How do I convey that a relationship is platonic?
I've been toying around with the idea of writing a novel. The story revolves around two characters, one male and one female, and the perspective will shift between them.
One of the central ideas of the story is that the two characters couldn't be any more different. They have different sets of talents, different world views, different ways of handling crises. Yet despite all that sets them apart, they're the best of friends. Nobody, including the two of them, can quite put into words why their friendship works as well as it does, but they're nonetheless inseparable.
Here's the catch: This is not a love story. Both consider the other a close friend, but nothing more. It's not something they've ever considered, and their relationship won't ever become anything more than what it is. Unfortunately, every introduction for the two of them that I've come up with invariably feels like a cliched setup for a cheesy romance.
I could directly call out the fact that they don't view each other in a romantic light, but that feels sloppy, and doesn't resonate very well. I'd rather show that they're just friends, rather than resort to directly summarizing how they feel about each other. I also don't want to introduce a different love interest for either one of them. In their eyes, they have each other, and that's about it.
What's the best way for me to introduce their relationship, and not overtly hint at a future romance?
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/35903. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
2 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
They have different sets of talents, different world views, different ways of handling crises. Yet despite all that sets them apart, they're the best of friends.
Why are they the best of friends? One theory of "friendship" I find useful for writing is the idea of mutual benefit. This can be demonstrated, for example, in music: If you and I like the same kinds of new bands, then with two of us on the lookout for new bands, and sharing our finds with each other, then we both end up discovering approximately twice as much. Likewise, friends that share a mutual interest in fashion, sports, food, sci-fi movies, television shows, and other forms of (say non-sexual) entertainment will have moments to share, similar memories, and will enjoy each other's company because of it.
It is human nature that most entertainment experiences are massively more fun if experienced with another than experienced alone. In studies, people watching a standup act will laugh much more often sitting with a heretofore stranger than they will laugh sitting and watching alone.
This is not to say that friends are alike in every respect; they may differ on many topics, on politics, on entertainment. But they probably will NOT be "the best of friends" unless they share several likes and dislikes, and share a world view on several topics.
Opposites do not attract; they repel. It is difficult for an atheist to be best friends with bible-pounding evangelical. It is difficult to enjoy the company of another if you think their politics is wrong, their religion is wrong, all their preferred entertainment is infantile or boring.
To be the best of friends, your characters need enough to share that they can enjoy spending time together. If there are topics to avoid, that must be possible without diminishing the time they spend together.
It is true that mutual benefit can arise from frequently used complementary skills, so that when we combine them we create something more valuable to both of us. Perhaps even something commercial: He is an artist, she is a writer, together they have a best-selling comic book, or they are best-sellers in the field of illustrated children's books.
(That is a hook to explain a platonic relationship despite a lot in common).
Otherwise I cannot see how you show them being the best of friends.
Nobody, including the two of them, can quite put into words why their friendship works as well as it does, but they're nonetheless inseparable.
I am guessing from this that you will just TELL us their friendship works and they are inseparable; because you can't figure out how to do it either, after making them polar opposites. The reason "nobody can put it into words" (including the author) is because it makes no sense!
You need something to stop people that are plausibly best friends from becoming lovers. A deal breaking disagreement or pre-existing condition. This can be something discussed once or mentioned off-hand, and a topic they avoid talking about.
One such might be religion; neither will marry outside their different faiths.
Another might be their mutual business: A refusal to mix business and love life, and perhaps ruin both.
Another might be a shared history: Raised in the same foster home; and they feel like brother and sister, even if not blood-related.
Another might be blood relation: They are cousins, and not kissing cousins. Or children of the same "wandering" father but different mothers, raised separately and discovered each other later.
Another might be a significant age difference; typically romantic interests are not visibly older than each other.
I could directly call out the fact that they don't view each other in a romantic light, but that feels sloppy, and doesn't resonate very well.
It feels sloppy and doesn't resonate because it is just telling, with no plausible reason. I could not write this relationship without SOME plausible reason for them avoiding romance. The notion that a normal heterosexual male and a normal heterosexual female that are the best of friends, unattached, for a long time both never ever consider each other as a love interest is simply not plausible. You could make one or both of them have rather improbable personality issues; homosexuality or extreme intimacy or sexual aversion, but then you will have given a reason!
Normal adults want romantic connections, and friendship is often the first step in that direction; failing to take the next step demands a reason you must supply. IMO, "Because author tells us so" will just make people put down the story, for not making sense.
So although I might be surprised by your skill in pulling this off, I think for myself your constraints would make this impossible to write as anything I would regard as good work.
0 comment threads
The best way to illuminate a boundary is to cross it. Barring that, the second best way is almost cross it.
Have your characters accomplish some major task together, despite long odds. Then, as they are celebrating that small victory, have them catch each others eyes. Hold them there, teetering on the brink of it becoming something greater, then in perfect synchronization, as if sharing a well established joke, have them smile with mischief shining from their eyes. Both confident in the support and loyalty of the other. Both thrilled with what together they have accomplished. Both knowing that their current lifelong bond is better than the steamy short-lived alternative which awaits them down the alternative path.
You don't have to say any of it. Just make sure to show that each is happy in the now and untroubled by their aborted brush with intimacy. Romantics will always hope that this will change, but if the friendship is unfailing and supportive in both directions, it will fill the "better than real life" fantasy that your readers crave, without getting all mushy.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/35906. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads