Trope Talk: Enemies to lovers

Musings on the trope that seems to have the internet in a chokehold

Photo by GR Stocks on Unsplash

Oh god, this is the one. 

An old trope turned fad and buzzword. A phrase repeated so many times over the last few years that one could argue it’s been rendered meaningless. When it’s done well, it can make for a compelling story, but when it’s done poorly? It gives me the most profound ick you can imagine and makes me regret I ever went to the first grade and learned to read. Extreme? Perhaps, but I’m not currently interested in retracting that statement. Before I get into what I like about this trope, allow me to list some dynamics I believe are not enemies to lovers:

• Bully romances

• Opressor x oppressed person

• Stalker romances

• Conservative x liberal romances

Unfortunately, many titles I see being recommended under the ‘enemies to lovers’ umbrella nowadays seem to fall under one of these which is…ah, not great! I also see a lot of contemporary romance being labeled as enemies to lovers, which I also find just a bit ludicrous. Who is Dave from the office and how could he possibly be your enemy? The man plays golf for fun and has a 401k, it was never that serious.

Enemies to lovers (knives to throats and all that)

There is a push and pull that stems from interpersonal conflict which has interested us for as long as storytelling has existed. Good and evil, light and darkness, love and hate. They create compelling dynamics because they’re so at odds with one another, because they stretch humanity to its limits by highlighting its extremes. When a story is infused with these extremes in a compelling manner, we as an audience have an opportunity to witness some of the most interesting  facets of the human condition. What provokes such strong emotions? What drives an individual to make drastic choices? What does it look like when hate turns to love over time, or vice versa?

This, I believe, is the draw of the trope.

It’s a fascinating journey for a reader or viewer to witness a change as great as this one, as it’s usually a signifier of character development. In fact, I would argue it’s The Most™ development that one could dream of for a character. When done well, this type of story is almost guaranteed to be a slow burn because deep changes take time. What could possibly cause a person’s worldview, values and opinions to change so dramatically that the person they once hated and considered an enemy may become their most cherished one? Listen, those are big stakes and we love it when a story has stakes! Human interest! All that good stuff! We love the change and growth of characters in stories. Or do we?

A few months ago I was indulging one of my least healthy vices (scrolling through the comment section of an online post) when I came across an opinion that made me pause. Responding to a video on the enemies to lovers trope, one user wrote something along the lines of “I love enemies to lovers but I hate it when they start acting all lovey-dovey. I get bored and I start skipping ahead”. I stared at my phone, confused. Wasn’t that the whole point of the trope? They start out as enemies and over time become lovers. They act like lovers because they stopped being enemies. The comment bothered me, and I ranted to my sisters about it over lunch. “They don’t even like the trope then!” I told them, unexpectedly heated about the whole thing. “They just want flirty enemies holding knives to throats forever!”

Okay, so what’s up with all the knives being held up to throats?

Picture this, longtime enemies who keep evading one another, one-upping the other’s efforts in a complicated chase across the story until one fateful day. One enemy corners the other, puts their knife to their opponent’s throat. They have them right where they want them and they draw closer to inspect their prize. Except, oh damn, were they always this hot? Nothing says sex appeal like heavy breathing in close proximity and perhaps a trickle of blood running down your enemy’s throat. They say they’ll never surrender, but maybe a bit of yielding is in order? Screw it, you kiss them passionately because they look too good at the end of your weapon there.

Cool. Then what?

No, seriously. What happens afterwards? And what happened to have them end up there in the first place?

You would expect such a moment to be a breaking point, a major shift in the narrative. Many things led up to this moment and you can be certain that nothing will be the same after it. Only that we see that, as the popularity of the trope continues to skyrocket and more media (books, particularly) featuring this dynamic breaks into the market, we see this idea become diluted. As with any literary trend (people who survived the dystopian craze of the 2010s, please sound off in the comments!), we have at least one influential text and the many copycats that try to recapture lightning in a bottle while majorly misunderstanding what made the original work. What we are left with is stories that try to hit beats, formulaic storytelling created to give us “more of that thing you liked”, and books that feel like they only exist so that readers can have the infamous ‘knife-to-the-throat’ scene. In these cases, it will not matter that the worldbuilding is as sturdy as a taco shell or that the characters are basically self insert templates, only that a rabid reader may rip through the story just to get the same hit in book after book. 

(You know how you could get the exact same experience for the low, low price of zero dollars? By reading or writing fanfiction, but that’s a post for another day.)

If we go back to the question of What happens afterwards? and answer it according to that one user whose comment sent me into a spiral, nothing. In their argument, there is nowhere to go. Perhaps their answer would simply be “Do it again!”. Let’s do it then, let’s trap the enemies in a vicious cycle of catching one another and then making out. What happens afterwards? The story has nowhere to progress, they’re simply enemies who apparently have the hots for one another. Do we know why? Are they planning on doing anything about it? Surely, it can’t be counted as enemies to lovers if they don’t move past the enemies phase. The question of why anyone would wish character stagnation upon media they enjoy has kept me up at night since I saw that comment months ago. Well, not really. But it does bother me. 

What’s wrong with being lovers? Why would you, as a viewer/reader, consider it boring?

For me, the transition into lovers signifies character growth. There’s a change of priorities and of worldview that comes with it, as well as the development of a kindness or softness we perhaps didn’t previously know the character to be capable of achieving. I simply don’t understand why you would dislike seeing a character you enjoy become a better, happier version of themselves. Listen, I was once a teenager and I loved angst in stories. Sadness. The most dramatic version of events you can possibly dream of. Maybe I’m getting corny in my old age, but I want happiness and growth for the characters I’m rooting for, alright? 

What do I love about enemies to lovers?

So enough ‘old man yells at cloud’ from my part, what do I actually like about enemies to lovers? What are the ingredients that make the soup hit perfectly? This is all my opinion and opinions are subjective, of course, but I daresay if you made it this far you might want to hear me out. 

Equality

This element is so simple and yet many attempts fail to include it. Yes, call me lame or whatever you want but I think that the enemies in question should be on somewhat equal standing. If they are not, the dynamic is probably actually one of the ones I listed at the beginning such as ‘bully x victim’ or ‘oppressor x oppressed’. That’s a huge no-no in my book, there’s nothing enjoyable about that for me. For example, a story where the all-powerful king of a warring neighboring kingdom falls for a common woman in the country his soldiers are attacking, that’s a hell nope for me. However, if the king is mortal and the woman is not, we see how the playing field could begin to level over the course of the story. If the woman is the queen of her nation, they begin the story on even ground, status wise, even if one has one up over the other in practical terms. One party cannot be a boot and the other the bug that scurries to avoid being squashed. 

If I wanted to witness horrifically uneven dynamics, I could simply turn an eye towards international politics. It’s not romantic, don’t try to make me root for it. 

Example: In Amal El-Mohtar and Max Gladstone’s This Is How You Lose The Time War, Blue and Red are each top agents of their respective organizations. When Blue grows tired of their constant foiling of one another, she begins a correspondence with Red that sees both women begin to fall for one another and see the pointlessness of the war. 

Angst, babeyy (I am but a simple woman)

As I’m writing this, it occurred to me what it is that I love about some well executed angst. It’s not about bad things happening to the character continuously, or about the magnitude of these things because angst isn’t external. It’s about the tension between what you want and what you can’t have. The debate is an internal one, carried out over each decision that brings you back to the first problem. In the case of romance, wanting to be with someone but being unable to. 

Why does one character want to be with the other? What’s stopping them?

If both of these are answered in a solid way, the result can be a very interesting story as they attempt to overcome these circumstances. This tension can also be present within a single character as they struggle to find who they want to be. For that, the questions would turn into What does this character want to do? What’s stopping them?

Character example: In ATLA, Zuko wants to return from exile in good standing with his father (aka, regain his honor). What’s stopping him, internally speaking? His conscience, which doesn’t allow him to be as ruthless as his father expects him to be. 

Dynamic character archetypes

An enemies to lovers story is perfect ground for the exploration of diametrically opposed concepts. Good and evil, night and day, winter and summer, light and dark, tradition and progressiveness. Placing characters at odds with one another in close proximity can make for a compelling dynamic and story, as we see the push and pull of who they are and what the other character represents for them. 

Example: In Elizabeth Gaskell’s North and South, Margaret Hale and Mr Thornton represent the south and north of England, respectively. Each exists as almost a personification of their region’s customs and values at the halfway point of the 19th century, and they clash tremendously throughout the novel for this reason. The characters undergo significant life changes over the course of the years the novel covers, both individually and in relation to one another. I risk oversimplifying it, but let’s just say that Margaret and Mr Thornton are able to reach a happy ending together when she stops viewing the South exclusively through rose-tinted glasses and he learns to Chill TF Out™. 

Growth, for the better of humanity (and not just your partner)

Finally, one of the most important things in an enemies to lovers type story for me is growth. Yes, growth. The enemies must become lovers. For this to be executed in a satisfying way, the characters must grow from who they were at the beginning to become a better version of themselves. I don’t believe this is a change that should happen solely for the sake of a partner, as this puts the change on shaky ground that could easily be lost if the relationship dissolves. 

I don’t want the tyrant king to stop attacking the sorceress’ kingdom because she doesn’t like it and won’t go out with him if he keeps it up. I want him to realize that it’s wrong and take steps to rectify his wrongdoings. He needs to do it for the sake of the random merchants of the kingdom and not just for his hot and powerful girlfriend. He needs to do it for the people of his own kingdom who die in his useless wars. The change can be triggered by the presence of the loved one, but should occur individually. The power of redemption is a powerful tool used in these types of stories to explore what people may go through when put in extreme situations. They can’t remain stagnant, can’t remain enemies for this narrative to unfold. If the ‘lovers’ part never comes in, we never reach the point of growth and change that really drives this type of story and they just stay horny enemies. That’s fun until it isn’t, and definitely doesn’t have the narrative weight to carry an entire story if the relationship is the main draw of the story (as it often is in the new ‘romantasy’ subgenre). 

Example: In ABC’s Once Upon A Time, Killian Jones (aka, Captain Hook) is introduced in season two of the show as a secondary villain who teams up with the season’s villains and works against the plans of hero Emma Swan and her family. By the end of the second season he offers aid to the heroes and by the start of the third season, we see that he begins to question his own obsessive pursuits. He starts to pursue Emma romantically, but he also makes amends with the people around her and even people from his own past that he admits to having screwed over. Though his growth is rooted in wanting to be a better man for Emma, this personal commitment to bettering himself grows past his relationship to her and her family, which makes it so he doesn’t backslide irreversibly when they’re forced to part halfway through the season. Even if he’s deeply attached to Emma, in the later seasons, he’s able to gain qualities which allow him to heroically do the right thing even without her presence or suggestion.

Respect

I’m someone who doesn’t enjoy unequal power dynamics in romance. I believe that when placing characters as enemies they must be on somewhat equal ground because if they aren’t, they aren’t enemies but a perpetrator and a victim and that’s just not sexy to me. This is why something like Alina and The Darkling from Leigh Bardugo’s Shadow and Bone trilogy would never be attractive to me as a ship because for all of the interest behind the superficial aspects (mostly the contrasting sun/shadow powers), I never get the sense that The Darkling respects Alina as a person. He sees her as a powerful grisha who can further his cause, someone useful to him. He delights in seeing her power grow, but don’t get it twisted, he sees it as a commodity. Any attempt at gaining her favor isn’t born out of genuine feeling, but a strategy to bring potential threats to his own side. No matter his words, he never really treats her as an equal. Luckily, Leigh Bardugo agrees with me and she writes it so Alina makes The Darkling eat shit in the end. Hooray. 

(Now, all would be well if we could get some of those twitter stans to agree.) 

In considering one another a legitimate threat, there’s a begrudging respect. Knowing that you have to make an effort to not let them gain the upper hand implies a belief that they could get the upper hand, that they’re capable enough to do that. This, I believe, is the seed of the potential love affair. When the begrudging respect turns to genuine admiration, something important has happened and the character may not even realize it. Respect for your enemy as an individual is the secret sauce, babeyy. If you nail these aspects, I believe the arc will fall into place. This is also why those conservative/liberal romances don’t work, because at least one side believes the other should have less rights than they have, which, YIKES.

Example: In NBC’s Timeless, Lucy Preston and Garcia Flynn start out as enemies but establish a slightly less antagonistic relationship as Flynn insists that they should work together because their causes are actually one and the same, though she’s unable to see it. At each of their first few meetings (which take place at different points in history), he insists that she ask more questions of her superiors, knowing she is capable of reaching the truth behind the organization she works for. These interactions allow Lucy to know Flynn as more than the madman she’s been told he is and sets in motion their later alliance, since she is able to vouch for him as a person and not just an adversary. 

So, what’s the point in any of this?

Tropes are cool additions to a story, but they should never be the whole story. The enemies-to-lovers trope is a fun one to consume in fiction, as it can be a chance to tell a compelling and dynamic story of people and their evolution, starting from a particular event or meeting onwards. The things that entertain us are not always a hard indicator of the kind of people we are, especially when it comes to fiction. We use fiction to explore ideas and situations, often ones we wouldn’t actually want to encounter in real life. I think this is part of the draw of enemies to lovers. It’s something exciting and perhaps a little dangerous to explore from the safety and comfort found beyond the fourth wall. 

I have many more thoughts on this topic, but I leave you with this for now. I have no right to police what people do or don’t enjoy but I fully reserve my right to be judgy about it. At least a little bit. As a treat. Over the years I’ve developed a pretty strong sense of what I’m into when it comes to fiction, and my only hope is to share a bit about that with this new series that I’m calling Trope Talk. I’ll be covering different tropes that I’m interested in discussing and taking a look into what makes them work for me or not. 

Also, starting with this post, I’ll be sharing a recording of me reading these posts with each upload. I recently had the revelation that several of the people closest to me like podcasts or prefer reading in audio format, so this might make it easier for them and anyone like them to keep up with this publication. It’ll be like a podcast, but with less effort. Which is awesome for me. 

I love and appreciate anyone who made it this far and I’ll see you in the next one!