Sometimes, though, readers will want your characters to get together no matter what your intention. In an essay writing class in school, one kid wrote about his travels. In one scene, he wrote about how, without a place to sleep one night, he stayed in the back of a woman's car. He said nothing about sex. But my teacher said, "Everyone in this room thinks you two did it." And we did.

It's kind of ingrained in reader brains--you put a male and female character together, there's supposed to be romance.

kaitie said:

Alright, I was just thinking about this because someone mentioned a romantic arc in their story in another thread. I know that often we have a love interest in a story. My two main characters are a dude and a chick, and while I think there's a bit of chemistry and my goal is to make the reader want them together, nothing ever really comes of this. Well, not in the course of the story, and unless I ever write the sequel I intend to leave it to the reader to decide afterward (I'm not sure they'd like my answer haha).

But when I think about my characters, there is definitely a very, very strong attachment by the end. I'd even call it love. They are incredibly protective of one another, they care about what happens, etc. The thing is, this never progresses to a romantic love in the course of the story.

I think it's because they just don't know each other that well, and even more than that, they're too darn busy trying to stay alive and figure out a way out of the problem to really even think about it.

I'm just wondering how many of you write characters with platonic love, but without the romantic aspect of it. Which do you prefer as a reader?

Click to expand...

I don't think all stories need a romantic subplot, but the bolded part here would leave me disappointed. If you set me up with the expectation for something to happen and it doesn't, I'll feel cheated. This is just my personal preference, though, and I'm sure others will differ.

The only exception (for me) would be if it's MG. In MG, I sometimes like romance to be hinted at for those kids who are into that, but not fully developed so as not to turn off those kids that just aren't "there" yet.

I feel like really good friendships (real "best friends") are a form of platonic love... of course, that really depends on your definition of "love".

It's not uncommon for people to have closer, more honest relationships with their "buddies" than the people they are romantically involved with.

As Harry said to Sally, "I don't think it's possible for a man and a woman to be just friends..."

Anyway, it is possible, but if the dude and the chick are both single, and they have strong attachment to each other, and they're not gay... it would be difficult for the readers to rationalize why they don't get romantic unless you present some strong situations or reasons for them to only be platonic friends, especially if you don't present any kind of sexual attraction or tension at all - which to me would be even more difficult to pull off, to say "they're not attracted to each other and nothing happened."

But if there's sexual attraction and tension, but they are too busy, etc. to even think about romance, or if they are already romantically involved with other people, then as long as you stay true to the characters, I think you can pull off a platonic relationship. But don't ignore that sexual tension. I've been platonic with some of my female friends but there's never a lack of interest, even mutual interest -- just a lack of opportunities (they're already involved, for example) or that I was just too chicken to pursue them.

I was thinking about Apollo and Starbuck in Battlestar Galactica -- although they did get romantic once and they have a strong mutual sexual attraction... for the most part of the series, they're just "great friends" and eventually they ended up with other people but still remained friends. To me, that sort of relationship is more realistic because you're not pigeonholing them in one thing or another or forcing them to either be romantic or platonic. We acknowledge that they are attracted to each other and when opportunities arise they go for it -- but decided it isn't for them -- but ultimately they're best friends first and will always be. It's a complex relationship and I personally prefer that because it fits the characters.

If there's chemistry but you want to leave the audience hanging, make sure you commit to that opinion. It doesn't necessarily follow that because there's tension they'll get together as a couple but don't mention it once and then have them all sister and brotherly again.

There are some books that just beat you in the head with this whole romantic aspect. I'm currently reading a trilogy turned saga, and the author constantly tells us how lonely the MC is until he meets this one woman whom he instantly falls in love with. I was like, "dear mercy please don't let them get together" and at first it didn't seem like it was going to happen. The woman was distant and tried not to get connected, I was pumped but in the end the readers could blatantly see that she was falling for him and it was just annoying. I do think you can have 2 friends of the opposite sex be just friends, there could be an subplot of being sexually attracted to eachother cause honestly who hasn't thought of at least 1 of their guy or girl friends in that way?

Or they could screw romance and just shag each other, and then go separate ways? There is such a concept as a f--- buddy.

Maxinquaye said:

Or they could screw romance and just shag each other, and then go separate ways? There is such a concept as a f--- buddy.

Click to expand...

They usually aren't people who have deep love for each other, though, as the term "buddy" implies. "Fuckbestfriends" isn't a category for a reason.

IceCreamEmpress said:

They usually aren't people who have deep love for each other, though, as the term "buddy" implies. "Fuckbestfriends" isn't a category for a reason.

Click to expand...

I guess it would be a problem if you put sex up on a shrine and said "You can only have sex with people you love".

*shrug*

It depends on the character, but people have been known to let off steam without having to many hang-ups about it.

But can a man and a woman really be best friends with each other while having "benefits" as well? To me, that really seems unrealistic. It's not because people only have sex with people they love, but if they already "love" each other and then they have loveless sex? How does that work? From my experience, you either are emotional detached so you could be "friends with benefits" or you're completely involved with each other. Like Apollo and Starbuck -- they don't just boink each other whenever they feel like it to let off steam, because they care about each other too much -- it's impossible to separate love and sex when you're having BOTH with that person.

So basically they're each other's whore

Cool topic on an issue I'm dealing with in my Nano right now. I have three main characters, so there's kind of a platonic love triangle going on (it's less about sex and more about who's more important to who). One third of the love triangle is coming to terms with the fact that she's asexual, another third was abused and can barely stomach the thought of sex (so that leaves the final third of the triangle if a tough spot). So I do think a platonic relationship is possible, though I often think my characters could save themselves a lot of trouble if they just had an orgy.

IceCreamEmpress said:

They usually aren't people who have deep love for each other, though, as the term "buddy" implies. "Fuckbestfriends" isn't a category for a reason.

Click to expand...

Hmm... this is blatantly untrue. The same guy or gal that had a one night or a f-buddy relationship with someone, can have deep love for another one.

maestrowork said:

it's impossible to separate love and sex when you're having BOTH with that person.

Click to expand...

(see bold quote)

I don't agree you can't be really good friends with a f-buddy. I think it's required that you could go out over a beer later - there has to be something there for the buddydom to last.

Going back to the original question, in the Modesty Blaise series by O'Connell, the two main characters have an unbreakable bond and an almost symbiotic relationship, but it never turns sexual. In a way, they're closer than lovers.

It's implied (or stated outright) that their bond is far more important to them than relieving any sexual tension--except there's actually very little tension between them, and no real jealousy. It's mentioned occasionally throughout the series that if one of them ever got married, the one left behind would miss the other, but would be happy that his/her partner was happy. Ultimately, though, they seem to choose their partnership over romantic love.

This realtionship is questioned by other characters--mostly those who are attracted to either Modesty or Wille Garvin--who can't understand how two people who are so close couldn't be lovers, too. But it works for them, and I think it works for the reader . .

> I'm just wondering how many of you write characters with platonic love,
> but without the romantic aspect of it.

It's the sexual tension that makes it interesting. Just check Maddie and Dave in the TV series Moonlighting, Laura & Steel in Remington Steel, Markowitz and Kelsey in LA Law, or Tony and Carol in Wire in the Blood (UK). On the opposite side of the spectrum, Cheers jumped the shark when Sam and Diane had sex.

-cb

Telstar said:

Hmm... this is blatantly untrue. The same guy or gal that had a one night or a f-buddy relationship with someone, can have deep love for another one.

Click to expand...

Fuck buddies don't usually have deep love for each other. Otherwise, they're probably a couple already.

kaitie said:

I think it's because they just don't know each other that well, and even more than that, they're too darn busy trying to stay alive and figure out a way out of the problem to really even think about it.

Click to expand...

Honestly, if I were on the brink of death, I'd have sex on my mind at all times. Perhaps I'm just a pervert though. =(

cbenoi1 said:

> I'm just wondering how many of you write characters with platonic love,
> but without the romantic aspect of it.

It's the sexual tension that makes it interesting. Just check Maddie and Dave in the TV series Moonlighting, Laura & Steel in Remington Steel, Markowitz and Kelsey in LA Law, or Tony and Carol in Wire in the Blood (UK). On the opposite side of the spectrum, Cheers jumped the shark when Sam and Diane had sex.

-cb

Click to expand...

Some characters will have platonic love- otherwise the characters could only be friends with their own gender. And there's a scale of friendship.

Tension is interesting but the danger is that you get too hormonal and break the tension. If you have the characters get together early, people will be sick of them as a couple.
But naturally the tension has to build to something; in one of my stories, a character makes a move and even though we shouldn't want the characters to get together you're sort of curious. She gets rejected.

Watch Black Narcissus for sexual repression.

Telstar said:

Hmm... this is blatantly untrue. The same guy or gal that had a one night or a f-buddy relationship with someone, can have deep love for another one.

Click to expand...

You misread my point. Fuckbuddies are buddies who fuck, not best friends who love each other deeply who fuck. "Best friends who love each other deeply who fuck" are generally called "romantic partners" or "spouses" or whatever.

Having a fuckbuddy just doesn't work. It will last for a few weeks, but it's a railroad track: either backwards or forwards. Back to when the person isn't in your life, or forward to a relationship.

I understand emotionally detached sex, but a one-nighter is a whole different animal from a fuckbuddy. Sharing that experience with someone, over the course of several times, creates emotional attachment; it's only human.

I can't have a platonic relationship with an attractive girl. I can with a girl I don't find attractive, but if I think sex when I look at a girl then I know there's no hope of being "just friends". So, I am always very skeptical when I come across platonic relationships in novels because it seems like every character is smoking hot. To me,
physical attraction cannot breed platonic love.