Just because some fictional relationships are stable, that doesn't mean it's impossible to understand the motivation behind putting a fictional relationship into conflict.
I didn't say it was. Stop throwing all these straw men at me.
Obviously no competent writer will do the exact same thing to every character, nor should any audience member wish them to, because that would get awfully boring. Yes, Peter and Elle have a stable relationship, but Neal's whole arc in the first couple of seasons was about losing the love of his life and having to cope with the consequences thereof, and his subsequent relationship with Sara has been fraught with conflict. And didn't Diana and her girlfriend break up last season?
I had a feeling you'd bring that up. You seem convinced that my point is monomaniacal and devoid of nuance, but that's just not true. I'm obviously not expressing myself well enough. Pointing out that there exists one stable healthy marriage where no one has yet died does not indicate that I cannot tolerate anything BUT that, or that I would want only that. I WOULD say that it's quite rare, and more rare than is necessary. I'm just saying it is possible to have a stable relationship and still be entertaining - it was a recommendation aimed RJ's way too, as I think he might like not only that aspect but the fact that Peter is not a 'dark' corrupt character, and Neal is not particularly edgy either.
You don't need to derive drama from only one type of tension - I think in Castle, dragging out the relationship between Beckett and Castle was a mistake, and there is enough to sustain the show without the constant tension of a "will they won't they" turned into "seriously will they just get together already..." ... and sure, in White Collar Kate died - we didn't know her that well so it really isn't the same thing. And other characters have relationships that are realistic in the sense that sometimes they work, sometimes they don't, sometimes it ends well, sometimes badly, but it's also realistic to have a strong marriage/ relationship that simply works. It's a nice change. If Whedon were in charge of White Collar, I'm not convinced he would be capable of letting them be - he would have to kill one of them (presumably El) - but why? It's not necessary in this instance. And yes before you start, I GET that it IS necessary or desirable in SOME instances, but I'm talking about this one.
Yes, you can argue that a specific instance of putting a relationship in jeopardy may or may not have been a good idea. But saying it's inexplicable why a writer would doom a relationship is just disingenuous.
I never said that either, and I'm not being disingenuous. You're the one interpreting my views into something simplistic and ornery. However, would you concede that relationships do not need to be doomed 100% of the time? For me it's a refreshing change to see El and Peter.
The answer is the same as for any other crisis or loss in fiction: because crisis drives story. Disagreeing with a choice is not the same thing as being unable to understand the motivation behind it. That's the point I was making.
I think this was someone else's point, not mine. I quite understand the motivation for introducing conflict into a story.
Edited by SparkyCola, 30 September 2013 - 10:23 AM.