I do agree that "tension" sex exists, but I really doubt that it's love. Love is an enduring feeling and a single moment of an extreme high or low isn't going to make a major difference, IMO. I also do agree that after severe situations that people are likely to bond, but after the ripple effect of the situation fades so too does whatever bond brought them together UNLESS they form other bonds after. Love is created out of the mundane, boring and ordinary days too, and if it's only tension that brings people together it generally doesn't last. That to me is lust which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but isn't the same as love. That said, people have sex for the darniest reasons so boinking while the zombies are banging on your door is a possiblity. Stupid, but still a possiblity.
Love scenes and sex scenes aren't necessarily the same thing, nor do they need to be in fiction. A good sex scene can deepen our understand of characters, reveal good and bad traits, and create a pathway to a relationship. Or it can be used to define the limits of a relationship. Love scenes are harder to incorporate into thrillers because thrillers, by definition, are built around short-duration plots (that whole race against time thing). One literary trick in thrillers is to bring in a relationship already in the works --something budding, or one that's gotten stale, etc.-- and use the tension and events to strengthen the bond so that love blooms.
All questions about writing just come back to the skill of the writer. Like Cogito says, a great writer can write a good story about anything.
I might have to disagree with you Cosmos, as to love not being able to bloom in a tense situation. Often times in tense situations, we see the true nature of a person, and we could, in theory, fall in love with them.
I can't really buy that, bluebell. In a tense situation, your mind is in an altered state (fight or flight response). You may collect insights that lead to love later, but any emotional shifts during or close to a stressful event are highly suspect. You can plant the seeds, but the bloom opens in more placid time.
Cog, I have to agree and disagree with you. Yes, love, long lasting, marriage type love does endure the placid times. It is the friendship between the lovers that brings that endurance, not the passion. Tension and adrenaline are good for passion. And if the friendship is there in the placid times, the passion never fully dies when the adrenaline fades away. A bank hold-up would be a good example of a short term tense, adrenaline filled experience. While passion between two hostages may come to fruition shortly after the fact, and the friendship may not be there in the end, it doesn't mean that it the friendship in the placid times wouldn't be there. While on the other hand, a week long, or month long, or many years long endurance of dealing with survival of a catastrophic event isn't based on that initial adrenaline rush. Adrenaline only lasts for so long. And while it is an altered state of mind, it isn't like being strung out on LSD. It doesn't change the person that much, it just shows what they are made of deep down in side. The weak don't react in the same way the strong react to adrenaline. This is why the military puts soldiers through such tough training, to weed out the weak from the rest who will survive. In a time of crisis, the strong are the ones who survive. Strong of mind, of soul, of character, of constitution, not always the strong of body (though that can help.) Two strong people who survive a major crisis are likely to be similar enough to have a friendship that endures the placid time, though in a post-apocalyptic time, is there any placid time?
This boils down to whether one believes in love at first sight or not. It is pretty hard to put a timeline on it
Not at all. It has to do with whether an emotional epiphany while in an altered state of mind has any real significance to the normal state of mind. But since you bring it up, how can so called "love at first sight" have anything to do with commitment? Depth? Respect? Love at first sight is infatuation, nothing more, irrespective of whatever might develop later.
I can’t rule out the possibility. Love is not an easy thing to define, and it’s close to being unique to the individual. Whether it could be written in a novel and be believable to the reader – it’s up to the reader to decide, but it has been done countless times
I think it's a natural response. When we're in survival mode our hormone levels go crazy and our more basic instincts kick in harder (the need for sex/comfort/urge to reproduce).
I believe for the most part it's not plausible at all, and is very cliche. Yes, tensions are high and such, but I think if there's zombies on the loose the first thing that pops into your mind would not be sex. Even if you are with someone you care about deeply; if you're a sane, well rounded character, it just wouldn't happen. Now, I wouldn't completely say it wouldn't happen... but I just doubt it.
In the case of The Matrix it wasn't rushed -- all three were written before the first was filmed, and they filmed the next two simultaneously. If the second and third were weaker (which I think they were, but they had a high standard to meet) then we need to look elsewhere for the reasons. Which I think would be a fruitful thing for writers to consider, but would probably be off-topic here. Or take it from the other end -- point to the fact that love is developing but leave it open at the end how that will develop. The Jackie Chan comedy thriller Tux might not be a great literary example, but it illustrates the point nicely. I don't think it's too much of a spoiler to say that the hero's "relationship already in the works" is shown to have a pretty flimsy basis, and that he is shown to have developed a much more solid relationship with the woman with whom he came through the crisis; a relationship built on mutual understanding and trust developed through the crisis, and which looks as if it will go somewhere.
But love isn't about a few high or low moments in a person's life. Sure they could have some passion or lust or even infatuation but after the event has passed and so has the tension, things generally return to way they were. And people don't change as a result of a huge event very often, so whatever drew them together is probably gone now. I don't believe in love at first sight, so perhaps that's influencing what I'm saying. I don't even believe in love at hard times. Yes, it can add tension to a situation and pull people closer, but if there's nothing before that moment or at least nothing after to draw them together, generally it's a flop. It's like so many stories I read where the guy and girl hate each other before the big event and then fall madly in love and end up happily together. And that's hugely unrealistic. I've been in a situation where I've dated someone I originally hated. I was fooled into it by hard times and a forgiving mentality (and his endless persistence). And I tell you right now that without substance before or after the moment, it fell apart, and I can tell quite badly too. Love isn't about the tension, it's about the mundane. It's about seeing your lover do something very ordinary and yet you still smile. That's how I am with my current boyfriend. Sure hard times also help bond us, but the beauty of the relationship is based on the "just nice" borne out of commonalities, personality, and a shared dream. No earthquake, flood, fire, zombies, alien or alien-zombies would prove to be a greater motivator than that, IMO.
Ultimately, sex or no sex is nothing but a writer's preference. You can write a great story, either way.
Are you sure it’s just at first sight? “Love is only the dirty trick played on us to achieve continuation of the species.” -- W. Somerset Maugham
Uhhh...maybe I'm kinda naive, but within ten minutes of meeting my wife, I knew we would be together for the rest of our lives. I learned later that she felt the same way. We got engaged in three months and married within a year. That was 37 years ago. So far, the love at first sight has worked out pretty good for me...unless I keep playing pranks with rubber cock roaches...that could screw it up. LOL The OP mentioned sex as a release for tension, which is entirely plausible to me. Then, the OP talks about "...the MC falls in love with someone and they are so passionate about each other that that must have each other..." To me, this is less plausible. Although I did see it happen in real life for a few guys in Vietnam, most understood that the sex was just an outlet. There is a big difference between sex to relieve tension and falling in love...although, as I said, some people confuse the two. Which one fits with the OP's story? Depends on the plot and quality of writing.
I think you should go against the grain and not have them fall in love. It may make the story that little bit more original.
