Be it in movies or books, the enemies-to-lovers trope is a popular turn of events that sways fans and leaves a mark on their perception of love. The plot always follows the same outline: two people who can’t stand each other and loathe every move, gesture, and behavior emitted by the other until they are forced to cooperate in some way and find themselves falling for each other. While this plot can be eye opening when it comes to prejudice and “judging a book by its cover,” it may also present some underlying issues.
For most “Gossip Girl” viewers, Blair and Dan’s relationship came as a shocking plot twist. Yet, it made sense. The Upper East Side socialite, Blair Waldorf, hates Brooklyn’s “Lonely Boy” Dan Humphrey, who happens to be her best friend Serena’s boyfriend. That is, until she is forced to work with him in order to protect Serena. She discovers bit by bit that they have more in common than she had initially assumed. Dan was not Blair’s biggest fan either, as he says, “Blair Waldorf is basically everything I hate about the Upper East Side distilled into one 95-pound package of girly evil.” However, four seasons into the show, as they cooperate, they discover a mutual love of literature, culture, and art. Although they come from very opposing social backgrounds, they both have a strong desire to succeed on their own and are vividly driven by their career paths. They are, as Sukriti Wahi states in her article for Marie Claire, “intellectual equals” who brought out the best in each other. Over the course of the season, they work hard on their relationship and make compromises along the way, they teach each other how to be better versions of themselves, and they fall for each other despite their initial hatred.
This enemies-to-lovers storyline presents a positive message and the healthy evolution of a relationship; the characters worked hard to overcome their initial intuitive feelings for each other and learned valuable lessons on the notion of compromise (never would we have imagined seeing Blair strolling the streets of Brooklyn to visit Dan). Interestingly enough, this plot was not a part of the novel used as reference for the series; it was added for further exposure, which proves how popular this trope is among romance fanatics, especially after its introduction into the literary world through Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice.”
A rapid change of feelings is crucial to the trope and is almost always expected. When we look at the initiator of the movement, this change is central in Jane Austen’s novel. Mr. Darcy, a handsome rich man, refuses to dance with Elizabeth Bennett, as “she is tolerable but not handsome enough to tempt [him].” He lets his pride get in the way of knowing Elizabeth simply because she is not pretty enough to be seen dancing with him. Elizabeth holds a grudge – understandably so – and does not want to give him another chance. However, this rapidly changes for both characters as Mr. Darcy notices that she is intelligent and has a lively spirit. He writes her letters, and she opens her heart to him. Both characters rapidly channel their mutual rage into a passionate love. They successfully fight off their feelings of pride and end up united by marriage.
While “Pride and Prejudice” offers a beautiful love story, it is undeniable that it also introduces a trope that may not be as realistic as readers would like to believe. There are often skipped stages of communication as the characters rapidly shift from hate to love, from rage to passion, from disputes to forgiveness and a polished happily-ever-after. This speed of action and evolution in the relationship is often unattainable in real life. How can two people who hate each other so much, for diverse reasons, fall in love after a limited number of interactions? How can they skip a crucial stage of friendship and resolve all their disagreements without truly discussing them? In Twilight, for instance, Edward Cullen, a vampire, refuses to be around Bella Swan, as he is attracted to her blood and is frustrated about not being able to read her thoughts. She is convinced he hates her and, in turn, becomes hostile, that is until they fall for each other after Edward saves her life. Progressively, the initial cause of avoidance, which is the risk Edward poses on Bella’s life, becomes diluted and the characters are determined to make it work despite the continuous streak of obstacles.
Had the determination observed in all enemies-to-lovers plots been from a place of genuine love and admiration of each other’s characters, maybe we could have overlooked the unrealistic aspect of them. However, that is often not the case, as it is undeniable that physical attraction still plays a central role within the trope; Mr. Darcy was swayed by Elizabeth’s expressive eyes despite not finding her pretty and Bella was attracted to Edward’s glowing skin under the sunlight despite fearing him. Appearances are still used as either the trigger of the reconciliation, or its reward. For instance, if we think about children’s stories such as Beauty and the Beast, this pattern becomes evident: the Beast forces Belle to stay in his castle and locks her in, she is understandably frightened, but progressively, as the Beast’s character softens and he opens up to her, she falls for him. At the end, Belle is “rewarded” with a handsome prince. What message does that truly convey, especially considering the young audience the story targets? It may appear like the takeaway moral of the story is that we should not allow appearances to get in the way of forming bonds and getting to know individuals for who they are, which is completely valid. But in that case, why would the transformation into a handsome prince be necessary? Why not keep the unappealing facade? It seems like looks are often treated as an additional gain in these enemies-to-lovers storylines.
Lastly, it must be said that these plots may be promoting problematic messages, especially when the target audience is children or young teens. The takeaway message of Beauty and the Beast for instance, as formulated by OneLove’s article, is that if you disregard the violent behavior of an individual, you might discover a good-hearted person at core. This sort of thinking romanticizes toxic relationships and may perpetuate abuse within them, as the readers might assume that just like the Beast could change over time, so can their lovers. It therefore encourages forgiveness in abusive relationships and normalizes miscommunication on the pretext of the “I can fix him,” mindset. This poses a problem particularly for minorities, as these plots exhort them to accept their abusers. In “Sex Education” for instance, Eric not only forgives the relentless bullying of Adam, his troubled tormentor, but also ends up dating him. Once again, this enemies-to-lovers moment persuades viewers that there is a justification for the bullying inflicted by their abusers and that they should therefore help them become better people and bring out the good found deep within them. It also pushes the highly problematic narrative that the most abusive homophobes are in fact, closeted gay people.
Considering that young adults’ standards for romantic relationships are deeply influenced by books and films, the writers of the enemies-to-lovers trope should be cautious when writing the plot as to not promote the romanticization of abusive behaviors. This trope can be very enriching when it comes to notions of compromise and becoming better people with the help of someone we are not intuitively compatible with, but it may also set unrealistic expectations with the speed of action that often comes with it and the skipped stages of communication and understanding of each other’s standpoints. In order to avoid a dangerously blurred line between fantasy and reality, it may be time to renovate the trope to include a more extended stage of getting to know the other and a more deeply rooted friendship.
Edited by Layann Halawi