People are like, 'Are Nimona and Ballister romantic?' And I'm

"People are like, 'Are Nimona and Ballister romantic?' And I'm like, 'No! Of course not.' 'Well, are Ballister and Goldenloin in a relationship?' And I'm like, 'Yeah, okay.'" – Noelle Stevenson. In these words, Stevenson confronts the assumptions and expectations placed on characters in storytelling, particularly in regard to the nature of relationships and romantic connection. Her response reflects a deeper wisdom about the complexity of human bonds, especially in the realm of fiction. Stevenson gently challenges the audience’s impulse to categorize every relationship as romantic, urging us to consider that connections can be profound and meaningful without fitting neatly into the conventional framework of romance. In her world, relationships are allowed to exist in a spectrum, defined not by romantic idealism but by their depth, trust, and personal growth.

In the ancient world, relationships—whether between gods, mortals, or heroes—were often portrayed in multifaceted ways that went beyond simple romantic affection. The bond between Achilles and Patroclus is a prime example of this complexity. While some interpretations view their relationship as romantic, others see it as one of deep friendship and loyalty. Homer’s Iliad does not explicitly define their connection in romantic terms, but the emotional intensity of their bond, particularly Achilles’s grief over Patroclus’s death, speaks to a relationship that transcends simple friendship. In the ancient world, it was understood that love and affection were not always bound by clear labels or definitions. Love could be warrior-like, heroic, and devoted, not necessarily romantic but certainly transformative and all-encompassing.

Similarly, the Roman myth of Dante and Virgil, as depicted in The Divine Comedy, illustrates the spiritual and intellectual bond between the two characters. Their journey together is not one of romantic affection but of mutual respect, trust, and guidance. The relationship between them is a journey of growth, where Virgil serves as a guide, leading Dante through the complexities of the afterlife. In this case, the relationship is defined by companionship, a shared pursuit of wisdom, and a deep commitment to each other’s well-being and transformation. Like Stevenson’s characters, Dante and Virgil’s bond is profound, but not confined to the conventions of romantic love.

The same can be said of David and Jonathan, whose relationship in the Bible is often celebrated for its loyalty and friendship. Their love for one another was so deep that it transcended the typical confines of friendship, with David even writing, “Your love to me was more wonderful than the love of women” (2 Samuel 1:26). While some interpretations may hint at a romantic element, it is clear that the relationship between David and Jonathan is rooted in mutual respect, devotion, and a bond of trust that does not need the label of romance to be understood as one of the most meaningful in the biblical narrative. This teaches us that the nature of a relationship cannot always be reduced to a single definition or expectation.

In Stevenson’s own work, the relationships between Nimona, Ballister, and Goldenloin reflect this understanding that connections between characters can be complex, fluid, and nuanced. Rather than forcing characters into traditional roles—such as the expectation of romantic love between Ballister and Nimona—Stevenson allows her characters to have bonds that are not defined by societal norms but by the depth of their interactions, the struggles they face together, and the growth they experience through one another. Stevenson’s willingness to let her characters exist in these gray areas of connection speaks to the wisdom that relationships, in all their forms, do not need to adhere to simplistic labels to be valid or valuable.

The lesson Stevenson imparts is one that we can apply to our own lives: relationships are not one-dimensional. Romantic love is not the only form of connection that holds value. Friendship, loyalty, and shared experience are just as profound and can be as transformative as romantic relationships. In the world we live in, there is often an impulse to define relationships in strict categories—boyfriend/girlfriend, best friends, mentor/mentee—but Stevenson’s characters remind us that connections between people can be more than one thing. They can be complex, defined by mutual respect, shared experiences, and the ability to grow together, regardless of whether or not they fit into traditional romantic expectations.

In our own relationships, we should embrace the complexity of human connection. We do not need to force labels onto our bonds, whether they are romantic or otherwise. Relationships, of all kinds, are about growth, understanding, and the mutual respect we cultivate with those we encounter. Whether it is a deep, romantic love, a lifelong friendship, or a working relationship, each bond has the potential to transform us, and we should honor that transformation without feeling the need to define or limit it by conventional expectations.

Let us, then, take from Stevenson’s wisdom the understanding that relationships are best when we do not try to fit them into predefined boxes. Instead, let us celebrate the full spectrum of human connection—the romantic, the platonic, and the intellectual—and allow those connections to unfold naturally, without the pressure to conform to societal norms. By doing so, we embrace the diversity of love and connection, allowing them to enrich and deepen our lives in ways we may never have imagined.