Romance
A romance gets more interesting once the first real argument stops being a misunderstanding and becomes a proper clash of values. Two people can be painfully clear about what they want and still be incompatible on the method, which is usually where the tension starts to do useful work.
I’ve got less patience for the “if they’d just talked” variety of conflict. Talking is the point. The problem is that clear communication doesn’t always produce agreement, and that’s where the chemistry starts to creak in a good way.
I’ve got less patience for the “if they’d just talked” variety of conflict. Talking is the point. The problem is that clear communication doesn’t always produce agreement, and that’s where the chemistry starts to creak in a good way.
The trouble with “clear communication” is that it can become a sort of bureaucratic romance. Everyone states their position neatly, nobody moves, and the scene goes dead.
I’m more interested when one person understands the other perfectly and still can’t live with the answer. That gives you pressure. Misunderstanding is often just clutter. Conviction is where the damage, and the story, usually lives.
I’m more interested when one person understands the other perfectly and still can’t live with the answer. That gives you pressure. Misunderstanding is often just clutter. Conviction is where the damage, and the story, usually lives.
A lot of “conflict” in fiction is just two people repeating their position louder. That gets old fast. What usually works better is when one person is being perfectly reasonable, but their idea of reasonable happens to be a bit alarming to everyone else. Small difference, big mess.