x-posted from ManuscriptMavens.com
Today I want to talk about “irreconcilable differences” as it pertains to romantic conflict. The first time I heard this phrase was, I believe, in reference to a celebrity divorce in California. I remember thinking, “But what does that mean? Nothing happened?” and being flabbergasted by the whole concept. (Mind you, I was undoubtedly young at the time I first heard this phrase.)
As an adult, though, I’m beginning to see how supposedly small things can become greater than the classic “big” things like, say, cheating.
What if a slob and a neatnik fall in lurve? Match made in heaven, because he’ll be right there to pick up after her everywhere she goes? Doubt it. As soon as the newness wears off, I bet the resentment sets in.
What if a recipe-collector and a frozen-pizza-burner fall in lurve? Fabulous because she can cook dinner every night and he’ll be grateful he’s no longer gnawing burnt frozen pizza? Maybe at first.
What about a party animal and a homebody? Are they good for each other? He’ll help her discover her domestic side, and she’ll help him connect to all the other humans roaming the planet? Or a recipe for daily arguments over whether TV reruns or happy hour is the better use of their time?
Compromise is key. Sure. We’ve all heard that. But some things aren’t compromiseable because they’re just part of our makeup. The homebody isn’t wrong to be a homebody any more than the bubbly extrovert is wrong to be a bubbly extrovert. Why should either of them give up what they love being to become something they hate, just to “get along”? Then neither of them are happy, right?
My theory is this all goes back to what your mama told you as a kid: Be yourself. Much easier to get along with someone who views, interprets, and interacts with the world in the same manner you do.
Of course, if you’re writing romance, it’s never that easy…
YOUR TURN: What say you? Is there such a thing as irreconcilable differences? Is it a legitimate conflict? Is it an overcomable conflict? Can you believe in Happy Ever After for a couple whose world-views are fundamentally opposed? Why or why not?
Every marriage lasting decades overcame irreconcilable differences at some point during the years. Partners who were never in love to begin with give up, invent fancy labels, and split. Partners unable to move past self indulgence break apart due to ‘irreconcilable differences’. If a couple can’t get past squeezing the toothpaste tube in the middle, most everything else in the chaotic realm of marriage will slowly erode their feelings for each other. I’ve noticed over the years when a couple stops laughing at each other’s gaffs and shortcomings, silence descends, and resentment follows on its heels like the Hounds of the Baskervilles.
When a couple has opposing world views, I suspect they might be kidding themselves into thinking a marriage is going to work. I mean, if you save all your money for a rainy day, and he spends it to have entertainment for that rainy day, you will have problems. People don’t change to suit someone else. Or if they do, resentment soon follows because they will inevitably think, “How come I had to change? Why not you?”
People should be more careful about marriage. It isn’t simply about falling in love and living happily ever after. It’s also knowing who is paying the bills that month, who is taking the kids to practice… it’s all about the nitty-gritty-boring details of life.
This is a toughie, E. The problem with people is that they change, sometimes for the better, sometimes not. You can start out with someone totally compatible and fun to be with, and over the years she might morph from a Romance Languages grad student who reads you French poetry at night to a stressed-out globe-hopping IBM executive who has signed a confidentiality agreement never to talk about her job. The commonality disappears, and with it the marriage. No cheating, no real disagreements, just nothing left in common. No one’s fault – or perhaps, society’s fault.
When that happens, people do as I and the ex did, and glom onto “irreconcilable differences” as the legal fig leaf that allows us both to move on without recriminations or ongoing financial ties. “Since there’s no help, come let us kiss and part; Nay, I have done, you get no more of me…shake hands forever, cancel all our vows…” – thus Michael Drayton on irreconcilable differences in the 17th century.
Bernard and Belinda have both made excellent points. Yahoo! has a story on its home page today about why men avoid marriage: the conclusion is that “most men were not afraid of marriage — but they were afraid of a bad marriage.” We’ve all seen people damaged by divorce, and it’s never pleasant.
On the other hand, we all know plenty of people in happy marriages. They, too, have changed over the years, but in ways that have tended to bring them closer together overall. But how does one know in advance that this will happen?
The answer is that one doesn’t. Life does not come with guarantees. We have to give it our best shot, stir in plenty of effort and goodwill, and hope for the best.
Which is why we all love to read roamnce novels, no? To reinforce our own inner sense that it is possible to have it all in matters of the heart.
Bernard makes a really great point, but I agree with Belinda and Bill. There has to be some maturity, realism and responsibility in a relationship, imo. Love isn’t always the answer.
No one goes into an actual relationship (married or not) thinking it will end. We believe this is it. We’ve found the one…our soulmate. Things change, we change, they change. Sometimes we can work through it and sometimes we can’t.
It’s definitely hard to do when only one person wants to work at it. Or one person changes so much so you feel you no longer know them at all.
I remember attending a 60th wedding anniversary party where the best lines came from the couple. She said, “Divorce was never ever a word used in our home.” To which the husband mumbled, “But murder sure was.”
I’m sure you’ve all heard something along the same lines as the above, but I realized that evening, that all though we had a great laugh at their words, there was much truth to them in the fact they could have murdered their relationship (hopefully not each other), but they didn’t. They obviously worked at working it out. And it took both of them working together for the good of the relationship, not the good of the individual.
As much as people like to get long winded – it happens.
You agree to disagree.
There isn’t anything new about it. Either you work through the disagreement or you choose separate bedrooms.
I think 2 people can be as different as night and day re: all matter of issues a la recipe-collector and frozen-pizza-burner and the relationship can work. But if they do not sure the same underlying values the relationship is doomed. I’ve never really thought about it in terms of hero/heroine, but I would imagine that the same holds true in novels. Do I think irreconcilable differences can be a sufficient conflict to carry a romantic plot? Probably not. Maybe for some secondary characters, but not for the main ones. At least not if the book is going to be really, really good.