In my post about Christie relationships, I mention that "sometimes the passionate exuberant gal really does want the limp, waffling idiot."
This is Sittaford Mystery, in which the practical, straight-talking fiancee tackles the case in order to save her rather weak-willed, not entirely ethical, easily led husband-to-be.
She doesn't manipulate anyone but she does use male appreciation to her own ends. Consequently, the far-more-deserving reporter who helps her is (momentarily) hurt when she clarifies that she always intended to return to her fiance. She never pretended otherwise. Despite she and the reporter working so well together, she fully intends to marry the waffling semi-criminal blah guy.
The reporter's hurt fades the moment a new story comes along. But the event points to one of Christie's great insights. She was willing to write the classic Harlequin romance where the supposedly domineering, strong-charactered Darcy gets the vivacious Lizzie. But she honestly found it possible that the vivacious Lizzie might want...well, not Mr. Collins exactly but a good-natured, less sycophantic, equally weak-willed husband.
However, even with Christie, such romances don't take center stage. Watching other people be bullied into romantic feelings is like watching the more unlikable parts of Say, Anything or Clueless (or Emma) where friends pressure friends into dating certain people.
The closest pairing--and most amusing--variation of this archetype among romances is the scatter-brained lover who requires an organized lover to stay organized. Or the accident-prone lover who requires a more organized lover to...not die.
