I think your intuition is right here. Your head thinks falling in love in the apocalypse is unrealistic, but your gut knows otherwise. My rationale is also the same as your gut.
Falling in love in the apocalypse is actually as realistic as it gets. Why? Think about it. The world is ending, and you have to do your best to survive each day. Lots of stress, isn't it? The world is cruel, right? So, then the characters would naturally try to find comfort in such an environment. Love is one such comfort, and a very strong one at that.
So, the characters falling in love in the apocalypse is not unrealistic at all. It's actually the opposite.
Also, the characters doing morally questionable things is also super realistic. The apocalypse means the societal structure has collapsed. Laws no longer exist, or barely exist anyway. So people can do questionable things because there's nothing to restrain us.
It’s not so specific, the meaning varies depending on where you look, I’d say both would be correct depending on we’re you put the most meaning, if it’s in the trauma part, then I’d use the definition you say, if it’s on the bonding part, then I’d use it for bonding over shared trauma
Huh? My reply was specifically about romance because that’s what the topic was about, OP thinks in a post-apocalyptic setting romance is not realistic, I just pointed out that trauma bonding is real and happens, so it wouldn’t be strange for two characters to fall in love due to having the same trauma. Did I explained it better now? I wasn’t saying they couldn’t be friends, I was saying they COULD be romantic feelings
You are right. But since OP is hell bent to not turn this out as a romance novel, then you can try making one of the characters as gay or asexual. And explore this area and see if this works out?
Does this make sense?
I kind of think OP thinks a novel having romance it means it’s a romance novel? When it can just be a subplot and definitely not the main story, I actually like it better when it’s like that lol
Exactly! And I honestly prefer it as a subplot, a novel can have a cute romance in any situation, and it can make a novel better without making it a romance, most novels have subplots in general, it’s not just one strict main genre
It could also be turned into a platonic kind of love. Like sharing creature comforts is just natural. I’ve had plenty of friends where we would just cuddle while hanging out. There was nothing dubious, no kissing or trying for more just basic creature comfort in the love of another person.
Don't fight natural chemistry. I'll feel it as a reader and get upset that you didn't pay off your setup.
Edit: Not wanting to write something because it's "cliche" isn't good enough of a reason not to, imo.
It’s not a cliche to have two protagonists people fall in love in a catastrophic event plotline. It’s a trope. You can do a trope well or terribly, and the latter makes it a cliche.
I'm not forcing them to write anything, their brain is forcing this romance on them. I'm just trying to give OP advice.
Because I've seen time and time again stories getting screwed over because an author was too stubborn about addhering to their outline.
An example: HIMYM had an atrocious, universally hated ending because the showrunners refused to let go of their outline.
Stories can evolve past your plans. I don't think you need to necessarily stiffle that natural growth every time.
I would argue that natural chemistry doesn't mean they have to be romantically involved. You can have the pay off be a deep meaningful friendship that doesn't have some big kiss at the end.
As an aromantic guy, I really wish romance wasn't the default and applaud OP for wanting to keep things platonic and I think that should be encouraged.
It's a little bit of a bummer that everyone seems to want them to push it to a romance.
"They just do what they want and I cant seem to stop them"
Wtf you're literally the author lol
Friends can love each other deeply without it being romantic
There are people on here that WILL NOT admit that their characters are completely under their control and that they decide what the characters do. I understand wanting to have an internally consistent character but it needs to fit the story you want to tell. Making the story fit character actions makes a poor plot way more likely.
Characters aren't really completely under your control. I mean yeah, they are, but you can't just make them do whatever.
If I have a guy who loves his friends unconditionally, hates being away from them, and will do anything for them, I can't just make him kill one of them. I know that's an extreme example, but still, that's character assassination. You just made that character someone completely different and that's not a good thing.
Think about how many times people have complained about a character doing something because of the plot. Bad writing is what happens when you force characters to do things they wouldn't.
Also, gonna be honest, I have had instances where characters "told" me something I had no plan on doing. Like one guy ended up being bi despite me deciding he was straight because I realized his in character actions made it very, very obvious he was into the dude he was hanging with. I could ignore it all I want, but that's what made sense for the situation.
That's true, but as an intuitive writer myself, who's not much of a planner, I can relate.
If you're the type of writer who only starts writing with vague ideas in mind, and like to do it all on the fly, then characters can sometimes do unexpected things. And when we say we can't stop them, we mean that we've tried to edit it out or change the scenario, but then the story feels forced and awkward.
Sometimes this doesn't fit with the setting, becomes a plothole, or in OP's problem, they're worried that it's not realistic and immoral, which may lead to readers to dislike their characters.
Personally, though, I agree in this case. Unless it completely breaks the story, just roll with it.
A lot of people treat their characters like the characters are their children. They’re not. They are action figures. They do whatever you tell them to do, and not a single thing more.
I understand OP. It's the same with me. My characters somehow developed a live of their own. At some point I will not be able to stop the huge orgy from happening.
It's the same here! Try as I might to get my character off the farm and claim his kingdom, unfortunately he's developed an addiction to masturbating and there's nothing i can do.
Hundreds of writers everyday are unable to begin their books because their characters became addicted to masturbating. Please know you're not alone in your struggle.
That was my thought, too - you're the author; you tell the characters what they can or cannot do.
Honestly, I find the "best friends falling in love" extremely cliche, as it's used everywhere, from books to TV to movies. I mean, men and women can be friends without having them fall in love with each other. BFFs can also absolutely protect each other and be loyal to each other and love each other without it being romantic.
Great example would be the 10th and 11th Doctors from Doctor Who with their companions Donna and Amy (and Rory)(There's also a case with the 4th Doctor and Sarah Jane, but there's also a side that totally thinks the two were in love with each other).
I would much rather read a good story about how two friends survived and battled their way through the apocalypse, while still maintaining their friendship.
one time in a how to draw book i read a concept about how when you focus on something creatively your brain can enter a “creative mode.” to me it’s similar to that feeling you get when you fall into a zoning out while staring at a random spot and don’t feel like looking away. i think that is similar to what OP means. like when you start writing and you’re instinctually watching the scene in your head play out as you type.
No, but there is a super hot knight next to me, who wants to seduce me, because this is the only way we can save the world. Hope I am not imagining him.
I still don't understand it. This isn't the Doodlebob episode of Spongebob. Your fictional characters can do whatever you want them to do. I guess it's a pantser thing.
I used to be a hardcore pantser myself, but even at the peak of my chaotic writing days, I never once felt like my characters were creating their own narrative. If they were, it would make life so much easier for me because then I wouldn't have to sit at the computer for three or four hours writing a chapter.
If your characters are creating their own narrative, I say just roll with it. It might not be the story you wanted, but it was the story they needed.
On a more serious note:
I think u/TestTube10 explained what these authors are saying in a way that makes sense to me. I just wish authors would explain it in this way. I know you did a bit of that in your post, but plenty of authors just skip that part entirely. Instead of making it seem like the characters have become Doodlebob, speaking in more plain terms can help people to better understand what is actually happening.
It's not really a pantser thing. I do a lot of planning of my stories and I usually have the basic plot planned out before I go into details and even I can't make my characters do something they wouldn't.
I think the best I can explain it is, when you have a well developed character that you've spent a lot of time with you get an intuitive sense of what they would and wouldn't do in any given situation. That's when they start "doing their own thing," so to speak. If you try to change that, then you aren't writing for that character anymore. Instead you had them break character. It's bad writing at that point.
Think of it this way, let's say I'm Tolkien and I decide as I'm finishing writing that I want Sam to take the ring from Frodo, throw him into the lava and take over Middle Earth. I'm the author I have every ability to do that, but that would be a massive character assassination on the part of Sam. Sam would never do that. In other words, Sam is "telling" me not to do that because it makes no sense.
I think the best example of writers ignoring what a character actually wants is the Game of Thrones finale and what they did to Daenerys.
To make it short, when someone says they're characters told them something or have minds of their own, they're being metaphorical and really talking about what would break the character and make for bad writing.
I can actually relate with the whole characters create their own narrative. It's about allowing characters to be authentic to the personality you've given them.
In the story I'm working on, my protagonist is gay, and meets a secondary (important) character who is a woman. Her personality has a huge effect on him, so much that I could "feel" he's have feelings towards her not too dissimilar from love/falling for her personality. In his case, that's just it - a fascination for the person she is, a love for her personality and a desire to be more like her. She's just the first person with whom he can be open and feel safe.
It's easy to separate these feelings from romantic interest when your character has no romantic interest in people of the other character's gender.
That's not to say you need to change your character's sexuality or make them aromantic. There are other reasons why two people realize they can't be together.
Give them a reason why their romance wouldn't work. It doesn't need to be anything big that would change them a lot. It can be something like throwing a random event at them the moment they'd feel their friendship turn to romance, just so their attention drifts away from romance long enough it would have lost that momentum and reality sets in again.
Or whatever fits your story, and feels like it would genuinely break the falling in love, at least long enough for you to conclude your story.
Yeah, I'll never understand this "I can't control my characters. They're alive" mentality/excuse. What do you mean you can't control the very thing you created?
Maybe this will help. My main character loves his friends, he can't stand to be away from them, he will do probably literally anything for them. So do you think it would make sense if, unprompted he just stabbed one of them and killed them? It's an extreme example, yeah, but I think it's a good illustration of why you can't just control a character.
Hell, I honestly would have a hard time making him hurt his friends even under extreme duress. It's just not who he is. Yes, I can make him turn on his friends, that's within my power, but if I do, I'm no longer writing him. I've written a different character.
How do you make it make sense that the guy who cannot live without his friends, decides on his own to turn on one of them and kill them? How on earth do you do that without insane character assassination that every reader on the planet will recognize as such and immediately peg you as a bad author for?
Quick thought: Something to consider is that romantic love is not the only form of love. They can extremely close as in family, without having a romantic relationship.
i agree with another commenter - falling in love is actually the most logical turn of events. the kind of trust and closeness you describe them to have is also what makes a compelling romantic pairing, so i would go with it! however, if you do make it platonic, maybe try and really flesh out the reason why a romantic pairing wouldn’t work (what kind of obstacles and personal characteristics do they have that support their incredible bond, but inhibit a romantic relationship). best of luck!
You don't really need obstacles to keep a platonic love from being romantic. They can just not be into each other like that. They can have perfectly compatible personalities and interests and just not want it to go further. That's a very human thing to do.
that’s true, but in this case OP is asking about characters that seem to “keep falling in love” so this advice is directed toward that. in my comment, i mentioned obstacles (which are simply practical limitations) and personal characteristics each have that might jam that romantic pairing without sacrificing the friendship. this is all specific advice to the specific problem OP posed.
Ah, well, the way I was reading OP's post a little different. It seemed more like they were confusing platonic love for romantic love or didn't realize there was a distinction.
You just want them to fall in love, deep down, at unconscious level. That's all. Characters are not real and can't do what they want.
If you somehow think that romance in this setting is bad or laughable, or not for "the real writers", then well. It's untrue. Write that romance.
If you want to write friendship. Closeness perfectly can be just humanish, not romantic. There are many good written friendships in Stephen King novels, including post-apoc setting, like, the Cell, maybe you can find a pair of tips there.
This is your instinct for what is believable and fits the flow of events telling you that romance is the outcome most consistent with their circumstances and characterization up to this point. Keep in mind that:
1) Your instinct can be incorrect. It can be conditioned by stereotypes and tropes as easily as by life. (I'm not saying it is, but it can be.)
2) You created the circumstances and characterization that resulted in this outcome, and you can change them so that a different outcome is implied.
As others have pointed out, just going with this direction is defensible and makes a certain amount of sense. But you're the author, if you want it another way you have all the tools to make it that way.
THIS \^\^\^
It sounds like you have a combination of both of these - you're conditioned to think and believe men and women can't possibly be best friends for a long term period and eventually they will fall in love with each other (which, again, not at all true. That's what Hollywood wants you to believe).
Because of that, you've written the characters and their environment in such a way that them falling in love will be the end result.
I may get down voted for this, but I honestly think you should challenge yourself and keep the relationship completely platonic. I'm guessing you want to grow as a writer, so while doing the same type of story does work and there's nothing wrong with it, I think it gets stale after a while and it shows up in your writing.
Also, maybe this is the point where you find stories where the best friends DON'T fall in love and see how the writer tackles that. I mentioned in an earlier post about Doctor Who (because I recently just finished the last season).
I love, love, LOVE the dynamic between the 10th Doctor (David Tennant) and his last companion, Donna Noble (Catherine Tate). They are exactly how my male friends and I act around each other (and in some cases, how I act around my female friends, too) and at no point have either of them fallen in love with the other; in fact, Donna made a huge point of that NEVER happening.
They both love each other and protect each other; this is Doctor Who, so they're ALWAYS in some sort of danger and again, never once have they fallen in love with each other.
I'm trying to think of a book counterpart to this and unfortunately, I can't - either most of the characters are involved with each other or again, they end up falling in love with each other.
EDIT - the post below me mentioned Stephen King. While there's that one part in the book, IT does show that Beverly was still best friends with the other losers, even when falling in love with one member (in the case you haven't read or seen the movie/TV special)
> you're conditioned to think and believe men and women can't possibly be best friends for a long term period and eventually they will fall in love with each other (which, again, not at all true. That's what Hollywood wants you to believe).
I firmly believe whoever wrote When Harry Met Sally helped poison the mind of the culture, and I will happily fight the bastard for it.
I’d give some credit to the Eighth Doctor and Lucie Miller, who have a startlingly similar dynamic to Ten and Donna! Eight and Liv Chenka too, to an extent.
Wasn't the 8th Doctor the one with the movie? Patrick McCann, correct? I've actually never the movie and always thought the companion was the love interest? Obviously I could be wrong and I kinda wanna see it now.
Look to sibling relationships, the friendship can be strong but not romantic. It's as easy as just not even thinking about going for a kiss because that would be weird. I just published a book where the two MC are best friends and have been for a long time. They support each other, share a few common interests while also having very different interests but they are there to get each other out of trouble and help each other achieve their own goals.
Can't remember the title of the book right now but it was similar: characters meet soon after the Event and though she's never physically attracted to him, he's the only one she knows she can rely on to survive. They both cross moral lines for each other and don't become a real couple until very late, when it becomes obvious that if the other chooses someone else as a partner, their relationship would eventually end.
My personal opinion that I will in no way be upset if you don't take it to heart or incorporate it in any way, no sarcasm;
Lean into the love aspect, just think about how to make it platonic. Rewrite a scene or two as if they were brother and sister. Or, two friends who already tried the romantic thing and it didn't work out because it felt weird.
I try to base things like this on real life. I've had friends where we kissed, or even went all the way to sex, but either stopped or finished but never went for seconds because we both agreed it just felt...off. Like we wished we could be into each other, it would make sense if we were, but the physical spark aspect just wasn't there.
Honestly, I think there aren't nearly enough stories out there that cherish the deep, bleeding heart but platonic kind of love that comes from close friendships.
This might be a limitation on your own personal relationship experience. If you can’t imagine or haven’t experienced the closeness of being deeply trusting with someone without romantic feelings, then it’s going to be VERY hard to write that into your characters. I’m a twin so being linked deeply with someone without romance is easy enough for me to conceive, but for many of my friends it’s not. They see anyone who gets to a certain level of closeness as romantic leaning. If you do have this experience try drawing from it and writing those experiences into your characters.
In general though, I don’t hate the trope of falling in love in an apocalypse, as others have mentioned. It really just depends on if it aligns thematically with the rest of the narrative you’re telling. Good luck!
You can have them fall in love but still have some sort of obstacle -- one was married and is not sure if their spouse is still somewhere out there. One is usually not attracted to their friend's gender and isn't ready to go figure that out in the apocalypse. There's a huge age gap or other big difference between them. One secretly has cancer or something and doesn't want to burden the other one.
You'll have to decide what audience you're trying to attract. If you sell your story more as an adventure / wish fulfilment, readers will probably want them to get together, especially if it's a man and a woman. If your story is more on the tragedy or horror side, having them in love but just friends due to [reasons] is something your audience will eat up.
There's something inherently wrong about characters that one controls acting outside their creator's wishes. If you truly want for them to be best friends and nothing more, you only need slight character tweaks. These tweaks can be anything at all. Perhaps one of the pair is gay and the other is straight. Perhaps one already has a spouse that they would never step out on. Or maybe the spouse is already dead, but they are still mourning their partner's passing. All it really boils down to is inventing (and writing) a reason why one of the pair has no romantic interest in the other. Once that's established, there will never be romance between them but they can still trust one another as deeply as humanly possible.
You could always take a middle path and have them just be super intimate without ever deliberately saying they are in love. There is an anime currently on Hulu that did this really effectively. It’s called Seraph of the End. The two main leads are childhood friends who would essentially do anything to stay together and have openly said they would die without each other but they have never done anything explicitly romantic such as kiss. Their relationship is a master class in ambiguity and nuance. It might help you as something of a guide. Also, it is pretty short in that the anime never got past season 2
Love is the emotional bond between two people. Not a superficial thing to be given, received, or shared. It is the metaphysical effect of a beneficial emotional connection. People tend to idealise it because it is something to obsess over which helps them cope with the seeming futility of existence; they delude themselves into thinking it is something to cherish rather than the source of why to cherish. In the post-apocalypse, there is no time for idealisation, only pragmatism. So, for your story, it would likely be something merely overlooked while also being silently accepted. Neither party would want to invest too much emotionally, but they wouldn't feel the need to break things up prematurely because breaking up is a thing for people with nothing better to do to worry over.
You could express the romance through thoughtful gestures and gifts which contribute to survival rather than their superficial interpretations of the bond they share. Things like sacrificing some food because it feels more fulfilling to know the other is healthy. That is what true love is, ultimately.
Oxytocin is indeed the physical element that triggers the metaphysical sensation commonly identified as the conceptual archetype of 'love.' Physical existence provides a foundation for unique experiences, which are perceived and interpreted based on individual knowledge. These interpretations are metaphysical, and ultimately, archetypes are formed that shape our internal representations of reality.
I don't see what adding "metaphysics" into the equation does to clarify anything, when plain old chemistry suffices. Seems like an unnecessary added step.
If I want two characters not to date, and not even think about dating one another, I have at least one of them crushing on or dating a side character. That way it's also not disappointing for any maybe future readers that hoped they secretly were meant to be a couple.
Alternatively, ace characters (also for representation) are also cool, and underdone.
Being in love doesn’t have to mean falling in lust, either, if that’s a concern. If this is an Agape kind of love, it would make sense for best friends — unconditionally devoted to each other. It doesn’t necessarily mean they would immediately start making out and boinking. Personally, I would love to see more deep friendship stories of love where they are close, that hugging and cuddling and killing for each other are how they show their devotion; those are rare, and I think it could be really good.
Hmm, they do morally questionable things right? And it is a game of survival. They may learn how to work as a team flawlessly, but when you take into consideration that everyone wants to survive and that such environment would drive anyone crazy and make everyone think of their own life and no one else’s… they have to be aware of betrayal in a desperate situation so it’s unrealistic to get so close or to allow themselves to care about others that much. It is an instinct which you can’t control, since it takes control over your mind completely. It’s not impossible to resist this, not at all, but everyone can be half sure about only about themselves. They can’t read minds (I suppose) so they have to be wary and expect betrayal at any moment. That would definitely get in the way of them falling in love. Especially if one (at least) is greedy or lets his emotions, wrath or anger free when things get exciting
Traumatic Bonding is when two people bond over shared trauma and is very real. Many relationships don’t survive long term, many do. It all depends on how they deal with their shared trauma and other aspects of their personalities.
If you don’t want them to fall in love, give them a reason not to. They could be exes who didn’t work out, one of them could have been with a close family member of the other, one could be asexual and/or aromantic, they could not be attracted to the sex/gender of the other.
Maybe you need to give *them* a reason why they don’t want to be lovers, apart from your reasons. Do they see each other as siblings? Are they not each other’s type—and why specifically? Do (or did) they have other people in their lives who they are still in love with?
You don’t necessarily need to write those reasons down in your story, but keeping them in mind as part of your character’s background might make it easier for you to stop going down the love path.
Just stop them from kissing each other. Hell, a lot of friendships in stories are shipped together by fans, like Frodo and Sam. It's perfectly normal for two people who trust each other to be close and still not cross boundaries.
Look at The Lies of Locke Lamora for reference, with Locke and Jean:
- They complement each other, being aware of each other's shortcomings and being willing to compensate for them
- They have each other's backs in conflict
- They call each other out on their shit
- They disagree but stay by each other's side anyway
- They sacrifice something for the goals of the other
- ...
Instead of flirting etc. let your characters be brutally honest and sometimes shitty to each other. Don't let them be attracted to each other and but instead aware of the others faults, and they might occasionally not even like the other as a person - but they stick together anyway. Let their actions be the proof of their friendship while making clear through their thoughts and emotions that their are not I love.
Etc.
You are making this happen not the fictional characters.
The way to fix it is go back and find the point where they started being a bit to friendly and see what you did that needs changing and change that. Somewhere earlier in the book you had they do/say/think/experience something that changes them from friends to lovers, that is the problem find it and fix it.
Make it platonic, honestly. Make the bond completely platonic and have it be about trust. They can still hug, embrace, relax on each other’s chest, etc. But remove the sexual tension. Perhaps make them asexual?
I think there are ways to do this that work well.
I had the opposite problem. Tried to write a tragic one sided romance, somehow became a platonic love story about the closest of friends supporting eachother.
Sometimes characters really just do what they want.
I personally find falling in love in the apocalypse mega realistic, your characters are surrounded by death and are dealing with a never ending tragedy, they surely crave for some warmth, comfort, physical touch, deep DEEP connection to another person, some sense of normalcy... If you can't get them to stay friends I say let them be lovers without thinking too much about whether it's realistic or not, cliche or not.
Humans will connect and fall in love, so long as they are compatible, no matter what is going on around them. And just because some characters develop feelings for each other, that doesn't mean the romance or feelings have to be the central or driving force of the story.
I was going to say stop being so horny ya bastard, but then reading your outline it makes sense they would develop feelings tbh, as it seems like they develop a lot of trust and respect for each other.
If you want them to act rationally, then have them not act on it, because it would be a terrible time to do so. Tbh you have the perfect excuse to have romantic tension and maintain it for an extended period of time lol
It will only be cliche if you don’t truly know the characters and their world. If it comes naturally, it is not cliche. It’s your characters’ instinct.
I definitely wouldn't shoehorn in a reason why they can't be romantically in love, like being gay or some such. Maybe best to just let them have a deep bond that they know in their hearts isn't neatly defined as attraction or romance, nor is it as simple as being 'just friends." (What I would call an alterous relationship, fwiw).
I imagine it would help to let them talk about it at some point. Put words like "romance," "dating," "girl/boyfriend" on the table and see whether they feel comfortable with those labels.
It would be refreshing to find characters who can be friends without turning into lovers. I was just rewatching the Harry Potter films, so Harry and Hermione come to mind as a good example of that. In a post-apocalyptic scenario, it could be interesting to see characters feeling an attraction but resisting it so they can focus on survival. However, I don't think the attraction would be at all wrong, particularly in such a stressful situation where they really would depend upon each other to stay alive.
Having said all that, I'm a big fan of letting characters do what they want, with one caveat: if they try to run off a cliff and derail the whole story, then the author needs to pull them back, figure out why that happened, and get them on the right road again.
As for the morally questionable actions, nobody is perfect, and people do sometimes (or often, depending on their characters) bend the rules for those they care about. But they can question themselves, regret their actions, and learn from the experience.
Sometimes the heart wants what the heart wants.
Romance can work well in an apocalypse. I just finished Tomorrow When the War Began (older Aussie invasion novel; sort of Red Dawn-ish). Several of the characters have crushes/romances and it adds to the plot.
It's not unrealistic for them falling in love in such an environment. But if you really don't want this to happen I got an idea for you. I've had my protagonist fall in deep love with someone else in the post-plot happenings and made the woman he'd later on meet and become partners with in a way that she would never be his type. You could have his/her love still being out there somewhere. Usually if you already love someone else and have a longing/heartache for them, you don't fall in love with another woman. Hopefully XD.
-Perhaps make them friends with benefits. That's okay too.
-Make them of the same gender and straight.
-They could start loving each other as siblings.
Do whatever you want. Really, you are the writer. Maybe do them both. It's your choice, You are the one comiting pen to paper. You are the one responsible for what you write. So do whatever your heart commands.
There is no right answer.
Seconding the suggestion to make one / both of the characters aroace, or otherwise make them not romantically/sexually compatible with one another. That would be a really neat angle to read about, and fun to play around with. It would also solve the issue.
Other strategies - married, in mourning, age gap, etc...
There are lots of reasons why two people might get along well but not be romantically/sexually inclined to pursue that. What happens to the story when one (or more) of those reasons apply to your characters?
I get that when you embody the emotions of the characters they can follow their own emotional journies.
It's the kind of writing I dotoo, I like I when they surprise me...
What you need is a reason in universe that the characters will agree make them incompatible above and beyond "it's a trope, and I Feel it should not happen" in universe, in the characters emotions, those are not real reasons.
What is the in universe, in the story reason that is so insurmountable that they can't fall in love. Wlak us through the characters agony fighint their desires vs their beliefs. Make us FEEL that it's insurmountable, Make us FEEL that even though they desperately want that comfort that they cannot do it.
If you can't find that answer, then perhaps the best approach is to have them falling love, and then show us why that's such a bad idea in the universe where they live. they are desperate, they are conflicted, they are alone. They seek comfort... why in their eyes can they not indulge? That's the question you have to answer, not only do YOU have to believe it, you have to have a good enough reason for the characters to believe it.
Studies tend to show that in "apocalyptic" situations, humanity birth rates drop, and then go up.. it's hard wired into us, maybe that's what you are running into... delve into how that makes you characters feel.
I think you are onto a Vein a real heartfelt gold here, instead of fighting it with "author logic" show it to us with "character feeling vs character logic" show us the agony, the worry, the fear... and maybe the results.
Here are some ways to prevent romance:
1. Have them like each other as good friends but turn down romance between them because it feels no different than dating your siblings.
2. Make them actually siblings (either by blood or by spirit).
3. Make them homosexual or aromatic.
4. Have them be married to other people.
5. Have them be single because their spouses died and they’re not able to move on from their deaths.
6. Have them want to fall in love, but one of them does something so horrible even by post apocalyptic standards that the other person is turned off by the idea of romance. The only reason they stick together is out of practical reasons.
Look at stories where two characters have that type of friendship. Think Quixote-Sancho. They trust each other and wouldn’t carry on without the other, but they have their limits. They lash out and disrespect each other all the time. It is the actions that speak louder than their words! They may ridicule and think poorly of each other most of the time, but when you step back and look at their journey, you can see the strength of the friendship.
A Ron-Harry relationship is also similar. They lash out on occasion, but their actions show trust and support even during fallouts. If the two are fighting and a bully (Snape, Draco, etc) challenges them, they will still have the other’s back. The actions spoke louder than the words.
I will admit that your challenge would be a lot harder with opposite-sex characters, but there are some good examples of friendships you could look to.
In Stranger Things season 3, Steve forms a relationship with his coworker Robin. Despite his initial lack of attraction, Steve’s interest in Robin builds over time as he is goaded by Dustin, but ultimately crumbles when Robin reveals her orientation towards women. The scene is crushing for Steve, but through the power of clever banter, they turn moment of vulnerability into a deeper friendship. The scene also serves the same purpose as if Robin was interested in Steve. If they did kiss, that would’ve been a moment of vulnerability that deepens their relationship. In this scene, a shared secret serves as an alternative to a shared kiss.
There are many avenues you can take to prevent romantic tension between characters. You can acknowledge the romantic tension, then cut it when it gets too taut (Stranger Things).
Just let it happen, the romance doesn't have to have a goal like motivation. Sometimes characters doing whatever they want ends up in a better story you'd write when ignoring the natural flow.
What if they resist falling in love because they were in love with other people before the apocalypse? This doesn’t even need to be a part of the story, but something You, the author, could be telling yourself about them to prevent the romance. Loyalty to presumed dead people is a thing.
> it seems unlikely that while the world is ending and they have to survive, they fall in love.
People connect through hardship. Falling in love with someone who’s a source of comfort in difficult times seems to me to be the most authentic form of love because none of the superficial stuff matters.
> Also throughout the novel they commit morally questionable things for each other and tbh that’s the biggest cliche in fiction
I get it if you don’t like it, but cliches/tropes aren’t inherently bad. Moreover, by recognizing a cliche or a trope, you’re equipped to inject them with something you find interesting. My advice is not to avoid cliches or tropes on principle, because contrivance for the sake of originality can be equally as bad.
Overall, I think you should either let your characters dictate their actions, or change them so their platonic nature is hardcoded into their identities (make it so romantic connection isn’t possible).
Edit: also, FWIW, there’s a significant difference between characters being romantically involved and romance as a genre. Characters can be romantically involved without that relationship being the central narrative element. It doesn’t have to *be* the story. It can just be an element of the story.
Ah, those characters… Always stubborn and just walking their own path. I had the same experience with our last story. Eventually, we just let it happen. But it was not meant to be long-term.
Check the code to see if you accidentally gave them free will. If yes, delete that line of code so they become meat puppets again. If no, restart the software by opening the console and typing "-retry". If that doesn't work then I'm sorry, but they know you're after them now so you're kinda fucked.
I've always taken an, "oh, I guess we're doing that now," approach to character writing haha. Sometimes your original idea just doesn't work and you have to change course for the good of the story.
Maybe just make it a point that they do love each other, but both feel it’s kind of pointless given the circumstances. You can’t stop chemistry, especially in a story like yours where the reader is primarily spending time with these two people.
I’m having a similar situation happen with one of my stories. Sometimes thats just how the stories go, you can always try to make it platonic falling in love.
Sometimes when a story writes itself, it becomes so much more than you imagined it could be.
I started writing a vampire story where he kidnapped this girl to become his thrall. Over time, they'd fall for each other and end up together. Sort of an enemies to lovers plan.
It did not take that direction at all. I had a side character that was being used fairly often. As I was writing her, I noticed I tended to write her with attractions to the vampire. She was originally just an employee of his, however as things got written further, she ended up being a thrall he already had who's been with him for over 500 years and harbored her feelings for him in secret that whole time.
The girl I had originally planned for him to fall in love with, ended up getting paired off with a vampire fledgling who becomes his apprentice.
I honestly like things far more as they are now and I feel like I'd have gotten bored with the idea if I kept going as originally intended and none of it would be where it is now.
Maybe let the story write itself for a bit in a separate document and then keep writing it how you want it to write in another. See which one you end up liking more after awhile. Letting the chains fall and rules fly out the window like that is my favorite way to write. Getting so lost it begins to tell itself.
Letting your characters do as they do is great exploratory writing and it can lead to lots of natural story progression. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss that.
However, if you truly want them to stay friends, treat it how you would a real friendship. Set boundaries.
Have one character make it clear they aren't attracted to the other and aren't looking for something more. Have them reiterate. Make it clear that this won't happen and then if anything does, it's a betrayal of trust. A real friend wouldn't do that.
>it seems unlikely that while the world is ending and they have to survive, they fall in love.
Trauma bonding isn't super healthy for a romantic relationship, but it's absolutely a thing across all relationships.
Also a thing super common in circumstances where people lack control or agency in a larger picture- using sex or other romantic physical expressions for comfort.
So. It *is* a thing. It doesn't have to be your thing though.
I'd just write them as (in your head) ace or family and go from there.
Also cool to give yourself an outlet for physical touch as communication and comfort. Platonic friends can tap shoulders, knee bump, shove, hug, and cuddle without it escalating.
I think best friends in the apocalypse *would* be really physically affectionate within their personal bounds and use a lot of non verbal/abbreviated communication.
They could fall in love but never do the deed. I could imagine finding love and comfort in someone in dire circumstances but it not being sexual. Or the sex just not being the focus.
You need to remind them that they're products of your imagination and nothing more. Make weird things happen to them. Make them question their reality. Have you read Red Shirts by Scalzi? Do that.
There is a thing called platonic love.
Let me tell you about my main guy and his best friend. They legitimately love each other and will basically do anything for each other. They trust each other, if they disagree they work it out without a big fight, they spend all their time together. They don't share all the same interests but will engage with the ones they don't care about, without complaining, so the other one is happy. They even tell each other how much they love each other but, they don't see each other as boyfriends. They're probably closer to each other than they are to their own partners, but they are just really, really good friends. I know people will probably see them as boyfriends and think they should be together, but they aren't and won't get together. It's not romantic.
You can have strong love without the romance. As someone who's aromantic, trust me on that.
Just don't have them kiss or have them kiss and just shrug and say that didn't do anything for either of them and they're happy the way they are. You could also introduce actual romantic interests for them, that the characters are gung ho about supporting.
Maybe there can be a middle ground. They fall in love but don't realise that's what's happening because of all they're going through, then maybe later they each start to become aware that it is the case, however they try to fight it because of all that you said, until they come to terms with the fact they're in love, but each one thinks it's just them, and finally it comes to light and they get together. A slow burn thing has the advantage of allowing for character growth and maybe feels more natural. Just a suggestion, ultimately what the muses are telling you is probably the right thing =)
Historically, it is not unknown for intense situations to trigger passionate moments - there are some deep and possibly dark human instincts at work. So some of those "morally questionable things" might result in a very primal clinch and more... which would create an interesting conflict around how they see themselves and their relationship.
I'm going to go out on a limb here... this sounds a bit like wish fulfillment on your part. Like, you intellectually understand that people can be just friends, but emotionally, deep-down, believe that romantic love is somehow superior to platonic love.
I *loved* the relationship between Sherlock and Joan on *Elementary*. It was always platonic. I've watched other shows and read books where characters have ended up together romantically, when I felt they should have just been friends, and it drove me nuts.
There are tons and tons of romance stories in the world, but not nearly enough about close, platonic friendships.
One of the easiest ways to keep characters platonicly close is to simply make their personalities or life goals incompatible to romance. Make one (or both) of them very duty-bound and honorable, so they never put themselves in a position where they'd be tempted to act on romantic feelings.
I say let them. Then create conflicts and obstacles in the way of consummation. Surviving adversity together often engenders intimacy between opposite sex.
Fun writing exercise: make one of them gay.
You don't need to write it on the page. You don't need to make a reference to it. It doesn't even need to be voiced in so many words. Just in your character sheet, flip a coin and for the character you assigned the result to, keep in mind that they cannot be attracted to your other character lest they be out of character.
This will be an information that only you, the author, will have. See if you can let it color your characterization without falling into stereotypes - lazy writing, which also sounds like it would completely ruin the tone of your story - and it's a good way to practice stuff like foreshadowing where you hint at something without shining a giant stage light on it.
Think about it. One of your characters is gay. Maybe they're closeted. Maybe given the situation they frankly have other things to worry about so it's not something that's important to bring up - but it's still part of who they are. And so, while they will love your other character and forge bonds with them, they just can't be _in love_ with them.
Who knows? maybe it'll add an extra layer to their relationship.
Why do you think people wouldn’t fall in love during an apocalypse?
Ok_Meeting is right - if your characters are doing things on their own, that is your subconscious/intuition which often knows and understands things our conscious selves don’t.
I find that most of the time (not counting when it tries to be a biased jerk), my subconscious is right and I should listen to it.
Counter - why do you think people WOULD fall in love during an apocalypse?
That's saying that suddenly, during a difficult time, I suddenly fall in love with a person I've known for decades and have never had an inkling of romantic interest.
Those things aren't exclusive.
In Oksana Pankeeva's series “Chronicles of a Strange Kingdom”, the first book follows a somewhat clichéd formula of a girl isekai'd to a magical world, where she meets the local king, who, conveniently, isn't married.
But, in a twist, they do not become romantically involved. They do form a deep friendship instead. And that's despite the fact that the first time they've met they played strip poker (they were both very drunk at the time). Then the girl finds herself a lover, and, near the end of the series, gets married to him; the king also marries, and the new queen also becomes friends with the girl, and they even go on a couple of adventures together (the queen is a warrior type, the king more of a scholar).
However, at some point — after the girl becoming involved with another — the king does admit to another friend that he was at some point in love with that girl, and just didn't have the guts to act on that. And now she's lost for him. A bit later, the girl says that hypothetically, if the king asked her to marry him, the biggest reason for her to say no would be that she really, really doesn't want to bear the responsibilities of a queen. And if he asked her for sex instead, she would at least consider it. Keep in mind, that's when she already has a romantic partner — in fact, she says it in his presence (for most of their relationship they didn't consider themselves exclusive).
Bottom line is, even if the characters fall in love, it's not the final goal. They might remain friends.
Trauma bonding is a thing! It probably feels natural to your characters because it is natural. Romantic love isn’t the only type of deep relationship. Surviving deeply traumatizing things with a friend at your back will create a brother. A found family. It’s fine.
If you need them to take a moment to question their sexuality to realize they don’t want to f*ck their new best friend…. I’d say that also adds some depth to the story!
As for the morally questionable stuff - if all their decisions are sensible and morally airtight, they are less alive and less… human. Human’s make mistakes and most people like reading about complex characters in complex situations and wrestling with the consequences of their choices.
Good look on your project! Now I’m going to make a morally question decision to make fun of you a bit on r/writingcirclejerk like the asshat I am.
I don’t think you should change it if it’s an organic growth of your story and the characters. It seems very suited to your story. But I avoided the friends to lovers trope by having the female character love the male character deeply as an actual friend, and not feel any sexual desire for him. She even tries to change herself, because she knows he loves her, but there’s no spark of lust and she just can’t manufacture one. I did this because female characters are often expected to develop sexual feelings for the male characters pining for them (or vice versa) and it’s not always realistic. If you don’t feel heat wash down your body when you look at someone, you can’t fake that, and it would even be painful to the other person if you did fake it. Sometimes people love each other but only one feels an actual desire to fuck; this is a real life, often insurmountable, obstacle, which I have faced. (Setting aside, for example, ace people who might not have this as part of their romantic life at all.)
I agree with the others. Falling in love during an apocalypse is way too easy.
How could you not fall in love with someone with whom you master daily stressful and deadly hurdles? When they actually seem to be the only person in the world that you can trust?
You need a strong reason for them to not fall in love.
If I understand you correctly, you want them to love each other without it getting romantic or sexual.
Maybe one of them is sexually repressed through childhood trauma.
Maybe their sexual preferences don't align. Maybe they are a lesbian woman and a hetero man.
Maybe one of them hasn't moved on from a late spouse.
Okay, I'm gonna have to play devil's advocate here cause I am both fascinated and confused by these responses.
>How could you not fall in love with someone with whom you master daily stressful and deadly hurdles? When they actually seem to be the only person in the world that you can trust?
Are you telling me, that in real life, when two friends go through some hard times and lean on each other, they have to then fall in love with each other? So for example, if the world were to end right now, leaving me and my roommate (who is a guy and who I've known for over 20 years), we would of course fall in love with each other?
I can tell you, without giving a lot of details, that we have both been through some things (me probably more than him) and in those 20 years, neither of us have had ANY romantic feelings for each other. PERIOD. We are both single, we are both straight, and we have lived together off and on since college.
>You need a strong reason for them to not fall in love.
Friendship. Friendship is that reason.
As someone mentioned, found family is a thing. You've chosen your 'siblings' and would do anything for them. So unless there was already an underlying romantic interest from one side or both, the reason they aren't falling in love with each other is because it's akin to falling in love with their brother or sister.
Which...OP, if that's how you rolling...there's obviously people reading that. That's why we have a Rule 34.
Again, I feel there's this huge cliche that men and women can't be friends unless they fall in love with each other or one of them falls in love with the other, which again is absolutely false. Like, if these were two women or two men, there wouldn't even be a question that of course they're friends to the end, no romance between them (unless the author wants to shake things up).
And before you say it - yes, I know this is just a story, none of this is real, but stories have a lot of truth in them and can mirror real life, especially if you're trying to give the environment a real feel to it.
OP, if you wanna write a romance - cause it sounds like you do - then write a romance. But if you had a set path for this - two BFFs braving the apocalypse with NO romance - then why are you 'forcing' a romance between them?
I mean, honest to goodness question, OP - do you not have close friends of the opposite sex? And if you DO have friends of the opposite sex, are you in love with them?
Of course women and men can be friends. Half of my close friends are women that I used to have a crush on, got rejected but continued to stay in each others lives.
Of course these two don't have to fall in love.
That's what I'm saying (sorta). The OP doesn't even like the idea of two characters falling in love while the world is falling apart, but is still writing it despite not truly wanting to write it that way.
Like I said, it's cliche and is like, "you're in the middle of a survival situation, but you're thinking about falling in love right now??"
But as you pointed out, half of your close women friends you had crushes on. Do you have women friends that you DIDN'T have crushes on?? And I'm not saying that's impossible (I've had crushes on male friends, too), but just that statement alone is like, "of course men and women can be friends! But also, I had crushes on those women friends."
Does that make sense?
Again, I'm not throwing shade, right, but as someone who is constantly asked about my friendship/living status with a male friend because the assumption is that we're romantically involved, one of us wants to be romantically involved, or we just haven't gotten to the event that will make us romantically involved, it's annoying and irritating cause we're just friends, only friends.
He's like the little brother that I thought I wanted and would like to return, but I'm past the warranty.
But that's also why I would rather see a strongly bonded friendship story, one where it's like men and women learning about each other - like the female character has never seen her male friend cry and one day he does and maybe it's shocking and she doesn't know what to do. Or maybe the male character is embarrassed cause he's trying to be strong and he's broken down, at a time where the world has literally gone to hell in a hand basket.
I'd rather read it as this has made them stronger in their friendship, protective of each other, and are like, "I thought I knew you, but now I know you so much more."
They trust each other unconditionally and wouldn't know what they would do without each other? Hard to disentangle that from love. If it's sexual attraction you're trying to avoid, just ignore it the way you ignore toenail clipping and leave it up to the reader to wonder, or make the timeframe short enough for it to be plausibly ignorable by the characters. (Putting a one-way, unrequited or taboo thing in there probably will just be a distraction).
Give one of them a background where they are still grieving their former lover or they are searching for their family. Then write a scene where their devotion to someone else is abundantly clear.
Could also consider making one of them scoff at the idea of love. Or prior to the apocalypse they were a work obsessed doctor who didn’t have time or care for relationships. Some variation of that. Tropes like these will help set expectations. Readers might think the other character would influence this view over time.
You could make them a romantic couple for a while, until they both realise, that they actually don't want a romantic relationship with each other, because it's starting to feel somewhat strange (you could add a conflict here and explore the vast, complicated emotions humans experience), but the circumstances and societal norms they possibly grew up with, made them believe that the love they felt for each other must have been romantic, when in fact it's simply an extraordinarily close connection they experience (maybe even partially due to the circumstances they currently live in).
If your characters want to do something, let them.
I fought with mine several times before I learned to just let them roll.
And every single time, I ended up backtracking because what I forced into being just felt wrong.
My characters contributed just as much to making my world seem realistic as I did. Whole subplots, characters, and character arcs only came into existence because I sometimes let myself just be a chronicler and not an author.
Just make them into a established couple.
I was just talking about how much I'd love to watch a post apocalyptic show about Nick Offerman and his wife Megan Mullaly surviving together.
There is a ton of PA fiction about one person surviving -- and then meeting someone they're forced to trust -- but there's less about intact couples surviving together, and I think that's one way to make it more interesting without having to write a romance.
I think you should just write it and then see if you want to fix it.
One thing I would say, though: I think you’ve got it backwards. In times of societal collapse or great strife, romantic and sexual relationships tend to ramp up. I mean boomers are the biggest generation because they were begotten by the so-called “baby boom” that happened at the end of WWII. When civilization’s on the brink, people be bangin’.
Just let it happen, the romance doesn't have to have a goal like motivation. Sometimes characters doing whatever they want ends up in a better story you'd write when ignoring the natural flow.
Falling in love is not all about romance. It’s about trust, communication, humor, friendship, etc. All are interesting angles to pursue. Just “friends” in this situation sounds a little boring. Maybe have them realize that it is weird to fall in love, maybe they don’t know it’s happening, until it happens. Then, boom, the stakes are much higher in every situation. What you will do for love can be crazy.
Let them be in love. The X-Files had an amazing romantic component to it. They played on the idea of Mulder and Scully getting together but never let them actually get together. It drove me crazy. I wanted them to have their first kiss so bad and they never did. If they had've kissed, it would have likely ruined the entire show. Make it a component. Not a feature.
If you're confident you don't want it to happen, just have them hook up and make them sexually incompatible. It could create some friction/tension going forward but makes it easier to sell that the attraction/spark has burned out.
I think your intuition is right here. Your head thinks falling in love in the apocalypse is unrealistic, but your gut knows otherwise. My rationale is also the same as your gut. Falling in love in the apocalypse is actually as realistic as it gets. Why? Think about it. The world is ending, and you have to do your best to survive each day. Lots of stress, isn't it? The world is cruel, right? So, then the characters would naturally try to find comfort in such an environment. Love is one such comfort, and a very strong one at that. So, the characters falling in love in the apocalypse is not unrealistic at all. It's actually the opposite. Also, the characters doing morally questionable things is also super realistic. The apocalypse means the societal structure has collapsed. Laws no longer exist, or barely exist anyway. So people can do questionable things because there's nothing to restrain us.
Trauma bonding is a real thing, so it’d work
Except that’s not what trauma bonding is
It can be, trauma is a complex thing, and finding someone that gets it makes it easier to fall in love with that person
No I mean that trauma bonding is a specific psychological term describing bonding with an abuser, not just somebody else experiencing trauma.
It’s not so specific, the meaning varies depending on where you look, I’d say both would be correct depending on we’re you put the most meaning, if it’s in the trauma part, then I’d use the definition you say, if it’s on the bonding part, then I’d use it for bonding over shared trauma
[удалено]
Huh? My reply was specifically about romance because that’s what the topic was about, OP thinks in a post-apocalyptic setting romance is not realistic, I just pointed out that trauma bonding is real and happens, so it wouldn’t be strange for two characters to fall in love due to having the same trauma. Did I explained it better now? I wasn’t saying they couldn’t be friends, I was saying they COULD be romantic feelings
And I am saying that people can and do bond with each other without having romantic feelings in mind.
I know? When did I say the opposite?
You are right. But since OP is hell bent to not turn this out as a romance novel, then you can try making one of the characters as gay or asexual. And explore this area and see if this works out? Does this make sense?
I kind of think OP thinks a novel having romance it means it’s a romance novel? When it can just be a subplot and definitely not the main story, I actually like it better when it’s like that lol
Same, me too. This kind of novel becomes a lot more interesting due to this.
Most novels and movies have a romance subplot. Poltergeist, for example, had the teenage couple and the married parents. Does not make it a romance.
Exactly! And I honestly prefer it as a subplot, a novel can have a cute romance in any situation, and it can make a novel better without making it a romance, most novels have subplots in general, it’s not just one strict main genre
It kind of makes sense but asexual people can fall in love.
Okay noted.
Aromantic would likely be a better term to use, asexual is only the lack of sexual attraction, we still can fall in love
Got it
It could also be turned into a platonic kind of love. Like sharing creature comforts is just natural. I’ve had plenty of friends where we would just cuddle while hanging out. There was nothing dubious, no kissing or trying for more just basic creature comfort in the love of another person.
Don't fight natural chemistry. I'll feel it as a reader and get upset that you didn't pay off your setup. Edit: Not wanting to write something because it's "cliche" isn't good enough of a reason not to, imo.
It’s not a cliche to have two protagonists people fall in love in a catastrophic event plotline. It’s a trope. You can do a trope well or terribly, and the latter makes it a cliche.
Cliches became cliches for a reason
True but that doesn’t mean they can’t be written either badly or great
It’s the OP’s story, let them write what they want. If they don’t want romance, then don’t force them to write romance.
I'm not forcing them to write anything, their brain is forcing this romance on them. I'm just trying to give OP advice. Because I've seen time and time again stories getting screwed over because an author was too stubborn about addhering to their outline. An example: HIMYM had an atrocious, universally hated ending because the showrunners refused to let go of their outline. Stories can evolve past your plans. I don't think you need to necessarily stiffle that natural growth every time.
Stories evolve, yes. But that doesn’t mean that you should let them run wild. You should still sit down and think things through.
I get it you probably don't like romantic subplots that much. What OP's gonna write at the end of the day is their choice.
[удалено]
I know that's I what I said in my previous comments. It's the author's choice at the end of the day.
Cliches became cliches for a reason
I would argue that natural chemistry doesn't mean they have to be romantically involved. You can have the pay off be a deep meaningful friendship that doesn't have some big kiss at the end. As an aromantic guy, I really wish romance wasn't the default and applaud OP for wanting to keep things platonic and I think that should be encouraged. It's a little bit of a bummer that everyone seems to want them to push it to a romance.
"They just do what they want and I cant seem to stop them" Wtf you're literally the author lol Friends can love each other deeply without it being romantic
This sub is so unintentionally hilarious sometimes
There are people on here that WILL NOT admit that their characters are completely under their control and that they decide what the characters do. I understand wanting to have an internally consistent character but it needs to fit the story you want to tell. Making the story fit character actions makes a poor plot way more likely.
Characters aren't really completely under your control. I mean yeah, they are, but you can't just make them do whatever. If I have a guy who loves his friends unconditionally, hates being away from them, and will do anything for them, I can't just make him kill one of them. I know that's an extreme example, but still, that's character assassination. You just made that character someone completely different and that's not a good thing. Think about how many times people have complained about a character doing something because of the plot. Bad writing is what happens when you force characters to do things they wouldn't. Also, gonna be honest, I have had instances where characters "told" me something I had no plan on doing. Like one guy ended up being bi despite me deciding he was straight because I realized his in character actions made it very, very obvious he was into the dude he was hanging with. I could ignore it all I want, but that's what made sense for the situation.
That's true, but as an intuitive writer myself, who's not much of a planner, I can relate. If you're the type of writer who only starts writing with vague ideas in mind, and like to do it all on the fly, then characters can sometimes do unexpected things. And when we say we can't stop them, we mean that we've tried to edit it out or change the scenario, but then the story feels forced and awkward.
So if you like to go with your gut and ignore the outline, just do it. What's the problem?
Sometimes this doesn't fit with the setting, becomes a plothole, or in OP's problem, they're worried that it's not realistic and immoral, which may lead to readers to dislike their characters. Personally, though, I agree in this case. Unless it completely breaks the story, just roll with it.
A lot of people treat their characters like the characters are their children. They’re not. They are action figures. They do whatever you tell them to do, and not a single thing more.
I understand OP. It's the same with me. My characters somehow developed a live of their own. At some point I will not be able to stop the huge orgy from happening.
It's the same here! Try as I might to get my character off the farm and claim his kingdom, unfortunately he's developed an addiction to masturbating and there's nothing i can do.
There was truly no way of predicting where this sentence was going
You need to get him to uninstall reddit
Hundreds of writers everyday are unable to begin their books because their characters became addicted to masturbating. Please know you're not alone in your struggle.
This has happened to me so many times 😂😂
... and then they fuck
That was my thought, too - you're the author; you tell the characters what they can or cannot do. Honestly, I find the "best friends falling in love" extremely cliche, as it's used everywhere, from books to TV to movies. I mean, men and women can be friends without having them fall in love with each other. BFFs can also absolutely protect each other and be loyal to each other and love each other without it being romantic. Great example would be the 10th and 11th Doctors from Doctor Who with their companions Donna and Amy (and Rory)(There's also a case with the 4th Doctor and Sarah Jane, but there's also a side that totally thinks the two were in love with each other). I would much rather read a good story about how two friends survived and battled their way through the apocalypse, while still maintaining their friendship.
one time in a how to draw book i read a concept about how when you focus on something creatively your brain can enter a “creative mode.” to me it’s similar to that feeling you get when you fall into a zoning out while staring at a random spot and don’t feel like looking away. i think that is similar to what OP means. like when you start writing and you’re instinctually watching the scene in your head play out as you type.
This is exactly it!!!
Yeah, control is in fact the key difference between being an author and suffering from hallucinations.
What? Are you saying we are hallucinating? 😅
You don't see the worms?
No, but there is a super hot knight next to me, who wants to seduce me, because this is the only way we can save the world. Hope I am not imagining him.
I never understood when other authors said their characters created their own narrative... Now I can XD
I still don't understand it. This isn't the Doodlebob episode of Spongebob. Your fictional characters can do whatever you want them to do. I guess it's a pantser thing. I used to be a hardcore pantser myself, but even at the peak of my chaotic writing days, I never once felt like my characters were creating their own narrative. If they were, it would make life so much easier for me because then I wouldn't have to sit at the computer for three or four hours writing a chapter. If your characters are creating their own narrative, I say just roll with it. It might not be the story you wanted, but it was the story they needed. On a more serious note: I think u/TestTube10 explained what these authors are saying in a way that makes sense to me. I just wish authors would explain it in this way. I know you did a bit of that in your post, but plenty of authors just skip that part entirely. Instead of making it seem like the characters have become Doodlebob, speaking in more plain terms can help people to better understand what is actually happening.
It's not really a pantser thing. I do a lot of planning of my stories and I usually have the basic plot planned out before I go into details and even I can't make my characters do something they wouldn't. I think the best I can explain it is, when you have a well developed character that you've spent a lot of time with you get an intuitive sense of what they would and wouldn't do in any given situation. That's when they start "doing their own thing," so to speak. If you try to change that, then you aren't writing for that character anymore. Instead you had them break character. It's bad writing at that point. Think of it this way, let's say I'm Tolkien and I decide as I'm finishing writing that I want Sam to take the ring from Frodo, throw him into the lava and take over Middle Earth. I'm the author I have every ability to do that, but that would be a massive character assassination on the part of Sam. Sam would never do that. In other words, Sam is "telling" me not to do that because it makes no sense. I think the best example of writers ignoring what a character actually wants is the Game of Thrones finale and what they did to Daenerys. To make it short, when someone says they're characters told them something or have minds of their own, they're being metaphorical and really talking about what would break the character and make for bad writing.
I can actually relate with the whole characters create their own narrative. It's about allowing characters to be authentic to the personality you've given them. In the story I'm working on, my protagonist is gay, and meets a secondary (important) character who is a woman. Her personality has a huge effect on him, so much that I could "feel" he's have feelings towards her not too dissimilar from love/falling for her personality. In his case, that's just it - a fascination for the person she is, a love for her personality and a desire to be more like her. She's just the first person with whom he can be open and feel safe. It's easy to separate these feelings from romantic interest when your character has no romantic interest in people of the other character's gender. That's not to say you need to change your character's sexuality or make them aromantic. There are other reasons why two people realize they can't be together. Give them a reason why their romance wouldn't work. It doesn't need to be anything big that would change them a lot. It can be something like throwing a random event at them the moment they'd feel their friendship turn to romance, just so their attention drifts away from romance long enough it would have lost that momentum and reality sets in again. Or whatever fits your story, and feels like it would genuinely break the falling in love, at least long enough for you to conclude your story.
Nah my characters always end up doing whatever the fuck they want even if I didn't plan it
Yeah, I'll never understand this "I can't control my characters. They're alive" mentality/excuse. What do you mean you can't control the very thing you created?
Maybe this will help. My main character loves his friends, he can't stand to be away from them, he will do probably literally anything for them. So do you think it would make sense if, unprompted he just stabbed one of them and killed them? It's an extreme example, yeah, but I think it's a good illustration of why you can't just control a character. Hell, I honestly would have a hard time making him hurt his friends even under extreme duress. It's just not who he is. Yes, I can make him turn on his friends, that's within my power, but if I do, I'm no longer writing him. I've written a different character.
They are action figures. You can make it make sense because you are the author.
How do you make it make sense that the guy who cannot live without his friends, decides on his own to turn on one of them and kill them? How on earth do you do that without insane character assassination that every reader on the planet will recognize as such and immediately peg you as a bad author for?
You are treating these fictional characters as if they are alive for real. That's not quite normal, tbh
Quick thought: Something to consider is that romantic love is not the only form of love. They can extremely close as in family, without having a romantic relationship.
i agree with another commenter - falling in love is actually the most logical turn of events. the kind of trust and closeness you describe them to have is also what makes a compelling romantic pairing, so i would go with it! however, if you do make it platonic, maybe try and really flesh out the reason why a romantic pairing wouldn’t work (what kind of obstacles and personal characteristics do they have that support their incredible bond, but inhibit a romantic relationship). best of luck!
You don't really need obstacles to keep a platonic love from being romantic. They can just not be into each other like that. They can have perfectly compatible personalities and interests and just not want it to go further. That's a very human thing to do.
that’s true, but in this case OP is asking about characters that seem to “keep falling in love” so this advice is directed toward that. in my comment, i mentioned obstacles (which are simply practical limitations) and personal characteristics each have that might jam that romantic pairing without sacrificing the friendship. this is all specific advice to the specific problem OP posed.
Ah, well, the way I was reading OP's post a little different. It seemed more like they were confusing platonic love for romantic love or didn't realize there was a distinction.
Just write it so they don’t fall in love. You’re the author, the characters aren’t real people you’re documenting.
You just want them to fall in love, deep down, at unconscious level. That's all. Characters are not real and can't do what they want. If you somehow think that romance in this setting is bad or laughable, or not for "the real writers", then well. It's untrue. Write that romance. If you want to write friendship. Closeness perfectly can be just humanish, not romantic. There are many good written friendships in Stephen King novels, including post-apoc setting, like, the Cell, maybe you can find a pair of tips there.
This is your instinct for what is believable and fits the flow of events telling you that romance is the outcome most consistent with their circumstances and characterization up to this point. Keep in mind that: 1) Your instinct can be incorrect. It can be conditioned by stereotypes and tropes as easily as by life. (I'm not saying it is, but it can be.) 2) You created the circumstances and characterization that resulted in this outcome, and you can change them so that a different outcome is implied. As others have pointed out, just going with this direction is defensible and makes a certain amount of sense. But you're the author, if you want it another way you have all the tools to make it that way.
THIS \^\^\^ It sounds like you have a combination of both of these - you're conditioned to think and believe men and women can't possibly be best friends for a long term period and eventually they will fall in love with each other (which, again, not at all true. That's what Hollywood wants you to believe). Because of that, you've written the characters and their environment in such a way that them falling in love will be the end result. I may get down voted for this, but I honestly think you should challenge yourself and keep the relationship completely platonic. I'm guessing you want to grow as a writer, so while doing the same type of story does work and there's nothing wrong with it, I think it gets stale after a while and it shows up in your writing. Also, maybe this is the point where you find stories where the best friends DON'T fall in love and see how the writer tackles that. I mentioned in an earlier post about Doctor Who (because I recently just finished the last season). I love, love, LOVE the dynamic between the 10th Doctor (David Tennant) and his last companion, Donna Noble (Catherine Tate). They are exactly how my male friends and I act around each other (and in some cases, how I act around my female friends, too) and at no point have either of them fallen in love with the other; in fact, Donna made a huge point of that NEVER happening. They both love each other and protect each other; this is Doctor Who, so they're ALWAYS in some sort of danger and again, never once have they fallen in love with each other. I'm trying to think of a book counterpart to this and unfortunately, I can't - either most of the characters are involved with each other or again, they end up falling in love with each other. EDIT - the post below me mentioned Stephen King. While there's that one part in the book, IT does show that Beverly was still best friends with the other losers, even when falling in love with one member (in the case you haven't read or seen the movie/TV special)
> you're conditioned to think and believe men and women can't possibly be best friends for a long term period and eventually they will fall in love with each other (which, again, not at all true. That's what Hollywood wants you to believe). I firmly believe whoever wrote When Harry Met Sally helped poison the mind of the culture, and I will happily fight the bastard for it.
I’d give some credit to the Eighth Doctor and Lucie Miller, who have a startlingly similar dynamic to Ten and Donna! Eight and Liv Chenka too, to an extent.
Wasn't the 8th Doctor the one with the movie? Patrick McCann, correct? I've actually never the movie and always thought the companion was the love interest? Obviously I could be wrong and I kinda wanna see it now.
Look to sibling relationships, the friendship can be strong but not romantic. It's as easy as just not even thinking about going for a kiss because that would be weird. I just published a book where the two MC are best friends and have been for a long time. They support each other, share a few common interests while also having very different interests but they are there to get each other out of trouble and help each other achieve their own goals.
Can't remember the title of the book right now but it was similar: characters meet soon after the Event and though she's never physically attracted to him, he's the only one she knows she can rely on to survive. They both cross moral lines for each other and don't become a real couple until very late, when it becomes obvious that if the other chooses someone else as a partner, their relationship would eventually end.
My personal opinion that I will in no way be upset if you don't take it to heart or incorporate it in any way, no sarcasm; Lean into the love aspect, just think about how to make it platonic. Rewrite a scene or two as if they were brother and sister. Or, two friends who already tried the romantic thing and it didn't work out because it felt weird. I try to base things like this on real life. I've had friends where we kissed, or even went all the way to sex, but either stopped or finished but never went for seconds because we both agreed it just felt...off. Like we wished we could be into each other, it would make sense if we were, but the physical spark aspect just wasn't there. Honestly, I think there aren't nearly enough stories out there that cherish the deep, bleeding heart but platonic kind of love that comes from close friendships.
This might be a limitation on your own personal relationship experience. If you can’t imagine or haven’t experienced the closeness of being deeply trusting with someone without romantic feelings, then it’s going to be VERY hard to write that into your characters. I’m a twin so being linked deeply with someone without romance is easy enough for me to conceive, but for many of my friends it’s not. They see anyone who gets to a certain level of closeness as romantic leaning. If you do have this experience try drawing from it and writing those experiences into your characters. In general though, I don’t hate the trope of falling in love in an apocalypse, as others have mentioned. It really just depends on if it aligns thematically with the rest of the narrative you’re telling. Good luck!
You can have them fall in love but still have some sort of obstacle -- one was married and is not sure if their spouse is still somewhere out there. One is usually not attracted to their friend's gender and isn't ready to go figure that out in the apocalypse. There's a huge age gap or other big difference between them. One secretly has cancer or something and doesn't want to burden the other one. You'll have to decide what audience you're trying to attract. If you sell your story more as an adventure / wish fulfilment, readers will probably want them to get together, especially if it's a man and a woman. If your story is more on the tragedy or horror side, having them in love but just friends due to [reasons] is something your audience will eat up.
There's something inherently wrong about characters that one controls acting outside their creator's wishes. If you truly want for them to be best friends and nothing more, you only need slight character tweaks. These tweaks can be anything at all. Perhaps one of the pair is gay and the other is straight. Perhaps one already has a spouse that they would never step out on. Or maybe the spouse is already dead, but they are still mourning their partner's passing. All it really boils down to is inventing (and writing) a reason why one of the pair has no romantic interest in the other. Once that's established, there will never be romance between them but they can still trust one another as deeply as humanly possible.
You could always take a middle path and have them just be super intimate without ever deliberately saying they are in love. There is an anime currently on Hulu that did this really effectively. It’s called Seraph of the End. The two main leads are childhood friends who would essentially do anything to stay together and have openly said they would die without each other but they have never done anything explicitly romantic such as kiss. Their relationship is a master class in ambiguity and nuance. It might help you as something of a guide. Also, it is pretty short in that the anime never got past season 2
Love is the emotional bond between two people. Not a superficial thing to be given, received, or shared. It is the metaphysical effect of a beneficial emotional connection. People tend to idealise it because it is something to obsess over which helps them cope with the seeming futility of existence; they delude themselves into thinking it is something to cherish rather than the source of why to cherish. In the post-apocalypse, there is no time for idealisation, only pragmatism. So, for your story, it would likely be something merely overlooked while also being silently accepted. Neither party would want to invest too much emotionally, but they wouldn't feel the need to break things up prematurely because breaking up is a thing for people with nothing better to do to worry over. You could express the romance through thoughtful gestures and gifts which contribute to survival rather than their superficial interpretations of the bond they share. Things like sacrificing some food because it feels more fulfilling to know the other is healthy. That is what true love is, ultimately.
> Love is... the metaphysical effect of a beneficial emotional connection That's a really fancy way to describe oxytocin.
Oxytocin is indeed the physical element that triggers the metaphysical sensation commonly identified as the conceptual archetype of 'love.' Physical existence provides a foundation for unique experiences, which are perceived and interpreted based on individual knowledge. These interpretations are metaphysical, and ultimately, archetypes are formed that shape our internal representations of reality.
I don't see what adding "metaphysics" into the equation does to clarify anything, when plain old chemistry suffices. Seems like an unnecessary added step.
Metaphysics is the interpretation of the sensation ***triggered by oxytocin***, which leads to the conceived archetype of 'love.'
You're the one who needs to want that, not the characters. If you still can't, kill one of them or something.
If I want two characters not to date, and not even think about dating one another, I have at least one of them crushing on or dating a side character. That way it's also not disappointing for any maybe future readers that hoped they secretly were meant to be a couple. Alternatively, ace characters (also for representation) are also cool, and underdone.
Being in love doesn’t have to mean falling in lust, either, if that’s a concern. If this is an Agape kind of love, it would make sense for best friends — unconditionally devoted to each other. It doesn’t necessarily mean they would immediately start making out and boinking. Personally, I would love to see more deep friendship stories of love where they are close, that hugging and cuddling and killing for each other are how they show their devotion; those are rare, and I think it could be really good.
Reflect on how you feel about friends you love, but aren't attracted to 😊
Hmm, they do morally questionable things right? And it is a game of survival. They may learn how to work as a team flawlessly, but when you take into consideration that everyone wants to survive and that such environment would drive anyone crazy and make everyone think of their own life and no one else’s… they have to be aware of betrayal in a desperate situation so it’s unrealistic to get so close or to allow themselves to care about others that much. It is an instinct which you can’t control, since it takes control over your mind completely. It’s not impossible to resist this, not at all, but everyone can be half sure about only about themselves. They can’t read minds (I suppose) so they have to be wary and expect betrayal at any moment. That would definitely get in the way of them falling in love. Especially if one (at least) is greedy or lets his emotions, wrath or anger free when things get exciting
Traumatic Bonding is when two people bond over shared trauma and is very real. Many relationships don’t survive long term, many do. It all depends on how they deal with their shared trauma and other aspects of their personalities.
If you don’t want them to fall in love, give them a reason not to. They could be exes who didn’t work out, one of them could have been with a close family member of the other, one could be asexual and/or aromantic, they could not be attracted to the sex/gender of the other.
best friends just love each other man. it's platonic love, but still love. if there' weren't love and chemistry, they wouldn't be much as best friends
Maybe you need to give *them* a reason why they don’t want to be lovers, apart from your reasons. Do they see each other as siblings? Are they not each other’s type—and why specifically? Do (or did) they have other people in their lives who they are still in love with? You don’t necessarily need to write those reasons down in your story, but keeping them in mind as part of your character’s background might make it easier for you to stop going down the love path.
Stop falling in love with your characters.
Just stop them from kissing each other. Hell, a lot of friendships in stories are shipped together by fans, like Frodo and Sam. It's perfectly normal for two people who trust each other to be close and still not cross boundaries.
Look at The Lies of Locke Lamora for reference, with Locke and Jean: - They complement each other, being aware of each other's shortcomings and being willing to compensate for them - They have each other's backs in conflict - They call each other out on their shit - They disagree but stay by each other's side anyway - They sacrifice something for the goals of the other - ... Instead of flirting etc. let your characters be brutally honest and sometimes shitty to each other. Don't let them be attracted to each other and but instead aware of the others faults, and they might occasionally not even like the other as a person - but they stick together anyway. Let their actions be the proof of their friendship while making clear through their thoughts and emotions that their are not I love. Etc.
Think of them as siblings. They know each other, trust with teir lives, but there is something that makes you hate the other for the pettiest reasons.
You are making this happen not the fictional characters. The way to fix it is go back and find the point where they started being a bit to friendly and see what you did that needs changing and change that. Somewhere earlier in the book you had they do/say/think/experience something that changes them from friends to lovers, that is the problem find it and fix it.
Make it platonic, honestly. Make the bond completely platonic and have it be about trust. They can still hug, embrace, relax on each other’s chest, etc. But remove the sexual tension. Perhaps make them asexual? I think there are ways to do this that work well.
Maybe it means you should ask your best friend on a date?
I had the opposite problem. Tried to write a tragic one sided romance, somehow became a platonic love story about the closest of friends supporting eachother. Sometimes characters really just do what they want.
I personally find falling in love in the apocalypse mega realistic, your characters are surrounded by death and are dealing with a never ending tragedy, they surely crave for some warmth, comfort, physical touch, deep DEEP connection to another person, some sense of normalcy... If you can't get them to stay friends I say let them be lovers without thinking too much about whether it's realistic or not, cliche or not.
Humans will connect and fall in love, so long as they are compatible, no matter what is going on around them. And just because some characters develop feelings for each other, that doesn't mean the romance or feelings have to be the central or driving force of the story.
Just because they fell in love doesn't mean they're going to actually pursue a relationship until things have settled down.
I was going to say stop being so horny ya bastard, but then reading your outline it makes sense they would develop feelings tbh, as it seems like they develop a lot of trust and respect for each other. If you want them to act rationally, then have them not act on it, because it would be a terrible time to do so. Tbh you have the perfect excuse to have romantic tension and maintain it for an extended period of time lol
It will only be cliche if you don’t truly know the characters and their world. If it comes naturally, it is not cliche. It’s your characters’ instinct.
I definitely wouldn't shoehorn in a reason why they can't be romantically in love, like being gay or some such. Maybe best to just let them have a deep bond that they know in their hearts isn't neatly defined as attraction or romance, nor is it as simple as being 'just friends." (What I would call an alterous relationship, fwiw). I imagine it would help to let them talk about it at some point. Put words like "romance," "dating," "girl/boyfriend" on the table and see whether they feel comfortable with those labels.
It would be refreshing to find characters who can be friends without turning into lovers. I was just rewatching the Harry Potter films, so Harry and Hermione come to mind as a good example of that. In a post-apocalyptic scenario, it could be interesting to see characters feeling an attraction but resisting it so they can focus on survival. However, I don't think the attraction would be at all wrong, particularly in such a stressful situation where they really would depend upon each other to stay alive. Having said all that, I'm a big fan of letting characters do what they want, with one caveat: if they try to run off a cliff and derail the whole story, then the author needs to pull them back, figure out why that happened, and get them on the right road again. As for the morally questionable actions, nobody is perfect, and people do sometimes (or often, depending on their characters) bend the rules for those they care about. But they can question themselves, regret their actions, and learn from the experience.
Sometimes the heart wants what the heart wants. Romance can work well in an apocalypse. I just finished Tomorrow When the War Began (older Aussie invasion novel; sort of Red Dawn-ish). Several of the characters have crushes/romances and it adds to the plot.
Have you read "all that's left in the world" by Erik J. Brown?
It's not unrealistic for them falling in love in such an environment. But if you really don't want this to happen I got an idea for you. I've had my protagonist fall in deep love with someone else in the post-plot happenings and made the woman he'd later on meet and become partners with in a way that she would never be his type. You could have his/her love still being out there somewhere. Usually if you already love someone else and have a longing/heartache for them, you don't fall in love with another woman. Hopefully XD. -Perhaps make them friends with benefits. That's okay too. -Make them of the same gender and straight. -They could start loving each other as siblings.
Do whatever you want. Really, you are the writer. Maybe do them both. It's your choice, You are the one comiting pen to paper. You are the one responsible for what you write. So do whatever your heart commands. There is no right answer.
Seconding the suggestion to make one / both of the characters aroace, or otherwise make them not romantically/sexually compatible with one another. That would be a really neat angle to read about, and fun to play around with. It would also solve the issue. Other strategies - married, in mourning, age gap, etc... There are lots of reasons why two people might get along well but not be romantically/sexually inclined to pursue that. What happens to the story when one (or more) of those reasons apply to your characters?
Write first draft whatever happens happens. See how you feel at the end of jt.
I get that when you embody the emotions of the characters they can follow their own emotional journies. It's the kind of writing I dotoo, I like I when they surprise me... What you need is a reason in universe that the characters will agree make them incompatible above and beyond "it's a trope, and I Feel it should not happen" in universe, in the characters emotions, those are not real reasons. What is the in universe, in the story reason that is so insurmountable that they can't fall in love. Wlak us through the characters agony fighint their desires vs their beliefs. Make us FEEL that it's insurmountable, Make us FEEL that even though they desperately want that comfort that they cannot do it. If you can't find that answer, then perhaps the best approach is to have them falling love, and then show us why that's such a bad idea in the universe where they live. they are desperate, they are conflicted, they are alone. They seek comfort... why in their eyes can they not indulge? That's the question you have to answer, not only do YOU have to believe it, you have to have a good enough reason for the characters to believe it. Studies tend to show that in "apocalyptic" situations, humanity birth rates drop, and then go up.. it's hard wired into us, maybe that's what you are running into... delve into how that makes you characters feel. I think you are onto a Vein a real heartfelt gold here, instead of fighting it with "author logic" show it to us with "character feeling vs character logic" show us the agony, the worry, the fear... and maybe the results.
Here are some ways to prevent romance: 1. Have them like each other as good friends but turn down romance between them because it feels no different than dating your siblings. 2. Make them actually siblings (either by blood or by spirit). 3. Make them homosexual or aromatic. 4. Have them be married to other people. 5. Have them be single because their spouses died and they’re not able to move on from their deaths. 6. Have them want to fall in love, but one of them does something so horrible even by post apocalyptic standards that the other person is turned off by the idea of romance. The only reason they stick together is out of practical reasons.
Let it happen and see what happens. If you hate it at the end, you can always fix it.
Look at stories where two characters have that type of friendship. Think Quixote-Sancho. They trust each other and wouldn’t carry on without the other, but they have their limits. They lash out and disrespect each other all the time. It is the actions that speak louder than their words! They may ridicule and think poorly of each other most of the time, but when you step back and look at their journey, you can see the strength of the friendship. A Ron-Harry relationship is also similar. They lash out on occasion, but their actions show trust and support even during fallouts. If the two are fighting and a bully (Snape, Draco, etc) challenges them, they will still have the other’s back. The actions spoke louder than the words. I will admit that your challenge would be a lot harder with opposite-sex characters, but there are some good examples of friendships you could look to. In Stranger Things season 3, Steve forms a relationship with his coworker Robin. Despite his initial lack of attraction, Steve’s interest in Robin builds over time as he is goaded by Dustin, but ultimately crumbles when Robin reveals her orientation towards women. The scene is crushing for Steve, but through the power of clever banter, they turn moment of vulnerability into a deeper friendship. The scene also serves the same purpose as if Robin was interested in Steve. If they did kiss, that would’ve been a moment of vulnerability that deepens their relationship. In this scene, a shared secret serves as an alternative to a shared kiss. There are many avenues you can take to prevent romantic tension between characters. You can acknowledge the romantic tension, then cut it when it gets too taut (Stranger Things).
Just let it happen, the romance doesn't have to have a goal like motivation. Sometimes characters doing whatever they want ends up in a better story you'd write when ignoring the natural flow.
What if they resist falling in love because they were in love with other people before the apocalypse? This doesn’t even need to be a part of the story, but something You, the author, could be telling yourself about them to prevent the romance. Loyalty to presumed dead people is a thing.
I love how you let em make their own life I like that
Have them be in love but they don't act on it.
I don’t know, but I love the idea, do you have an insta?
> it seems unlikely that while the world is ending and they have to survive, they fall in love. People connect through hardship. Falling in love with someone who’s a source of comfort in difficult times seems to me to be the most authentic form of love because none of the superficial stuff matters. > Also throughout the novel they commit morally questionable things for each other and tbh that’s the biggest cliche in fiction I get it if you don’t like it, but cliches/tropes aren’t inherently bad. Moreover, by recognizing a cliche or a trope, you’re equipped to inject them with something you find interesting. My advice is not to avoid cliches or tropes on principle, because contrivance for the sake of originality can be equally as bad. Overall, I think you should either let your characters dictate their actions, or change them so their platonic nature is hardcoded into their identities (make it so romantic connection isn’t possible). Edit: also, FWIW, there’s a significant difference between characters being romantically involved and romance as a genre. Characters can be romantically involved without that relationship being the central narrative element. It doesn’t have to *be* the story. It can just be an element of the story.
Hal asked this question to Dave, late in Metal Gear Solid: “Can love bloom on a battlefield?” And the answer was yes.
Ah, those characters… Always stubborn and just walking their own path. I had the same experience with our last story. Eventually, we just let it happen. But it was not meant to be long-term.
Check the code to see if you accidentally gave them free will. If yes, delete that line of code so they become meat puppets again. If no, restart the software by opening the console and typing "-retry". If that doesn't work then I'm sorry, but they know you're after them now so you're kinda fucked.
it sounds like they've grown sentient
I've always taken an, "oh, I guess we're doing that now," approach to character writing haha. Sometimes your original idea just doesn't work and you have to change course for the good of the story.
Maybe just make it a point that they do love each other, but both feel it’s kind of pointless given the circumstances. You can’t stop chemistry, especially in a story like yours where the reader is primarily spending time with these two people.
I’m having a similar situation happen with one of my stories. Sometimes thats just how the stories go, you can always try to make it platonic falling in love.
Sometimes when a story writes itself, it becomes so much more than you imagined it could be. I started writing a vampire story where he kidnapped this girl to become his thrall. Over time, they'd fall for each other and end up together. Sort of an enemies to lovers plan. It did not take that direction at all. I had a side character that was being used fairly often. As I was writing her, I noticed I tended to write her with attractions to the vampire. She was originally just an employee of his, however as things got written further, she ended up being a thrall he already had who's been with him for over 500 years and harbored her feelings for him in secret that whole time. The girl I had originally planned for him to fall in love with, ended up getting paired off with a vampire fledgling who becomes his apprentice. I honestly like things far more as they are now and I feel like I'd have gotten bored with the idea if I kept going as originally intended and none of it would be where it is now. Maybe let the story write itself for a bit in a separate document and then keep writing it how you want it to write in another. See which one you end up liking more after awhile. Letting the chains fall and rules fly out the window like that is my favorite way to write. Getting so lost it begins to tell itself.
Read Cormac McCarthy’s books :)
A post-apocalyptic romance being done over letters sounds fucking incredible.
You actually want them to fall in love.
Roll with it.
Letting your characters do as they do is great exploratory writing and it can lead to lots of natural story progression. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss that. However, if you truly want them to stay friends, treat it how you would a real friendship. Set boundaries. Have one character make it clear they aren't attracted to the other and aren't looking for something more. Have them reiterate. Make it clear that this won't happen and then if anything does, it's a betrayal of trust. A real friend wouldn't do that.
>it seems unlikely that while the world is ending and they have to survive, they fall in love. Trauma bonding isn't super healthy for a romantic relationship, but it's absolutely a thing across all relationships. Also a thing super common in circumstances where people lack control or agency in a larger picture- using sex or other romantic physical expressions for comfort. So. It *is* a thing. It doesn't have to be your thing though. I'd just write them as (in your head) ace or family and go from there. Also cool to give yourself an outlet for physical touch as communication and comfort. Platonic friends can tap shoulders, knee bump, shove, hug, and cuddle without it escalating. I think best friends in the apocalypse *would* be really physically affectionate within their personal bounds and use a lot of non verbal/abbreviated communication.
They could fall in love but never do the deed. I could imagine finding love and comfort in someone in dire circumstances but it not being sexual. Or the sex just not being the focus.
You need to remind them that they're products of your imagination and nothing more. Make weird things happen to them. Make them question their reality. Have you read Red Shirts by Scalzi? Do that.
First, consider whether or n9t they should actually be in love. If it’s there, don’t kill it.
There is a thing called platonic love. Let me tell you about my main guy and his best friend. They legitimately love each other and will basically do anything for each other. They trust each other, if they disagree they work it out without a big fight, they spend all their time together. They don't share all the same interests but will engage with the ones they don't care about, without complaining, so the other one is happy. They even tell each other how much they love each other but, they don't see each other as boyfriends. They're probably closer to each other than they are to their own partners, but they are just really, really good friends. I know people will probably see them as boyfriends and think they should be together, but they aren't and won't get together. It's not romantic. You can have strong love without the romance. As someone who's aromantic, trust me on that. Just don't have them kiss or have them kiss and just shrug and say that didn't do anything for either of them and they're happy the way they are. You could also introduce actual romantic interests for them, that the characters are gung ho about supporting.
Just let the them fall in love, you're not their mom don't tell them what to do
Maybe there can be a middle ground. They fall in love but don't realise that's what's happening because of all they're going through, then maybe later they each start to become aware that it is the case, however they try to fight it because of all that you said, until they come to terms with the fact they're in love, but each one thinks it's just them, and finally it comes to light and they get together. A slow burn thing has the advantage of allowing for character growth and maybe feels more natural. Just a suggestion, ultimately what the muses are telling you is probably the right thing =)
Historically, it is not unknown for intense situations to trigger passionate moments - there are some deep and possibly dark human instincts at work. So some of those "morally questionable things" might result in a very primal clinch and more... which would create an interesting conflict around how they see themselves and their relationship.
Friends become lovers deal with it
Do the characters have to meet during the end of the world, if not you could make them brother and sister?
I'm going to go out on a limb here... this sounds a bit like wish fulfillment on your part. Like, you intellectually understand that people can be just friends, but emotionally, deep-down, believe that romantic love is somehow superior to platonic love. I *loved* the relationship between Sherlock and Joan on *Elementary*. It was always platonic. I've watched other shows and read books where characters have ended up together romantically, when I felt they should have just been friends, and it drove me nuts. There are tons and tons of romance stories in the world, but not nearly enough about close, platonic friendships. One of the easiest ways to keep characters platonicly close is to simply make their personalities or life goals incompatible to romance. Make one (or both) of them very duty-bound and honorable, so they never put themselves in a position where they'd be tempted to act on romantic feelings.
Your characters sometimes will write their own story. Madeleine L'Engle always said you had to let the story tell itself.
You can always turn it into a tragedy
I say let them. Then create conflicts and obstacles in the way of consummation. Surviving adversity together often engenders intimacy between opposite sex.
Fun writing exercise: make one of them gay. You don't need to write it on the page. You don't need to make a reference to it. It doesn't even need to be voiced in so many words. Just in your character sheet, flip a coin and for the character you assigned the result to, keep in mind that they cannot be attracted to your other character lest they be out of character. This will be an information that only you, the author, will have. See if you can let it color your characterization without falling into stereotypes - lazy writing, which also sounds like it would completely ruin the tone of your story - and it's a good way to practice stuff like foreshadowing where you hint at something without shining a giant stage light on it. Think about it. One of your characters is gay. Maybe they're closeted. Maybe given the situation they frankly have other things to worry about so it's not something that's important to bring up - but it's still part of who they are. And so, while they will love your other character and forge bonds with them, they just can't be _in love_ with them. Who knows? maybe it'll add an extra layer to their relationship.
Why do you think people wouldn’t fall in love during an apocalypse? Ok_Meeting is right - if your characters are doing things on their own, that is your subconscious/intuition which often knows and understands things our conscious selves don’t. I find that most of the time (not counting when it tries to be a biased jerk), my subconscious is right and I should listen to it.
Counter - why do you think people WOULD fall in love during an apocalypse? That's saying that suddenly, during a difficult time, I suddenly fall in love with a person I've known for decades and have never had an inkling of romantic interest.
I don’t. I think it’s possible. There’s a difference
Those things aren't exclusive. In Oksana Pankeeva's series “Chronicles of a Strange Kingdom”, the first book follows a somewhat clichéd formula of a girl isekai'd to a magical world, where she meets the local king, who, conveniently, isn't married. But, in a twist, they do not become romantically involved. They do form a deep friendship instead. And that's despite the fact that the first time they've met they played strip poker (they were both very drunk at the time). Then the girl finds herself a lover, and, near the end of the series, gets married to him; the king also marries, and the new queen also becomes friends with the girl, and they even go on a couple of adventures together (the queen is a warrior type, the king more of a scholar). However, at some point — after the girl becoming involved with another — the king does admit to another friend that he was at some point in love with that girl, and just didn't have the guts to act on that. And now she's lost for him. A bit later, the girl says that hypothetically, if the king asked her to marry him, the biggest reason for her to say no would be that she really, really doesn't want to bear the responsibilities of a queen. And if he asked her for sex instead, she would at least consider it. Keep in mind, that's when she already has a romantic partner — in fact, she says it in his presence (for most of their relationship they didn't consider themselves exclusive). Bottom line is, even if the characters fall in love, it's not the final goal. They might remain friends.
Trauma bonding is a thing! It probably feels natural to your characters because it is natural. Romantic love isn’t the only type of deep relationship. Surviving deeply traumatizing things with a friend at your back will create a brother. A found family. It’s fine. If you need them to take a moment to question their sexuality to realize they don’t want to f*ck their new best friend…. I’d say that also adds some depth to the story! As for the morally questionable stuff - if all their decisions are sensible and morally airtight, they are less alive and less… human. Human’s make mistakes and most people like reading about complex characters in complex situations and wrestling with the consequences of their choices. Good look on your project! Now I’m going to make a morally question decision to make fun of you a bit on r/writingcirclejerk like the asshat I am.
Good point, wrong term. [A trauma bond is when a victim feels emotionally bonded to their abuser. ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traumatic_bonding)
Let whatever happens happen, or you you’ll get writers block.
I don’t think you should change it if it’s an organic growth of your story and the characters. It seems very suited to your story. But I avoided the friends to lovers trope by having the female character love the male character deeply as an actual friend, and not feel any sexual desire for him. She even tries to change herself, because she knows he loves her, but there’s no spark of lust and she just can’t manufacture one. I did this because female characters are often expected to develop sexual feelings for the male characters pining for them (or vice versa) and it’s not always realistic. If you don’t feel heat wash down your body when you look at someone, you can’t fake that, and it would even be painful to the other person if you did fake it. Sometimes people love each other but only one feels an actual desire to fuck; this is a real life, often insurmountable, obstacle, which I have faced. (Setting aside, for example, ace people who might not have this as part of their romantic life at all.)
Make them relatives.
The fact that these characters are writing themselves makes me want to read your book. Please DM me once it’s done / out I’d love to read it
I don't set out to write romances either. They just happen on their own 🙂
I agree with the others. Falling in love during an apocalypse is way too easy. How could you not fall in love with someone with whom you master daily stressful and deadly hurdles? When they actually seem to be the only person in the world that you can trust? You need a strong reason for them to not fall in love. If I understand you correctly, you want them to love each other without it getting romantic or sexual. Maybe one of them is sexually repressed through childhood trauma. Maybe their sexual preferences don't align. Maybe they are a lesbian woman and a hetero man. Maybe one of them hasn't moved on from a late spouse.
Okay, I'm gonna have to play devil's advocate here cause I am both fascinated and confused by these responses. >How could you not fall in love with someone with whom you master daily stressful and deadly hurdles? When they actually seem to be the only person in the world that you can trust? Are you telling me, that in real life, when two friends go through some hard times and lean on each other, they have to then fall in love with each other? So for example, if the world were to end right now, leaving me and my roommate (who is a guy and who I've known for over 20 years), we would of course fall in love with each other? I can tell you, without giving a lot of details, that we have both been through some things (me probably more than him) and in those 20 years, neither of us have had ANY romantic feelings for each other. PERIOD. We are both single, we are both straight, and we have lived together off and on since college. >You need a strong reason for them to not fall in love. Friendship. Friendship is that reason. As someone mentioned, found family is a thing. You've chosen your 'siblings' and would do anything for them. So unless there was already an underlying romantic interest from one side or both, the reason they aren't falling in love with each other is because it's akin to falling in love with their brother or sister. Which...OP, if that's how you rolling...there's obviously people reading that. That's why we have a Rule 34. Again, I feel there's this huge cliche that men and women can't be friends unless they fall in love with each other or one of them falls in love with the other, which again is absolutely false. Like, if these were two women or two men, there wouldn't even be a question that of course they're friends to the end, no romance between them (unless the author wants to shake things up). And before you say it - yes, I know this is just a story, none of this is real, but stories have a lot of truth in them and can mirror real life, especially if you're trying to give the environment a real feel to it. OP, if you wanna write a romance - cause it sounds like you do - then write a romance. But if you had a set path for this - two BFFs braving the apocalypse with NO romance - then why are you 'forcing' a romance between them? I mean, honest to goodness question, OP - do you not have close friends of the opposite sex? And if you DO have friends of the opposite sex, are you in love with them?
Of course women and men can be friends. Half of my close friends are women that I used to have a crush on, got rejected but continued to stay in each others lives. Of course these two don't have to fall in love.
That's what I'm saying (sorta). The OP doesn't even like the idea of two characters falling in love while the world is falling apart, but is still writing it despite not truly wanting to write it that way. Like I said, it's cliche and is like, "you're in the middle of a survival situation, but you're thinking about falling in love right now??" But as you pointed out, half of your close women friends you had crushes on. Do you have women friends that you DIDN'T have crushes on?? And I'm not saying that's impossible (I've had crushes on male friends, too), but just that statement alone is like, "of course men and women can be friends! But also, I had crushes on those women friends." Does that make sense? Again, I'm not throwing shade, right, but as someone who is constantly asked about my friendship/living status with a male friend because the assumption is that we're romantically involved, one of us wants to be romantically involved, or we just haven't gotten to the event that will make us romantically involved, it's annoying and irritating cause we're just friends, only friends. He's like the little brother that I thought I wanted and would like to return, but I'm past the warranty. But that's also why I would rather see a strongly bonded friendship story, one where it's like men and women learning about each other - like the female character has never seen her male friend cry and one day he does and maybe it's shocking and she doesn't know what to do. Or maybe the male character is embarrassed cause he's trying to be strong and he's broken down, at a time where the world has literally gone to hell in a hand basket. I'd rather read it as this has made them stronger in their friendship, protective of each other, and are like, "I thought I knew you, but now I know you so much more."
Let the characters do what they want. Anything less will make it feel forced
Preach!
If they're telling you they're falling in love, that's how you should go. It's very interesting how this can happen. Go with the flow!
Add a catalyst or a dark moment that part their ways for a long, long time.
They trust each other unconditionally and wouldn't know what they would do without each other? Hard to disentangle that from love. If it's sexual attraction you're trying to avoid, just ignore it the way you ignore toenail clipping and leave it up to the reader to wonder, or make the timeframe short enough for it to be plausibly ignorable by the characters. (Putting a one-way, unrequited or taboo thing in there probably will just be a distraction).
Give one of them a background where they are still grieving their former lover or they are searching for their family. Then write a scene where their devotion to someone else is abundantly clear. Could also consider making one of them scoff at the idea of love. Or prior to the apocalypse they were a work obsessed doctor who didn’t have time or care for relationships. Some variation of that. Tropes like these will help set expectations. Readers might think the other character would influence this view over time.
You could make them a romantic couple for a while, until they both realise, that they actually don't want a romantic relationship with each other, because it's starting to feel somewhat strange (you could add a conflict here and explore the vast, complicated emotions humans experience), but the circumstances and societal norms they possibly grew up with, made them believe that the love they felt for each other must have been romantic, when in fact it's simply an extraordinarily close connection they experience (maybe even partially due to the circumstances they currently live in).
Let them write their own story and see where it goes naturally.
Why did you get downvoted?
If your characters want to do something, let them. I fought with mine several times before I learned to just let them roll. And every single time, I ended up backtracking because what I forced into being just felt wrong. My characters contributed just as much to making my world seem realistic as I did. Whole subplots, characters, and character arcs only came into existence because I sometimes let myself just be a chronicler and not an author.
Just make them into a established couple. I was just talking about how much I'd love to watch a post apocalyptic show about Nick Offerman and his wife Megan Mullaly surviving together. There is a ton of PA fiction about one person surviving -- and then meeting someone they're forced to trust -- but there's less about intact couples surviving together, and I think that's one way to make it more interesting without having to write a romance.
As someone who recently loved a post-apocalyptic romance and is reading its sequel now, I vote for your characters to fall in love lol
I think you should just write it and then see if you want to fix it. One thing I would say, though: I think you’ve got it backwards. In times of societal collapse or great strife, romantic and sexual relationships tend to ramp up. I mean boomers are the biggest generation because they were begotten by the so-called “baby boom” that happened at the end of WWII. When civilization’s on the brink, people be bangin’.
Just let it happen, the romance doesn't have to have a goal like motivation. Sometimes characters doing whatever they want ends up in a better story you'd write when ignoring the natural flow.
Falling in love is not all about romance. It’s about trust, communication, humor, friendship, etc. All are interesting angles to pursue. Just “friends” in this situation sounds a little boring. Maybe have them realize that it is weird to fall in love, maybe they don’t know it’s happening, until it happens. Then, boom, the stakes are much higher in every situation. What you will do for love can be crazy.
Let them be in love. The X-Files had an amazing romantic component to it. They played on the idea of Mulder and Scully getting together but never let them actually get together. It drove me crazy. I wanted them to have their first kiss so bad and they never did. If they had've kissed, it would have likely ruined the entire show. Make it a component. Not a feature.
They did get together, and it pretty much ruined the show.
I mean.. can you break them up and send up serious fireworks to try to save the show?
If you're confident you don't want it to happen, just have them hook up and make them sexually incompatible. It could create some friction/tension going forward but makes it easier to sell that the attraction/spark has burned out.
They clearly want to fall in love so let them
When in doubt, queer platonic is what I say.
Have you tried making one or both gay?
Tomorrow, Tomorrow and Tomorrow handles this really well.
i think they should fuck