enemies to lovers

[illuvium]

i love thinking about trope talk so much. there's a lot of things i could say about tropes commonly utilized in public fiction (especially in the ya sphere with That Genre of advertisement. the one with the arrows and the tropes pointed at the characters in the cartoonish art styles; you know the one), but i love thinking about it in fic more because there's such a playground there (and because the universality of the tropes permits me to be really general as opposed to working within the confines of things of just the popular ya books, etc.)

for me, the two biggest things i like thinking about are enemies to lovers and aus. aus deserve a whole post for themselves, so i'm going to be reserving that for some other time, when i feel good enough to go on my rambles about them. enemies to lovers is a trope that i used to dislike all of the time, but i've warmed up to it nowadays, and i think that's because i can identify why i used to dislike it.

i think enemies to lovers fundamentally requires just one thing, that thing being a genuine personal dislike. which doesn't sound hard to pull off, but in combination with the common societal values that naturally pervade what you write and what you perceive as "acceptable", it becomes a lot harder to pull off. by this, i mean to say that much of the time, there are two paths pursued: the hatred being founded on a misunderstanding (mutual or otherwise), being really old and dating back to childhood (interplay with the childhood friends trope, and also likely connected to the misunderstanding point), or if the setting permits, perceived ideological differences derived from being on opposing sides.

the misunderstanding point i understand as being drawn from convenience. enemies to lovers is a genuinely hard thing to pull off; given that its fundamental requirement is hatred, it seems really hard to have them in a position where they can reconcile. i understand, but it gets frustrating as a reader to see people fumble around and being unable to communicate, which is why i previously disliked that. i also find that if it's a misunderstanding, it's not genuine enough hatred (don't get me wrong; it can be genuine hatred even if founded based off of a misunderstanding, but things come back to convenience: if the misunderstanding is just drawn-out and nothing serious, you can get a facsimile of hatred that can justify slapping the trope tag on, and that's what i tend to see as the most common route pursued). given that this is a post specifically about fanfiction and that fanfiction is naturally self indulgent wish fulfillment (i am a fic writer myself. this is in lighthearted fun), i can't hate this so much, but i don't tend to read enemies to lovers thanks to this

the more interesting route for me personally is the (usually dystopian) positioning of the two love interests as being on opposing sides. the hatred here is oftentimes drawn from them being on opposite sides, and since it's a dystopia, it's going to be clear that one of the sides is going to be something along the lines of ontologically evil, which plays into the trope, right? i think that on the contrary, the common want for your love interests to be moral angels sabotages the setting. more times than not, i find that the love interest on the "evil" side will have been forced to play the role or some other thing that denotes unwillingness and a shared sympathy with the protagonist. i don't hate this either, to be clear, but i feel that if the ideological difference ceases to be a motivation for them to hate each other, that the enemies part collapses; they were never Personal enemies if it was a perceived ideological difference, to me. this is akin to the one-sided misunderstanding, as the person who's unwilling to work understands that they're on the same side. the more interesting route to me personally is the route less chosen, where the love interest is actually on the evil side willingly, because that's the only time an ideological difference would be sustained, and then that also permits interesting commentary on brainwashing and things of that sort.

the summary of all of this is of course to like what you like. i just can't really like enemies to lovers unless it's from a vetted friend of mine who sees what i see in it, and well, that's fine. it's fandom, at the end of the day. like what you like

Comments

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>>i think enemies to lovers fundamentally requires just one thing, that thing being a genuine personal dislike. <<

I would've taken that as the starting point and said it needs two more things: mutual attraction and forgiveability. If they weren't tempted by each other, they'd never get together. And without some potential for redemption and forgiveness, they couldn't get past the hostility. So for me, enemies to lovers is about how two people with a shitty past figure out how to get by that and make peace so they can get together.

>> much of the time, there are two paths pursued: the hatred being founded on a misunderstanding (mutual or otherwise), being really old and dating back to childhood (interplay with the childhood friends trope, and also likely connected to the misunderstanding point), or if the setting permits, perceived ideological differences derived from being on opposing sides.<<

I like when there is a real, concrete issue between them and they have to deal with that, just as couples do in everyday life. Among my favorite pairings is Magneto/Professor X, because they both have solid arguments. Magneto is right that if you don't stand up for yourself, and people hate you, they will wipe you out. Professor X is right that without someone to make peace, you wind up burning down the whole world. Somewhere in the middle is a path to survival.

>> the misunderstanding point i understand as being drawn from convenience. enemies to lovers is a genuinely hard thing to pull off; given that its fundamental requirement is hatred, it seems really hard to have them in a position where they can reconcile. <<

It is hard to do. You need some real people skills in there, and you need events that show both characters the limits of their own stance and the potential of the other stance(s). I think I preferred your earlier phrasing of personal dislike rather than outright hatred. People could be enemies by way of competition or opposition, and not necessarily hate each other, just fight over things all the time. Imagine two junior faculty fighting over one tenured position, and it is no-holds-barred academic war ... but then the university opens a second position and they're both tenured, so they aren't going to leave and have to figure out some way to tolerate each other.

Another interesting approach is when circumstances change so much that the original point of contention becomes moot. Frex, characters from different countries on Earth that were constantly fighting over the same territory. Take them off Earth and, while they might continue arguing in abstract, they can no longer fight over the physical turf. What happens if they wind up somewhere with plentiful territory and resources so there is not much point arguing over who gets what?

>> i understand, but it gets frustrating as a reader to see people fumble around and being unable to communicate, which is why i previously disliked that.<<

I just don't like the tendency to handwave it away and pretend everything is fine. Some folks really enjoy that fantasy, but well, your kink is okay but it is not my kink. Because what attracts me to this trope is making the characters work through the problem(s).

>> i don't hate this either, to be clear, but i feel that if the ideological difference ceases to be a motivation for them to hate each other, that the enemies part collapses; they were never Personal enemies if it was a perceived ideological difference, to me.<<

Sustained.

I find it much more interesting when both sides have some strong points and some downright wrong ones. Bash the two together, and intelligent characters will start questioning what they've been taught. So you wait until both of them are questioning and all wound up over the mess, then throw one or both into mortal peril and watch the fun. :D

I am also greatly amused when two enemies obviously have a crush on each other that they are so not dealing with but if anyone else threatens one of them, the other will intervene. And they may not ever resolve that crush, it's up to them, but if you are deflecting bullets away from someone you claim to hate, you might wanna reexamine the direction of that passion.

>> where the love interest is actually on the evil side willingly, because that's the only time an ideological difference would be sustained, and then that also permits interesting commentary on brainwashing and things of that sort. <<

Then you look at different kinds of brainwashing. The more extreme is closer to mind control and can break in a snap, which is a miserable and dangerous experience. The victim is free, but has lost their sense of self and social mooring. The less extreme is just what we see all the time with bigots, cults, etc. -- a person grows up hearing nothing but how wicked Group X is, with no exposure to Group X, so they can't form their own opinions from direct experience. This can be a two-way situation, like Hindu/Muslim in India or Hutu/Tutsi in Rwanda or the current brawl with Israel and Palestine. And in all those pairings, some people have said, "This is nuts. Enough is enough. Let's talk to each other." So that's really interesting.

Enemies to lovers (or friends for that matter) is a favorite trope of mine, but admittedly, it was hard to find really good ones even back when I could read AO3.

Re: Thoughts

[illuvium]

re: mutual attraction, for sure. i'm aroace and haven't ever really felt attracted to anyone, so i tend to ignore and glaze over that kind of talk, and i think chemistry is one of those universal things that has to be present in all romance tropes anyway. with forgivability, i tend to agree as a reader, but i also believe that characters are better off when they're (reasonably, given basis) flawed, so i can see angles where even someone who traditionally might have done something unforgivable to the main character could still work out even if in a relatively unhealthier relationship.

i love a concrete issue too! and i like it more when both characters have actual reasonable evidence to back it up, even if that reasonable evidence is founded on a skewed childhood (think N from pokemon, i guess). my tolerance for dystopian enemies to lovers is especially low (and in fairness this is less ao3 more ya fiction complaining, as most fics tend not to go into au territory i find) because i think that they lack a real struggle. if you market it as enemies to lovers i'm expecting that...!

i stick to the phrasing of personal dislike too, usually, but since it's informal enough i alternate between phrases...! my criticism might come from an odd place since i don't tend to be much of a romance reader anyway, but i do adore trope talk and enemies to lovers is such a good fit for thinking. and agreed; if it's a personal hatred deal & then the reason behind that hatred is dissolved, it's still really difficult to reconcile the image of someone who hated your guts with whatever they become afterwards. it's also really great because it allows for so many paths depending on the character's other traits. are they the kind to try & make up, or is pride enough of their personality that they won't try to? when i rarely do end up writing, i love thinking about characterization in this fashion because it's really not universal and it's like a fun logic puzzle to figure out what they'd do given the situation.

yeah!! enemies to lovers is at its best when both characters can stand to learn something from the other. this ties again into the whole black/white sides thing. i think the brainwashing point stands on its own, but it'd be interesting to shift away from the whole ontologically good and evil thing towards a situation where both sides have some degree of merit. i still do read ao3 when i have spare time, but that's not so often where i really see good enemies to lovers either...

Re: Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> i'm aroace and haven't ever really felt attracted to anyone, so i tend to ignore and glaze over that kind of talk, <<

Fair enough. What's your take on enemies to friends, then? I like that one too. *ponder* But I can't think of many strong aroace examples where they wind up queerplatonic. Well, I've written some, but that tends to be more opposition than outright hatred, like Turq and Ansel in Officer Pink.

>> with forgivability, i tend to agree as a reader, but i also believe that characters are better off when they're (reasonably, given basis) flawed, <<

Everyone has flaws. Happy relationships require finding someone whose flaws you can tolerate.

With characters, I like to figure out what their flaws are, because that influences the story.

>> so i can see angles where even someone who traditionally might have done something unforgivable to the main character could still work out even if in a relatively unhealthier relationship.<<

Forgiveability is individual, after all. I just tend not to be interested in stories where all the characters are awful, or someone gets saddled with an asshole. But I know some readers are really into the "bad boy" vibe.

>> i love a concrete issue too! <<

:D

>> and i like it more when both characters have actual reasonable evidence to back it up, even if that reasonable evidence is founded on a skewed childhood (think N from pokemon, i guess).<<

Agreed. Characters need to learn and grow. Sometimes what they learn is that their parents were stupid bigots or that their government has been lying to people.

>> my tolerance for dystopian enemies to lovers is especially low (and in fairness this is less ao3 more ya fiction complaining, as most fics tend not to go into au territory i find) <<

Most fandoms have some AU branches, some even name theirs, but not everyone finds those.

>> because i think that they lack a real struggle. if you market it as enemies to lovers i'm expecting that...! <<

It's harder to create a struggle when everything is already a wreck.

>> my criticism might come from an odd place since i don't tend to be much of a romance reader anyway, but i do adore trope talk and enemies to lovers is such a good fit for thinking. <<

Hey, you can enjoy a fandom or trope however you want! It's just as fun to talk about the trope itself as to read stories of it. <3 meta.

>> if it's a personal hatred deal & then the reason behind that hatred is dissolved, it's still really difficult to reconcile the image of someone who hated your guts with whatever they become afterwards. <<

I think it depends on change. This trope really relies on characters changing their worldviews, their self-images, and their behavior. It's just a long journey from hate (or strong dislike) to love (or fucking).

>> it's also really great because it allows for so many paths depending on the character's other traits. are they the kind to try & make up, or is pride enough of their personality that they won't try to?<<

Exactly! What plays out depends a lot on the individual characters.

>> when i rarely do end up writing, i love thinking about characterization in this fashion because it's really not universal and it's like a fun logic puzzle to figure out what they'd do given the situation.<<

I write a lot, and I enjoy the complexity of characterization, fitting together traits and backstory that support their choices.

>> enemies to lovers is at its best when both characters can stand to learn something from the other. this ties again into the whole black/white sides thing.<<

I also enjoy yin/yang dynamics. Black and white, but each with a dab of the other, turning in balance.

Re: Thoughts

[illuvium]

enemies to friends to me should technically be on a Similar level as enemies to lovers with regards to the requirements of genuine mutual dislike and whatnot, but that might be about it. i personally regard friendships as a lot more serious and i guess time-consuming than i think people involved in romantic relationships do, but i get that in fandoms there's a definite lack of prioritization of platonic bonds. probably since more people want to project themselves onto people in a fluffy romance than they do with someone who just has good friends. i'm slightly laxer about enemies to friends because i think the physical compatibility isn't really something to consider anymore (though in fairness this, too, was never something i considered since i also have aphantasia so shipping characters gets into weird, weird territory for me), but since the core of enemies to lovers & enemies to friends involves having to bypass the hurdle of disputing worldviews, i don't think that they're really So different at their cores!

yeahhh me neither. i dislike how the want for the bad boy trope also ties into the want for a moral leader in current ya circles... the most apparent example to me is from haunting adeline. the love interest quite literally assaults her and it's just apparent abuse but the author doesn't even fully lean into the moral bankruptcy of it all because on the side he's secretly a vigilante cracking down on like, sex trafficking rings. and i guess there could be an angle to spin it where it's about people who seem to be good samaritans having the potential for evil, but that would've required the book itself to acknowledge that what he's doing is bad, which, well, it doesn't. i've still got really mixed feelings about books like these, since i think it sucks that this is the caliber of book that people are reading, but i mean, at least it's good that they are reading. to each their own?

i loveeeee considering characterization when i write. that's my biggest deal, honestly... i have a lot of qualms with fanfic because i feel as though lots of people end up discarding characterization in favor of making everything conform to a trope (which as you can probably tell from the initial ramble, i have a lot of opinions on as well), but i treat fic as almost an extended character analysis even if it is a shippy sort of fic. i think that with shipfic, it gets even more confusing characterization-wise. naturally, actions don't happen in a vacuum, and a character will already be considering various other things from their backstory/the situation & how much they know, etc., but it's so much harder to factor in another person altogether, which makes shipfic a fun challenge. i'm generally romance-repulsed too, though, so it's some sort of masochism for me to be writing shipfic.

and yeah! enemies to lovers at its core is about people changing because of and i guess for the other. which is why enemies to lovers fast burn doesn't really work. there needs to be sufficient development there! fast burn i find acceptable with something like friends to lovers (but even then, friends to lovers kind of implies that you were already into one another and kind of tiptoeing around the whole situation, so that might contradict the fast burn aspect a bit?), but since enemies to lovers is already such a hard trope to pull off, fast burn just doesn't really mesh well at all.