I was scrolling through tumblr and stumbled upon yet another post about m/f ships and even though they had a point, it didn't sit well with me that they said the only reason a m/f ship works is because is bisexual.
They recommended checking out the Addams Family, and they are so correct. Gomez and Morticia Addams are a clear example of a m/f ship that works, and it got me thinking about why it's such an universal example of good m/f representation and why.
Or, might as well, find other m/f ships that are "universally" liked.
Maomao and Jinshi. Elizabeth Swan and Will Turner.
Shrek and Fiona. Gomez and Morticia.
Rapunzel and Eugene. Rumi and Jinu.
Elizabeth Bennet and Mr.Darcy.
What makes them "good"? What's the trick?
I made a nifty and easy to digest list based on my observations and autistic pattern recognition. Please note that, depending on the story, some points are more relevant than others — and in some cases, the story is more interesting when they don't follow this list religiously.
Art is fluid.
Part 1: Gender
If you switch the genders it still works
Think about it — During the course of the story, if you change their gender, anything would fundamentally change with the story?
Does anything specific about their romance story have to do with being a man or a woman? If Elizabeth Swan was a man, she would still be the beloved son of a governor getting tangled with pirates. If Jinu was a woman, nothing would change about her being a demon filled with regrets seeking redemption.
But Pride and Prejudice is about gender expectations in English society! If you change their gender, it does change the story!
Correct! But would it change how Mr Darcy and Elizabeth specifically fall in love? Ball culture? Society's unwritten rules they navigate? Would you make the argument that if period accuracy was thrown out of the window, you could play with dolls like that?
They already throw accuracy out of the window in Bridgerton, and is a hit show.
There's no gender-specific character traits in the ship dynamic
This means that the romance aspect, not just the overarching story, doesn't hinge on gender. Gomez and Morticia are not in love because she's a goth woman and he's a loverboy — they click with each other because they are into the same dark and off-putting goth things. Both love their family fiercely. Both have the same sense of humor.
If Shrek was a woman, would that really change things that much? She would still be a closed off, grumpy and sarcastic ogre with deep insecurities about being an ogre - and that's what made Shrek click with Fiona in the first place.
They are given on screen time to interact beyond their gender role in society
They are given things to do that aren't each other, girly dramas or manly brooding. Adventures, storylines, drama, side quests. We are given a story that has nothing to do with the romance storyline and their "will they won't they".
There is more to them than how they end up with each other. They have a story beyond if he was a boy and she was a girl, so no, I'm not going to make it more obvious /j (don't boo me off stage, I'm funny I swear)
Part 2: Agency and Power balance
Characters are given time to have a personality
Before they are a couple, or outside they being a couple, the audience can see they have more layers, completely independent to the romance. We see them alone, with family or with something they are passionate about. We see them get mad and cry and like things beyond their crush on someone else.
There is a point to make here about male characters are usually given more time to develop on screen than female characters, but that has more to do with a bigger problem about portrayal of women than the m/f romance itself.
Power imbalances are a point
Even if there's a real power imbalance (society expectations, power scaling, royalty) it's addressed on screen and removed as a reason why they should be together or—
Removed as the sole reason why they shouldn't.
Sometimes it's tempting to focus on power imbalance ONLY as a way to spice the romance drama, but it still reduces the ship dynamics to the power imbalance as a main focus. It plays into it, driving the audience attention about how much power male character has over the female one; and if, at the end, the power imbalance stays after they get together, it still is not good.
Jinshi and Maomao are an interesting case because the setting of the story is strongly structured by gender roles and women's roles in Palace Society. Maomao was sold to work in the Emperor's harem — there's an immense power imbalance between them two, and yet, the show slowly works through their romance in a way that makes it clear Jinshi respects Maomao first and falls in love with her second, and holds back pursuing her since he understands the delicate position he'd put her into.
It's a point of the story how important it is to respect women, specially in a society where women have everything to lose; not just with Maomao and Jinshi, but again and again and again with multiple situations in the story.
Part 3: Mutual respect
They listen to each other
Not despite their differences, not in a "you are smart, for a girl" way, not in a "im a strong, independent woman who needs no man, but i like you so i'll listen to you just this once" way.
They listen, and respect what the other has to say, because they love them as a human being, and respect their intelligence and expertise.
Even as enemies, Jinu and Rumi listened to each other and said what they other needed to hear. When Rumi had a plan, he just listened and agreed (even if the plan itself went to hell quickly), feeling heard that she wanted to help him as well.
The story directly addresses this respect, or lack of it
There's an arc about breach of this trust and is made a big deal. It's made a point that after building up their connection and trust one of them does something to mess it up.
So... cheating arcs?
NO.
Is not about Character A cheating. Is about hiding important information, about stupid self sacrifice. Is about letting external issues get in the way of their relationship, and one of the characters choosing to break their teamwork willingly or give up instead of fighting.
Elizabeth Swan kissed Jack Sparrow, true; but what really put a strain in their relationship was how closed off she became after that. She stopped leaning on Will out of guilt, and he noticed, and it broke the trust they've built since childhood. [This ship is how you do a good childhood friends to lovers btw]
How do you know the m/f ship doesn't work? What are points to look out for?
The female character doesn't have a story beyond being a romantic interest. If you remove her from the story, do her decisions matter? Or, if she has a character arc, it is ignored or undone to shoehorn romance with the man at the end.
There's a clear power imbalance and it's portrayed as "hot" or "desirable" [looking at you, vampire and monster romance era post-twilight]. It's framed as "he's trying to protect her because she's human and weak".
There's a recurring point to remind the audience she's "small" or "delicate" or "dainty", especially compared to her male counterpart. Bonus points if it's framed as "cute". Bonus bonus points if that's something male character likes about her
Male character doesn't have a personality beyond being a sexual fantasy (eg. black haired CEO trope). We never know what he likes, dislikes, is passionate about, or any other layer than being "hot" and "desirable".
malewife x girlboss fallacy. Yes, this is not the #feminist move a lot of people think. Is still reducing characters to a caricature, and making their romance hinge on gender-specific traits.
"strong female warrior" x "pathetic sad wet mew mew man". YES, IT'S STILL BAD. As appealing as it is to subverse the gender roles and fight the patriarchy one strong female character at a time, it's reducing her characterization to being "not-weak" and the m/f romance to gender roles.
for childhood friends: m/f childhood friends can very easily fall into "she was a girl, he was a boy" if they don't have anything else going on but childhood crush. The male character doesn't explore why he likes the girl, just expects her to fall into his arms without question. The female character may have an arc on her own, but is undone if it conflicts with being a housewife for male character in the epilogue and have 2.5 kids with him.
Conclusion
Sometimes ships will be great about one point but complete garbage at others. Of course, all of the things I've said here coexist with bad writing in general — a story can have a good story and terrible romance set up, or the ship is good in general but drops the ball at some point.
In my experience, it's very easy to get lulled into a false sense of security by modern day attempts at feminism in a response to post-twilight (and post-50 shades of grey) era of fiction. But they still fail to give the female character dimension beyond romance, or the male character doesn't exist outside the purpose of being a hot piece of ass.
The problem is not m/f itself, is the internalized patriarchy and internalized misogyny that needs women to be defined by their capacity (or rejection of it) to nurture and be a homemaker — and hiding behind "#girlboss" and "she's actually a lesbian" and "m/f works only when is queer bi4bi" is part of the problem.
Recognize these signs, recognize when is actually bad writing, and recognize that the only solution to misogyny in media is to actually take a moment to write good female characters, and good m/f romance, instead of running away and hiding behind re-packaged gender roles and biphobic takes.
Apparently a lot of people get dialogue punctuation wrong despite having an otherwise solid grasp of grammar, possibly because they’re used to writing essays rather than prose. I don’t wanna be the asshole who complains about writing errors and then doesn’t offer to help, so here are the basics summarized as simply as I could manage on my phone (“dialogue tag” just refers to phrases like “he said,” “she whispered,” “they asked”):
“For most dialogue, use a comma after the sentence and don’t capitalize the next word after the quotation mark,” she said.
“But what if you’re using a question mark rather than a period?” they asked.
“When using a dialogue tag, you never capitalize the word after the quotation mark unless it’s a proper noun!” she snapped.
“When breaking up a single sentence with a dialogue tag,” she said, “use commas.”
“This is a single sentence,” she said. “Now, this is a second stand-alone sentence, so there’s no comma after ‘she said.’”
“There’s no dialogue tag after this sentence, so end it with a period rather than a comma.” She frowned, suddenly concerned that the entire post was as unasked for as it was sanctimonious.
give them a variety of exes. give them relationships that shaped who they are but did not last. give them people they tried very hard to love but it didn't work out. give them situationships that taught them things. give them something deep that was real but could not endure. things that hurt. things that ended amicably. people with whom hot passion cooled to warm affection and became undying friendship.
no more first and only. give me the context of what made them know the next or one after was final and right.
Copyright class actions could financially ruin AI industry, trade groups say.
Further, some authors may never even find out the lawsuit is happening. The court's suggested notification scheme "would require class claimants to themselves notify other potential rightsholders," groups said, overlooking the fact that it cost Google $34.5 million "to set up a 'Books Rights Registry' to identify owners for payouts under the proposed settlement" in one of the largest cases involving book authors prior to the AI avalanche of lawsuits.
If you're an author, please use this database to see if you could qualify for that sweet GenAI lawsuit money.
Millions of books and scientific papers are captured in the collection’s current iteration.
I have never ever ever in my life asked someone to blaze my posts.
But if you want to throw me some pennies blaze this. I want ALL OF THE AUTHORS to know that they have the opportunities to get some sweet sweet GenAI lawsuit money.
Like to charge. Reblog to cast that Anthropic will have to pay out the ass.
I'm an disabled enby who is the sole caregiver for my elderly disabled mother and we have been homeless for over a year. We're staying in Hotels because it's the safest option. I am, have been, and will conttinue, looking for work, but as it stands Moms Social Security is our only stable income. At this point in the month we're completely broke.
We have the room paid for until Wednesday. If anyone has anything they could afford to send my way it would be incredibly appreciated.
I know its rough our here for everyone and it's not getting easier for anyone, and I'm so unbelievably grateful for every little bit of help that I receive.
Even a Reblog helps immensely because the more people who see this the more likely someone who can afford to help us will see this.
Another month, more crises, Financially abusive sister stole $200 on the 1st, and we had to move from Motel 6 yesterday because of their policies about how long you can stay, I used literally everything we had to get us into another Hotel and we only have the room paid for till the 8th.
If anyone has literally any amount of money they can spare towards helping us that would be amazing. Even a reblog helps immensely because the more people who see this the more likely someone who can help will see this.
Hi! I'm very interested in attempting to write a disabled character (not for this blog, I assure, for an book I'm writing) in which the story doesn't fetishize/objectify her prosthetic limb. I'm in many writing circles and have been for a long while, but I've never seen this issue brought to light which I realise is a very important one. I have much to change in my thought process, and thank you for bringing this issue to attention.
I'm curious, and I apologise if this has been asked before, but what sort of design could you see for a functional prosthetic that doesn't go for a plainly aesthetic appearance, or is soully to please others? I do note that you said prosthetics are generally... not that helpful. So is there a way that it could be? Or do you think it would always generally be better to not use a prosthetic, as its mostly for aesthetic purposes, as you said?
I apologise if this ask is too outright or anything, and I don't mean to intrude. Thank you for your time and have a beautiful day!
okay, i want to answer this as in depth as possible, because whenever i talk about having a prosthesis, someone will always tag some variation of "#writing reference" and i do wonder what message they're taking away, and i want to get as much of my experience out as possible to maybe help shape how this is all portrayed in the future. and yeah… this is gonna be one of those rambly smg posts that the expand feature was invented for, so i'll start with the very abridged TL;DR:
if you're writing a character with an upper limb prosthesis; don't. arm amputees are unicorn level rare even compared to leg amputees, and i've never interacted with or even heard of an upper limb amputee that regularly uses a prosthesis, let alone relies on one. fiction has lied to you for the sake of cool aesthetics, don't repeat the cycle. more in depth writing advice including nuance and "but i waaaant to" will follow.
that said, grab your donning parachute and let's get started...
context for everyone involved: i am an upper limb amputee that rants a lot about how prostheses suck, i lost my right hand roughly five years ago at roughly the age of 30 after a very rough decline in health… it was pretty rough. this question is being asked in the context of a previous rant post of mine, and i checked that the ask is about an upper limb prosthesis in particular.
the situation regarding the usefulness of lower limb prostheses is totally different; i am definitely no expert, but by all accounts, prosthetic legs are incredibly useful for many people. getting a good leg can be absolutely life changing and more or less necessary for day to day life for some; mostly because infrastructure and society is just so fucking hostile to wheelchair users. being able to walk - at the cost of pressure sores and rashes and increased residual limb pain - is a preferable option to many people than being unable to fit through a doorway or in a bathroom stall or find out that the key to unlock the only elevator is in the admin office up three flights of stairs (true story).
but upper limb prostheses… see, the thing is, hands are incredibly complex organs that rely on a lot of immediate haptic feedback to work at all. hand dexterity is all about control, you need fine granular movements of the digits yes, but you also need the subtle sensations of pressure and proprioception in order to adjust your movements on the fly. i speak from experience, in the years leading up to the full loss of my hand, i was slowly losing function of it, usually swinging between numbness that made it clumsy at best, or screaming overstimulation from moving it at all resulting in unpredictable spasms… and let me tell you, a half working hand is infuriating to try and deal with. you can never know if you have a good grip on something or if it's slipping because of the wrong amount of pressure, and there's only so many smashed bottles of pickles on the floor before you give up using it all together… so amputation wasn't a great loss there, i had time to adapt.
a prosthetic hand of any kind has all of those issues and more. they're heavy and bulky, the cosmetic faux fingers or gripping claw have crude movement at best, and there's zero feedback (put a pin in this). 100% of the time you're using a prosthetic hand you have to keep your eyes on the grip and visually guesstimate whether or not the thing you're carrying is held tight enough but not too tight, that is if your "heavy duty" prosthesis can even support the weight without the servos disengaging or the wrist attachment socket just busting loose. i dropped a whippersnipper on my foot last week when my socket couldn't take the weight and i think that was the final straw in me desperately trying to prove to myself that there is a single task my prosthesis actually helps with.
this is usually where fully two handed people start talking about bleeding edge DARPA tech, and how we just need to invest more,research more, develop more. better tech, more tech, neural integration, more more more. okay i promise the writing advice is coming! for starters on tech, my experience is already with a mid-to-high end ottobock terminal device: i've got a myoelectric nerve-signal operated proportional control heavy duty greifer; about the only upgrade left for me to get would be a rotating wrist joint if i could coflex. it's not military, it's not "rockclimber that owns a prosthetic company", but it's quality tech. it still fucking sucks. secondly, that high level military tech exists primary for PR purposes so they can say they treat their discarded casualties well, "we can rebuild him, we have the technology" style. every war vet i've read about or heard from that's been gifted that high level tech also abandons it for the same reasons; it's imprecise, there's no feedback (or the haptic interface has to be fully recalibrated every time they put it on), but mostly they're more capable without one.
okay, the transhumanist ableds say (i should know, i used to be one), what if we did more ~research and development~ and got that neural feedback working? then we could have fireproof superhumanly strong robot arms to fix up everyone! here's where i take out that pin we put up before and i tell you that a class of prosthetic arms/hands already exists that has perfect proportional control, fine motor control, and physics perfect pressure feedback piped directly into the patients' existing sensory systems! they're called body-powered prostheses, and they were invented in like the 1600s. you strap a whole bunch of stuff to your arm and shoulders shoulders, and control the operation of the terminal device and elbow through cable tension by flexing your shoulders. they do take a considerable amount of training to operate - though hell i spent 18 months training to use my myo - but based on everything i've read, body-powered prostheses are the best option if you're an upper limb amputee and absolutely need a second hand for some reason.
but they don't look cool and futuristic, and according to my prosthetist, most people give up on using them too. we all give up on our prostheses, no matter the type. my rehab OT was impressed i lasted the 18 months of my training. towards the end, they even asked if the clinic director could drop in to one of my sessions to see my progress; he expressed genuine amazement at me casually using my bulky robot claw to use a brush and dustpan, and made an offhanded (hah) comment about what someone can achieve "if they stick it out to the end", implying it was somewhat of a rarity for me to have done so. several years on, and yesterday i wedged the dustpan between my ankles to sweep up into it, awkward but exponentially less effort than putting my dusty robot arm on. which, by the way, is a whole thing. look up some videos, they're all awful to don. i don't actually know the official technical name of what my clinic calls a "parachute" but it's a bitch to use! have you ever tried to pull back with your arm whilst also pushing it forwards at the same time, and simultaneously lean in to and away from an external force pulling on you? that's how you get a myo socket on.
bare with me, i promise writing advice is coming, and i promise it's more than the tl;dr. but. remember when i said a half working hand is infuriating to deal with? any prosthesis, from fancy myo tech to pirate-era body powered, will only ever be half as good as a working hand, and being juuuust within capability to do something but not quite able to is maddening! but you know what works way better than a half working hand? no hand at all. using whatever residual/vestigial limb you have - whatever "stump" you have, i hate that word - is pretty much always better than trying to use a prosthesis. i can use the inside of my elbow to grip and carry things, i can use the nub of my arm to apply pressure to hold things, open doors, use a computer mouse, turn on taps and lights, if i put a glove over it i can use it to prep for cooking. i have full proprioception and pressure feedback with skin contact, i don't think i've ever dropped and broken anything from my elbow, unlike countless things slipped from my greifer - which, by the way, absolutely will start clenching as tight as it can if i get even slightly too sweaty around the electrodes, which has both broken things i'm holding and also injured me, because surprise surprise but servo operated robot claws have pinch points on them right near the "emergency disengage" lever for some reason!
but i am exponentially more capable without it on than with it. no, i'm not fully independent, i rely on housemates and loved ones to help me out with some tasks that simply just need two handed dexterity, but none of those tasks are things a prosthesis makes me able to do anyway. i used to imagine my prosthesis would be like a bra; a bit awkward and uncomfortable, but i'd wear it throughout the day because it's helpful and take it off in the evening to decompress. in reality it's actually exactly like a bra: an absolute bitch to put on one handed, unbearably uncomfortable because it never sits right, ugly af unless you're a millionaire, and absolutely useless except for the fact that i get gawked at and judged by strangers if i leave the house without it on.
and if you really want to discover how far "no hand is better than a half working hand" goes, brace yourself, and look up the patient's stories (not medical system stories) of people that have had hand transplants. the first man to receive one hated it, he was promised a return to normal function, and what he got was a nightmare worse than being one handed; he wanted it removed again but the doctors refused because it would undermine their grand achievement of the first hand transplant. the doctors and society wanted him to be fixed, they wanted him to be normal, they wanted him to be abled. they failed. they made him less able to do things, denied his autonomy, and left him with someone else's hand slowly rotting on him, prioritising the idea of "scientific progress" and "two hands good" over the physical health, mental health, and ability to function of this man.
he's not alone; every story from the patients' perspective about hand transplants that i've read goes this way, including a woman who was born quad limb different and was promised hands would improve her life, pressured into a double hand transplant, only to find herself after the surgery essentially experiencing disability for the first time ever, because she had lived her whole life getting by just fine with her 'underdeveloped' limbs, but half working hands are worse than useless. you can try to find these stories yourself, but i'm not going looking for sources on any of these cases, because if you look back through enough of my posts you'll get a glimpse of the horrors and abuses that i too was put through by doctors who prioritised trying to "fix" me at any cost, rather than providing me the best quality of life, and in turn traumatised me and left me more broken than any loss of limb on its own could. dear goddess, i promise the writing advice is coming.
so. why do upper limb prostheses exist at all? if they're so terrible and useless, what is their function? i want to borrow something someone else left in the tags of a previous rant here, from someone who i believe works in prosthetics and/or rehab, cleaned up and anonymised at their request:
"upper limb functions are wildly more complex than: 1) bear weight static, and 2) bear weight moving.
but every single upper limb amputee i know has a fancy expensive prosthetic just gathering dust in the closet because there is literally nothing it can do like a few years of adjustment and if needed non-dominant hand retraining can't do.
the existence of forquarter prosthetics to begin with is just kind of silly and useless and entirely to make OTHER people feel comfortable, especially considering they universally are UNcomfortable for the amputee.
i hate the notion that as soon as you get the amputation the prosthetic is The Thing That Will Fix You And Make You Feel Normal again because it universally isn't!
but every forequarter person i know had like this ideal of Being Fixed By Magic Prosthetic that they were then obviously wildly disappointed by and had to do yet another grieving process with, versus if the dominant narrative were just one of: yeah. it'll take time, there is no magic fix."
and i think that really nails down what the actual purpose of upper limb prostheses is: they're not for the user, they're for the sake of other people. and not just their comfort when looking at our bodies, although based on the pressure for both amputees and people born limb different to get functionless cosmetic plastic hands, there is a lot of that. but it's not just that.
i fully believe that the reason prosthetic hands exists is to comfort the fears of the two handed. "don't worry", they say, "we can fix you again. you don't have to fear becoming Disabled, you don't have to worry about adapting or your life changing. we can make you Normal™ again."
you would not believe the number of people that have approached me to shower me with pity, to tell me how horrific my life is, how they can't imagine it. people have told me, apropos of nothing, that they'd kill themselves if they lost a hand. indirectly, that my life isn't worth living. unless, of course, i happen to be wearing my cool as fuck looking robot prosthesis! then they tell me how wonderful it is, how lucky i am, how glad they are that we have the technology to fix me. that's what a prosthetic hand says, what all the happy fishing photos on limbs4life posters at the rehab clinic say: don't worry, we can fix you. that's what the bleeding edge DARPA flexi-whatever fully articulated neuro-feedback hands say: don't worry if you get IED'd while hunting civilians for us to drone bomb, if you get hurt, we will fix you, we will fix the fuck out of you, we will motherfucking adam jensen you into a cool as fuck cyborg that your son will idolise; come on boys, don't you wanna enlist just for the chance at being as cool as this? join the bomb squad for a ticket to the upgrade lottery.
and so we arrive at fiction. as much as his dialogue options protest, adam jensen loves his robot arms, they punch through walls, turn into fucking swords! they make him the most special man in the world. what would he do without them? learn to cope? grieve? practice acceptance? take up poetry? just, be disabled? there's no power fantasy for ableds in that.
in fact, can you think of a single fictional character that's an upper limb amputee that's, well, just an amputee? they all have robot arms. not realistic prostheses, not medical devices; robot arms. sleek or bulky, top of the line or broken down self built, steampunk or nanomachines or magitech automail; they're never without them. never just an amputee. never born limb different either! there's always that element of tragedy to overcome, always suffering and misery porn, always focus on the pain and the helplessness without the absolutely vital robot arm that makes them Normal and Whole. the closest amputee example i can think of is furiosa from mad max, who iirc fucking punches max in the face with her residual limb like a motherfucking badass! i can barely lean on mine wrong and she punches a guy! but she still apparently needs a dieselpunk robot hand to drive a truck, something you can do one handed so easily most drivers don't even notice they're doing it! please don't, by the way
and so many disabled fans love to point to robot armed characters as disability representation; the winter soldier, luke skywalker, edward elric, misty knight, that genderswapped furry girl from ratchet and clank, jet cowboybebop, finn the human, and yes, adam jensen…. these are all characters that someone disabled i know has told me they love because they "represent disabled bodies"…. and i know nobody wants to hear this, because i've been screamed at for saying it before, but… they do not. they are not disabled, functionally or within fiction. they are either perfectly able bodied Normal people with chrome paint on an arm, or tortured misery porn we are supposed to pity and feel lucky we're not them. sometimes both!
also you ever notice how it's basically always arms? lower limb amputations are orders of magnitude more common than upper, my prosthetist said i was probably only the 4th or 5th upper limb she'd worked with in her career, with literally hundreds of lower limb fits. but fiction doesn't seem to reflect that, huh? or any other part of the reality of disability. it's always cool as fuck robot arms, never cool as fuck wheelchairs or crutches or dialysis machines or colostomy bags. a fair few "i was blind but now i can see with Robot Eyes and also infrared and xray" around, which again, plays into that "we can fix you and make you cooler" propaganda.
by the way, up above when i was describing body powered arms, if you wondered to yourself why i went with a myoelectric one instead when i clearly believe body powered is better… yeah. i am not immune to propaganda! i too wanted to be cool as fuck. i spent years with deteriorating function in my hand for reasons that are still unknown, was misdiagnosed and medically neglected to the point that removing my hand seemed to be the only option left to offer some relief, and even that was a clusterfuck that left me worse than ever… of course i wanted to believe in the power and prestige of a cool robot arm that fiction promised me.
but fiction promises fantastical lies. and so.
we get to the writing advice portion of the novella that is this post. you asked for advice on how to write a disabled character with an upper limb prosthesis. you've read the tl;dr, you've read everything above i assume, you know i don't want you to do it. the obvious twist is that it's been writing advice all along, me trying to share my perspective on what it's like being an amp with a robot arm and how shitty it is, implying how almost any fully realised and realistic character that's missing an upper limb would give up on a prosthesis at all. you can already tell that every value judgement in me says "don't give her a prosthesis, no matter how functional or cool you make it. don't try to make the tech better to justify it, just let her be one armed, one handed. just let her be disabled, but not helpless. let her show off her elbow or underarm carry strength. let her love interest appreciate how soft and squishy her residual limb is in a moment of tenderness. let her natural disabled body be respected and valued."
but that's a personal value judgement from me, and you are the author of your own work. i know it's trite to say, but you are! even the act of deferring to someone with lived experience in the hope of doing a better job at representation is a value judgement, a good choice in my opinion, but one you needn't necessarily take. maybe you do want to write a character that has a cool as fuck unrealistic robot arm as a power fantasy, or a comfort blanket… i did.
i've been slowly writing my own probably terrible scifi epic for over a decade now, and when my arm was giving me hell back then, i'd take great comfort in this fantasy of my protagonist with her chunky robot arm, the terrible traumatic suffering of her loss, overcoming, the power and ability her advanced prosthesis gives her over others, that she alone has access to, because others are not willing to make the sacrifices required. inspiration porn. awful stuff to me now, but empowering to me then. as i grew and gained direct experience, i slowly reimagined her, rewrote her, ship of theseus'd her into an entirely new character; a reflection of me now, bitter at the whole thing, spiteful that her natural flesh arm evokes fear and distrust, but unwilling to suffer the pain and frustration of her unnatural prosthesis just to make others comfortable and respect her as "whole", however artificial that whole is. and as with the ship of theseus being two ships, once i realised the transformation, i re-added the old protagonist back in whole cloth as a separate character; proud of her robot arm and its power, but in new context, as a foil and antagonist, an in-universe military prosthesis propaganda figure to reflect how i now feel characters like her exist to us, the readers.
i'm not just sharing that as egotistical self promotion, but to highlight that, even if i sit here begging you all up and down not to write characters with robot arms for how bad and unrealistic they are; there's still something genuine and true that their inclusion can say. the great thing about the story that you're writing is that only you can write it, as they say. but i whole heartedly believe that to write to your best, you have to be aware of what you're writing and why. as tempting as it is to feel these characters form naturally in us and therefore we're averse to changing traits about them that feel organic and self evident; as authors we have omnipotent control over the text, every trait and detail is a reflection on us, so we'd sure as hell better understand why we're choosing to write a character with this trait. because anything you write without being aware of intent will take on its own meaning in the space between.
and on that note, if i don't say this, i'm leaving it to be inferred: i definitely don't want to appear to come down on the side of saying "you cannot write an amputee unless you are one", because we are rarer than single young bisexual unicorns! and it would be a tragedy if anyone read through all this and then turned away in fear, deciding to never write an amputee character (with or without robot arm) because they feel they can't do it justice… believe me, no matter what anyone says, some hack writer somewhere is going to keep writing adam jensens and winter soldiers. don't let them be the only voices in fiction! just try to do your best.
so my ultimate advice on the topic of writing a character with a prosthetic limb is to ask yourself one question in two different frameworks, and meditate on what you feel the answer is:
why does she have a prosthesis?
from a doylelist perspective as the kids say, as an author with omnipotent control, why are you choosing to write about this topic? why are you choosing to give this trait to this character? what does it say about how you view ability and disability, what makes a person normal, and what our society values? will you let her be in her natural body? or will you give her a prosthesis, force her to wear it by authorial fiat, or author her a meaningful reason to choose to? if yes, be sure you know; why did you give her a prosthesis?
and from a wastonian perspective, diegetically, inside the story, why does she choose to wear a prosthesis? what does it say about her inner character, and how she interacts with the world? how does she feel about doing it, is she prideful and loves the attention she gets, or does she resent whatever necessitates its use? how do people in this world view ability and disability, what does this society value? and above all, whatever the answer to these questions, whether or not she uses a prosthesis or is badass without one, how does she deal with the eternal freezing cold that every amputee ever feels constantly in their residual limb and why does nobody make a heat pack that fits over a nub without drafty gaps???
i can't outright tell you how to write a good upper limb amputee, but if you at least know why you're writing one and for what purpose, you're on track to write the best character that you can. that's the best advice i can give… other than, like, this whole rambly mess.
and, as a reward for reading this far, please have a very blurry cryptid photo of my cat doing his old man sit:
There used to be a lot of activities that took place around a populated area like a village or town, which you would encounter before you reached the town itself. Most of those crafts have either been eliminated in the developed world or now take place out of view on private land, and so modern authors don't think of them when creating fantasy worlds or writing historical fiction. I think that sprinkling those in could both enrich the worlds you're writing in and, potentially, add useful plot devices.
For example, your travelers might know that they're near civilization when they start finding trees in the woods that have been tapped, for pitch or for sap. They might find a forester's trap line and trace it back to his hut to get medical care. Maybe they retrace the passage of a peasant and his pig out hunting for truffles. If they're coming along a coast, maybe your travelers come across the pools where sea water is dried down to salt, or the furnaces where bog iron ore is smelted.
Maybe they see a column of smoke and follow it to the house-sized kilns of a potter's yard where men work making bricks or roof tiles. From miles away they could smell the unmistakeable odor of pine sap being rendered down into pitch, and follow that to a village. Or they hear the flute playing of a shepherd boy whiling away the hours in the high pasture.
They could find the clearing where the charcoal burners recently broke down an earth kiln, and follow the hoof prints and drag marks of their horse and sledge as they hauled the charcoal back to civilization. Or follow the sound of metal on stone to a quarry or gravel pit. Maybe they know they're nearly to town when they come across a clay bank with signs of recent clay gathering.
Of course around every town and city there will be farms, more densely packed the closer you are. But don't just think of fields of grains or vegetables. Think of managed woodlands, like maybe trees coppiced-- cut and then regrown--to customize the shape or size of the branches. Cows being grazed in a communal green. Waiting as a huge flock of ducks is driven across the road. Orchards in bloom.
If they're approaching by road, there will be things best done out of town. The threshing floor where grain is beaten with flails or run through crushing wheels to separate the grain from its casing, and then winnowed, using the wind to carry away the chaff. Laundresses working in the river, their linens bleaching on the grass at the drying yard. The stench of the tanners, barred from town for stinking so badly. The rushing wheel-race and great creaking wheel of the flour mill.
If it's a larger town, there might be a livestock market outside the gates, with goats milling in woven willow pens or chickens in wooden cages. Or a line of horses for the wealthier buyer or your desperate travelers. There might be a red light district, escaping the regulations of the city proper, or plain old slums. More industrial yards, like the yards where fabric is dyed (these might also smell quite bad, like rotting plant material, or urine).
There are so many things that preindustrial people did and would find familiar that we just don't know about now. So much of life was lived out in the open for anyone to see. Make your world busy and loud and colorful!
here is a super helpful website for this kinda thing!
the first result isn’t always the one you’re looking for but when you press enter it’ll give you a ton of words related to your query that’ll probably have what you’re wanting, or something better
Apparently a lot of people get dialogue punctuation wrong despite having an otherwise solid grasp of grammar, possibly because they’re used to writing essays rather than prose. I don’t wanna be the asshole who complains about writing errors and then doesn’t offer to help, so here are the basics summarized as simply as I could manage on my phone (“dialogue tag” just refers to phrases like “he said,” “she whispered,” “they asked”):
“For most dialogue, use a comma after the sentence and don’t capitalize the next word after the quotation mark,” she said.
“But what if you’re using a question mark rather than a period?” they asked.
“When using a dialogue tag, you never capitalize the word after the quotation mark unless it’s a proper noun!” she snapped.
“When breaking up a single sentence with a dialogue tag,” she said, “use commas.”
“This is a single sentence,” she said. “Now, this is a second stand-alone sentence, so there’s no comma after ‘she said.’”
“There’s no dialogue tag after this sentence, so end it with a period rather than a comma.” She frowned, suddenly concerned that the entire post was as unasked for as it was sanctimonious.
Words to use: strike, hit, box, kick, punch, chop, slap, kick, chop, hammer, pound
Mixing Martial Arts
Some martial arts combine grappling and striking techniques.
A skilled martial artist is probably an expert in eiher striking or grappling, but also has basic skills in the other.
Easier to stick with one group for one character - the hero's friends can complement each other if they have different martial art backgronds!
Investing a Fantasy Martial Art
Spiritual Elements connected to the general magic/religious system of your story world.
Mental Focus that allows the martial artist to amplify the effectiveness of attacks.
Small rituals, like bowing to the guru before and after every fight to obtain some kind of "blessing"
Restricted admission to pretigious martial arts academies
Specialist techniques that require combining physical action with spells, or a symbolic act that activates magic.
Exams: students must prove themselves through a series of tough (life threatening) tests to obtain access to the most important lessens of the practice.
Special garmetns
Secret codes between members
Winning Factors
Skill - the most important. A skilled fighter can take on someone who is much larger than them, but unskilled.
Size
Ruthlessness
If you like my blog, buy me a coffee☕ and find me on instagram! 📸
Most stories will feature a relationship arc as a key plotline. But in order for a relationship to be a plotline, it not only needs an arc, it needs a plot.
Showcasing an amusing friendship or a fiery rivalry, or throwing in a love triangle or family feud here and there doesn't make it a plotline any more than having an entertaining protagonist doing random things makes a plotline.
You can have ideas for a riveting relationship, but if it isn't arcing because of the story, it's probably just cleverly disguised "plot" filler.
We usually don't want a protagonist without an arc doing random things. That's not really the protagonist's story.
The same is true with relationships.
Now, real quick, not all relationships in a story will need a plot--that would be near impossible, overdramatic, and would read as soap opera.
This is one of the reasons why there is a difference between a relationship arc and a relationship plotline.
Recently I did an article on the four basic relationship arcs. For convenience here is a quick recap:
Positive Change Relationship Arc:
The characters start distant--they may be strangers or downright enemies--and grow closer in love and respect.
Ex. Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy, Mulder and Scully, Sulley and Boo
Positive Steadfast Relationship Arc:
The characters start close--already having some love and respect for each other--and have their relationship tested through the obstacles of the plot. Ultimately, they stand by one another at the end; often their love and respect grow by degree.
Ex. Frodo and Sam, Harry and Dumbledore (in book 7), Peter Parker and Mary Jane (depending on the rendition)
Negative Change Relationship Arc:
The characters start close with love and respect and are ultimately pulled apart and become distant, as strangers or enemies. They grow in dislike or disrespect for each other.
Ex. Anakin and Obi-wan (in Revenge of the Sith), Mike and Will (Stranger Things seasons 1 - 4), Katniss and Gale (in The Hunger Games).
Negative Steadfast Relationship Arc:
The characters start distant--as strangers or enemies--and might be pushed together through the plot, but ultimately won't stand by one another at the end. In the end, they are strangers or enemies. Often their dislike and disrespect will grow by degree.
Ex. Winston and Julia in 1984, Angier and Borden in The Prestige, Estella and the Baronness in Cruella
These are just basic relationship arcs and there is room for variations, so don't panic if yours doesn't fit any description perfectly. However, it should, more or less, be able to fit into one of them, which can be useful to get started.
Now we need to take some time to address plotlines, because how much you develop your relationship plotline will depend on how prominent it is. And the more prominent, the more it needs to be on the page. So hang with me as we cover some bases.
Relationship Plots for A Stories, B Stories, C Stories & More
Usually a relationship plotline is a key plotline, but where it fits in priority isn't the same for every story or even every genre.
Most stories, specifically long stories (a novel as opposed to a short story), will have at least three kinds of plotlines. The most popular combo is this: the protagonist's external journey, the protagonist's internal journey, and the protagonist's relationship journey (with the Influence Character). This is a great combo, because it has a broad conflict (the external journey), a deeply personal conflict (the internal journey), and something that fits between those (the relationship journey)--giving the story clear dimension.
However, with that said, you can create other combos as well. For example, sometimes there is a world/society plotline, and no internal journey. So while a relationship plotline is key to most stories, I'm not gonna say it's key for every single story (despite what some say in the community).
If you are reading this article, you obviously want to learn more about writing relationship plotlines. At this point, it's a good idea for us to take our usual pit stop and talk a little bit about terminology in the writing industry.
Some in the industry actually lump together the protagonist's internal and external journey and call the weave the "A Story," or the primary plot.
With this in mind, often the relationship plotline is considered the "B Story, " meaning it's the secondary plot that unfolds, more or less, alongside the A Story.
Some people in the community use the term "B Story" synonymously with "relationship plotline." In truth, not all B Stories are relationship plotlines, and not all relationship plotlines are B Stories. That's just what is most common.
In some narratives, the relationship journey is the A Story--the main plotline. This happens when the story is primarily about a relationship. The most obvious examples of this would come from the romance genre. Pride and Prejudice is primarily about Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy's relationship journey.
But this doesn't mean you have to write a romance novel to write a relationship A Story. In The Prestige, the whole story is driven by Angier and Borden trying to undo or outdo each other. The A Story is a relationship plotline about a negative relationship.
So there are a lot of options in regard to plotlines.
But whether the relationship journey is the A Story, B Story, C Story, or what have you, it still needs to have an arc and plot to be a Story. It's just that the less prominent the plotline, the less you need to develop it and show it on the page.
In contrast to a romance, The X-Files is more about the external journey and the internal journeys of each of the leads, than it is about Mulder and Scully's relationship. That doesn't mean their relationship journey isn't impactful (far from it). But less of that plotline makes up screen time . . . with the relationship arc stretched out over nearly a decade. If it had been the A Story, it wouldn't have been The X-Files, and it wouldn't have survived as perhaps the slowest burn in television.
Whether your characters' relationship journey is the A Story, B Story, C Story, or what have you, that's ultimately what we want: something impactful.
So let's dig into plot. . . .
Some of the problems that can come up with relationship plotlines stem from the writer not understanding that even though this journey appears quite different than the external or internal journeys, it still follows basic principles.
But if you don't write romance, this may be difficult to wrap your head around . . . because there are almost no resources to teach you how to do it!
People will mention relationship plotlines, but they'll be vague or general about it--or say it has to be a romance or that it must be a positive change relationship arc. It doesn't. But for this reason, this plotline has often felt vague to me, personally. If I'm not writing romance--what am I supposed to be doing here? And how?
Let's start with the basics and feed the relationship journey into them.
I already did a long and lengthy series on the principles of plot, so I won't be repeating the details of each element (nor will I be going through every element for this). This means if you are confused or need more information, you should look through the series, starting here.
Keep your relationship arc in mind as we go through the pieces, and soon it will become clearer and clearer how to write a relationship plot.
The Goal in Relationship Plots
Plot starts with a goal. This is because a goal provides context for plot. Until there is a goal, what happens doesn't really matter, since no one is trying to get anywhere. And the audience can't measure whether what happens is progress or a setback.
We know characters should have external, measurable goals. And even if they have abstract wants, they should manifest in concrete goals.
Not all characters keep the same goals for the whole story. In fact, some characters will have a different goal for each act (I'm looking at you, Star Wars IV: A New Hope). And some will have both an overarching goal and act-level goals inside it.
This can be applied to relationship plotlines. In fact, it's highly likely the relationship goal will change through the story (and often on the act level).
At the most basic, abstract level, there are only three goals your characters can have in a relationship, and they may not be the same as the other person's.
The 3 Basic Relationship Goals:
1. Draw closer and/or get along with this person
2. Push away and/or cause dysfunction with this person
3. Maintain the relationship as is
Worth noting is that the last one will likely turn into one of the other two, because something will disrupt "normal," and the character will either be trying to draw closer or push away in order to get "normal" back.
At this point, some of you may already be confused. My characters want to get along to get the plot goal, but they also hate each other and want to push each other away! you may be thinking.
Don't panic.
The relationship plotline is usually intimately woven with the external and internal plotlines.
Remember what I said earlier? It fits below the external plotline and above the internal plotline.
This means what happens externally will trickle down and complicate the relationship, while what happens internally will bubble up and complicate the relationship.
This is one of the reasons the relationship plotline can feel tricky and vague, especially if it's not the A Story.
Just focus on the relationship itself. Does the character want to draw closer to this person? Or does she want to be distant from this person? Or does she want to keep things the way they already are?
Relationship Goal Examples (Basic):
Elizabeth judges Mr. Darcy unfavorably--she wants to be distant from him through more than half the book.
Scully wants to get to know Mulder, despite his poor reputation in the FBI.
Sulley is afraid of Boo. He wants to send her away from him and Monstropolis.
Sam wants to follow, be near, and support Frodo.
Peter wants to be in a relationship with Mary Jane.
Will hopes to maintain a close bond with Mike . . . and maybe draw even closer.
While attracted to Julia, Winston thinks she's a spy and hates her (this one is a little more complicated, and that's okay).
Estella wants to work for and be like the Baroness.
Notice that the other person in the relationship may not have the same want. . . .
Mr. Darcy falls for and wants to marry Elizabeth.
Frodo doesn't want Sam to bear his burdens, so tries to create distance.
Mike isn't interested in maintaining a relationship with Will and is blind to Will's efforts (also a little more complicated)
Julia wants to be involved with Winston (which changes his relationship goal).
And sometimes the participants do have the same wants. . . .
Mary Jane wants to be close to Peter.
Despite being suspicious Scully is there to spy on him, Mulder is ultimately fine with opening up to her--after all, his purpose in life is to reveal the truth.
Angier and Borden are trying to push the other further away by outdoing each other and creating more dysfunction.
Gale and Katniss would prefer to be close (though at some parts, Katniss is only interested in maintenance)
As you can already see at the basic level, things aren't always simple, and again, wants can change, but we are just getting some basics down to build from.
You'll also notice that while the goals will play into how the relationship arcs on the page, they aren't determined by the relationship arc. Strangers can want to get close. Enemies may want to mend their ways. Friends may want to draw close or part ways. And each person may want something different.
The basic goals are the characters' desires. And the arc is what happens in reality.
Just as with external plotline goals, it's helpful if we get more concrete and specific. This will make the plotline stronger and allow the audience to better measure progress. So, consider, what does "success" in this relationship look like to the character? Darcy wedding Elizabeth? Boo being thrown back to where she came from? Mike accepting Will's gift and playing D&D with him? Winston and Julia having a secret rendezvous? Keeping Sam away from the Ring? Angier besting Borden in magic? Scully making sure Mulder makes it back in one piece to D.C. (and vice versa)?
It's important to realize that what success looks like may be influenced by the external and/or internal journeys. The external journey informs Scully what success in her relationship with Mulder looks like. It determines what Sulley's goal is for Boo. The internal journey informs Will what success looks like with Mike. It determines why Frodo wants to keep Sam away from the Ring.
So, look at each participant in the relationship--do they want to grow closer or apart? (Or maintain?) What does "success" look like in this relationship, to each participant?
The Antagonistic Force in Relationship Plots
The antagonistic force is a form of opposition. I emphasize "opposition" because the antagonistic force is something in the way of the goal.
We know what the characters want. And we know what success looks like.
What is keeping the characters from simply getting that? (Or, in some cases, maintaining that?)
That's the antagonistic force. And just like the goal, it doesn't need to be one thing, and it doesn't need to be the same thing throughout the whole relationship plotline. If you think of the antagonistic force as the obstacle in the way of or resistance to getting the goal, you'll have both a broader and more accurate understanding of what an antagonistic force really is. Or likely, forces.
For relationships, the antagonistic forces can come from several places.
The 3 Sources for Relationship Antagonists:
1. External: What's happening externally may trickle down and get in the way of the relationship goal. For example, two characters may wish to live their lives separately (or may even be enemies), but external circumstances force them together. This is common in the enemies to friends/lovers arc. In these situations, often there is a shared external plotline goal that the characters have to work together to achieve.
In contrast, you may have two characters who want to be close, but external forces are pulling them apart. In 1984, Winston and Julia want to be together in Acts II and III, but the Party wants them separated. You can see a similar thing in Romeo & Juliet.
And just as a note, even if the characters have different relationship goals, you can still have external antagonistic forces--it just gets a little more complex.
2. Within the Relationship: Antagonistic forces may come from the relationship itself. The characters may have opposing goals or methodologies or worldviews or mannerisms that clash.
Sam wants to be near Frodo. But Frodo tries to lose Sam. (Opposing goals.) Sam wants to ditch Smeagol, but Frodo wants to use him as a guide. (Opposing methods.) Untempted by and unexperienced with the Ring, Sam doesn't share compassion for Smeagol. Frodo, who suffers from both, pities him. (Opposing worldviews.)
Neither character is necessarily "good" or "bad" (though you can do that if you want). They're just different, and this creates obstacles.
It's usually very common for the protagonist and Influence Character to have opposing methodologies.
3. Internal: One or both participants may have internal struggles, flaws, or misbeliefs that bubble up into the relationship plotline.
In Sherlock, Sherlock's inability to be socially sensitive causes problems in all of his relationships. In Pride and Prejudice, it's pride and prejudice that often cause problems. Frodo's personal struggle with the Ring creates friction with Sam.
One familiar trope is that one character feels undeserving or unworthy of the other character, because of how he views himself--Edward does this sort of thing in Twilight.
Weaving All Three
Remember, just as the external and internal journeys influence each other, so do they influence the relationship plotline. When we weave three different plotlines, it can get complicated. Or perhaps more accurately said, complex.
For example, in The Hunger Games, one may argue that the antagonistic forces that ultimately drive Katniss and Gale apart come from all three places. The external plotline pulls them apart by not only creating literal distance, but emotional distance, as Katniss has to leave District 12 and pretend to be in love with Peeta.
Their relationship pulls them apart because they have different worldviews and methodologies. Gale wants to incite a revolution and overthrow the Capitol, whatever the cost. Katniss wants to survive and keep her loved ones safe.
In the internal sense, Katniss has so much going on inside her, that she doesn't have the time or wherewithal to focus on her relationship with Gale. And Gale is moving closer and closer to the anti-theme.
With that said, please don't give yourself "paralysis by analysis." You don't need to overthink the relationship plotline. The point is that you need antagonistic forces to create a relationship plotline. Those forces can come from any of those three places, or a combination of them. So if you need more (or don't have any), those are the areas to go looking. This can be especially helpful when both participants want the same "success" for the relationship--you'll need to look at external or internal obstacles.
It's Complicated
Certain setups are more complex, or at least more uncommon, than others. And I just want to acknowledge and illustrate that, so we don't get stuck thinking everything in writing needs to fit a specific mold.
In The Prestige, the A Story is a negative arc relationship between Angier and Borden. They don't want to be pals. Angier's goal is to undo Borden and best him in magic. This is informed by Angier's internal journey of obsessive revenge (also a negative arc). But Borden is also the antagonist--because he doesn't want to be undone and have his life ruined, and so fights back. They are the main obstacles for each other.
This is an atypical situation, but you'll see it has the same parts: a relationship goal and an antagonist, and of course, a relationship arc.
As Brandon Sanderson likes to say, as writers, we want to be chefs, not cooks. We want to understand the parts, and be able to arrange them in different ways to create the story we want--not follow the same recipe every time. The Prestige is a great example of that, in regard to relationship plotlines.
The Relationship Antagonist Simplified
For most stories, the antagonist will work like this:
If the character wants to draw closer, the antagonistic force is what's keeping them apart.
If the character wants to grow apart, the antagonistic force is what's pushing them closer.
If the character wants to maintain, then the antagonistic force is what's disrupting normal.
* Sometimes the antagonistic force is the other person in the relationship.
IMPORTANT: Beware of Weak Antagonistic Forces!
We've all seen relationship plotlines that made us roll our eyes, or worse, want to scratch out the writer's eyes. This is most obvious in sequels. It usually happens like this:
In the first installment, the writers create a positive change relationship arc, where the participants become best friends, found family, or significant others--and we all let out a satisfying sigh.
In the second installment, the writers don't know how else to arc a relationship, so they try to undo and redo what they already did.
It usually fails.
Other times the writers understand on some level they need to create a positive steadfast relationship arc, but don't know how to really do that, so they put together one that has about as much depth and emotion as a cardboard cut-out.
And finally, there is the relationship "plotline" that could be easily resolved by something that the characters seem too stupid to do, such as make a simple phone call.
These situations stem from the same problem: weak or unbelievable(derogatory) antagonistic forces.
If Sulley and Boo overcame all the adversity of Monsters Inc. and then we did a follow-up where they had an argument about bedtime, and we used that as a driving force to pull them apart (so we can push them back together again), it'd be stupid. The audience already watched them survive way worse. They know their bond is stronger than that.
Now, if the argument about bedtime was really subtext for deeper issues and those are going to be the driving force, and the issues are going to manifest in a lot of different ways, then maybe something like that would work.
Otherwise? The audience doesn't buy it.
The antagonist needs to be a real, powerful threat. If the characters already have a strong relationship that has been through the wringer, what could believably fray that? (And the answer can't be a simple misunderstanding.) It needs to be greater than what they've already overcome. Or, it needs to be different and just as difficult. Or, it needs to be long-lasting but still as significant. Look at the different places antagonistic forces can come from--that might help you find something you hadn't considered before. Or maybe, you need a combination of antagonistic forces to create a worthy threat.
Often(like I touched on above), rather than think of one thing or one moment that is causing problems in the relationship, it's better to find something abstract that manifests in different concrete ways. For example, in Pride and Prejudice, both pride and prejudice are abstract concepts, but they manifest concretely in different ways throughout the story to create problems. The issue isn't so much that the ladies have no one to dance with, and that Mr. Darcy should be dancing with one. The real underlying issue is the pride Mr. Darcy seems to have.
Whatever the story, it's helpful to remember that the antagonistic force should be big enough to test the characters' commitments to the relationship goal (which will lead them to either change the goal or hold steadfast to it). This can be particularly important for positive steadfast relationships. Sulley and Boo arguing about bedtime isn't a "test." It's a disagreement.
The Conflict in Relationship Plots
The relationship goal and the antagonistic force lead to conflict. These characters hate each other and want to be apart, but the external antagonist locks them together. . . . and when they finally decide they want to be together, the external antagonist yanks them apart. Or maybe one person wants to draw close and the other wants to push away. Or maybe they both want to be together, but one is crippled by a sense of unworthiness.
There are a lot of directions you can go with this, but I think you get the idea.
There shouldn't be an easy, foreseeable way to fix these situations--because the antagonist should be a real threat (see above). So we get conflict.
The more the characters want the relationship goal and the stronger the antagonist, the bigger the struggle. And struggle is often what creates a powerful arc. As the characters face worthy opposition in conflict, we illustrate how bad they want the relationship goal. We confront them with difficult situations--choices--that require sacrifice of one kind or another. How devoted are they to their relationship goal? What costs are they willing to pay? Is he willing to risk drowning to follow Frodo? Is she willing to sacrifice her career reputation and give up personal dreams to get her FBI partner back safely? Is he willing to risk torture and brainwashing at the hands of the Party to be with Julia?
How the characters choose to address the conflict will usually create the arc in the plotline. Ultimately, nothing stops Sam from helping Frodo--this leads to their positive relationship arc. We know, Sam is in it 100%. On the other hand, Katniss won't agree that sacrificing innocent people like Prim is worth a victory for the self, so she ends her relationship with Gale. This leads to their negative relationship arc. Notice, however, this doesn't mean Katniss is a "bad" person by any means. It simply illustrates that upholding the thematic argument means more to her than this relationship.
And never forget that other plotlines weave in. An external plotline victory may mean sacrificing a relationship goal. Or it may mean succeeding in the relationship enables success in the external goal. And internal victory may mean success or failure in a relationship goal. There are so many different combinations, I fear listing them may create more confusion rather than clarity.
But just to show how this can be done in an atypical way, in The Prestige, the relationship goal is to undo, best, and push away the other magician, who is resisting and fighting back (as the antagonist). This leads to powerful conflict. What is the character willing to do to succeed? Angier is ultimately willing to frame his enemy, get him hanged, steal away his daughter, and kill "himself" a hundred times to possibly succeed in this negative relationship arc. But he fails in an internal way: He's so obsessed with revenge, so unwilling to change internally, that he failed as a human being and missed out on developing new meaningful relationships. (. . . and this all starts to bleed into the want vs. need concept . . . . and I think I'll save that for another day, in regards to relationships (I promised not to get confusing)).
The point is the conflict creates struggles that show what the characters are willing or unwilling to do for the relationship goal, and their choices will ultimately arc the relationship in the plotline.
The Consequences in Relationship Plots
In order for there to be a strong plotline, there need to be consequences to the conflicts' outcomes. Otherwise, it's just conflict for the sake of conflict.
Now, with that said, conflict for the sake of conflict can sometimes work in relationships for things like banter and disagreements. Those can be effective and fun, but remember, they aren't what make up a strong relationship plotline. Don't confuse banter or disagreements as the sum of a relationship plotline. It may be part of a plotline--the banter may stem from antagonistic forces within the relationship that the characters need to overcome--but it's not the plotline itself. In order to be part of the plotline, it needs to have significant consequences, like any good conflict should have.
Plot isn't just random stuff strung together. It has a sense of cause and effect.
So, what do the characters have to gain (and/or lose) in overcoming the conflict? What do they have to lose (and/or gain) in being overcome by the conflict?
If we are strictly focused on the relationship plotline, this may seem rather simple, as it is often the relationship or relationship goal itself. If Elizabeth overcomes the obstacles between her and Mr. Darcy, they can get married. If she doesn't, she won't be with the person she loves. If Sherlock and John can work through their differences and struggles, they can be best friends. If Katniss and Gale can't, they will become strangers. If Angier succeeds, he successfully punishes Borden.
But ideally, the consequences will bleed into other plotlines. If Harry's relationship with Dumbledore is ruined, Harry won't continue to hunt for Horcruxes. In Death Note, if Light succeeds in besting L, he can continue his plans of exacting justice and creating a new world, where he is the leader.
Commonly, the relationship characters need to work together to reach the external goal. In Moana, Moana and Maui ultimately need each other to right the world--neither can do it alone. Frodo and Sam's relationship needs to work to bring the Ring to Mount Doom. Mulder can't succeed in uncovering the truth of government conspiracy and experimentation without Scully by his side.
And of course, it can bleed into the internal plotline. Once Winston betrays Julia, it means that the Party has successfully brainwashed him--he is no longer a free-thinker but part of mass psychosis.
Not only will the relationship likely affect the consequences of other plotlines, but the other plotlines will likely bring consequences into the relationship.
Just make sure the consequences are there, and that they are significant. They need to be important enough to shift the direction of the story. This will help the audience know why this relationship matters. And as a reminder . . .
Stakes = potential consequences (projecting cause and effect into the future)
Ramifications = actual consequences
Conflict in relationships without any outcomes isn't really a story.
A relationship plotline is meant to be a Story.
We'll delve more into relationship plots next time.
Related Articles
The 4 Basic Types of Relationship Arcs
The Primary Principles of Plot: Goal, Antagonist, Conflict, Consequences
