Making couples more interesting

I'm writing a Happily Married couple (the same that I mentioned in an earlier thread). Because they have their shit together and don't have any tension between them, I'm having a hard time making their conversations interesting.

They're part of an ensemble cast, so this is slightly mitigated by the fact that they butt heads with the other two members of their group.

It's kind of hard for me because I've never been in a romantic relationship and the two of them are both introverted, introspective, and slightly odd.

Any general tips for interesting interactions without adding cheap soap opera crap that would split them up?

edited 21st Oct '13 7:04:04 PM by HijackThis

Well, how would you write two people being friends, and enjoying each other's company?

Do that, only more cuddly.

You can give them disagreements, common goals, and defensiveness of their judgment when they're accused of agreeing with each other just because of their relationship.

Same advice I always give: make them people themselves, first, not a trope.

Unfortunately that's not very helpful for me (despite being accurate). I have a very clear idea of their individual characters; it's their interactions together that I'm having trouble with. You can only do so much hurt/comfort before it gets tiresome.

Again, part of the problem is that they're somewhat similar types of people. The only fundamental difference between the two is that he's almost always objective, rational, and logical whereas she's more personal, subjective, and more concerned with the motivations behind actions. That's not their only difference—they have different interests, for example—but that's the biggest and most important one.

I can create some disconnect with this but I have a hard time making them enjoying each other's company without going into Tastes Like Diabetes territory.

edited 22nd Oct '13 5:27:20 AM by HijackThis

Ah, sorry. I misunderstood.

What it sounds like you're lacking and looking for is how couples interact besides hurt/comfort. For that, people-watching is vital.

Do you have the same trouble with writing the interactions between two close friends? two drinking buddies? two casual acquaintances? A romantic couple will have all those same interaction levels and more, not fewer. They'll have disagreements, arguments, even out-and-out fights. They'll have private jokes between the two of them that they never explain to anyone else. They might be cuddly, or they may not engage in any PDA beyond small, almost accidental-appearing light touches of the other's hand or arm. Or they may do both (and everything in between, too) depending on the situation.

edited 22nd Oct '13 8:41:36 AM by Madrugada

I don't really have any trouble writing friends, but writing an existing relationship seems difficult to me because the stakes are higher and there's a greater level of respect, understanding, and power over one another (and I mean that in the most benign way possible) than there would be in a platonic relationship.

That's where much of my difficulty stems: balancing their intimacy (emotional, not physical) and individuality. Most of the time I try to write their interactions it swings from one extreme to the other. I haven't really seen a balance between the two in my own life...

But enough about that. You mentioned "people-watching". Where/how would I do this?

edited 22nd Oct '13 12:50:19 PM by HijackThis

People watching? It's easy: you go somewhere that other people (of the types you're trying to write) tend to be, and where you can simply hang around for a while without having to keep your attention on something else, and ...watch the people around you. Museums, coffeeshops (you'll need to buy a cup of something to drink) bars (if you're of legal age — again, buy a drink and nurse it), restaurants (get a booth where you can see most of the other tables, and buy a cup of coffee and a bagel or something that you can nibble on for a while), park benches, the mall... The list goes on. For couples, consider the grocery store, especially if one near you has a coffeeshop or deli/restaurant.

What you're looking for is the way the people around you interact with each other.

See that couple over there, in the booth by the waitress station? See how they're sitting well back on the benches, each with their own food well over on their own side of the table, and they aren't talking much and they both are paying more attention to the food that to each other. See how they both look kind of stiff and guarded, how when she passes him the salt shaker, their hands don't touch?

Now, how about that other couple sitting along the back wall — they're both leaning forward over the table toward the other one, as soon as they finish with a dish, they move it to the end of the table, out from between them. They're eating, but they're still keeping their attention on the other one.They're talking quietly, smiling and there's sometimes quiet laughter from one or the other. Ok, they're down to just their coffee, now, see how he laid his hand down across the middle of the table, palm up, and she extended her hand and put it in his...?

One of these couples is on good terms; the other one is having some sort of tension between them. Which is which?

People-watching.

Or those two women sitting in the Starbucks. Both of them are alone. One is sitting near the window, looking out. Her posture is relaxed but straight, she's cradling her cup in both hands, elbows on the table, looking past it and out the window at the world going by. Her expression is neutral, mostly, but sometimes a soft partial smile flits across her mouth, or a fleeting frown draws down her eyebrows.

The other is sitting at a table for four in the back corner — sitting in the chair that puts her back to the rest of the room. It's interesting, her elbows are on the table too, and she's holding her cup in about the same position, but the result is different. Her shoulders are hunched forward; her posture is drawn in on herself, like she's curling around something held in front of her belly. The way she's holding her cup, it's as though it were a shield — or maybe a weapon. Most of the time her head is down, and she's looking at the tabletop, as far as you can tell. But once in a while, she tips her head back as far as it will go, stretching and exposing her throat, and stares at the corner formed by the junction of the two walls and the ceiling. Then you can see her eyes, and she's not seeing anything — she's got what's called "the Thousand-Yard Stare". Whatever she's looking at is a long, long way away, or a long time ago.

People watching.

edited 22nd Oct '13 3:51:01 PM by Madrugada

People-watching is something I personally have a bit of a problem doing. The most I can manage is either seeing them from the corner of my eye (which is really only good for knowing if they're still there, and not much else), or darting my eyes around like a jittery meerkat on lookout duty.

I guess what I'm asking is, how are you able to watch people without looking like some kind of creep?

On your other point:

Well, yes. It's more complicated. The stakes are higher, but the trust level is higher, too. It kind of balances out. But really, it's not so much "different" as it is "more". In a solid couple-relationship, all the same things that are present in a platonic friendship are there, but there's more, too.

And it isn't always balanced. It's balanced overall, usually, but at any given moment, in any given interaction, there's usually an imbalance of some kind, to some degree — one is leading and the other is following, more or less, sort of. Which one is which will depend on their respective strengths or weaknesses. And it may be in small ways, not overt.

Oh, that. You don't stare, mostly. You don't try to make eye contact — you're watching them, not trying to meet them. If you do make eye contact, give them a polite smile, and then turn your attention to something (not someone) else that isn't them — that's why you want a drink or some food, or something you can put your attention on for a while. I find a sketchbook or notepad also works.

Let me ask you this: when you're out in public, how aware are you of what's going on around you? To people-watch, you bump up that awareness of "what's going on around me" and stretch it to include the people.

Dammit, I wish I could meet you somewhere and just show you...

edited 22nd Oct '13 4:04:51 PM by Madrugada

What do you mean by this "imbalance"? I don't think that just because one person initiates or one person is getting more out of something at this moment doesn't mean that it's imbalanced. From what I understand, for love to maintain itself, the two must alternate between the roles of giver and receiver. That's not imbalance, that's mutual understanding and sharing.

What I meant by imbalance of individuality and intimacy is the couple that barely speaks to each other vs. Sickeningly Sweethearts. Two people in a mature relationship are supposed to allow for differences and separate experiences. I just don't know how to convey that.

edited 22nd Oct '13 6:37:12 PM by HijackThis

I don't believe she meant imbalance as a negative term. Just that a different person would take the leading role in decision making, depending on what the situation calls for.

Sometimes, people put so much stock on the concept of "two becoming one" that they start to think of each person in the relationship somehow melding into a singular monolithic entity. When really, it's just two still-different people who, for whatever reason, decide that they like each other enough to walk the same path with them.

Kyler nailed what I meant there. A strong couple isn't one personality in two bodies. It's two personalities in two bodies who have figured out how to agree, how and when to disagree; how to work together, how and when to work separately, and how to interact with the other in a way that's mutually satisfying.

When did I say they were one personality? Did I say something that made it seem that way?

Well, this is depressing...

edited 22nd Oct '13 9:01:58 PM by HijackThis

It did kind of seem that way, to me, although I can't point at any particular sentence and say "That. That's what made me think that." I guess it's that what I'm hearing you say is that you think "a couple" is fundamentally different from "good friends", that they are something other. But they aren't. A good couple is all the layers of "Good friends" plus more layers.

So write a scene between them as though they were simply good friends, then add the "more layers".

I'm having problems with words right now — they aren't doing what I want them to. Maybe posting one of the scenes you aren't happy with would help.

I'd rather not. Right now I'm under the impression that I just don't understand relationships of any sort in general and I'm not up to discussing it. Regardless, thanks for your posts and input, both of you.