Relationship Advice for Fictional Couples: Not Every Couple Solves Problems the Same Way

I do consider John Gottman one of the better marriage advice book writers (the statement here is relative--the first two books are enough). In his books, Gottman points out that not every couple solves problems by "talking them out." 

His researchers discovered that successful couples have different methods of arguing and then moving on. (Success was based on the couple staying together over a multi-year study.) Such couples developed methods of so-called conflict resolution that might involve talking but not automatically. One member of a couple might drive around in a car and then come home. One member might get started on a project.  

After all, "2/3rds of relationship problems are unsolvable." Each member of the couple has to find ways to accept the unsolvable parts.

The important point, of course, is the method for managing conflict has to work for both members of a couple. 

My favorite successful example in BL is Can and Tin from Love by Chance 2. Tin, who is a serious romantic, will often make an emotional demand and then pout when Can doesn't go along. Can will then cajole him--in Can's very direct way--back into easy compliance.

It is the kind of approach that could backfire if Tin was being manipulative and Can felt coerced. But the actors manage to give the characters an easy low-key "yup, okay" attitude during their negotiations. After time, the pattern grows into a kind of communication. The pattern IS how they tell each other about stuff, and they do it on a constant basis. 

Consequently, it is one of those relationships I give a long-term chance. 

Relationship Advice for Fictional Couples: Perry and Jordan Cox

So regarding the problem of two critical alphas going at each other, can this type of relationship work? 

Sure!

Gottman points out that "critical resolution" techniques, so praised by marriage therapists, largely don't work because successful couples don't actually solve their troubles that way (and most troubles are, in fact, unsolvable). 

Referring to one exchange, he points out, ["Charlie and Belle] have been having similar in-your-face discussions for years. They don't end angrily, either...There's a lot of affection and laughter as they hash this out...Clearly, there's something very positive going on between them that overrides their argumentative style." (13). 

In other words, rather than contempt, the couple fall back on affection and laughter.

Between Dr. Cox and his wife/girlfriend/ex-wife/wife Jordan, (1) Jordan's no-nonsense attitude means she is more likely to tell Dr. Cox to cut his crap than to challenge him to death and (2) they both have a sense of humor.

Romance novels throughout the 20th century are surprisingly lacking in humor (I exclude Heyer). I think part of this was the writers, but I think part of it was the industry. Romance readers nowadays pretty much expect humor in their romances from Family Ties cuteness to hilarious banter of Powell as Loy as Nick & Nora.

And it is far, far easier to take pushiness when everyone throws up their hands and laughs at the end of the day.

Relationship Advice for Fictional Couples: Gottman's Principles

John M. Gottman is responsible for the Gottman Love Lab that looks at what actually works between couples and what doesn't. 

I chose Gottman to begin this series of posts because Gottman is less concerned with telling couples how to be successful and more concerned with figuring out how successful couples function. Consequently, he is less concerned with saying, "That isn't what husbands or wives are supposed to be," and saying, "Here is what works, folks, based on research."

As a romance reader, I like to read about all kinds of couples, not just the so-called acceptable couples!

These posts will each focus on a particular couple. The two posts here will focus on Jordan and Perry Cox from Scrubs. 

A little background:

Excellent illustrations of Devil in Winter

from a blog of romance manga

For most of the 20th century, romance novels used demure, innocent heroines alongside domineering, brusque heroes. Towards the end of the 20th century, this combo pack fell out of fashion. It has thankfully come back--that is, it is currently more than okay to have a feisty, worldly heroine but it is also okay to have a demure, innocent heroine (the best example of the latter type in my opinion is the heroine of Kleypas's Devil in Winter who is demure and innocent while fundamentally tough).

However, for about a decade or so (basically, the 80s), it was considered...dare I say "politically incorrect"...to use demure, innocent heroines. Romance writers began presenting readers with pushy, opinionated heroines.

Now, there is nothing wrong with pushy, opinionated heroines (says this opinionated, occasionally pushy blog writer). However, Gottman would be able to pinpoint a problem.

The problem:

1. The heroines were (still) paired with domineering, brusque heroes (who liked having their opinions challenged). The pairing often resulted in mutual contempt, which Gottman pinpoints as one of the primary "horsemen" of an incipient divorce.

To be continued...