#CLOY | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

suzannahnatters · 1 year

Text

Trope Talk #2: Breaking Their Heart To Save Them

OK let's talk about a trope I DON'T like.

As I've started watching a lot more Asian dramas this year, my patience with this trope - already occasionally featured in Western media - has approached rock bottom. You'll know this romance trope when you see it, usually around the start of the third act. The main couple will have overcome every obstacle - but suddenly everything will be too much. Some external factor is forcing them apart, and this time one of them becomes convinced the two of them should break up. But how to convince the other party of this?

Easy! Tell them a bunch of lies. Pretend you never even loved them in the first place. Break their heart because it's the best way to save them. Satine does it to Christian in MOULIN ROUGE. Both leads do it in LOVE BETWEEN FAIRY AND DEVIL. Gorya does it to Thyme in F4 THAILAND. (That last one very nearly got me to ragequit with just two episodes left to go.)

So, let's discuss why this trope doesn't work for me, as well as some ways it might be justified, subverted, or deconstructed.

I think the main reason the trope doesn't work for me is that most of the time it feels quite cruel, especially when it acts as the third act breakup. Breaking someone's heart to save them is supposed to occur as a gesture of love and care for another person, but it's pretty messed-up to deliberately wound someone, someone you claim to care for. Let's look at two examples that didn't work for me.

CRASH LANDING ON YOU has a male lead who is always scolding the heroine for her decisions, especially when those decisions lead her to sacrifice herself for him. When she wakes up in hospital after taking a bullet for him, instead of saying thank you like a normal person, he scolds her to the point of tears. Because he's constantly treating her like a child and making decisions on her behalf, it makes perfect sense when he decides to break up with her by telling her he never loved her. The characterisation is consistent and believable; the problem is that this sort of character is a huge red flag, and the show never stops depicting the hero's paternalistic behaviour as a totally normal and romantic thing, actually! This is a great example for what this trope represents even at its most internally consistent - a character making a huge decision without their partner's input, taking away the say that should rightfully be theirs, and never being called to account for it.

Take F4: THAILAND as an example of this trope that doesn't make ANY sense at all. Our two leads kept me fully charmed throughout most of the show, but it all fell apart for me in the final three episodes. Gorya is a wonderful female lead whose strong sense of self-respect, dignity, and tenacity has driven her to challenge Thyme's bullying and inspire him to become a better person. These traits have empowered her to defy his mother's systematic destruction of her family's finances and those of everyone she loves. When Thyme's mother offers Gorya money to break up with Thyme, she scorns the offer. However, when Thyme's mother tells him that she is dying and that she needs to use what little time she has left to consolidate Thyme's leadership of the family empire, Gorya chooses to break Thyme's heart to ensure that he can become CEO after his mother's death. This is pitched as worthwhile because of the good things Thyme could do as a powerful capitalist who puts people, not money, first. Gorya knows that after everything she and Thyme have been through, he's absolutely devoted to her, and that hurting him badly enough to part the two of them will involve returning him to the old, villainous, bullying Thyme. Thyme's mother even encourages her to do just that - because it's only the villainous Thyme who CAN consolidate his control of the family empire. It made no sense to me that Gorya would fall in with this program. Why would this person hurt someone she loves, bringing back the villain she reformed, so that he can keep control of the riches she spurned? I didn't believe it for a moment. It felt like gratuitous cruelty, totally out of character, and militated against the story's themes.

I always find myself asking the same questions when I see this trope: why couldn't the characters have an honest conversation about this? Why couldn't they face this challenge together? Why wouldn't they do literally everything within their power to avoid systematically destroying their loved one's self esteem? Taking a relationship out the back and shooting it just seems like an incredibly disproportionate response to 99% of the scenarios that give rise to this trope.

Still, like all tropes that are used poorly, this one can be deconstructed, played with, or even justified. Let's look at some examples of this trope that work a little better than most.

Look for ways to soften the trope

The more love and trust there is between the characters, the less credible it is that one of them would choose to withold information from the other, lie to them, and break their heart. In the YA space opera romance THESE BROKEN STARS, at their very first interaction the female lead mocks and antagonises the male lead specifically because young men who show romantic interest in her tend to meet with unfortunate "accidents" and she wants to spare him that fate. Since the two of them are strangers, there's less trust to be broken, and by the same token, it takes the female lead less effort (and cruelty) to destroy his interest in her.

Similarly, think about the somewhat similar situation in PRIDE & PREJUDICE where a third party, Mr Darcy, breaks up Mr Bingley and Jane Bennet because he thinks it would be better for Bingley not to ally himself with the embarrassing Bennet family. This is not an example of this trope, but it's a very similar one - two people in love are cruelly broken up because somebody decided they knew best. While Elizabeth at first believes Mr Darcy's actions to be unforgiveable, she quickly learns of an extenuating circumstance: Mr Darcy had no idea that Jane was seriously attached to Mr Bingley and would not have done what he did if he had known.

2. Make sure there are realistic consequences

I don't think it's IMPOSSIBLE for a couple to end up together after a use of this trope, but as in PRIDE & PREJUDICE, in addition to extenuating circumstances, there would ideally be a whole character arc in which the person at fault proves that they are going to stop trying to make decisions for their partner.

I also loved the deconstruction of the trope in ANOTHER MISS OH. In this show the heroine's fiancé, facing financial ruin and prison, tells her just days before their wedding that he doesn't love her anymore and is disgusted by the way she eats. When he gets out of prison early, he's extremely miffed to find that his ex is now dating the very bloke responsible for him being in jail in the first place. He tells the female lead that he just wanted to spare her the pain and disgrace of his prison sentence, and she very properly calls him out on it. He intentionally humiliated her and left her with lasting wounds and insecurities, and although her new boyfriend isn't perfect either, at least he never did THAT to her.

Although this is a deconstruction I think we can still learn from it. After all, this trope is always depicted as a mistake on somebody's part; the important thing is to make the consequences believable.

3. Make sure it's believable for the characters to act in this way

When this trope is played straight, as a major third act breakup between avowed lovers, I almost never find it truly believable. But the story that comes closest is MOULIN ROUGE. Our heroine Satine has always seen herself as the older, worldly wise, cynical one in the relationship. She doesn't believe in the power of love the way her love interest, Christian, does. And she's spent her whole life prioritising money and survival. So, when Satine finds out that her would-be lover, a powerful duke, wants Christian dead, it's credible that THIS sort of person would decide to break up with Christian and tell him she's choosing the Duke and financial security over love.

There are also additional reasons why this works, and all of them are deeply rooted in characterisation.

For one thing, this isn't Satine's first choice. She originally plans to run away with Christian. It's only once she learns that she's dying of consumption that she decides to break up with him instead. We SEE that Satine would rather fight for her love - and we understand why she comes to despair of it.

For another, staying true to Christian won't save him heartbreak because he's going to lose her anyway. On the other hand, if she breaks Christian's heart, she will save him from the Duke and also give the Moulin Rouge's prostitutes a chance at becoming actresses and real artists. We can understand that the price of putting love first is so high, with such little return, that Satine would choose to act this way.

Finally, because Satine's character has already been established as so mercenary, she doesn't actually NEED to work hard to convince Christian that she has chosen the Duke. In fact, one of the things that sets MOULIN ROUGE apart from other examples of this trope is that, from memory, Satine doesn't even lie to Christian. She doesn't try to convince him that their love has been a complete sham - she just informs him that she's decided to give the Duke what he wants. Christian believes it because it's exactly the sort of thing the Satine he first met would have done.

Compare this to the example in F4: THAILAND. In that show, breaking up with Thyme doesn't fit with Gorya's character. She doesn't try to find any alternatives. Thyme finds it so hard to believe her when she says she wants to break up with him, that she has to seriously hurt him in order to make him believe it. And as a member of the audience I wanted to know why exactly it would be so terrible - in a show that is explicitly about the evils of wealth - for Thyme to abandon his family empire.

4. Connect it directly with the themes

The cdrama LOVE BETWEEN FAIRY AND DEVIL contains a rendition of this trope that actually works WITH, rather than against, the themes of the story. LBFAD avoids the often sexist and paternalistic overtones of this trope by having both leads at different times break each other's hearts to save them. Best of all, it uses the trope as an expression of the main thematic conflict of the story. This campy fantasy romance dares to ask whether the greater good is more important than personal love and happiness. When each lead character chooses to break the heart of the other, they do so implicitly because they have bought into the lie that they must set aside personal love for the greater good. Their whole character arc and happy ending hinges upon their ability to see that the only way to sacrifice for the greater good, is to learn love and compassion on a personal level. As such, even though it still stretched credibility that two such devoted leads would treat each other so badly, the story used the trope wisely, not to manufacture melodrama but to discuss its central themes.

5. BONUS: Restore agency to the dumped party One of the annoying things about this trope is specifically that it involves one character choosing to deprive the other of agency in their own romance. So, one of the most fun ways to play this trope is by restoring agency to the dumpee.

This happens in the cdrama TILL THE END OF THE MOON. At first, the way this trope was played in this story really annoyed me. The God of War, Ming Ye, has unexpectedly fallen in love with his at-first unwanted bride, Sang Jiu. Now, however, he's about to go off and fight a battle in which he expects to give his life. Rather than let Sang Jiu know about this, he hands her a bill of divorce and tells her he never had any feelings for her. Sang Jiu has been in love with him from the shell, and this breaks her heart. It seemed completely gratuitous to me - why would Ming Ye divorce someone he's about to widow in any case? If he wants to send her to safety, why can't he just ask her to go home for a visit to her beloved family until the danger blows over? However, I was FASCINATED by Sang Jiu's response to this ultimatum: she puts on her wedding dress, marches into Ming Ye's room, and demands her conjugal rights before she leaves. Although there were definitely things about this scene which I, ah, found problematic and would have done differently, it was a terrific thing to see the female lead seize back agency in this situation. I also appreciated how it foreshadowed later problems in the subplot, in which the male lead's inability to communicate and the female lead's tendency to take things into her own hands dooms them both.

Similarly, in one of my books, a character is forced to break up with another in public, which she does, very coldly. But he takes the first opportunity to get her alone, throw himself at her feet and swear that even if she doesn't want to be his partner anymore, she will still have his undying devotion and lifelong service. It was huge fun to defy the common expectations of the trope in this way!

In summary, I do think that this trope can work, but it does need to be fully supported by the story. It should not be overdone; there must be consequences; it must be in character; there must be high enough stakes to make the pain inflicted seem worthwhile; and it must be in keeping with the themes rather than militating against them.

#trope talk #writing advice #writing #romance tropes #lbfad #tteotm #f4 thailand #love between fairy and devil #till the end of the moon #moulin rouge #pride and prejudice #crash landing on you #cloy #another miss oh

92 notes · View notes