Curse You, Inevitable Romantic Subplot!

I am not a romantic writer.

 

(Picture from here.)

 

It’s not that I’m against love or sex or romantic entanglements. I just have problems when they seem bolted on, like a goose glued onto a wombat. Maybe this is a function of being (*ahem*) older. But it seems like most works have to have some kind of romantic subplot.

 

This came home to me recently as we were finding a series to watch. We first looked at Invasion (Apple), then Dark Winds (Netflix), and finally The Diplomat (Netflix.) In each case, we’re going along with a really interesting plot, good characters, intriguing mystery, when a (in my opinion, unnecessary) romantic subplot shows up. We finished Dark Winds and The Diplomat but not without yelling at the TV a fair amount. 

 

(Note: in discussing this, I will be mentioning spoilers. So, if that bothers you, stop here. I’m not sure which of my two readers is going to be bothered by this. And, if I insult a show you like, well, everyone has their own opinion on such things.)

 

Again, I’m not against a relationship showing up in a work of fiction but I want it to come out of love, not a contrived romantic narrative. I mentioned recently The Thin Man and Charade. The Thin Man shows what I would consider a truly loving relationship and Charade has a budding romance between Audrey Hepburn and Cary Grant at the very heart of the film. Both films are excellent and stand up to repeated viewings.

 

I just get antsy when it seems like the subplot was added against its will. 

 

(Perhaps, there should be regulation on subplot abuse where writers or production houses insist on inappropriately including them in works. I have this image of the romantic subplot on the witness stand in a harassment suit, tearfully recounting how it had to be forced to play in a thriller. “It was horrible,” sobs the witness. “Having to stop the plot to work out relationship kinks while everybody on set was staring at me. They just wanted to continue filming the action, but they couldn’t. They couldn’t!”)

 

Part of it, I think, is laziness. If you introduce a dangerous romance—which includes all three of the shows I mentioned at the beginning of the post—it pretty much has to dominate the story. If it doesn’t, it’s neither truly dangerous nor as consuming as the plot indicates. 

 

The Diplomat is a particularly egregious in this regard. There are two romantic subplots, one when Kate Wyler, first as US Ambassador then as Second Lady, has close sexual calls with the UK Foreign Minister. The other is when she has a full-on affair as Second Lady and Ambassador with a British spy. Both of these are incredibly risky and shows Kate either as compulsively impetuous or stupid—neither of which is supported by any other part of the show. 

 

If one takes these romantic subplots seriously—which the show doesn’t—then the main character risking the integrity, honor, and credibility of the United States should be center stage. But, no, it’s bolted on.

 

Within the confines of the show, Kate Wyler is married to Hal Wyler and they alternate between love and hate beautifully. The portrayal of the broken marriage is superb. They are an incredible political team even when they are at cross purposes. That relationship should always be center stage and never diluted by external factors. But I think it scared the writers. The relationship drama was too good. I had this feeling they said to themselves, if we continue this we’re actually going to have to work for a living. And they introduced someone else to take the heat off.

 

Which, I think, happens a lot. Oh, no! We have an incredibly dark situation between a woman and her husband with the world falling apart. Quick, add a quick sexual encounter in a hallway to distract the audience. Or, we have a woman working border patrol who’s stumbled onto a terrible drug plot. There’s no one she can trust—oh, wait! She sleeps with a guy. Now, she can trust him.

 

When I first started thinking about this, I thought that maybe they were doing a Tristan and Iseult: two people caught up in all consuming, divine passion. They must fulfill their love or die. I mean, it’s not my idea of a good time but I understand it. I’m more in the Parzifal wing where the Parzifal and Condwiramurs have three nights together without knowing what to do. only to discover things almost by accident.

 

But, no. These relationships are put in place to serve a purpose. It’s marketing, pure and simple. My problem with all of these is they try to fit complex human situations into neat little boxes so they aren’t investigated in depth. 

 

I had a friend that once suggested that Americans really only had three relationships: parent to child, friend to friend, and lovers. There’s even a romantic comedy about how a friendship between a man and a woman was impossible: When Harry Met Sally. 

 

I remember when I watched Hidalgo. There is a scene where a young woman, Jazira, and Frank Hopkins are talking in a tent and they’re discovered. While I watched the scene, I kept thinking Don’t kiss. Don’t kiss. Don’t kiss. And they didn’t. They remained friends and the film was stronger for it. 

 

There are some really interesting films without a romantic subplot: The Imitation Game, Edge of Tomorrow, Wind River, Elementary/CBS. The best relationship in the Marvel Cinematic Universe is Hawkeye and Black Widow which is never romantic but has more love than I’ve seen in many romcoms. 

 

I think humans are incredibly interesting, complex, and capable of greatness. We should be portrayed better than being stuffed into these little boxes.

 

Oh, and before I leave, countries that have DEI and laws against hate speech are now violating human rights. The incredible risk of COVID-19 to pregnant women and their babies has been documented even while pregnant women are no longer advised by the CDC to get the vaccine. And Orange Voldamort wants a bigger ballroom. Compensation, I suppose.