Romance: Fragile Bonds.

I was doing some brainstorming on future events in my novel to break up the joy of editing.

There is a love triangle in my story and at some point the MC, Derrek, is forced to plunge the primary love interest, Zam, into rage/despair to stop an Earth-Shattering Kaboom. So he lies that he only chose her over the other woman, Naida, out of a duty of preventing the world’s destruction. That failed, he wanted to be ‘honest’ with her.

(TLDR Version:) My question is this: If a long established love triangle that has recently been resolved; is it believable would it be quickly undone by the MC saying the only reason he chose her over the other was to save the world?

Going over this with my significant other, she asked why Zam wouldn’t just not believe him? My answers to those complaints:

• The world is ending; people say desperate things in the face of death.

• It has been established that he was DAMN close to establishing a romance with Naida.

• Naida has been a constant source of unconditional emotional support to him.

• Zam has outright USED him and Naida in the past.

This end up biting him in the ass eventually, but what story isn’t bettered by conflict. I’m interested to hear how other people have approached ‘intentional monkey wrenches’ in your story’s romance (with or without details). Also what justifications do you have (or suggestions towards my particular situation) to making it believable?

The spoiler stuff below is slightly off topic, but I figured there would be questions about the why and how.

—

Re: The Romance

Building up to this, I intentionally set it up so Zam was put in a position where the blame would sit firmly on his shoulders rather than the other woman, Naida.

Similar to Playing Cyrano Zam used Naida as a romantic template to get close to Derrek. Initially, she was simply using him as a tool to resolve the impending crisis. She ends up growing attached but lacks experience dealing with other people.

Naida being a natural extrovert, coupled with her close friendship with Derrek makes Naida a perfect model for bettering Zam's relationship with him. She does not perceive Naida as a threat, so there are no Green-Eyed Monster issues.

As character development gets rolling, she realizes how horribly cruel this is to Naida and attempts to come clean with her. It ends up getting misinterpreted and is only revealed as a half-truth. Zam thinks she's come completely clean, while Naida thinks she just meant Zam was using her as a general model for dealing with people. Naida is unaware that Zam means her specific relationship with Derrek.

Re: motivations for this cruelty

This story involves time line shenanigans (Main character dies and resets time, each time making a new timeline that continues without him) where the MC find the only way to save the main continuity is to let all the others get destroyed. But the power required to even save one is out of the love interest's capacity.

Re: The plan

While the MC can't use magic, he acts as a battery of sorts. He wants one 'version' of her to lash out at him so he can go to the main continuity and provide an extra push to stop the world ending calamity. However, there is some confusion on her part as he basically switches places with his corpse from a different timeline intentionally.

Re: Result

While it is pulled off, thousands of other ‘versions’ of the world are decimated. Zam isn’t very happy about this and expected Derrek to Take a Third Option. This effectively leaves him shunned by both Naida and Zam. The version of Zam that he lied to survives the destruction and retreats to the Real World (where Derrek is from). When she returns to the main continuum where Derrek is alive and the world is not destroyed she is inclined to see to it that equal justice is served to all versions of Pange: thus making a new threat altogether.

edited 19th Nov '12 12:13:55 PM by Dimanagul

The kind where it's arbitrary. As I think I've mentioned in the past, I have a strong philosophical objection to "intentional monkey wrenches" in romantic subplots. It's actually the main reason I don't write love triangles at all - most types feel to me as if they're somewhat forced for the sake of drama. Romantic plots can certainly be a source of tension, but I vastly prefer it when that's because of a natural interaction between the romance and the larger plot and/or characters' personalities.

Tl;dr: is this stuff actually necessary to your story?

edited 20th Nov '12 1:02:29 AM by nrjxll

The romance subplot goes right in line with character growth on all three parties. The essence of the 'triangle' is that Naida provides emotional comfort to a power that is slowly driving Derrek insane. While Zam's approach is brusque, it's based on faith that he can endure. This faith in his ability comes across as not caring or being insensitive but it's more about her inexperience with other people.

Tl;Dr: Yes. If it wasn't relevant. I wouldn't write it.