It’s so great when readers comment on blog posts and raise new issues and perspectives. In the discussion of last week’s post on Friends & Lovers, Sharon brought up the topic of ex-lovers who remain friends, such as Mélanie and Raoul. “While I love stories in which lovers are the best of friends, I feel it more fascinating and challenging reading about former lovers who remain friends, as in the case of Mélanie & Raoul. Ever since I started visiting your blog, I’ve always felt ambivalent reading the correspondence between Mélanie & Raoul: on the one hand I want to know more about their connection, and the way it changed every step of the way in Mélanie’s marriage to Charles, yet at the same time I also feel I don’t want to know much more about them. It’s somewhat unsettling.”
I’ve always found ex-lovers fascinating to read about. There’s so much history before the story even starts, so much built in intimacy and often so much built in antagonism at the same. Just think of the scene where Victor and Ilsa first walk into Rick’s, and the follow-up scene where Ilsa returns to find Rick alone in the café with Sam. “Of all the gin joints in all the world…”
I often find myself rooting for ex-lovers to get back together. As I also mentioned in the discussion last week, part of me wants Rick and Ilsa to run off together, even as part of me agrees with Rick that she belongs with Victor. Again following on last week’s discussion, I definitely root for Tracy and Dexter (who are actually ex-husband and wife) to get back together in The Philadelphia Story. I love Anne Elliott and Frederick Wentworth finding each other again in Persuasion. There’s a tantalizing hint in Much Ado About Nothing that Beatrice and Benedick have been romantically involved in the past, which can add wonderful depth when it’s played up in productions. Bath Tangle isn’t my favorite Georgette Heyer, but I like the set up of the couple who were once engaged being forced to interact again. My friend Penelope Williamson’s mystery Mortal Sins has a fabulous love story with a pair of ex-lovers whose past is as rich and complex and full of twists and turns and deceptions as the mystery they are attempting to unravel.
When my mom and I wrote our Anthea Malcolm Regency romances, one of my favorite set-ups was in our book A Touch of Scandal. The hero and heroine have had a brief, illicit affair which ended in tragedy five years before the book begins. It was so much fun writing Fiona and Gideon’s first meeting in the book. There were so many layers, so much repressed emotion and unexpressed feelings between them right from the start. They jumped write past the formalities of a couple meeting in a Regency drawing room and were steeped in emotional intensity from the start.
But what about ex-lovers who don’t end up together? Who (unlike Rick and Ilsa) aren’t even the romantic focus of the story. But who still care about each other and may remain friends. It’s a fascinating and tricky balancing act for a writer. As Sharon pointed out it’s not so much that it’s disturbing to know a character had prior romantic attachments as to see “proof that their connection was real and solid, not just something that could be glossed over and mentioned in passing. I could remember two other romances in which the friendships of former lovers seem more like that of friendly acquaintants than that of true friends. It doesn’t seem so with Mélanie and Raoul.”
By the time of Secrets of a Lady, Mélanie loves Charles whole-heartedly, but Raoul will always be important to her, in ways that are difficult even for her to define. Loving someone doesn’t sever all one’s ties and connections and loyalties to other people. Elizabeth George does a wonderful job of demonstrating this, I think, with the tangled relationships among Tommy, Helen, Simon, and Deborah in her series. In Mary Jo Putney’s The Controversial Countess (which was later reissued, in an expanded form, as Petals from the Storm), the relationship that really fascinated me was between the heroine Maggie and her former lover and fellow spy Robin. I didn’t precisely want them to end up together. Part of what intrigued me about them was that they were such good friends without being lovers any longer. I remember reading that book late in to the night, driven by concern over Robin’s fate and wanting to make sense of his relationship with Maggie. I knew Maggie and Rafe, the hero, would survive and end up together, but I was worried something horrible would happen to Robin (that he’d die or turn out to be a villain) in order for Maggie and Rafe to have their happy ending. Fortunately, Putney is too skilled a writer for that (and Robin later gets his own book and his own happy ending, but I didn’t know that the time).
One of the things I enjoy in writing the Fraser Correspondence is exploring Mélanie’s relationship with Raoul, how it evolved during the early years her marriage to Charles. Her marriage obviously pulled her away from Raoul, as her ties to Charles grew stronger. And yet at the same time, Raoul was practically the only person she could confide in openly (the other one being Blanca, and Mel tends to be protective of Blanca). It’s a challenge to write their letters, because, as Sharon said, “the more I read of their correspondence, the more it seems their connection would be a lasting one, perhaps weakened somewhat in time after Secrets of a Lady, but it would never be severed.”
Perhaps that’s part of why I like writing the Mélanie/Raoul letters. One of the themes of The Mask of Night is both Mélanie and Charles dealing with the complexities of their relationships to Raoul (who in different ways has been a major influence on both of them). I love the way series let one explore how relationships evolve over time. As I’ve mentioned, I have a idea for a love story for Raoul in a subsequent book that I’m very excited to write. Which may shift the relationships among my characters, but won’t change the fact that he and Mélanie will continue to be friends :-).
I’d love to hear more takes on the Mélanie/Raoul relationship and literary depictions of relationships between ex-lovers in general. And, in keeping with this topic, this week’s Fraser Correspondence entry is Raoul’s reply to Mélanie’s letter of last week.
February 13 update: I’m blogging on History Hoydens today. Do stop by and leave a comment!
Tracy Grant - Novelist 
February 10, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Oh, I love Robin! I’m glad he found love in his own book; Margot wouldn’t have made him happy. Although it was nice to see how she trusted him over a jealous Rafe in their book. Many books would have had: A) Robin become a drooling villain, or: B) Margot deciding that Rafe must be right, because… well, he makes her hot.
My only real problem with reunited lovers is; they broke up for a reason once. So, what’s different now?
For instance, I can’t like Rafe and I don’t understand why a woman would take back a man who treated her so badly. (I have to admit, I feel this way about the “hero” in Touch of Scandal. Sorry, Tracy.) Rafe spent most of the book simultaneously thinking Margot was a whore and plotting ways to get into her pants.
Ex-Lovers as friends? Hmm. Perhaps nice in theory, I haven’t seen it work in real life unless the couple never intended to become permanent.
Raoul, as someone said in response to the last blog post was a Pygmalion to Melanie. That’s not a bad thing, but I don’t see that sort of relationship becoming permanent. Not to mention, he’s 30 years her senior. So I could accept them as friends afterwards.
Maggie and Robin appeared to be “friends with benefits”. And perhaps the Pygmalion theme applies here; he did turn her into a spy. I was a little surprised that Margot remained friends with Robin, after going back to Rafe. Rafe’s described as passionate and possessive in “Angel Rogue”, I think “obsessive” is better.
Tommy, Simon, Deborah, and Helen… oh, my. I find that quadrangle a little off for my tastes.
February 11, 2008 at 5:13 am
Thanks for the great comments, JMM! I agree Margot (who I think Robin called Maggie? Or did I just make that up?) wasn’t the woman for Robin, but I loved reading about their relationship, and I love that their friendship could endure.
I can see you not liking Gideon in “A Touch of Scandal.” (And I can’t tell you how nice it is to hear from someone who’s actually read the book :-). In a way I’m perversely pleased you had such a strong reaction to him. In “A Touch of Scandal,” my mom and I started out trying to write a hero who had been really amoral and see if we could redeem him. Believe it or not, he actually ended up having been less amoral than we had at first envisioned him (the original concept was “someone who had been like Valmont in ‘Dangerous Liaisons'” :-). Mom and I tended to write decent, honorable heroes (which I still tend to do and still like doing), so it was fun to try something different.
I actually know a number of people who are friends with exes, some quite close friends. But I agree it’s probably easier if the couple never saw the relationship as permanent. With loyalty to their cause and the war and neither of them really expecting to survive, I agree that Mélanie and Raoul never saw their relationship as permanent (though the feelings on both sides were definitely strong) so I do think it helps them to be friends afterwards. And he certainly is something of a Pygmalion to her. Perhaps not the best foundation for a marriage (though it works quite well in the Mary Russell series, but Russell has to become independent first) but I think it also means Mélanie will always want him in her life in some way.
The quadrangle of Tommy, Simon, Deborah, and Helen is definitely complicated–but I like reading about complications :-).
February 11, 2008 at 6:09 am
Yes, Robin called Margot, “Maggie”. It makes sense, if she ‘became’ a different person.
My problem with the reunion; I wonder if they weren’t just trying to go back to being Margot and Rafe of 13 years before.
Rafe didn’t grow in those 13 years; Margot on the other hand became a different person from the innocent English girl she had once been. (But somehow kept a torch for a man who treated her so badly – *13 years ago*?)
As I said, if a couple breaks up ‘permanently’; why should the reader believe anything will be different the second time around? It’s one thing if the couple just wasn’t mature enough for a relationship the first time. I think Benedict and Beatrice were like this. But so often, the couple meets, hisses at one another, and – pow! Chemistry wins.
February 11, 2008 at 6:20 am
Glad I was right about “Maggie.” That would have been a good example for my blog about names. I love the way the use of names can define characters and relationships.
I totally agree that for an ex-lovers-reuniting scenario to work believably, the reader has to see that the characters have grown and changed. The instant chemistry is great (one of the advantages of writing about ex-lovers) but the author has to portray more substantial character growth to make a happy ending believable. Beatrice and Benedick, as you say, have changed in the intervening years and in particular change in the course of the play. Margot/Maggie has definitely changed. I thought Rafe had as well, or in his case perhaps it’s more that he changes in the course of the book. But it’s been along time since I read it.
February 11, 2008 at 7:09 am
Rafe changed; he didn’t *grow*. He became promiscuous and self-pitying. The fact that he could hold a grudge for *thirteen* years was frightening.
I find it hard to believe a man who held that much hate in his heart would fall back in love with a woman he’s spent over a decade blaming for his problems, especially since he spent 90% of the book thinking himself an innocent victim of Evil Margot.
For “former lovers reunite” to work, I think that they must have ‘grown out’ of whatever kept them apart the first time.
But Rafe only realizes Margot was completely innocent when Robin points out, A) “hey, men sometimes brag about things that never happened, dude”, and B) the man who said Margot betrayed Rafe is a Traitor to Britain. (Oddly naive for a man who has spent so much time cuckolding men) “What! An English Gentleman told me a lie? I don’t believe it!”
February 11, 2008 at 7:42 am
“Former lovers reunite” is definitely a tough balancing act–the characters will obviously have changed in their time apart, but they can’t have changed so much they no longer seem to belong together. And they also can’t have so overcome whatever pulled them apart that there’s no tension left.
I think it’s time for a reread of “The Controversial Countess”/”Petals fro the Storm”…
February 16, 2008 at 3:46 am
In my social circle, I don’t personally know of any ex-lovers who remain friends. That is one of the reasons that I am curious and fascinated at how such relationships are depicted in books.
Although there isn’t much about it in “Angel Rogue”, which I read before I was aware of it being part of a series, Robin and Maggie’s friendship seems genuine and loving. What is even more interesting to me is the coziness of Rafe’s interactions with Robin. I haven’t had a chance to read the prequel, so I have no idea what the relationship is like in that book, but I can’t help feeling such a relationship between Rafe and Robin somewhat unbelievable.
Another story in which I also found such an interesting relationship is Jo Beverley’s “An Unwilling Bride”. Although Lucien and Blanche seem more friendly acquaintances than close friends, Beth and Blanche seem chumming from the start. This is not as unbelievable to me because it is depicted with such humor, and I can understand Beth’s need to form an alliance with Blanche.
How likely is it for one to become close friends with the former lover of one’s spouse? From what I’ve read so far, I can’t imagine Charles ever being so close to Raoul as Rafe is to Robin, or as Beth is to Blanche. I suppose part of the fun of reading romance is seeing how the dynamics of relationships is played out differently with each author’s writing.
February 16, 2008 at 8:05 am
Thanks for posting, Sharon–it’s great hearing your thoughts on this! I too like Beth’s friendship with Blanche and find it believable. I love having a sympathetic, interesting former mistress character wo can be friends with the heroine (and eventually have her own happy ending). Perhaps it goes to JMM’s point that Blanche’s relationship with Lucien was clearly never going to be permanent (and certainly not lead to marriage) so that Blanche doesn’t resent Beth, and Beth doesn’t feel threatened by Blanche.
Rafe and Robin’s relationship in “The Controversial Countess”/”Petals from the Storm” is definitely not cozy, at least at the start, but the two men do come to understand each other. (Do read the book when you get a chance, it’s a great story). It’s been a while since I read “Angel Rogue,” but I think Rafe’s comfort with Robin stems from Rafe’s confidence in the strength of his own relationship with Maggie (evidence that he’s grown past his jealousy).
As to Charles and Raoul’s relationship–it’s extremely complicated, and Mélanie is only part of the equation. It’s definitely a dynamic I intend to explore as the series progresses. To avoid spoilers for future books, I’ll merely say that I don’t think either Charles or Raoul will ever be able to ignore the other. But I’d love to hear thoughts on how their relationship might play out!