Agree with variable.

A standard feature of the romance genre is an obstacle that stands between the two lovers, a complication that threatens to render asunder what the screenwriter assays to join together.? The logline needs to lay that card on the table for all readers to see, not keep it close to the chest. As an example, consider a possible logline for the immortal love story, “Romeo and Juliet”.

When teenagers from feuding families fall in love and secretly marry, they must struggle to reunite after the boy is banished for killing the girl’s cousin.

In 26 words the logline lays out the obstacle — feuding families — and the MPR (midpoint reversal) that drives them apart after they secretly marrying.

And take note that? Shakespeare gave the lovers equal billing in the title and equal time and complications in the play.? ?The greatest love story every written has dual protagonists? — and it works wonderfully.? So does a more instance of a plot with dual protagonists, “When Harry Met Sally” — one of the best romantic comedies ever.?

For a romance, I see no reason why the logline can’t have dual protagonists.? It can have only one protagonist — but I don’t believe it is mandatory.

fwiw

The logline assigns the greater risk to the guy, who? dares to confess how he feels about her. But it assigns the greater dilemma to the girl, who seems to be conflicted about which guy she likes more.? I am more attracted to her dramatic dilemma than his dramatic risk.? Because his blurting out how he feels, is one moment, one scene that lasts a minute or two.? Whereas her dilemma is an ongoing problem she must wrestle with for multiple moments, for many scenes — for the duration of the story.

And consequently,the girl is the one who determines how the story ends — not the guy.? Because she is the one who has to make the Act 3 dramatic decision that determines the denouement of the story.? From the moment he confesses, his fate is in her hands, in her mind.? But the protagonist should be the one who makes his fate.

Ergo, it seems to me she is more qualified to play the role of the protagonist than the guy.

Further, per the comment, he doesn’t confess it until about the midpoint in the story.? Which is awfully late for his action to constitute to the decisive act that drives the plot.

In talking about the protagonist, I like to use the metaphor of? driving a car.? The protagonist is the character who is in the driver’s seat with his hands on the wheel, his foot on the gas pedal.? He is the who? turns the ignition key, puts the car in gear, presses on the gas pedal? and starts driving in a specific direction — toward his objective goal.? ? That action needs to take place at the end of Act 1.

But, per your comment, at the end of Act 1,? the protagonist seems to? turn the ignition key — and then lets the engine of the story idle .? The car just sits there for the space of 30 pages? while he hems and haws.? Finally, at the midpoint, he engages the clutch, presses the gas pedal and confesses how he feels.?

All this time he’s sitting there in the driveway, letting the engine idle, what is happening, what is driving the plot forward to engage and sustain audience interest?

>>between weighing out the implications (both career and relationship-wise) of coming clean,

Blake Snyder of “Save the Cat” fame called that the “Debate and Decision” phase of the plot — and it should occur in Act 1 culminating in a decision that drives the rest of the plot.? ?Having it occur in the middle of Act 2 is too late.

Now then, that is not to say that the confession could not occur until the midpoint.? It might work , work very well,? as a pivotal complication to a plot already in progress.? What I am saying is that the logline (and perhaps the script) needs to be framed in terms of? an action that occurs at the end of Act 1 that puts the plot in gear and? gets the protagonist proactively driving toward a specific objective goal.

fwiw