Characters who love more than once/"One True Soulmate" averted

So, I had this discussion about novels (especially romance novels) and fiction in general; as well as about Western culture in general, kind of... And it just kind of struck me how, especially when there's a female lead and the story is at least partly about love, she has to have One True Soulmate and One True Soulmate only. This doesn't mean she doesn't get to have more than one relationship over the course of the narration- it's not what I'm getting at.

It's just that whether it's a case of 'First Girl/Guy wins' or 'Wrong Girl/Guy first', anyone who isn't the One True Soulmate has to be reduced to a foil and/or entirely dismissed one way or another: either it turns out he was a big big Jerkass or otherwise flawed, either he dies, or it otherwise turned out the heroine never loved him anyway so he doesn't really count. And unless he actually dies, how the heroine relates to him once One True Soulmate is in the picture varies from being super-embittered and hurt by an ugly breakup, to completely forgetting his existence, to Sworn Enemies). Maintaining a platonic friendship, mutual respect for each other and/or an acknowledgement that past relationships are part of who we are(and unless abusive generally a good thing to have experienced) seems sort of taboo.

I'm guessing this relates to what a blogger I used to lfollow referred to as "Hegemonic Heterosexuality or the Cult of S#!++y Relationships"- http://goodmenproject.com/sex-relationships/hegemonic-heterosexuality/ and I think it does reflect at least some Unfortunate Implications. May be Rule of Drama as well, although it's not like this is the only possible source of conflict in a love story, ever.

So: I'm curious- can you think of any examples, in any form of fiction or art, that avert this dynamic? (As in: Say Alice, aged 19, loves Bob. Alice, aged 21, breaks up with Bob and eventually meets and falls in love with Charlie; there is no implication that breaking up with Bob left her particularly cynical or embittered; Alice and Bob remains on friendly or at least civil terms with each other and they respect each other- or, even if they lose touch for one reason or another, they keep overall fond memories of each other; they do NOT hate each other and do NOT still have romantic feelings for each other; Alice's past relationship with Bob is NOT portrayed or implied in any any way to be an obstacle in the present relationship with Charlie or as taking anything from it).

The idea of One True Partnership or the "soul mate" is pervasive in fiction. It's hard for me to think of cases that avert it.

Well, that's not entirely true. Robert A. Heinlein was very much in favor of the notion that love expands the more people you share it with, and regarded polyamory as an ideal form of association. His characters may mourn a failed or lost relationship but move on in due time.

edited 15th Apr '14 6:21:43 AM by Fighteer

Extending the boundaries of "fiction", but I can think of an example (sort of) in music/song lyrics: Beatles' 'In My Life'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKQpRgxyyqo

"There are places I remember All my life, though some have changed Some forever not for better Some have gone and some remain All these places have their moments With lovers and friends I still can recall Some are dead and some are living In my life I've loved them all

But of all these friends and lovers There is no one compares with you And these memories lose their meaning When I think of love as something new Though I know I'll never lose affection For people and things that went before I know I'll often stop and think about them In my life I love you more"

edited 15th Apr '14 6:47:46 AM by Jolie

I don't think it has anything to do with the lead being female or not (although I suppose a male lead is more likely to have casual sex partners without being judged), it's just a fact that it's hard for the audience to process platonic male-female relationships without an "explanation". Either they settle into Like Brother and Sister, or they're committed to someone else.

So basically, whenever an ex-lover exists in the story, the audience needs to know why they're no longer together, and making them either a jerk or dead is the easiest way to do it. If they just "drifted apart" then we expect to see them "drift together again" because why else would this character exist?

Isabel Allende's [[Eva Luna]] (probably on e of my favourite books ever) kind of has an interesting example: granted, Rolf is very obviously set up clearly from the start to be Eva Luna's One True Soulmate, Eva and her first love, Huberto Naranjo, do remain Like Brother and Sister after she meets Rolf- and she still even helps the guerilla troops he is involved with release prisoners from jail; she also obviously keeps fond memories of Riad Halabi- although she will probably never see him again; the fact that she is in love with Rolf now doesn't dismiss his previous experiences. Rolf- on his part, keeps pretty much the same kind of close family relation and fond memories of his sexy cousins ;).

edited 16th Apr '14 5:24:20 AM by Jolie

The tropes Second Love and The First Cut Is the Deepest cover a lot of this topic. Not to spoil anything, but the end message of How I Met Your Mother is that you can love someone with all of your heart and still have room for another.

edited 16th Apr '14 2:09:39 PM by KJMackley

I kind of got the idea of the thread by looking at both o them... I'm guessing what I'm trying to get at would be sort of Taking a Third Option in relation to both of them

Smallville starts off with Clark in love with Lana but it's obvious that they're not going to end up together unless that story had drastically changed the Superman mythology since he needs to be with Lois. I don't think the transition from Lana to Lois worked very well though.

Definitely Maybe is a movie a lot of people liked for how there wasn't a one true love for the main character. It was a love story mystery with three possibilities.

Not entirely sure what the question is, then. Amicable Exes covers those instances where two people have a relationship, are no longer together but are still friendly with each other. As for the overall topic, having some form of resentment to a previous partner is common and, to put it bluntly, natural. A relationship, by definition, is sharing an emotional connection with someone. Changing how deep that relationship goes is bound to be difficult even if you are on respectful terms.

Having a soul mate is a common trope but it is not synonymous with Official Couple, most pairings I can think of are of people who simply love each other but don't talk about destiny being involved. J.D. and Elliot from Scrubs comes to mind, at the beginning of the series they weren't perfect for each other at all, with Turk even telling J.D. they were a horrible couple and rode mostly on physical attraction and comparable personalities. They burned each other romantically several times and Word of God says they were not intended to end up together, but actor chemistry and support from the fans brought it back around.

From a religious point of view I've actually been told that any two good, honest, hard-working people could make a relationship work; that "The One" was setting an unrealistic expectation of who is the best person for you (The point being made was that relationships typically fail because of a lack of effort on one or both sides, not that any two people should get together even if life goals are not compatible).

It was an important part in Kokoro Connect for one of the characters, who had a previous love, and was okay with loving someone else without dismissing the first one as false one way or another. I think. Was a while ago.

Otherwise I find "The One True Soulmate" a distinctly unromantic idea in real life. It can work in fiction, since fiction is fiction, but in real life? Just tragic. I mean, if there's just one right person out there for you, what chance do you have of meeting that person? What if that person dies in an accident? I find it more romantic to have a combination of matching traits, and the effort to make the relationship work.

If you're believing in fated compatibility anyway, it's not a stretch to assume that fate will also conspire for you to meet. If they die or you missed them, then I guess they weren't the right one. No one ever said the soulmate thing was random or otherwise fair. It's quite easy to rationalize.

edited 17th Apr '14 8:40:50 AM by Clarste

That doesn't really make it any better for me.

@another duck- you are VERY VERY right about real life! I've been blessed with love three times in my life (even though in one case we never really were a "proper couple") and it's part of what makes me who I am. It's just that the one who made me insanely happy at age 19 couldn't keep up with me aged 21- I'm just really happy to know he's got someone who makes him happy now.

@K J Mackley- I'm curious- what religion/specific denomination was this? One of the main discussions that prompted me to start the thread initially started around a critique of the "purity culture" around certain flavours of fundamentalist evangelical Christianity- namely the idea that when getting physically or emotionally involved with someone (anything from holding hands to having fantasies to having close friendships) means you "give away a piece of your heart" that rightfully belongs to your future husband- and how this line of thinking can be very damaging; from there the discussion turned around to the idea of a soulmate and romance novels.

I'm Mormon. It's one of those things where we have to clarify the difference between culture and church doctrine, even to members of the same faith. The point I mentioned is something stated by main church leaders themselves, that two people who live righteously and do everything to make a marriage work can make it work. It was to offset a Common Knowledge claim because individuals (and probably local leaders) thought that there was a form of predestination in how we should live our lives. So there were people who would either rush into a marriage or would date obsessively but never commit, both because of believing that fate did/would make it clear to them.

There are some advisements with regard to sexual fidelity both outside and inside marriage, but the thought is that a Technical Virgin and above, outside of marriage, is crossing the line. Different people will give different "exact" lines but many things are given to private interpretation and not condemned/condoned by the church. In general sexuality is taught that you should be expressing an emotional and physical appreciation for the other, not be gratifying your own urges.

Otherwise it's a fairly big marriage culture in general, which the culture of the church embraces but the church itself fights to deflate a stigma against individuals who aren't married past the age of 27 (I'm 29 and unmarried, by the way). Many members are married within a year of the first date, which is definitely nowhere close to the average in the general population. On a similar note, a rather famous line from one of the leaders said "Three months of 'hanging out' does not constitute a meaningful courtship."

Kokoro Connect example has a Love Triangle aspect. It has no "break-up then get to know someone else proceeding ot fall in love once more"; all participants comprise a progressively, unprecedentally closely tied up (the point of the plot) group of friends. :)

—

Asari race from Mass Effect, in general (no official plots exist but the setting might allow a construction). Longevious alien falls in love with some adult human, see him pass away, then run into some other sweetheart. It's an alien (Their Love Is Different), and the first partner needs to die though. Or maybe there could be some far distance travel.

What I don't understand is for what possible reasons the couple which should be the starting point of the aversion would drift apart. Brownian Motion Harem? >_<

edited 24th Apr '14 11:37:36 PM by NemuruMaeNi

"Longevious alien falls in love with some adult human, see him pass away, then run into some other sweetheart. It's an alien (Their Love Is Different), and the first partner needs to die though. Or maybe there could be some far distance travel"

This reminds me a lot of The Doctor; although he does feel very conflicted about it. But he *did* love both Rose and River Song. (Which is part of what makes me relate to Doctor Who on such a personal level.

Not to mention at least one offscreen wife from before the beginning of the series.