On Representing Committed Relationships on Television

[manonlechat]

If you've been in fandom a while, you've heard these arguments but this un-ranty rank sums it with good examples:

A Rant About Television's Difficulty in Representing Committed Relationships

An excerpt:

... the problem with House is not that House and Cuddy are in a relationship. The problem is that the writers do not have a clue how to depict a

Comments

[aiffe]

Yeah, I agree that that's silly--sexual tension isn't the only thing making stories interesting! Which is why I'm so pleased about what's going on in new episodes of Doctor Who, because for literally decades, they've told stories where companions leave the show to get married, and now we have a companion who just does the obvious thing and BRINGS HER HUSBAND. And it is most definitely not going to kill the show!

There is something to be said for falling-in-love as a genre. It's like, when Mark Twain ends The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, he says it is not because Tom ran out of adventures to have, but because it was the story of a boy, and if it continued, it would become the story of a man. I think I am also guilty of writing stories (oneshots, usually) that end with the relationship starting--not that I think that's the end of them being interesting, but because it was a falling-in-love story, not a staying-in-love story, which is a completely different genre. Since a lot of fanfic starts with characters not in established relationships, falling-in-love stories come naturally. You see more staying-in-love stories for canon ships.

Another thing is that stories thrive on conflict. Pretty much everything I've read on the subject of writing is that if you have no conflict, you have no story. Falling-in-love stories often have falling-in-love sort of conflict, so once that is resolved (by them becoming committed) it's a logical place to end it, because if you just resolved the driving source of conflict of the story, you'd need to manufacture more conflict to continue. Do this too many times, and it feels contrived. If, however, the main source of conflict has nothing to do with sexual tension, the couple can get together without it having any effect on the plot.

In the case of House and Cuddy, I didn't feel at all that their breakup was put there to "keep things interesting." It was inevitable. I knew from the start of their relationship that it would have to happen, and it's exactly as I'd have written it. It isn't about maintaining sexual tension, it's about the overarching themes of the show.

And as for House's change....I'm struggling for a way to put this. Yes, he changes, in the sense that s7 House isn't quite s1 House. But in a way he becomes....more himself. Like a wine getting stronger. He doesn't change the way a traditional protagonist changes, the blooming of a flower, a revolution--in fact, I'm not convinced he's a protagonist, at least at first. He's a main character, but he might be playing mentor-antagonist to his team's multiple protagonists.

I really don't think he and Cuddy could have worked. But I am pro-established couples in stories where they do work with the characters. (Whoo Amy/Rory! I don't see them breaking up.) I think it really matters what kind of story you're trying to tell.