#loveless characters | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

lovelessrage · 30 days

Text

Loveless Characters: A Starter Guide and FAQ

[PT: Loveless Characters: A Starter Guide and FAQ]

Sometimes I feel like those Youtubers that only upload twice a year. Anyway, onto some disclaimers.

I am one person. Please assure you are gathering from multiple sources when writing ANY character from a perspective you’re not familiar with. Even if you’re confident, everybody has blind spots, and that’s okay, it’s just a fact. Second, I am not a proofreader by trade or by hobby; I can answer questions, I can go over scenarios, but I cannot go through your manuscript or Google Doc. I live with chronic fatigue and pain, so it’s just not feasible; I’ll do my best but you have to give me some leniency here. Seek out other loveless folks for that, and make sure you pay them. Third, I can’t cover everything; there will be stuff I miss that other people will point out, hence why you shouldn’t ever look to exactly one source.

With that out of the way, let’s get the ball rolling. We’ll start with definitions, plural, and explain these various experiences briefly.

Loveless has been commonly defined, although not limited to, one of four major definitions; we can label these with these shorthands.

Unloving (entirely or partially)

Disconnected

Rejection

Politically/Socially

There’s nuances between all four and beyond them, but I feel these categories are easiest for our explanation - we’ll get into some of those nuances below.

The Unloving (entirely or partial)

[PT: The Unloving (entirely or partial)]

This person uses the label because they, wholly or partially, do not feel love. While identifying as loveless because you don’t feel love seems straightforward, why do so if it’s partial? There’s a few primary reasons I tend to see. Sometimes, the attractions someone does not feel love in are more significant to their identity or experiences than the ones they do feel love in. This can be because of societal pressures, such as not feeling romantic love alienating someone due to its prevalence, or someone who does not feel familial love seeking to reclaim and find pride in the absence of that feeling. Regardless of how little love someone feels, from only one spectrum to all of them, anyone using it because of a literal lack of love falls in this category. Individuals who are riding the partiality line may also use the label loveless-spec, or use spec- labels alongside the loveless umbrella.

Disconnected

[PT: Disconnected]

This person uses the label because they either feel disconnected from love due to societal pressure, indifference to the emotion, or because of a mental disorder/illness or other disability. Disconnection that is societally caused can, for example, be a loveless asexual disconnected from the idea of love due to having it be so heavily associated with sex that they no longer feel attached to it. Indifference is self-explanatory, but also has its own nuances; someone can be indifferent because it has never mattered to them, or because experience has shaped their opinion in the present, such as not finding much enjoyment in being loving, or having mixed feelings after a toxic relationship.

Mental illness and disability is its own can of worms, due to how many there are, as well as the limitations that come with not being able to discuss every comorbidity. I can only speak from certain angles, but overall, if you do not have the disorders you are trying to represent and/or aren’t loveless yourself, if you plan to go this route, proofreading is not a luxury, it is a must. Get that second opinion before moving further.

Rejection

[PT: Rejection]

This person uses the label because they are rejecting love, or feel rejected by love. There are plenty of reasons that someone may reject love as a concept, many of which overlap with reasons for disconnect. The expectation can be too heavy, the societal implications can be unsavoury, or someone is radically indifferent and wants nothing to do with it. Rejection by love is immensely common, especially within various marginalised communities. Several groups, such as the disabled, people of colour, trans and GNC individuals, and aspec individuals have their unique love experiences devalued, othered, or otherwise made out to be less than and evil for not fitting into eurocentric, white, ablebodied, cis, etc. ideals of what love is. Because of this, rejecting the complex of love, especially one used specifically to villainise things you cannot change or communities you are a part of, can lead someone to use this label.

Politically/Socially

[PT: Politically/Socially]

What is being politically loveless? What’s that mean? It’s much more simple than it can seem, and many people will agree with these principles, even if they don’t choose to use the label to identify those are their stances. The people that use this label do see identifying with this label as a declaration of their political opinions and goals. These goals include love neutrality, which refers to making love as an emotion completely neutral and not necessarily a force of good, and decentering of love in society, meaning removing it as a necessity for all and dismantling the idea that it is what makes us human.

While I’m on this topic, I should say that if you are representing characters coming from this perspective, you should do actual readings on the kind of discussions around these topics and various loveless perspectives on these ideas. If you’re going to write about a political movement, read about those politics; ask people their opinions if they’re willing to give them.

Now that we’ve defined lovelessness in a basic sense, there’s even more variation in between all of these because of the fact that people often identify as loveless (something). This does not only have to be loveless aro, and can extend to loveless aces, apls, afams, asensuals, aqps, loveless allos (this one gets passed over a lot, unfortunately), and many, many more. Of course, there are also people that identify solely as loveless in the same way someone who is non-SAM would. All of these are important experiences and deserve their time in your writing or artwork.

Common Questions and Hypotheticals

[PT: Common Questions and Hypotheticals]

Q: How do I write a loveless character without making a manifesto’s worth of explanations?

[PT: Q: How do I write a loveless character without making a manifesto’s worth of explanations?]

You should write a person first is the simple answer! Your character has opinions, experiences, and a way of speaking I can’t predict for the purposes of this post. How they interact with the world and their unique perspective will influence how they describe their own identity, or how little they talk about it in general. Although, I can throw a bit of a bone, and bring up two of my own loveless characters for examples of what this can look like:

X Goldfinch is a teenager, someone who is relatively online, and due to their angel status has the language to describe their experiences.They are a person who identifies as loveless because they do not feel any love whatsoever. They would directly call themself a loveless aroace, and describe this as an emotion they’re just never experienced or felt. It is very direct, succinct, and uses modern language to do this.

O’Leary is an alien that is entirely emotionless, with no attachments whatsoever and no concept of human standards of emotions or their identity labels. Due to this, he would describe himself simply as detached, as this is what most species would view him as. He would not give further information, nor would he use the labels a person would recognise, but the experience is identifiable through similarity.

These are two different experiences within the same realm (not feeling any love at all), with two different ways of describing or identifying with those feelings. These are some of the considerations to keep in mind. As for how to describe it in a narrative sense, simple!

Trust your audience gets it. You can explain, simply, why this character is loveless if you like, or simply mention they are loveless as part of a character introduction. Cut the justification, just let it be and explain as much as is narratively cohesive. Sometimes, that is just saying the word and reinforcing it later. Other times, it’s a first person exploration that can go on for a few paragraphs. It’s situational, but I promise, cutting the fat of needing to assure your audience understands this doesn’t make them a hideous monster (if it isn’t plot relevant) will make for much less to chew on.

Q: What about social connections for my characters? What can I use?

[PT: Q: What about social connections for my characters? What can I use?]

Anything. Everything. Social tolerance and relationship tolerance varies immensely. However, do want to note this is not an excuse to see this question as ignorable. Think about what your character would prefer, and remember a solitary lifestyle is not necessarily a tragic one. We don’t tolerate discrediting any loveless experience as “too loving to count”, but we also don’t tolerate using this as an excuse to avoid writing social repulsion. Nuance, nuance.

Q: Writing a loveless person in a relationship is okay, sure, but how do I actually do that respectfully? What about a loveless parent?

[PT: Q: Writing a loveless person in a relationship is okay, sure, but how do I actually do that respectfully? What about a loveless parent?]

I include this because I have been asked in the past about what a loveless parent would do for a child, and the simple answer is to kill the idea in your head that lack of love necessitates a worse relationship. There are plenty of reasons someone may enter or exit a relationship, loving that person or otherwise. Overall, keep in mind that love is not the only emotion a person can feel, and neither is care. You may feel positively toward someone or simply want to keep them around because you enjoy them. You may have just always wanted a partner, and have found one that is accepting of your love being one sided, or potentially have a loveless partner that is interested in a loveless relationship of some kind (we need more of these, honestly). While most people can get behind this concept from other aspec dynamics, there is still the question of the major sticking point: parenthood.

While not easy to answer, I see it as this: love is taught. It, as a concept, is not innate. The emotion is, the feeling is, but not love as a word, as an expectation. If you teach a child love is their value solely to deprive them of it, that is abject cruelty. However, assuming a loveless parent would introduce love simply to take it away from their child is anti-loveless rhetoric. It’s assuming an immediate abuse situation where there does not need to be one. The simple fact is, if you want a healthy child as a loveless person, you simply raise them that they have more value outside of being loved, that you are invested in their wellbeing, hobbies, and feelings, and that you will be there for them regardless. Love discussions can come when the child is older, but there is no harm in being a no love household if that child is aware they are safe, supported, and able to rely on you as any child should be able to.

Simple answer, you can work around love pretty easily, it’s just that most people have no interest in teaching this to you, especially for innate loves. There’s pathways through all of this that are, again, just fine. However, this isn’t to say you can only write a character that has it all figured out. A loveless parent struggling at first with their plan of action for a new baby or adopted family member, or a loveless partner trying to express their feelings without setting off their love repulsion, are all interesting facets to explore. The solution is not sanitization, but thoughtfulness and sincerity, as well as not demonising this confusion or testing period.

Q: What about nonhuman characters, I hear a lot of people are tired of those?

[PT: Q: What about nonhuman characters, I hear a lot of people are tired of those?]

Some, yes! I, personally, relate most to nonhuman characters, mostly because someone is always trying to force love normativity onto them and if that isn’t my day to day life, I don’t know what is. Is it okay to do, as in, is it morally right to only make human loveless characters? Personally, as long as you are conscious, getting second opinions along the way, and watching your bias (as well as not making all your loveless characters nonhumans), I don’t see an issue with the concept itself. It is often the execution, with the undercurrent that these other species are backwards, limited, or never measuring up to humans due to their lovelessness (see: every tragic robot character ever) that will create controversy at your door. If you are solely focused on the nonhuman part, and not the messaging, you’re missing the point by a mile.

Q: What should I not do? What should be avoided?

[PT: Q: What should I not do? What should be avoided?]

The least easy to answer question, which is why I have dedicated an entire section to tired tropes, salvageable stereotypes, and the impact of a limited scope. Of course, all of this is subject to debate, and you are unlikely to get the same answer twice when asking opinions on some of these things. Personally, I think you should ask anyway. Not to get the answer you like best, but to understand why opinion varies so much. If you understand the roots, you can form a consensus much easier than tallying your responses for yes and no.

Let’s get into the divisive section!

The Stereotype Shuffle: Reoccuring Cast Members and Their Issues

[PT: The Stereotype Shuffle: Reoccuring Cast Members and Their Issues]

#1: The Mean Hermit

The hermit is so pissed off by society and all their snuggling, cuddling, loving, and singing, he has decided to isolate himself from the world at large, and retreat to his barren cave, wooden cabin, or otherwise sullen hovel to bask in his hate and misery for all eternity. The love grinch, as one could call him, is a staple of the friendship is magic or love triumph all storyline, where he either must be remedied and healed from what has broken him so he may love again, or be defeated and driven away further. He may serve to steer the protagonist wrong, or make him question his beliefs and their foundations.

Do I have a soft spot for this blatant stereotype? Perhaps. It does not diffuse the harm it is capable of, however. While I think the idea of a loveless character living alone in a swamp is conceptually awesome, what follows is a discussion of the politics surrounding the lonely hermit. He is often billed as broken, or a figure that should not be listened to; he is a corruptor, an agent of doubt and tragedy. If you plan on making your loveless character as detached as he is, there’s a few ways to go about tackling this.

Is he angry because he is annoyed, or because of some innate jealousy and hatred of joy? It’s not necessarily bad to indulge in the hater lifestyle, but as a loving writer, you should question why your thoughts lead you to a loveless person existing to create misery and discord for others. Why must he be an agitator, or one that needs to be so heavily silenced? What critiques could he actually be making beyond hating ponies and cupcakes and birthday hats? If you plan to write a plain, hateful guy, he better not be the only representation in your story, and the other representation better not be looking to the camera to say “hey, at least I’m not like this guy!”. Using the mean hermit to push how your other characters are more normal or acceptable because they are more accepting of the status quo is lazy at best and anti-loveless at worst. Let a guy hate, or make him into an actual important character beyond the test of faith; after all, if he’s testing faith, does that faith happen to be love normative?

There is also the Occam’s Razor of simply having a character be happy to be alone, or exploring the nuance between jealousy and what a person can and cannot have. Personally, I would never recommend the latter for your first outing. Loving people too often ride the line and fall on the side of a trope I will get into later. There’s a difference between a loveless person writing from experience of their shame journey, and a loving person doing so because it is the only way they can think of making a character sympathetic.

#2: The Villain, or Big Bad

She’s evil, she’s a terror, and she’s a loveless aplatonic! Shock and terror course over the crowd as they slowly realise she is childless, partnerless, and prefers a nonfriending lifestyle! But, what’s this on the horizon? It is the writer, coming with an editorial note, specifying her lovelessness is separate from her awesome, evil abilities! All good then, right?

Well, maybe! It depends on your narrative and your placement of loveless characters overall. Even if it has nothing to do with her villainy at hand, perhaps she is seeking to destroy all apples or something because she cannot stand them, for example, is her villainy still rooted in loveless antagonism? Is her heart of coal listed as a reason she cannot be redeemed, her separation from the world a sign of her wickedness? Or, does this make up a regular facet of her life that the heroes don’t really have an interest in? Perhaps the main characters are loveless as well, or part of their adventuring crew is. Perhaps, she is a commentary on how society drives the loveless to anger and then recoils when they lash out, representing a loveless person embracing the monster they are made into. Perhaps, she is as redeemable as any other villain, with her lovelessness not impeding this process. Perhaps you are writing a comedy, and her loveless life comes up in a side gag about her continuing to live while she waits for the arrival of the hero at her castle.

Overall, the loveless villain is overplayed, yes, but I don’t think it’s doomed to be a dud when put in the right hands. With this particular situation, I would recommend asking plenty of questions, assuring you understand your narratives and themes, and watching for undercurrents that can shape your intentions. Take any advice or criticism you get in stride; while some may be perfectly fine with this setup, many other loveless people are bracing for the worst, or may not trust you to execute. Go forward with this in mind.

#3: The Sympathy Vehicle, aka the Loveless Pain Parade

God, this one. I hate this one. There’s your bias disclaimer; there is nothing I hate more, no trope I detest seeing more in the manuscript of a loveless person, than the disaster that is the sopping pile of wet loveless antagonism within the Sympathy Vehicle.

This character is sad. This character is really, really sad. They hate being loveless, they hate themself, and they want you to know this every time the topic is brought up. They exist to be a repentant figure, something for loving characters to feel good about saving, or inspiration porn for the loving consumer about how even the loveless can beat the odds.

This is, unfortunately, one of the most common, unintentionally bigoted takes I see all the time from well-meaning loving creators who think they are doing us a favour with this being their only representation. To clarify, this experience of heartbreak is real, it should be represented, but it should also be done respectfully, delicately, and with a loveless person on board. None of this is present in the Sympathy Vehicle. They exist to be saved from themself, to cry to the audience about how horrid being loveless is, and to act as an unrelenting expression of loveless pain only solvable by a doting, loving character. The Sympathy Vehicle does not find community, go on a journey of self acceptance, or even truly get through their crisis. All of it relies on a loving society counting them as an exception, as fitting within the loving mould, and all so a loving audience can feel better at the end. None of this is done in the service of catharsis for a loveless audience, or truly exploring what causes these experiences in the first place. In fact, the Sympathy vehicle often exists in settings, dynamics, or societies where other nuances of love are completely acceptable or normalised, even encouraged to explore. So, here is my question.

Why does your fictional society hate loveless people? Why does your fictional small circle, your fictional small neighbourhood, your fictional forum or internet community? Who is teaching the Sympathy Vehicle they are wrong or monstrous, and why is nobody challenging this in your accepting circle? Why does nobody discuss it? Why are they left to wallow alone and forgotten? Why, in your utopic scenarios, must the loveless still suffer? Why was your first thought writing a loveless character to put them in a world that has taught them only hatred, rejection, and malice, when all your other characters can find peace?

There’s a reason I solely trust loveless people to write about this, or to draw from their own experiences. Sorry if you don’t like this take, but it’s where I lie on it after seeing dozens after dozens of loveless headcanons, original characters, and narratives solely centred on selling lovelessness to be gawked at and never comforted.

#4: The Apathetic/The Snarker

Ah, the gay best friend of the aspec community, it’s good to see you again. Hopefully I do not need to explain why making your loveless character a sidekick to subject the main romance or friendship to while solely making quippy remarks or giving relationship advice is a bad idea. Ultimately, having a snarky, sassy loveless character is not the issue, but reducing them to essentially be a windup doll for the loving cast is. We’re more than a punchline or cutaway gag to do your “get a load of them!” bits with.

#5: The ‘Stereotype Defier’

Annoying, but brief, this character solely exists to be the counterbalance. They have no character outside of being perfect, acceptable, and enjoyable. Palatable is the Defier’s middle name, albeit one of many, the others being “don’t cancel me, I made a good one”. If you see the advice to not limit your loveless characters to stereotypes, and your first response is to make this guy, scrap the whole thing/ You’ve severely misunderstood. The problem is not the presence, but the standard. Making a character solely so you won’t get a callout post does not make you accepting, it just shows you took away the wrong message and did not understand what you were taking in. Please, please write a character to be a character, not “another one” to stand around do-gooding.

#6: The Under-researched Cultural Experience

This one will upset certain people, but I’m here to tell you this with no frills: why are all your loveless characters so American, specifically white American? This character has only ever looked at it from a USAmerican perspective, all of their experiences line up with those norms, but the written character is from a country or culture where these norms are entirely different or just nonexistent. What gives?

Well, in my opinion anyway, at least coming from a Canadian, you tend to notice that aspecs from regions such as SWANA, Latin America, South Asia, and even from certain communities in the US, such as diaspora and African American communities, entirely have their necks stepped on. There is plenty you can find on experiences with romance, family and friendship normativity, how the expectations change, and how culture will impact those experiences online. I, personally, can't speak on them; it’s not my story to tell. It’s my task for you to seek out alternative voices so you actually write accurate characters. Do your research before you slap on broad strokes.

Loveless POC and loveless people from around the globe deserve good representation that actually takes cultural considerations in mind.

#7: The Serial Abuser

I’m not entertaining this one. Not happening.

If you make this, do not expect people to take your word or hear you out. If your story is actually a tragic tale of the cycle of abuse, I honestly do not care. This should never be your first outing, and even past this, loving people, do not use this trope. Not for headcanons, not for OCs; there is a level of trust going on, and an expectation of good faith that comes with allowing certain stereotypes to be used. This, however, no matter how smothered in nuance, disclaimers, and loveless pride hashtags, will end poorly. I am not going anti-nuance, or anti-loveless villain, but I am anti-”blatantly bad idea”. Avoid. Do not attempt.

Whuff. Over the controversy hill, onto bigger and better, right? Well, we’re at least into the part that is more discussion-oriented, going over concepts to keep in mind, the main debates around loveless character creation, and why it causes such hesitation.

A Loveless Life: Reality into Fiction

[PT: A Loveless Life: Reality into Fiction]

So, past all the other discussion, really… What IS it like to be loveless? This is not easy to answer succinctly, let alone entirely. While I can lend my own experiences and observations, I cannot speak on behalf of others. There will always be someone who agrees, someone who disagrees, and someone in the middle. However, for the benefit of this post, I will share some personal thoughts, as much as I am comfortable with, anyway.

Lovelessness is often, although not always, living a double life, online and offline. You do not always know who you can trust, who will or who will not judge, and what they will do if they discover this about you. I have known people who have lost friends, had relationships dissolve, or otherwise seen the negative impacts of an unaccepting society meeting a non-conforming individual. However, I have also seen endless grace, patience, and willingness to learn. I have seen people come together as a community to support each other, protect and uplift our own, and speak up for each other. I have seen allies hold the line and refuse to leave us behind in their conversations. For every antagonistic anon, every anti-loveless post, every argument over the status of your identity, and every lost relationship, there is opportunity for growth, betterment, and change.

Loveless life is complicated. In current society, no matter where you go or who you talk to, it will not be easy. There are expectations everywhere, and the world wide web makes people especially vulnerable to attacks they cannot defend or insulate from. Many loveless people from a young age are learning to be defensive first and foremost, or to stay in the closet from their peers. At the same time, many more people are finding the label and their peace with it. Many are willing to fight for that acceptance.

With all this in mind, do I necessarily want this to be emulated in media? Not really. Handling it accurately would be a treat for sure, but at the same time, it is upsetting how in settings for escapist fantasies, the loveless cannot escape these standards. I would like a mix of both, with both accepting situations and the realities of loveless life. This necessitates creating more loveless stories overall, which I am all for. I hope someday I will be able to point every loveless person to a book or TV show with their experience or label in it, proud and happy, even if circumstances are not.

Changing The Narrative: Who’s the Real Inflexible One?

[PT: Changing the Narrative: Who's the Real Inflexible One?]

I think to myself, or talk about it with others pretty often, why are loveless characters so hard to write for loving people? However, it’s my recent thought that this question is flawed, because of one principle component carried with it: the onus is put on the loveless identity for its difficulty. Realising this, I proposed to myself a new question: why do loving people have such a hard time adapting? Why do loving writers and artists struggle to understand so often?

Again, Occam's razor: loveless antagonism, anti-loveless rhetoric, and all other names it goes by, is everywhere. Including, and almost especially, in the aspec community, as well as the loveless community itself. These principle beliefs of what it is to be human, what is normal, what is just and moral, are so ingrained and tied to love, they aren’t even questioned or thought of as ideology. It’s almost as innate as breathing. So, the question of how not to be loveless antagonistic is proposed, seemingly simple and straightforward, but oftentimes never shared in detail. People will reblog posts about spreading kindness, not hate, or appreciating loveless voices, but rarely will they actually take the steps towards not being anti-loveless. So, how do you become flexible? How do you become the solution? I can give you my answer, based on what I would like to see, but there is endless possibility in this question. Recognition of the issue is only step one.

What I would like to see is further reading of loveless perspectives, ideas, theories, and broader acceptance and discussion of these principles. If you want to sit at the adult table, you need to leave your cutlery at the kid’s table. You can’t pick and choose what parts of loveless antagonism still suit you just fine, such as platonormativity, and then agree the rest of it should go. You need to fully let go and embrace that you can be wrong, and you can change. You are not beholden to old opinions, even if they are “community consensus”. This includes, even if it is important to you, recognising love is not necessary, love is not inherently moral, loveless people are all around you, and loveless people are complete as is. And, for all that is holy, stop remixing the question of “what makes us human?” unless it’s for your anthropology final; it’s a silly question, no, it is not love, and trying to find this grand singular answer will lead you in circles. If I hear it one more time the next instance is getting met with a punch.

As well, accept loveless people as peers, not zoo animals. We are not your research project or knowledge dispensary. We are people with lives, and people who get tired. While answering questions isn’t bad, and neither is asking them, respect you are not owed an answer or the time of strangers. We do not need to explain ourselves to you, and if we do, it is a favour. Do not force yourself on people, do not request personal details, do not become one of those people who tags vent posts as “writing reference”.

Overall, show respect, open your ears and eyes, prepare to be wrong. Prepare to screw up and get corrected. Prepare to try again anyways. Prepare for research and put yourself out there. Prepare to let go of the anti-loveless safety blankets.

A Final Disclaimer: “Care” and the Acceptability Crisis

[PT: A Final Disclaimer: "Care" and the Acceptability Crisis]

Care does not equal love.

You’ve likely heard this line a million times, and while it is true, it’s important to remember care isn’t an inherent human trait either, and it should not be treated as a redeeming catalyst for your feel-good twist. Care, just like anything else, is simply an emotion, a way of relating to people. You do not have to care to do good, to be good, or make a positive impact. You do not need anything in you but the want to do a good thing, for whatever reason, to do a good thing.

Breaking the barriers of what makes people inherently worthy, human, and moral, includes removing all emotions as an inherent human qualifier or moral superiority mound, and recognising them as impulses and reactions like anything else. Care is not necessary. Don’t come into my notes with it, last time I’ll talk on it, putting it on the table. Up to you to internalise.

Loveless people need no disclaimers, no frills, no appeasement compromises for loving comfort.

So, What Next?

[PT: So, What's Next?]

I’d recommend reading a few things before you go. It’s a short list, I promise. First off is the principle writing on lovelessness, I Am Not Voldemort by K.A. Cook. You’ll see this essay cited 6 times over for good reason; it's the blueprint of loveless writing. As well, you can check out this post by @loveless-arobee on the same topic as this post for a second opinion discussing a few things I did not cover here/did not go in depth on. As well, check out blogs like his for loveless discussions and thoughts. There's always learning opportunities and ongoing discussions to be found when you look to loveless bloggers.

With all that said, write. Draw. create. Find a passion and use it, and recognise care and love do not make or break an individual. What makes an individual is them being on this Earth, or on your fictional little planet, making their impacts as they go along in life.

What makes humans human? I don’t care.

Thanks for reading!