 |
Don't believe it, ladies! (Kate's addition.) |
The best writers agree with me and tackle the problem of same-but-different or love-ain't-easy with panache.
Even the best writers, however, stumble over the limits of tolerance. Some things people are just not okay with.
I'm not only talking about obvious limits like incest and pedophilia and abuse (and even those limits vary by culture). Many writers, like most societies, draw lines at certain dynamics. BDSM is okay--except when . . . Role-playing is okay--except when . . . Traditional roles are okay--except when . . . Non-traditional roles are okay--except when . . .
 |
| In the Law & Order episode, the parents play power games |
| with each other. Fine! Except they use their kids to do it. |
And the truth is, intelligent and insightful people should make distinctions about what works and what doesn't. Love is not an overwhelming justification for abandoning spouses, significant others, family members, and social responsibilities. Shoot, even Lois & Clark agreed that Clark should leave the relationship to save his planet.
However, making distinctions immediately raises the issue that distinctions ought to be made at all. Once the possibility occurs, the question becomes, "Well, then, what are the distinctions?"
Where's the line?
The fear here is that acknowledging the line (some things are not okay; some things are absolutely okay) will lead to bigotry and/or imprisoning/damaging relationships: people who leave due to social pressure; people who stay due to social pressure. If we agree that a father abandoning his wife and child for another woman is not okay, does that mean that a father abandoning his wife and child for a man is also not okay? Wiring, rather than just lust, has now entered the equation. Does that change the equation? If we agree that it is okay, are we giving tacit approval to deadbeat fathers? If we agree that it's not okay, are we saying that all gay men should stay in the closet? Whatever we decide, what is to stop us from making other designations about who belongs together and who doesn't?
Spencer Tracy's Matt Drayton in Guess Who Is Coming to Dinner
has to face the reality that his classroom liberalism isn't strong
enough for him to fully accept his daughter--raised quite trustingly on his principles--marrying an actual black man. (Not at first.) It's Sidney
Poitier, so the entire audience rolls its eyes at Drayton's hesitation. (I mean, come on!) More interestingly, however, Poitier's character, John Prentice, has to
deal with his parents' reservations. The line obviously doesn't have to end in bigotry. The point is: the issues are there and need to be addressed. Not every romance novel has time to tackle such issues completely, to explain why these dynamics are okay but those are not. However, I will maintain the following:
All romance writers should know their personal philosophy regarding acceptable versus non-acceptable relationships. Even if not addressed in the story, the writer's philosophy will become apparent through the writing.
The
most basic definition of acceptable is a relationship of consent in
which no one is harmed. Versus non-acceptable, a relationship lacking
consent which involves harm.
Here's the complication:
"consent" and "harm" don't mean the same thing to everyone. And even if we (the readers) know what the characters mean, that doesn't mean both characters agree. And even if both characters agree that doesn't automatically make other characters bad/evil/unsupportive if they don't immediately climb on-board.
Writers need to figure out what they mean, so they can convey the relationship's development honestly. How else can the writers' characters achieve a happy ending?
