← The Journal · Romance Department
Why Romance Writers Delay the Conversation
The overdue conversation is not automatically bad writing. It becomes weak when delay exists only because honesty would end the book.
By Kevin Snell
The overdue conversation is not automatically bad writing. It becomes weak when delay exists only because honesty would end the book.
Silence should protect something
Readers can tolerate a delayed conversation far longer than writers sometimes fear. What they resist is delay without motive. If one honest sentence would solve the book and the character withholds it only because the plot needs another hundred pages, silence becomes machinery the reader can see.
Credible silence protects something the character values: dignity, safety, family, employment, the current form of the relationship, or a story he tells about himself. The withheld truth must appear less survivable than the damage caused by withholding it. That calculation may be wrong. It still needs to be emotionally legible.
The character may not have language yet
People do not always hide fully formed truths. A character may understand his behavior before he can name the need beneath it. He knows he becomes angry when the other man leaves, but not that the anger covers fear of being temporary. He knows he does not want the relationship public, but has not separated present danger from an old habit of shame.
Intimacy research emphasizes self-disclosure and perceived responsiveness, but disclosure is not a data dump.[1] It requires the speaker to recognize what is his to reveal and to believe the listener may receive it.[2]
Delay must accumulate consequences
Every postponed conversation should change the conditions under which the eventual conversation occurs. A small omission becomes a misleading assumption. The assumption shapes a choice. The choice injures trust. Silence that preserves the status quo creates repetition; silence that creates a worsening moral and practical problem creates plot.
Near-conversations need variation. One is interrupted. Another fails because the speaker chooses a safer partial truth. A third reaches honesty but not agreement. If every attempt ends with somebody walking away before the key sentence, the reader sees the author instead of the characters.
Know why now
The eventual conversation should happen because the old strategy becomes impossible. The secret is exposed, the other man leaves, or the character chooses to speak before disaster because he has become capable of a different act.
Accuracy will not solve everything. Two people can understand each other perfectly and still disagree about what the truth requires.[3] The other person should not wait without limit. Eventually is the point when silence stops protecting the character and begins costing him the relationship he was trying to preserve.
Delay works when the reader can track both the protection and the accumulating damage. The silence then belongs to character rather than convenience. By the time the conversation arrives, speaking should cost something too. Honesty may not rescue the old arrangement; it may destroy it. The scene becomes satisfying because truth finally permits a real decision, not because the author has reached the chapter where people are allowed to communicate.
Sources
Reader comments
Loading comments…