My brother Andy has correctly pointed out that the Lover doesn’t actually have to be a romantic love. There is evidence of this in the movies I generally use. The boys in Stand By Me form a strong bond with one another that makes them see each other and themselves in a new light. In Skyfall, we see Bond’s humanity after M’s death, so his compassion is revealed there—again, not a romantic love. And what about Han Solo in Star Wars: A New Hope? Sure, Han has the hots for Leia, but that’s not what gets him to turn around and fight the Death Star in the film’s final act. Han’s transformation was because he found a cause he believed in and a group of people he cared about. It was all of that, not just his interest in the Princess, that made him abandon his mercenary way of thinking.
Andy also brought up the War movie genre in which the soldiers, having gone through hell together, become so close that they will die for one another, thereby demonstrating incredible acts of courage and love. And now that I’m thinking about it, what about guys like Jesus or Gandhi? The love they demonstrated wasn’t romantic—it was universal, and their love was certainly transformative. Heck. Their love was revolutionary!
So Andy’s point is very true.
What matters isn’t whether or not the Lover is romantic. What matters is that the heroes experience some kind of love that is transformative. Love, in any form, causes change, new perspectives, new values, new understanding, new compassion—all of which is essential for any hero.
whY A write 