It's not that she's dull. She has many imporatant roles to play in the story. She's got a conflict in the romantic plotline, she's got an important conflict in my social satire plotline, she's got critical technical knowledge in my science fiction plotline, and she makes many pivital decisions throughout the story.
I feel like I have done all the right things to make a great chatracter and that writing her should be easy, but it isn't. Her motivations are all stereotypes, and the stereotypes don't blend well. She likes the wrong guy because she is insecure (stereotype). At the same time she defies society's conventions because she is so confident that her beliefs are worth fighting for (stereotype). Yet she's also a brilliant scientist determined to save the world from a looming danger (stereotype). The danger interacts with her romance and her social agenda, but it comes from an unrelated source.
The various facets of her personality fit perfectly in the plot I've designed. Every time I need to turn up the tension, one of them causes her to make the choice I need her to make. Unfortunately, they don't add up to a logical set of motivations. I don;t understand her. Perhaps I've got a blind spot, but I can't stop myself from believing that I would understand her motivation if she were a man.
Probably my biggest problem is the romance / insecurity part. Her motivation for liking the "wrong guy" cannot be connected to her social and scientific agendas, since the "wrong guy" thinks both agendas are stupid. I need him to threaten her self-image that way.
In isolation, insecurity makes a good motivation for the relationship, but it doesn't make sense in the context of her whole personality. It's just the only thing that comes to mind for me. I really have trouble understanding why women like men.
Perhaps this is what fatherhood is like. I've created a really great female character here, and from my perspective no man is good enough for her! They're all jerks and she should spurn them all!
Any advice?
Okay, from one woman's perspective:
1) I have known many, many, MANY supremely competent, highly successful, strong women who simply turn to piles of brainless goo when it comes to a certain man (or type of men). One friend, a woman who is a bar-passed attorney and very high ranking in her practice has the unfortunate tendency to only be attracted to men who ultimately treat her like shit and wind up dumping her. In this real life case, the problem stems from childhood sexual abuse. Sadly, that is often the case...it happens much more frequently than people realize.
2) Some women operate from a place of insecurity when it comes to men, while in all other aspects of their lives they are completely confident. This is not a stereotype, it's a fact (note SOME women, not ALL). Unfortunately, a lot of girls were conditioned by their mothers and other, earlier generations that they may be equal in all things except relationships; in those, men should be in charge. Otherwise, men won't want them, because they will be perceived as too aggresive, too "butch," too emasculating...whatever. Some girls grow up and are never able to shake this; thus they suck it up and go along with whatever their men want, take guff, let the man's agenda dominate in the relationship...all because they think they must in order to "keep" a man.
3) Why do women like men? Turn it around and ask why do men like women? After all, we're often moody, demanding, unpredictable...in short, we're imperfect beings. So are men. We get that. Why someone likes a member of the opposite sex (or a same-sex potential mate) is nothing you can put into a logical framework. Humans are hard wired to desire companionship. You can say it stems from a primal need for procreation or for physical defense, but when it comes right down to it, it is an illogical, emotional response. Don't overanalyze it...that is probably what is holding you back. Love is love, desire is desire. They usually happen without logic or reason or clear motivation or even basic compatibility between two people.
IMO, in the framework of a story, you can show two characters that aren't right for each other still being wildly attracted. You can hint at possible reasons, such as similar personalities but different social agendas, but you don't necessarily have to spell them out. If the characters are compelling, if their dialogue with one another sparkles, if the descriptions of their responses to one another are vivid, then don't drag the relationship down by pointing at motives, psychological flaws, or other causes. Let them go at it; they may just create the chemistry for you and, if it is strong, your reader won't be nagged by the same "why's" that you are.
I hope some (any) of that is remotely helpful. Best of luck with your story!
[This message has been edited by Hildy9595 (edited November 12, 2002).]
Because I am a fiend for overdeveloping everything in a character's background, I'm going to ask you a few questions that probably never really needed to be answered but would personally bug me if I were the one writing and I didn't get them answered. At worst, you won't get anything at all out of answering them except a big waste of time, but at best you might just figure out some better "why"s to your character than the stereotypical ones. I find that alot of people act very stereotypically-- that's why stereotypes exist, after all-- but few of them act that way for the same reasons. It seems to me that it is the reasons that you haven't delved into completely enough to make your character real to you.
Now for the questions.
Who were her parents? What was her father like? What was her mother like? How did they interact with eachother? How did they interact with her? How is she like her mother? What did she admire the most about her father? What did she hate the most about her father? What did she need from both parents that she feels she never really got?
When you answer these questions (and any others that pop into your brain), you should start getting a clearer picture of what she will be attracted to in a man. It is a frighteningly constant phenomenon that women are attracted to both the best and worst qualities in their fathers, as well as what they needed the most from them but never got. In my case, I married a man who is very intelligent and has high ideals (best quality of my father); who can be tender, caring, patient and supportive of me (things I didn't get enough of); but who also has a very hot temper (worst quality of my father). I find it is actually which balance these qualities are found in that dictates whether a man is a good match for a woman or not. Some women get into relationships with men who display too much of the worst qualities of their fathers, with predictable results. Alternatively, any adult human being who finds themself in an enlongated period of abstinence is likely to consider sex appeal over any other qualities at all (provided that they allow themself to look), as the drive to mate takes front seat. Sad but true.
As to the other qualities of your character, it's phenominally important to delve into your character's past and figure out why she is such a strong, bright, confident woman. People like that don't just spring out of Zeus's head, you know. :P Chances are, her upbringing had a lot to do with it.
Another thought I had just now is that sometimes women will chose their prospective mates out of a subconcious need to rebel. An honor student who graduated at the top of her class and spends two hours every night practicing piano and then another four on homework would seem like a perfectly bright and virtuous young woman, but may feel that her life is run by her parents' expectations; and though she may continue to strive to meet those expectations, her unconcious need to rebel against them may find her paradoxically attracted to a scoundrel. The key thing about this that must be remembered is that chances are, this girl has no idea in the least why she is attracted to him; she only knows that she is. She may even fall head-over-heels for him. Of course, the likelihood is that this will not lead to true love, or even a lasting relationship, because her unconcious motivation is rebellion and has nothing to do with the man involved. But it is just as likely that she will act on the surface feelings and take them at face value, and continue to take the relationship seriously until it turns into a disaster.
Okay, so that's enough babble out of me. Hope some of it helped.
Shasta
Kolona said,
quote:
There is some truth to the idea that a woman can see through another woman better than a man can size up the same woman.
This tickles me, despite the fact that I have great respect for you, Kolona, having seen some of your writing. I mean, how can any person know how well one gender can understand the other? Even people who are switched from one to the other have a unique perspective and can't really answer that.
Anyway, about the character's attraction to this man: Can you find some of the things that she sees that she likes about him? Surely there are some positive things that attract her. The cliches (although they are probably usable) are an attractive body, a certain smile, a sauve manner, but they could be things like an artistic skill, a shared passion for a particular artist or writer or school of thought, certain tender things he does (even if manipulatively), such as hiding flowers in her house to be discovered at unexpected times, etc.
Hope some of that helps.
Luc
That's why I always write it from the male POV.JOHN!
I realize that that insight is not he least bit helpful, but at least you know you're not crazy for asking.
[This message has been edited by JOHN (edited November 12, 2002).]
quote:
how can any person know how well one gender can understand the other?
I think it's as simple--and as complicated--as the evidence: the cattiness of women, which is triggered by that unique understanding of each other; the fact that, usually, men hear a love song and think "sex," while women hear it and think "romance," and each identifies with their other group members thinking the same thing; the greater intuitiveness of women; the supposedly stereotypical notion that women understand men better than men understand women; etc. Aberrations like gender-switches would of course obscure the issue, but so what? In fact, they would seem to prove the point.
Re: John's reply above. A woman would never have trouble putting words in a man's mouth.
[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited November 12, 2002).]
I suppose part of the problem is that this character, like all my characters, has a role in helping readers get to know my milieu.
I want the romantic plotline to be a traditional romance, not a realistic one. I don't want my character to compare every man to her father, and I don't want the reader to cheer when she finds someone just like dear old dad. The formula I'm using is this: I create a man and a woman the readers will love. My readers should want the two of them to get together, but I also create a science fiction problem that keeps them apart.
Next I create a man the readers will hate, then I put the woman in a relationship with the hated man. It's a very traditional formula. Unfortunatley, I can't get myself to believe she'd be attracted to this guy!
It seems like my wife and I have sat through a zillion hours of light romantic comedy movies (Moonstruck, While You Were Sleeping, You've Got Mail, Briget Jones' Diary etc.) The women are always in a realtionship with the wrong guy, but it's never because of sexual abuse or anything like that. Yet these "wrong" relationships always seem believable. How do writers do that?
Here are some of the requested details about her:
My world is somewhat Utopian. Little girls are never sexually abused there. Mothers never pass on 1950s values to their daughters there.
A kid in my world can get quirky habits, passions, and traditions from his/her parents. Her mother might have given her a love for horses and her father might have given her a love for seafood. But sexual abuse and misogyny won't fit.
I don't want to bore you with a zillion pages of detail about how my Utopian world works, so I'll give an analogy: This character is like a Princess who has renounced the family fortune. She was born very rich. Then she started her career wanting to do great things, but came to believe that she would work harder if she [u]needed[/u] a regular paycheck. She is now the poorest person in Utopia; every man she meets is richer than she is, including the hero and the "wrong guy." The "wrong guy" is the richer of the two, but she doesn't care about that. She gave up her money because she wanted to work hard, not because she hates money.
This is my favorite part of her motivation: she loves her work, but she belives that history's best accomplishments came from people who occasionally hate their work. She wants to have frustrating days when the only thing that keeps her going is that paycheck. When her richer peers get stressed or frustrated they fly to Paris for two weeks. If they are still stressed or frustrated they just give up the hard project and move on to something more fun. But my female lead must knuckle down and work through the stress, otherwise she can't pay her rent.
As to her relationship with her parents, I've portrayed them as passively supportive. She knows they want her to give up the toil of her career and come back to them, but they never nag her about it. This may change during the course of the book, as she gets herself deeper into trouble she might become an embarassment to them. But at the beginning of the book, when she is in the "wrong" relationship, they are patient with her.
Further comments?
Pretty, soft and smell good. I had to laugh and smile over that one.
I lift weights, don't wear perfume, and well pretty maybe.
LOL
My husband likes me this way. But he has better insight into women than most men I know. Lets me do my thing, work on the car whatever and still brings flowers and opens doors----
Shawn
quote:
Perhaps you should have a couple women look over what you've written to "see through" this gal.
My writer's group includes a woman who has been very helpful. Unfortunately, she hasn't had many good things to say about this particular character. I've also gotten feedback from my wife, who has been very helpful in setting up the plot of the romance. But none of this has helped me to see why my leading lady would be attracted to a man who is anything less than perfect.
I believe that this is a serious obstacle to my writing that I must overcome. My brain has never been able to comprehend the fact that women are not always attracted to good guys and repelled by bad guys. Now that I am trying to create female characters with deep personalities and complex motivations I no longer have the luxury of ignoring it. I must come to terms with this!
I've thought more about the paternal relationship angle, and I think it's a dead end. If she is rebelling against her father she would hate the "wrong guy," who is rich and snooty. In fact, the "wrong guy" has many things in common with her father. But she can't see too much of her father in him without blatantly renouncing her own personal code.
Hmmm. This might lead to something! Suppose I start the story with my leading lady on the edge of despair? Maybe she's having a particularly frustrating time, wishing she didn't need that paycheck, questioning her own decision to renounce her fortune? Maybe in the back of her mind the "wrong guy" is a safety net.
This angle would change a lot of other things for me. Right now I need her to start the story strong and confident in her career, both inside and out. But maybe if I fiddle with the plot a bit I can open the story just as her inner strength is giving out, even as she maintains a facade of strength and confidence for the other characters . . .
I'll think about this idea and post something tomorrow. In the meantime, I'd love more feedback on why women like men, especially bad men. Even if I solve my immediate problem, I've still gotta develop some kind of understanding of that for my future writing.
Wow, I think you're completely mistaken about the evidence of gender understanding. Everything you've stated is a stereotype, and can't be confirmed with comparative evidence. And women have written men badly just as men have written women badly, while there are men who have done an excellent job of writing women. Certainly there are gender differences, and certainly some of those include physiological circumstances that have psychological state, but it's oversimplifying and just plain mistaken to assert based on cultural stereotypes that women understand men better than men understand women.
Luc, who is in a huff
quote:
But none of this has helped me to see why my leading lady would be attracted to a man who is anything less than perfect.
If she waited for somebody that was perfect, then she’ll be waiting forever. 
So here’s another woman’s opinion:
I have to fully agree with Kolona’s statements about how a woman can be completely confident at work, but incredibly insecure with men on a romantic level. Just like you could have someone who can talk to hundreds of people with confidence but freaks out about having to deal with a computer. We all have our comfort areas and our areas that make us twitchy.
quote:
Next I create a man the readers will hate, then I put the woman in a relationship with the hated man. It's a very traditional formula. Unfortunatley, I can't get myself to believe she'd be attracted to this guy!
In general, why do women like men that are bad for them? The best answer I’ve been able to come up with over the years is that there is something about that man that is appealing to the woman. Maybe she doesn’t see how he is all-wrong at first when hit with that initial attraction. Then later, when she sees it, emotional attachments have been made and things get tricky. Now why women make the same bad choice over and over sometimes, I don’t know.
So your hated character… Is he really that horrible? If he really doesn’t have any redeeming features, then sure, it’s not going to make sense for her to fall for him. But if he has some really great quality that she can see, even if it doesn’t complete fall in line with what she believe, then you’ve got a rational hook to add to her attraction. (Attraction itself is irrational at best. Why do some women love longish curly hair while others go wild for a buzz cut? There’s no sense in it). Maybe she loves his dedication to his cause, or his intelligence, or how he challenges her in her work. Plus giving him even just a hint of a good side will make this guy a more appealing character too.
quote:
Pretty, soft and smell good. I had to laugh and smile over that one.I lift weights, don't wear perfume, and well pretty maybe
I was making a broad generlization about---not a generalization about broads. (I stole it sue me)
I wasn't referring to soft as musclarity, but the smoothness of most women's skin. The gilr I'm interested isn't overly toned,but does have bigger arms than mine. That's not saying much I have "girlie" arms. I'm writer what do you expect. She could also kick my ass---which is something a like about her.
JOHN!
quote:
Yet these "wrong" relationships always seem believable. How do writers do that?
They seem believable because they are. We see them every day. If it were otherwise, they wouldn't be believable.
I knew I'd rattle someone's cage with my post.
First, I think you're huffing a little too hard, Luc. I know men can write believable women. That's why I included a little winky face with my comment about John's post.
All stereotypes? I don't think so. At the risk of rattling more cages, there is a generation of women who have been brainwashed into thinking that a woman is no more than a man with a uterus. I refuse to accept "the evidence of gender understanding" from a culture that only recently ran a headline in a major magazine that men and women are different.
quote:
That's why I included a little winky face with my comment about John's post.
Not to take a perfectly good thread and talk about me, but I hope no one took offense to my post.
I think woman are the greastest thing in the world, and without a doubt they are the stronger sex (I'm not giving birth anytime soon) and are truly God's gift to man!!!
This is how I try to portray my heroic female characters when I write them. I tend to write it from the male POV because like the person who started the topic I don't see what wommen find attractive about men. I can tell you what I find admirable about a woman from a man's POV, and how horrible that unrequited longing is. Like all things in life there are bad examples of womanhood and all people have character flaws so there are also times I will display a female character in a bad light, but try to avoid sterotypes. (ie: overemotional, irational, overly talkitive---what a minute is it still a sterotype if it's true? IM KIDDING!!!!)
Most of the women that appear in my work are based on a woman in my life be it a friend's girlfriend, or a woman I'm interested in, or a co-worker or a almagam of all the above.
My advice is to sit down and have a one-on-one talk with a close female friend of yours and this should give you a great insight and many things besides your original question.
I was writting a story about a stripper, and I wanted the female lead to be a strong woman who happened to strip, and not the single mom trying feed her kids becasue that no good man knocked her up and left her Lifetime movie bullshit. I frequented a few strip joints (not for research becasue I like them) and started talking to these woman, and it was amazing. Very few actally do it for that power over men physco babble (most of the of them do have a bad or no relationship with their father, though) Girls aren't that scary man--strike up a conversation (kinda like you did here)
JOHN!
Hitler had a true love, Eva Braun. I doubt she loved him for his troll-like looks or warped, murderous spirit. What then? My bet is that it had a lot to do with his power. She probably would have pointed to his stirring way with words, how listening to him and his people's reactions to his rhetoric excited her, her admiration of his ability to rule with an iron fist. Might these be what your heroine sees in your "bad" male character, assuming he is Hitler-esque bad?
If he's just unpopular, negative, and generally not as far gone as a mass murderer, he may have some good qualities that she loves. Perhaps his passion for his cause, however unpopular, attracts her. Maybe he is nice to puppies and kittens, even though he hates people. Maybe he's just plain hot and its all about the sex appeal.
These are just a few possibilities I'm tossing out there. As I said, with more info about the "bad" guy, perhaps I (we?) could be more helpful.
Hildy, my 'wrong guy' is only mildly bad. From some viewpoints he could even be good for my leading lady (her parents believe that, for instance). I've designed the 'wrong guy' to push the reader's buttons, hoping the reader will say: "I sure wish she'd dump this guy. He irritates me."
Bad qualities: He's egotistical. He wants the leading lady to change her personality to suit him (i.e. her social agenda and career). To make up for his insecurities and inadequacies he cheats at golf and torments small animals. He also pretends to be richer than he is. He admires the story's main villain.
Good qualities: He truly is somewhat wealthy. He's good looking and smooth talking. He knows how to have a good time. He is popular, though this is partially a result of wealth pretending and golf cheating. He really wants the leading lady to be happy, and honestly believes she'd be happier if she changed her personality to be more like him.
The only exception I can think of is money, which men sometimes have (as in the movies Pretty Woman or You've Got Mail). But money can't be the only reason women like men!
(I hope the card-holding metaphor makes sense, because I like it.)
As promised, I thought about this situation overnight and came up with a tentative solution: I'll make the 'wrong guy' a darker version of the hero. The hero and 'wrong guy' will share most of their good qualities. The hero will have weaknesses of his own, but these weaknesses will not annoy the reader, so the reader will want the hero and leading lady to get together.
This will be fine in this story, but it is not a general solution. I can't spend the rest of my life writing stories where the 'wrong guy' is a dark version of the hero who just happened to meet the leading lady first.
I still don't understand why women are so attracted to men who are bad for them.
The Star Wars movies give a good example. Why does a Princess fall for Han Solo? As a guy, I like Han Solo and would love to have a beer with him. But I wouldn't want him to date my sister!
[This message has been edited by Doc Brown (edited November 13, 2002).]
[This message has been edited by Doc Brown (edited November 13, 2002).]
Seriously, even though I have not been a single woman for twelve years now, I still have many female friends that are. Trust me, not one thinks she is holding any relationship cards. Mostly, she is looking at the dearth of single men and hoping that the next one she dates isn't a) an ass b)a murderer or c) a closeted homosexual.
The basic qualities the women I know want (and what I wanted) from a man are respect, kindness, willingness to hold up his end of the relationship both financially and emotionally, and be fun to be with. Different women want different things in addition, but I think these are the basics. From what you have described, your wrong man has at least some of these qualities; he respects her to some degree, he sounds like fun, probably somewhat attractive (don't discount the physical)! Make him great in bed if you think he needs more drawing power and that's probably all the motivation your female character needs to want him.
Good luck and good writing!
[This message has been edited by Hildy9595 (edited November 13, 2002).]
Maybe excitement is the reason many women fall for guys who are bad for them, similar to the reason people do things like jumping out of airplanes. Or "nice" can sometimes be interpreted as "boring," so a young woman might crave a bad choice because she wants her world to be exciting, and an older woman might crave a bad choice to shake up her lackluster life. It might even be a misplaced desire/belief on the woman's part that she can change the guy--the challenge of taming a wild spirit--that all he needs is the proverbial good woman.
[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited November 13, 2002).]
Kolona, men face something just as bad as the "let's have a serious relationship" vs the "let's just keep this light, baby" battle. For men it's the "let's have a serious relationship" vs "let's just be friends" battle. When nice guys want relationships, 18-29 year old women give them friendships. I could apply the same "Why buy the cow?" adage.
I've thought about giving my leading lady the idea that "I can change him," It's a good tool, but I don't like it in this case. It could make the reader feel hypocritical, since the reader is supposed to dislike 'wrong guy' because he wants to change leading lady.
quote:
Why does a Princess fall for Han Solo?
The Han Solo character – He’s the Golden-Hearted Rouge. At the core, he’s a good guy. He’s just a bit scruffy ‘bout the edges. And you’ll note it isn’t until the second movie, after more of this good stuff has showing through that the story has Leia and Han taking things to a romantic level. In the first movie it looks like she might go for Luke (whiner that he is).
I seem to have missed the day they handed out cards to all the womenfolk…
First, women tend to be attracted to mysterious men-- or at least men who are mysterious to them. The biggest reason I can see for this is because a mysterious man presents a challenge. Many women pride themselves on understanding people's inner thoughts, motivations, selves; and a man who is difficult to "get into" can be rather intoxicating. Now, the scope of this mysteriousness can be big: "why doesn't he ever want to talk about his past?", but it's usually smaller than that, something like: "what does that facial expression mean, and why isn't he saying anything?"
The second thing is a revelation of some import. Even people in stable relationships often ask themselves why they love their significant others and can't really explain it. I think that the reason many people fall in love in the first place has alot to do with the following quote, from Shakespeare's [U]Much Ado About Nothing[/U]: "Love me? Why?"
Most people that I have met or seen or heard of don't really understand why someone else should ever want to fall in love with them. Because of this, when another person demonstrates an interest in them, it can actually come as quite a surprise. They are likely to look more favorably upon this other person who loves them for some unknown reason, and if the two people are even mildly compatible in personality, a relationship can easily result. In my opinion, many "right guys" have lost women to "wrong guys" because the wrong guy expressed an interest in the woman of their attraction first, while the right guy was either trying to figure his own feelings out or maintain a respectful distance.
Shasta
P.S. I never mentioned sexual abuse in my previous post. Granted, that would be a consideration in a nitty-gritty realistic work of fiction; but for most fiction, it is the subtler things that make more sense. A person craving praise for their significant accomplishments because they never felt that they got enough from their parents, for example.
I can't even write a believable human, let alone deal with all this relationship crap 
quote:
I could apply the same "Why buy the cow?" adage
My gut-level reaction is to say "It's about time," but I know I wouldn't mean it. It's sad. The whole single scene is sad. (And this is wholly off-topic, so I'll bow out here.)
I was responding to Hildy's mention of sexual abuse as a cause for nice girls being attracted to 'wrong men.' Hildy's exact words were:
quote:
In this real life case, the problem stems from childhood sexual abuse. Sadly, that is often the case...it happens much more frequently than people realize.
Your suggestion that women like men who are mysterious intrigues me. You said:
quote:
Many women pride themselves on understanding people's inner thoughts, motivations, selves; and a man who is difficult to "get into" can be rather intoxicating. Now, the scope of this mysteriousness can be big: "why doesn't he ever want to talk about his past?", but it's usually smaller than that, something like: "what does that facial expression mean, and why isn't he saying anything?"
My experience is that nothing makes women complain about their relationships more than a man with poor communication skills. They complain to their girlfriends, and they complain to the men. On the surface women appear to hate it when a man isn't saying anything. Yet you post implies that women actually like that quality in a man.
I'm more confused than ever. But I love it.
I do realize that different women will be attracted to different things, and all I need to do is figure out the motivation for one character at a time. But even that seemingly simple task tuns out to be very, very complicated!
I'd assume that the mysterious factor only counts when a woman is NOT committed (I NEVER know how to spell that) to the man. Once there is a relationship there, then it suddenly switches to become negative points.
I like it. Even if it's rare, as long as it's believable it could make a good story some time. Thanks.
Enter insurance investigator Rene Russo, who appears to be a worthy adversary. For the first time in his 42 years, Brosnan gives another human being a second thought. Romance developes, even as Russo pursues him in a high stakes game of cat and mouse. By the end of the movie, she has him trapped, yet she's totally in love with him.
If you haven't seen it, the climax scene is a masterpiece in exposition and pacing. But you must see the whole movie to appreciate it.
All through the movie, Brosnan remains very mysterious to Russo. Through twist after twist, she continues to figure him out behind his back, but in person he remains stone-faced and unrevealing. Even after the climax, Brosnan's true feelings are a mystery.
Yet The Thomas Crown Affair has a happy ending. Bad boy Pierce Brosnan really has changed his ways (somewhat) and fallen in love with Russo. He will probably continue to annoy the rest of the world, but now that he's in love he will never be the same.
TTFN & lol
Cosmi
I think I've got the big picture of this relationship solved. The "wrong guy" and the hero will be very similar characters, but the hero's flaws will endear him to the reader while the "wrong guy's" flaws will annoy the reader. That's the easy part. Now I have to work out the details.
quote:
The "wrong guy" and the hero will be very similar characters, but the hero's flaws will endear him to the reader while the "wrong guy's" flaws will annoy the reader. That's the easy part.
I think you mean "easier said than done."
But I think the exposition of details will be the really hard part. Simply jotting down in my notebook the solution to these two relationships with the leading lady . . . that was the easy part.
What you have to do is make the hero have flaws that are "vices of virtue" while the bad guys flaws are just vices. To take a page from the other thread, the hero would overdo it on a solo and end up nearly getting killed (which is, of course, the whole point of solo, but he really pushes it). While the slimer would just cheat and bragg about his "accomplishment". Likewise, the hero blurts out the unvarnished truth at inopportune moments, "Holy cow, Diane, you look like crap!", while the smoothie always has a smooth line ready, "Diane, I'm soooo glad to see you!"
You know, like the whole "tragic flaw" bit. Something that shouldn't be a flaw, but circumstancially is a flaw (actually, I never bought the whole hamartia idea, it always comes down to overweening pride and hubris, which is always a vice, but that's the way they teach it in school). In this case, something she should admire, but doesn't for perfectly understandable reasons (Physical courage is all well and good until someone gets himself killed, Fred), opposed against something that she shouldn't admire, but does, again for perfectly understandable reasons (in this case because the thing she shouldn't admire is the other guys pathological need to do whatever it takes to gain admiration, whether or not he deserves any).
I'm more worried about the reader's reaction to the flaws of both characters than the leading lady's reaction. The story provides another mechanism to the leading lady and hero apart (as discussed in a previous thread). So I can have her first reaction to the hero be love, lust, frustration, fear, pity, confusion, or anything else, and I'll still get the story where it needs to go.
Originally the hero had a complex fear/courage thing going on. That is, he would be fearless when he knew the odds were against him. If he didn't know what the odds were he would assume the worst (maybe a subconscious attempt to rally himself) and end up making himself really nervous. He was the opposite of Han Solo: he performed best when he knew the odds were against him.
For now I've put this particular flaw on the back burner, since it's story purpose has changed.
WARNING: This is my opinion, it is only my opinion. Nothing I say may be held against me for any reason whatsoever. :P
quote:
I'm more worried about the reader's reaction to the flaws of both characters than the leading lady's reaction. The story provides another mechanism to the leading lady and hero apart (as discussed in a previous thread). So I can have her first reaction to the hero be love, lust, frustration, fear, pity, confusion, or anything else, and I'll still get the story where it needs to go.
No! Wrong! This story and these characters are being completely overcerebralized, and if that's not a real word, I just made it one. Writing a story with its audience in mind is a good idea. Calculating a story to conform to expected reader reaction is only going to do one thing: put people off. When you begin to develop a budding story in your mind, your first and last concerns should be the story you are telling and the people in it. They must --not should, but must-- become real people to you, with real wants, needs, thoughts, ideals, ethics, and problems; or else they will never be real to the reader. The character-driven events of the story must naturally flow from the characters' own personalities and actions, or else the plot will very obviously seem forced. The society may be utopian, but there must be strong and real (within the story) reasons for it to be this way, or else the readers are going to take one look at it and say "yeah, right, like this would ever happen." In all of this calculating to find out how best to make A+B=C, it seems to me that you are losing sight of these most important elements of storytelling. If your creative process is nothing but a series of calculations, then your story is going to be nothing but a collection of equasions, and you won't end up fooling anybody. I'm not saying that formulae can't work-- only that they should not be used to excess, and they should never come to dominate the story. The story must be truthful and real inside you first, if it is to ever be so for a wider audience.
Please take no offense, I am very adamant on this subject.
Shasta
You said:
quote:
When you begin to develop a budding story in your mind, your first and last concerns should be the story you are telling and the people in it. They must --not should, but must-- become real people to you, with real wants, needs, thoughts, ideals, ethics, and problems; or else they will never be real to the reader.
I started this thread precisely because I couldn't do that. I find it impossible to describe a woman being attracted to a man. It's as if I had to describe an alligator being attracted to linoleum: I don't understand an alligator's viewpoint, and I cannot fathom what it would be like to find linoleum attractive.
My leading lady is a fully developed character. She has lots of motivations, skills, expectations, a history, a career, a circle of friends, etc. But there is no reason for her, or any woman, ever, in any universe, to be attracted to a man.
This thread has helped me develop an attraction formula. I can make A+B=C by making my hero attractive, mysterious, humorous, charming, etc.
It's the same sort of formula I would use if I were trying to describe an alligator who lusted for linoleum. The alligator would crave the smooth surface. It would desire to feel that firm yet plyable texture. It would yearn for that linole-iscious aroma!
Is this formulaic? You betcha. But from where I'm standing it's the only way to get there.
Shasta
For a man the criteria are pretty simple. Physical fitness to bear and suckle young comes early on the list, meaning young, healthy body, particular emphasis on healthy breasts and hips, etc. Personality is just a matter of finding someone that is willing to bear your children and not eat them or anything gross like that. Guys would actually prefer that a women be willing to raise the kids herself and let him go off and impregnate a lot of other women, but this tends to be at odds with the nurturing personality thing, women that really care about their children want the father to be heavily involved and invested in them too. And so on and so forth. Think hard about the ways that mate selection affect a woman's reproductive chances and you'll have a lot of material to draw on.
Aside from that, there is the herd instinct (technically, with humans it is a mob instinct rather than a herd instinct). Women want to find a man so that they can fit in and be like all the women around them (or different but better than all the women around them, one of the subtle differences between mob and herd instincts). Whatever 'everyone' does in Utopia, she'll probably want that. Both male and female 'ideal' mates are heavily socially defined. Of course, in a Utopia the ideals of masculinity would probably put a big emphasis on honesty, compassion, prudence, courage, and a lot of other genuinely good qualities, so maybe her biological instincts can be a more prominent factor in her liking this guy (for instance, women naturally like to mate on the sly with men that cheat, since that gives them both a consistent "husband" and genetic diversity in children, with the added benefit that the children will tend to have "cheating" instincts that will help them claw to the top of the mob--the more I study human behavior the less I like it, but it makes for fantastic fiction...I would totally rather read about humans than live among them if I had a choice in the matter).
Anyway, the situation is a lot more analogous to "why do alligators like eating poodles?" than to why they might like linoleum. Sheesh.
"My leading lady is a fully developed character. She has lots of motivations, skills, expectations, a history, a career, a circle of friends, etc. But there is no reason for her, or any woman, ever, in any universe, to be attracted to a man."
That's the story! What the heck happened to her - to this universe- to make her attracted to a man when there is absolutely NO reason for her to be attracted to a man - ever!
That being said - people are all just people and I think the gender differentiations, while offering valuable bits of information, are highly overrated and overdone. A product of the last 200 years of history or so.
Think "cottage industry" (run-of-the-mill folks eking out a living, not the nobility) - all duties at hearth and home were pretty uniformly shared, amongst ALL community members - excepting the obvious two - giving birth and lactating. And I really don;t think those two things are enough to so thoroughly divide an entire species apart on.
Just a thought -
I beleive that single men almost never think about babies. When we look at a potential sex partner, we don't think of what our children would look like, we don't think about how the children we might produce would behave. We don't think about walks along the beach or candlelit dinners. We also don't think about conquest or domination or competing against other males.
We just think about having sex.
Immediate motivation: what you're thinking about.
Ultimate motivation: why you're thinking about it, whether or not you're aware of that fact.
Shasta
*edit: spelling error
[This message has been edited by DragynGide (edited November 29, 2002).]
Social instincts really do drive a significant amount of any man's construction of what is attractive in a woman. Reproductive instincts kind of get shoved aside (and in an activity that primarily exists for reproductive purposes, no less!).
But there are some basics. Men instinctively prefer young women with highly symmetrical features. They prefer a substantial degree of sexual dimorphism. They prefer that the woman be eager or at least willing, and they prefer that they display some degree of nurturing ability. These are instincts, and there are reasons that they have come to exist. The social constructions can distort these criteria, but cannot really obliterate them (partly because eventually societies that betray the reproductive instinct too throughly will die out--like the Quakers, an exemplary social group in every way except for the denial of the reproductive impulse).
You don't have to think about these things, your instincts guide you without your higher brain functions getting involved at all.
Women have instincts too. And though they are not the same as the instincts that men have, they are not difficult to discover if you examine female behavior and the relative benefits (from a reproductive perspective) of certain choices.
For example, it is instinctive with mothers to coddle their sons more than their daughters. First off, any woman with brothers can testify to this fact. Most feminists attribute it to the social construct, but in fact, it is a refined reproductive strategy.
A highly successful (reproductively speaking, not necessarily in any other sense) son may produce hundreds or even thousands of grandchildren that will share about a quarter of the paternal grandmother's genes, while a totally unsuccessful son will produce no grandchildren for his mother. A highly successful daughter (again, reproductive success, not any other kind) may produce nearly twenty grandchildren for her mother. So a highly successful son is more desireable than a highly successful daughter (again, just talking about reproductive benefit here, I would personally be ashamed if I had a son that was "highly successful" in this strictly reproductive sense).
But the fact remains, women have an instinct to nurture sons more than daughters (so do fathers, for that matter, but it is attenuated by the fact that a father can go out and try to impregnate hundreds of women himself rather than spend effort on getting his son to do so).
For the same reason, women instinctively encourage a double standard in their children. Mothers instinctively want their daughters to settle down with a good provider (and commit discrete adultery on the side) and instinctively want their sons to live it up a little before finding a woman after they are too old for the wild oats game. Logically, the only way that a woman can sow "wild oats" is through her sons. In this case, fathers have the exact same instinctive prejudice.
This is rather esoteric, though. It is a pervasive instinct but it isn't likely to affect mate selection, except in the sense that women instinctively would rather choose a "provider" type husband and cheat on him with their "true love" while men would rather sow "wild oats" with easy women then settle down and marry their "true love" (which makes for some fascinating relationships).
Men's reproductive instincts make a better study than women's because the male reproductive strategy is so much simpler (not just to explain in English, but mathmatically as well). I can't really go into detail, a book would not suffice (and would, at the same time, involve so many unflattering generalizations about the way women are likely to behave that I would never dare to be known in connection with any such volume). But you don't need to go into detail, just accept that poorly understood impulses can make a woman's heart go pitter patter for an unsuitable guy just like your heart can beat for a total witch (or substitute your favorite insult for a woman of poor moral character ).
As for thinking about babies, I think (even when looking at a woman that I'd never think of marrying) about reproductive potential as much as sexual ability (not that I'm proud, or even unashamed, of either thought--I plan to marry and have children with just one woman, and not one chosen on the basis of childbearing potential or "sexiness").
For help, you might talk to some women that have had truly disasterous relationships about what initially attracted them to the guy. Don't ask about instincts (most instincts are unconscious anyway), just ask about feelings. Women, believe it or not, actually have them.
Anyway Doc, I hope that you were helped (or at least not harmed unduly) by all this.
Survivor, I find that analysis of the motivations of women and men absolutely revolting. It's also the worst form of pop-anthropology and nothing at all to do with science. Wow, you can do so much better than that. Please read, for instance, Stephen Jay Gould for an example of what the science of natural history and evolutionary biology actually tells us about human behaviour. (i.e. far far less than this elaborate edifice you have constructed.)
I'm sure that it wasn't the worst form of pop-anthropology. I personally think that those that try to pretend that anything "instinctive" is "natural" and therefore sacrosanct. Humans have lots of disgusting instincts, and when you want to talk about why women (and men) are attracted to the worst sorts of mates, those disgusting instincts are a pretty important part of the facts that you have to deal with.
And S.J. Gould? The man was a great theorist, but how is what he did fundamentally different from what I'm doing? He made his name by making contraversial assertions with anectdotal rather than any experimental evidence. I'm not saying that I'm a great theorist, but I never claimed to have any other than anectdotal (and logical) evidence of the instincts I'm speculating about (or did I? so hard to remember--but I don't think I did).
Evolutionary biology, particularly evolutionary socio-biology, isn't the kind of field where you can do actual, controlled experiments (computer simulations don't count, in my not so humble opinion). We try to understand why a seemingly self-destructive behavior is widespread, and sometimes find something in ourselves that needs to be controlled (I'm saying we in the conceited sense of evolutionary biologists generally).
Attempting to understand our own worst impulses is a necessary first step to combating them. Until you admit temptation, you have no power to resist.
TTFN & lol
Cosmi
At the same time, men tend to be intimidated by women that are smarter than they are (which makes sense, if she is smarter than him then she could more easily "decieve" him).
I'll add pointedly that I don't believe "provider" is the correct role of human males, and that 'defender' is more accurate (and it takes a good deal more brains in the long run).
[This message has been edited by suntranafs (edited December 31, 2002).]
Survivor may rub alot of people the wrong way, but so far he has not been intentionally desceptive in any way that people have been accusing him of in this thread. Being an avid student of human nature myself, I'm beginning to take offense as well.
There is no law, especially in this forum, saying that if you are going to post your findings on any subject that you have to be an authority in that field. Not having a PhD in a field does not mean that a person can not actually know anything about it. In fields that deal directly with the human psyche, anyone who puts effort and deep thought into understanding themselves and others can learn a great deal; possibly even more than someone who has had more conventional training.
As writers, we all have to be students of human nature to some degree or other. Survivor has shown himself to be one, and at least to me, that is worthy of respect, not derision. He has used logic, example, and honest analysis to back up all of his assertions, which very few of the rest of you have done. If you are going to argue with what he has to say, you need to actually know what you're talking about instead of referring back to the statements of a guy with a doctorate that you don't really understand. Saying another person doesn't know what they're talking about (or worse insults along those lines) because they don't have a degree is bad form in a debate unless you can actually go through and refute his statements point by point using logic and scientific research.
Let's please treat eachother with respect as the writers we are, shall we?
Shasta
*edit: This is meant to address things in this thread as well as the Utopia thread. I've posted it here because while the Utopia thread has (thankfully) moved on to more constructive discussion, this one has not.
[This message has been edited by DragynGide (edited December 31, 2002).]
Straight up freaky, amen, and good night.
Some of you act like you've never known a woman, and I think some of you are women!
Pretend you are writing this story:
A 19 year old woman is feeling the urge for male companionship. She is a deep and interesting character, who has great potential to do exciting things with her life . . . the kind of things worth writing about.
Her mother arranges for her to meet a brilliant quantum physicist who will likely be a pHD candidate. Her best friend fixes her up with a very loyal church-goer who once did missionary work in Uganda. Her father introduces her to an aggressive business major who has made ten million dollars working part time at mergers and acquisitions before he's 22 years old. Her sister helps her meet an extreem sports athelete who has ambitions to rollerskate down the face of Mount Everest.
Then by accident she meets an out-of-work drifter who never talks about his past. He likes to live for today and doesn't care what anyone else thinks. He's a scruffy man of few words. Everyone thinks he's rude and selfish, but one tiny gesture of kindness convinces your heroine that the drifter is misunderstood.
Even though all the other men in her life have superior evolutionary value, the 19 year old heroine will sleep with the drifter. It's practically guaranteed, though I still don't understand why.
To the above scenario...easy. She picks the drifter because she picks him, all by herself, without anyone's help.
[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited January 01, 2003).]
I'm 19 years old. I'm an adult, I'm educated, I'm beginning to be truly successful in the world; I should damned well be treated as the adult I am. I have the capability to make my own decisions, and I feel I should be respected enough to be allowed to do so.
So why does everyone in my family think they know what's best for me? I'll be the judge of that, thank you! Yes, these men are intelligent and successful and blah blah blah. They're all sooooo perfect. So why can't I stand any of them? I keep finding these tiny problems with them. John is so full of himself it sickens me. Tom is kind of an asshole. Rick on the other hand would be perfect... but have you seen his nose? It covers two thirds of his face! And Ben is out of the question... sure, you guys think he's alot of fun. So do I. The problem is, he's too much fun; he's never serious about anything. I can't stand not being able to have a single serious conversation with him. I don't care how perfect my family think these "suitors" are. Why can't they just leave me alone to find somebody for myself?
Last night I met a guy. His name is Ryan, and he was so sweet. God, I think this is the first guy I've talked to on my own for months. We talked for hours, and I still don't even know where he's from. It's all kind of mysterious... *G* It was kind of scary, really, I don't even think he /has/ a job. I wonder what Dad would think about that. He's certainly not the type that Dad-- or anyone else in my family, really-- would try to set me up with. Hell, I probably shouldn't even be associating with him. He certainly wasn't very clean. But he was so compelling when he spoke. He's probably done more and experienced more than all of those moron "suitors" put together. I wonder if I'll meet him again. Maybe next time I can get him to talk about himself...
And so it goes. I'll leave it up to you to figure the motivations behind this, if you decide it's worth figuring out at all. I'd be happy to answer any questions about it, though.
Shasta
As we are all unique, so are our motivations. Some will choose that bad guy because he's physically hot and sexy. Some because they have father issues. Some because they were sexually abused. Some because they are bored with nice guys. Some because they want to defy their parents. And on and on, ad infinitum.
Here's my suggestion: close out this discussion, sit down with your female character, and chat with her. Have a whole discussion in your head, or with a female friend playacting her part, and come up with the motivations yourself. So long as the results are true to the character you've created, you'll be just fine. She doesn't have to represent all women, just herself.
Good luck to you, from a thirty-something happily married for 12 years to her own "bad" boy!
If you read this whole thread, you'll see that I found the solution for this character back on November 18th. The reason for my post earlier today was to lament the stream of posts claiming that both men and women choose their sex partners based on reproductive and child-raising merits. Not only is the idea ridiculous, it would also lead to boring fiction.
Shasta, I'd love to discuss this with you! Feel free to answer these questions or ignore them if they become too personal.
You described Ryan as "sweet." Would you say that he is sweeter than John, Tom, Rick, and Ben? What did he do that made him seem so sweet? Have the others never done anything that made them seem sweet to you?
Thanks for any comments you care to share.
He's so sweet because he listened to everything I had to say, and he didn't interrupt -not once- and he never acted like he knew things better than I did. He actually agreed with one of my wilder theories, the one that John told me was impossible. I bet if John said that in front of him, he'd tell him exactly where to shove it. Of course he was pretty rude to that man in line... but that was only because that man cut me off. In a way that was kind of sweet too.
But then, haven't the others been sweet to me too? Yes, I suppose so. John held the door for me every time we went anywhere (like I couldn't get it myself). Ben bought me my own snowboard, and it was even my favorite color (though I'm not really into snowboarding). Tom bought me a whole car. And I'm sure Rick prays for me every day... (ugh). I should probably stop thinking about Ryan. He's probably the worst sort of loser. But he doesn't act like a loser... he's strong enough to be his own man, when so many people spend their whole lives working for somebody else. Well, I should be fair; Tom works for himself. But all /he/ cares about is money, and I'd be surprised if he actually knew any of the people who work for him. His work takes up so much of his time; how could he possibly have any left for me? Ryan on the other hand... no, I should stop thinking about him. So why can't I?
Out of character analysis here... this heroine has found a reason to want to believe in Ryan, and because she wants to like him, she is far more willing to forgive the bad things. On the other hand, because the others were fixed up with her by her family (which she really doesn't like; she wants to find someone for herself), she is far more likely to nitpick everything they do and find flaws in all of them-- even if they come from misunderstandings that could have been easily fixed.
Shasta
I'm going to leave off on the socio-biology though...it really is all just speculation and statistics (as in "lies, damn lies, and statistics").
As Doc has pointed out, sometimes a woman chooses a man just because he needs her so much more than anyone else does. Men do the same thing (not as often, and they do it very differently, but they do do it).
Shasta, that was some interesting stuff. Would you say that the fix-up part of the equaqtion is essential? That is, if you had met John/Ben/Rick/Tom on your own, you'd be more attracted to him?
If you had met Ryan through your best friend, would you be less inclined to like him?
It seems to me that women and men will see irritating things any time they look for them. The trick to seduction is to turn off (or distract?) that irritation reflex in your intended . . . um . . . victim..
quote:
Would you say that the fix-up part of the equaqtion {sic} is essential?
Isn't that what I noted in a nutshell above? Matchmakers notwithstanding, many of us never outgrow the "I do it myself" stage from our toddler years.
But your statement, Doc, is also a double entendre. Sometimes the "fix-up part of the equation" means the cliched but ever truism that "He marries her thinking she'll never change; she marries him thinking he will." (I know Luc and others will hate that, but I'm sure the same major publication that only recently discovered that men and women are different will eventually run a headline about this, too.)
[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited January 03, 2003).]
). I was merely pointing out that there are good reasons for men to like intelligent women, but a genetically compelling reason for them to fear investment in women significantly smarter than them.Please don't engage in personal attacks on this forum. If you wish to challange my ideas, then do so. If you wish to challenge me, then please advise me and I will let you know where I live so that you may come here and be supper (don't worry, I have a large freezer at my disposal).
I'm just being bad, pay no attention to me
There is far too much hormonal process affecting all other sensibilities for there to be a lot of space left for any cognitive processes.
It seems that mate selection, once we moved beyond pure procreative purposes, became a means to community survival - not species survival. Although, of course, the two are neatly linked.
I think Shasta nailed the issue, capturing much more of the reality of the situation, than any scientific (or not so scientific) explanation ever could. At least for the woman's side of things.
Perhaps, the story as seen from the man's point of view could help flesh things out.
Bon Appetite!
[This message has been edited by HopeSprings (edited January 04, 2003).]
quote:
Would you say that the fix-up part of the equaqtion is essential? That is, if you had met John/Ben/Rick/Tom on your own, you'd be more attracted to him?
Out of character, I think that the fix-up part is essential for this scenario, but there could be other happenstances and reasonings that could lead to the same conclusions. It might be a bit more work to bring it together, though.
quote:
If you had met Ryan through your best friend, would you be less inclined to like him?
quote:
It seems to me that women and men will see irritating things any time they look for them. The trick to seduction is to turn off (or distract?) that irritation reflex in your intended . . . um . . . victim..
Shasta
you don't think so? then i must be an exception to the human race, because when i meet a man who appears truly intelligent, my "mate radar" is definitely activated. of course, there has to also be physical attraction. (that, in my opinion, is the ultimate separation between best friend and boy friend.) but a physically attractive male--in person, movies and mags are another matter (you can pretend their personality/intelligence is whatever you like)--isn't enough to engage my interest for long.
TTFN & lol
Cosmi
[This message has been edited by Straws (edited January 05, 2003).]
Intelligence joins the quotient factor (I mean real intelligence, not: charm, say the right thing, look good intelligence)long after infatuation has faded.
I, too, enjoy men with intelligence. I especially enjoy them when they don't get frightened off by the fact that I might have some intelligence.
But the "fall for the guy" thing has never (from what I have seen, never mind experienced) factored in to the "first" fall. It tends to be a lovely surprise later.
Call me cynical. Or stupid. Or just the maker of pretty poor choices throughout my life. But I laughed hysterically (to keep from crying, I am sure) as Shasta explained things.
It's a nice thought that we think our decisions through first, weigh the pros and cons, make the right choice based on what is best for all concerned - but them most stories including romance would read like a dissertation or a legal document.
And what kind of story would that make? Ever hear of a story based on logical, well-thought out romantic choices?
Nope. Me neither.
Cheers!
quote:
And what kind of story would that make? Ever hear of a story based on logical, well-thought out romantic choices?
Maybe not a story, but real life. When a gal I know was dating her eventual husband years ago, he didn't have a car so they walked or took the bus everywhere. She noticed that children and old people in the neighborhood went out of their way to stop and talk with him, and that intrigued her. She felt that those were the two groups of people you couldn't fool, so their opinions mattered. Added to that, the fellow in question wasn't at all like her own emotionally and physically non-supportive father. Thirty-five years later, they're still comfortably married. (I'd say "happily" but that's a cliche.)
quote:
If they didn't, then all reproduction would still revolve around splitting in two
If they didn't what? Have sex?
Of course I know (or think I know) which meaning you intended...but that wasn't the meaning that the syntax implied
Anyway, that still isn't a reason for a woman to have sex with any particular guy--"but, Lydia, honey, if you don't, then all reproduction might as well be by fission, like amoebas!" If that line actually works on a woman, then do not marry her!
Shasta
Shasta
quote:
Again, an out of character response. I think that if the heroine had met Ryan through her best friend, alot would depend on the circumstances under which they met. If the best friend tried to set her up with him, then it would be even harder to justify her liking him than the other men.
This is an important element that I don't understand. The context of meeting has never made a difference in whether or not a woman appealed to me romantically. I presume other males share this perspective, though I might be wrong. If I am right, then the significance of meeting circumstances might be worth exploring.
Anyone care to weight in?
Men: If you met a woman on your own vs through a friend, would that affect her attractiveness to you?
Women: What meeting circumstances would be conducive to starting a romance? What circumstances could thwart a romantic meeting?
These answers could help us all create some interesting stories.
If a friend is involved in making the meeting happen, the friend is always part of any relationship that may develop, and not knowing exactly what part the friend takes can be uncomfortable.
Does she owe the friend? How much? More the more she becomes involved with the guy?
What exactly is the friend's relationship with the guy? Ex-girlfriend? Pal? Occasional date? Girl next door? Sisterly?
How much control does the friend want to have in her relationship with the guy? Does the friend expect/deserve to hear all the details? Will it be easy or hard to share them? Will the relationship ever be truly private?
And so on and so forth--for whatever it may be worth.
That may not be what Shasta was meaning, but it is what came to my mind as I thought about such things.
I can imagine a number of ways this could lead to discomfort.