relationships – Bella Bruce

There is a version of the protective character that I think gets written more than it should — the one who throws himself in front of danger, who takes the hit, who stands between the person he loves and whatever catastrophic thing is bearing down on them. Dramatic. Cinematic. Occasionally genuinely moving.

But that is not, I would argue, why protective characters actually work.

That is not why we fall for them.

We fall for them because of the other thing. The small thing. The thing that costs nothing except attention and communicates everything.

The walking on the gutter side of the footpath.

If you know, you know — and if you’ve ever walked beside someone who quietly repositioned themselves so they were between you and the traffic without making anything of it, without announcing it or expecting acknowledgement, you know exactly what I mean when I say that small gesture lands harder than any dramatic sacrifice. It is not about the cars. It has never been about the cars. It is about the fact that someone is thinking about you, specifically, in the small and constant way that love actually looks like in real life.

Hold that thought. That is the whole thesis.

The umbrella tilted toward you in the rain while they get rained on. The hand that appears at the small of your back in a crowd, not possessively, just — I know where you are, I have you. The coffee that appears on your desk because they noticed you hadn’t eaten. The door they get to first. The coat they put around your shoulders before you’ve realised you’re cold.

None of these things require heroism. All of them require the same thing, which is paying attention. Which is caring enough about one specific person to notice what they need before they name it, and then quietly providing it without requiring a medal for the effort.

That is what Deacon Worth does. Not perfectly — he is a Worth, which means he is also occasionally overprotective in the ways that require a conversation, and Kon has opinions about this and is not shy about sharing them. But underneath all of that, underneath the big gestures and the hard moments, Deke is a man who notices. Who repositions himself between Kon and the cold wind without thinking about it. Who tracks where Kon is in a room not out of possession but out of the same instinct that makes you keep half an eye on the person you love in a crowd, just to know they’re there and fine and not needing you for anything but available to need you if they do.

That is the protective character that works. Not the one with the heroic sacrifice — or not only that one, not only in the dramatic moment. The one who has quietly decided that your comfort and safety and ease are worth their ongoing attention. The one for whom protection is not an event but a habit, built so deeply into how they love that they don’t even notice they’re doing it half the time.

We notice, though.

Readers notice. Because most of us have been cold in a crowd and wished someone would put a coat around our shoulders. Most of us have walked on the traffic side ourselves and wondered what it would feel like if someone just, without comment, moved us gently to the inside.

It is such a small thing.

It is the whole thing.

— Bella 🏒

I want to talk about something that comes up more than it should, which is the idea that tenderness between men requires explanation.

It doesn’t. But here we are, and since we’re here I’m going to make the case as plainly as I can.

Men are tender. Real men, actual men, the men who exist in the world outside of fiction — they are tender with their children, with their elderly parents, with the people they love who are hurting. They bring cups of tea without being asked. They sit with someone in the dark. They know, without being told, when what’s needed is a hand on the back rather than a solution. Nobody bats an eye at any of this, and rightly so.

So why, the moment two men love each other, does tenderness become something that apparently needs to be justified?

I’ve thought about this a lot, because I write men loving men and I write them the way I believe them to be — which is fully human, with the full range of what that means. Deacon Worth does not become a different person because the love of his life is Konstantin Andropov rather than a woman. He is still a Worth, still led by his heart before his head has a chance to object, still capable of touching someone’s face with a tenderness that costs him nothing and means everything. That is who he is. The gender of the person receiving that tenderness doesn’t change it.

Because here is what I know about the men I write: they are not tender despite being the men they are. They are tender because of it. Because they have chosen, consciously or not, to reject the premise that strength and gentleness cannot occupy the same person at the same time. They are strong men who have simply never accepted the idea that tenderness is something to be rationed or hidden or ashamed of. The ones who have been hardened by the world — and some of mine have been hardened considerably — love with a quietness and a specificity that would undo you if you saw it up close.

What I’m really writing, when I write tenderness between men, is perspective. The perspective of a man who looks at the person he loves — this specific person, this face, these hands, this complicated and particular human being — and feels something that expresses itself gently. Not because he’s performing sensitivity. Not because the genre demands it. But because that is what love does when it’s paying attention. It notices. It takes care. It shows up in the small gestures that accumulate over time into something enormous.

That is not a female experience. That is not a male experience. That is a human experience, and my men get to have it, and I will not be writing them any other way.

They love who they love. They love them tenderly. That’s the whole story.

— Bella 🏒

Bella Bruce

Tag: relationships

Why Protective Characters Work — And It’s Not About the Bullets

On Writing Tenderness Between Men