ndnaw

[ndnaw]

Polygamy Love Triangle/Triad vs. Love Triangle Book Trope

Greetings. This post appeared to me a while ago and it honestly slipped my mind until it was brought up in a subject recently. Now I don't agree with the post and there are some things from the posts that I would like to address. I have done my research and have more graphics to show in my explanation of why this does not make sense in the context of BOOK TROPES.

Definition of Love Triangle In Book Tropes

A love triangle is a scenario in which two people are pursuing a romantic relationship with one person. Often involves a rivalry or a common relationship between the people at the bottom which is not love/like/affection. The two persons at the bottom are often fighting for the love of the third and in the end, one will be chosen by the third.

Definition of Love Triangle In Polygamy

A consensual, healthy love triangle in polygamy is a relationship where three people are all involved in a relationship with each other (this is called a Triad/Triangle in polygamy), or where in two people are involved with a third person but not involved with each other (this is called a Vee in polygamy).

Now I think where most of the confusion comes from is crossing over the two DIFFERENT subjects of book tropes with the subject of polygamy. Polygamy is written about and sometimes touched in writing though it still differs from the book trope of a love triangle.

The same words often fall in varying subjects, under different meanings. Polygamy and book tropes are two different subjects that happen to have the same word, 'love triangle', under different meanings.

The shape that is being noted as a point by some persons is called a Vee type in polygamy. Which does not capture the dynamics in book tropes 'Love triangle'. In turn, the polygamy 'triangle/triad' does not capture the dynamic of the book trope 'Love Triangle'.

LGBTQIA+ inclusion in Love Triangles

The first person in the first image made the point that 'cishets' don't like to have LGBTQ+ representation in writing tropes which may be true considering we are still in an era where homosexuality/same-sex relations is still undergoing some pressure in many parts of the world. This however does not mean that we have to cross a Love triangle from Polygamy into a Love triangle from Book Tropes to include LGBTQIA+ representation. It can be included in Book Tropes Love Triangle just fine.

I have drafted an example of this:

Here is a example of a Book trope love triangle. This is to show how Book trope love triangles do not equal Polygamy Love triangles/triad because in some narratives, not all persons can love each other. If this was a Vee in polygamy, then A would be dating her girlfriend's brother.

Here is another example with LGBTQIA+ representation. This dynamic shows how love triangles is affected by the person at the tops preferences. If A was a lesbian as well, she would ultimately not be attracted to B, a male, in no circumstance.

The common trope of the New boy next door and the childhood best friend love triangle trope is a good example of this. The female often picks the 'New boy next door' because ultimately, she is not attracted to her friend of 10+ years.

LGBTQ+ representation can happen in circumstances that are not stemming from LGBTQ+ groupings. A Book trope Love Triangle can be LGBTQ+ friendly, if all the characters are males. No one is trying to rain on your parade, bruh.

Now something else that I have realized is the implication that straight people don't know what 'shapes' are because the triangle doesn't connect at the bottom. There are two things I want to say concerning that.

A Love Triangle in Book Tropes, show where the love flows. Meaning it flows from the two at the bottom to the one at the top. There is not love between the people at the bottom so therefore, there is no need to 'connect' the triangle. They may have different bonds, outside of love, like; friends, siblings, rivals, strangers, coworkers, platonic, or simply 'not each others type' (if they were all college students who are friends but A is bisexual, B is hetero, and C is lesbian. C would just simply not be attracted to B. If A dated both of them, it would be a Polygamy Vee, not even a Love Triangle.)

The shape is on implication that the two lines meet at a vertex similar to the vertex of a triangle. If we were to get literal on naming every single thing in the human vernacular/language then a mountain chicken wouldn't be called a mountain chicken. A ladybug would be called Dotted Red. Buffalo wings would be renamed. A titmouse would be an actual mouse. Not all things are literal when it comes to naming, often the implication of the shape is all that is brought forward in the naming.

Conclusion

To conclude in mutuality, we can keep the ancient name of the Book Trope Love Triangle and still incorporate LGBTQ+ elements. We don't have to compare it to a polygamous Love Triangle relationship. It does not have to be renamed a love corner, you don't have to bash a certain demographic because you feel unrepresented. Just tell us authors what you want to see and we will put it in the book.

We love to write about new perspectives in truth (when those with the perspective communicate with us to make it accurate).

:)

[ndnaw]

The Problem Of DARK ROMANCE- Love over Lust (Booktoks problem in the books they recommend)

Caution: Spoilers of Mention Books. If this is too much for you to take in; cut and swallow because I am not giving you any water to make it go down easier. I am not taking back what I said. Thank you.

Numerous hot topic books that have an active following along with a high rating; often do not deserve their popularity.

Ultimately, the books that have come to my attention are books that when mentioned will be easily recognizable by most romance readers, as well as those who familiarly visit 'booktok'. Books such as; Punk 57, Icebreaker, Haunting Adeline, and Hunting Adeline. In the upcoming rage of discovery, it seems that SMUT has become the most intriguing genres to people all around.

Now there is nothing fundamentally wrong with SMUT or the writers of such books but at some point, we, as readers and consumers of literature should assess the quality and substance of the books being read. It is questionable and overall absurd that books such as The Price of Honor by Richard Fierce go unnoticed due to the popularity of books that center around sex, sex, sex, and sex. If that is what you are interested in as the world you need to escape into the maybe there is something you need to take up with a psychiatrist.

A book (without fantasy elements), nonetheless, should be able to capture a story that not only takes readers into a world they have never been in to help them to proper experience these situations. As well as, to be able to comfort or bring attention to the lives of either customary or diverse populations. Books such as Charming As A Verb, The Withering, and Love Hypothesis (it has smut but it isn't heavily implicated, I got to know the characters not their genitalia) were able to do these things amazingly, while also maintaining a positive ranking with readers. Which leads me to question the popularity of books like Haunting Adeline and Punk 57; not every book needs to be new and exciting but certain things that would be distasteful and unrealistic should be assessed in reading.

Let's dive into the rationale of Haunting Adeline (I have not read the complete book, I dropped it rather quickly because of the 'message'):

Haunting Adeline, with its premise, could be a unique Thriller story- the romance aspect should definitely be questioned on whether it should be removed. Now if anyone who has read Haunting Adeline AND likes the book, please give your remarks and opinions on the claimed romance. Dark romances can definitely be accepted in CERTAIN situations but there is a line that crosses from ROMANCE BOOKS and into PSYCHOLOGICAL THRILLER. Most of the actions in Haunting Adeline and Hunting Adeline are beyond diabolical- the female lead has to be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. Haunting Adeline overall essentially has the operation of sex trafficking, this would have been a good place to stop and the DARK in Romance would have already been completed. It would have also been able to offer a story to those who have been sex trafficked, instead of romanticizing and sexualizing a victim of sex trafficking by a mentally unstable male lead. Of course, the disgusting aspect does not stop it from being a good book because ultimately there are women and men who suffer from the effects of Sexual Trafficking and victims who develop Stockholm Syndrome from abusers.

I am unsure on whether the writer themselves had written the book in hopes of communicating the devastating and revolting topics to bring awareness but the conclusion gathered by readers of Booktok have been the opposite. The normalization of PSYCHOLOGICAL THRILLER as DARK ROMANCE need to be looked into by a professional.

A lot of people may say that the point of dark romance is TRAUMA, TOXIC LOVE, and occasionally ABUSE. That is the essence of it all. Though the problem is DARK ROMANCE varies from PSYCHOLOGICAL THRILLER. Example A: In Book One, you can get kidnapped because you were in the wrong side of the neighborhood and end up being beaten by a gang member because of this but after seeing that you were a victim and not from the rival gang as they first assumed, they decide to make peace. A lot of things can happen that do not need the female or male lead to mentally submit to the 'love interest'. Aspects such as an arranged marriage in a gang, drug addicts, sadists and masochists, vampires and hunters, even a ghost and a human- that can go so far if put into the hands of a writer who can draw a line between clear one-sided abuse and mistreatment. DARK ROMANCE is not TOXIC LOVE and TRAUMA done by A onto B, that causes B to submit out of fear. It's the push and pull of adrenaline between two people who damage each other or potentially do so, who both find their peace in destroying each other or fixing up the broken pieces. A vampire and a hunter are both out to kill each other, none are trembling out of fear because daddy vampire will hurt them so they just HAVE to sleep with them.

Now PSYCHOLOGICAL THRILLER; there is nothing morally wrong about reading them. It opens up a door to understanding and possibly a world that you have never been in. (or have, all things considered. I apologize if you have been exposed to situations such as those.) Though, there is something morally wrong with sexualizing the supposed 'romance' in psychological thrillers. It is not 'hot' when you have to cry and plead to your significant other to stop, unless it is under terms of agreement like, sadists and masochists, and even they have limits, I think. (I don't participate in those subjects)

I believe the problem behind Haunting Adeline is the glazing over of real life struggles and readers filling their minds with delusion. It makes me question if anyone who actively supports the relationship between the characters have put themselves in Adeline's shoes. I have seen countless readers or fans of the book, say "He got better." That is wonderful, but did he get better or did she just accept her fate and stop trying to fight back?

At some point you'd stop too if the 6'4, early thirties man, kept telling you he was obsessed with you after assaulted you multiple times on top of the numerous times you were assaulted by other persons.

However if you still believe this book is a DARK ROMANCE and not a PSYCHOLOGICAL THRILLER, please do see the fact that the consumption, enjoyment from sexualization that you get out of this book, and promoting it as romance other than psychological thriller can be detrimental. As the lines of romantization that readers have created are shocking. Remember this is not just a fictional, hot, steamy book and can very well be someone's reality.

Put yourself in just one of the scenes that you so find hot, if you think you would like it being done onto you, seek professional help or find someone that matches your kinks before you harass someone in the streets. No sane person wants a gun in their body.

Concluding, promote books that have substance to their genre and actually properly portray the topics of the genre. Seek help if you enjoy the 'romance' in the book. If you like the portrayed psychological thriller, that's cool.

NB: If you would like to know the things I found distasteful in the other book listed, please let me know, because there are a few reasons.

NNB: In placing the tags for the note-worthy books below, I found that there was no community/following for the books, though all the questionable ones did. Except for Love Hypothesis cause her gooch bussed open.

[ndnaw]

Why I stand with Daniel from DanPlan.

DISCLAIMER: THIS HAPPENED OVER THREE (3) YEARS AGO, IN NO WAY AM I TRYING TO BRING UP ANY RESOLVED ISSUES. I ONLY WANT DANIEL TO KNOW THAT HE DID GOOD OVERALL. I DO NOT KNOW DANPLAN'S MEMBERS AND SO I AM JUST SPEAKING MY PIECE.

DanPlan was created by Daniel and Hosuh, the founding members of the channel. They were both just kids who had begun YouTube which Daniel said was quite hard and I can not imagine how hard it is to run a channel along with life's many responsibilities. Hosuh introduced Stephen to Daniel and they started making videos together.

Now at this point, we get into psychology. Daniel gave up on an important opportunity to do YouTube so this channel was more to him than 'fun', this channel was his business, his livelihood, and the place that provided him his wants. He and Hosuh were partners in a business and Daniel wanted to get Stephen into it as well. In response to this, Stephen said he was not going to be taking YouTube seriously and he admitted that Daniel & Hosuh were doing most of the work. From this point, the mindsets of Daniel and Stephen are very different; Daniel's business is YouTube and he takes this seriously while Stephen does not take YouTube seriously.

So, so far, everything was going well, they were getting a lot of subscribers and they were having fun while doing it. I am not sure about the timeline but when the channel began growing, Daniel wanted to pay Stephen but Stephen declined because 'he was doing it for fun,; but Daniel still wanted to pay him for his time even though he said he was doing it for fun. They agreed to $25/hr. (At some point, he was supposed to get $300 but he only worked 9 hours. Do some basic wage math. $25 * 9 = $225 )

According to Stephen's video, they made a video talking about which of the members contributed the most to the channel, and in the video, it was concluded that Stephen contributed the least. This seemed to plant some seed of anger in Stephen. He said he was a founding member and he was needed/necessary to the growth of the channel. From my business standpoint, Stephen is not a founding member, yes he is a contributing and necessary member of their dynamic but a founding member is a person belonging to an organization who was involved in setting it up. He joined after Daniel and Hosuh. The name DanPlan was made up of Daniel's name and Hosuh's username so it is clear that those two are the founding members. From the beginning, Stephen admitted that Hosuh and Daniel contributed the most. They did the editing, the animation, the planning, the stories, the sound, etc... for the channel, so, of course, Stephen contributed the least.

This YouTube animation channel is different from a movie set. In a movie set, the actors make the movie but for a YouTube animation channel, the animation keeps the audience because how many of you would watch their channel if the screen was just black? So yes, I do think he contributes the least even if he is funny or adds personality to the stories.

Now from here, Stephen's one-sided beef started. Everything seemed fine to Daniel, the insults in each video after were just Stephen being Stephen. This just seems like pure miscommunication, Daniel just thought his friend was the same while Stephen was fostering malice for something taken out of proportion.

Daniel got invited to a call which was apparently just to talk about VIDCon with Stephen but Stephen brought an advisor. Stephen wanted thirty-three (33%) of the company and the revenue or else he would leave the channel. In a partnership of three people, his getting a thirty-three percent share would leave Hosuh and Daniel with sixty-seven percent which when shared in half assumingly, would leave them with thirty-three point five percent (33.5%).

Daniel was angry; his friend completely switched up from YouTube being fun to wanting 33% of the company while Hosuh & Daniel were putting in most of the work. This led Daniel to hang up the phone, he was upset at Stephen's approach rather than the percentage of shares.

Stephen works less than an animator. They agreed on $100 each video. (Stephen says Daniel brought it up) At this point, Stephen threatened to leave twice and Hosuh was leaving to the military. Daniel took in Ann and Jay in order to ensure the channel was not left in a vulnerable state after Hosuh and Stephen leaving. 

Daniel spoke to Stephen about getting a channel of his own to make him understand the hardships and as well as to build a partnership between the two channels. Stephen declined and said he would never do YouTube. After they met at a convention, Stephen made a channel even though he swore against it. 

December 15 - Stephen left. Even after, Daniel tried to meet with Stephen and tried to still be friends with Stephen. 

This just seems like the perfect example of why you do not bring friends into business. Friends think they can push boundaries. Friends let their feelings override logical decisions.

I hope that Daniel's channel continues to strive. He has a good business mindset and his stories have always been intriguing and creative. I hope Stephen is happy with his decision. I do not particularly miss what DanPlan had, I still enjoy it and I think one day it will be a whole lot better.

[ndnaw]

Let's be real- Tokyo Drift was not good.

DISCLAIMER: I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST THE ACTUAL ACTORS, JUST THE STORY AND THE CHARACTERS.

From the beginning of Fast and The Furious- Tokyo Drift, I could tell the main character was reckless, risky, competitive, and woman obsessed. Still, I believed in the series and was thrilled to see his character development throughout the movie. Sean was the embodiment of a teenager written by an adult, he was annoying, to say the least. After being a continuous disappointment to his mother, he was sent to Tokyo, Japan to live with his father who clearly was not a good father figure hence, Sean himself stated that his father 'ran away from his problems'.

In Tokyo, Sean already gets caught up with this girl, Neela, who is dating Takeshi aka DK (Drift King) who is our supposed antagonist. Now, Neela and Sean were talking and Takeshi got upset and approached. At first, I was all against DK not giving Neela the freedom to talk to whoever she wants but then I realized, 'Why is Neela so obsessed with Sean?' Firstly, he could not drift, he was not rich, and he wasn't even funny. I mean he compared his parents divorcing when he was three to her mother dying when she was ten. So it was between two things; she wanted a friend or she wanted another man and I am definitely going for the latter because he has nothing you are lacking in a friend. So DK has the right to be worried, Neela even saw Sean and left her boyfriend to be with him. Not even a, "Oh DK, my friend is here so I'm going to go talk to him," So already, I could tell there was some error in the script because DK has a right to think this girl might be a little like her mother. Neela was one of the few people who wronged DK and she had the nerve to say DK changed. He did not change, girl. You changed for that Gaijin.

Then there was Han, I loved Han when I first met him. He was smart, calculated, and everything the main character was not. This was until he started to feed Sean's delusions. Calling him 'DK's Kryptonite', teaching him that learning how to drift would get him girls and we all know what Sean thinks about girls. In no way was Sean, DK's Kryptonite. The only thing scary about Sean was how stupid he was. Now Han was one of DK's close partners, but guess what, he still wronged DK by stealing from him. DK's uncle is in the yakuza so this is kind of a big slip for DK, he even cried because of it. He even went to Han and said, "I put my reputation on the line for you. We were partners." Excuse me? Then Han had the nerve to say, "Its what we do." Han is a LIER and a THIEF because when he was working with Dom, I know he ain't stealing anything from Dom Toretto.

From this point, I was completely on DK's side. He has a girlfriend he can't trust, a partner that betrayed him, and his Uncle's reputation to uphold. DK has so much to lose. He built his whole life in Tokyo. So when Han died, it was kind of a, not relief but it was indifferent.

Finally, at the end of the movie, they decide or Sean decides to solve this with a race. Personally, I think Sean wanted to race DK because he wanted to restore his fragile masculinity and beat Dk so he used this as an excuse. Sean said before, he races just to prove he's faster than the other guy, so clearly we can tell- this dude is trash. Then plot armor and all and Sean wins the race and Dk has to leave Tokyo.

Honestly, the only good thing about this movie was that it introduced Dom Toretto again and the music. Twinkie and DK were the only good characters.

3/10

- It even got this much because of Twinkie and DK's baggage that we did not uncover, because there has to be something to DK literally tearing up and shaking from the thought of disappointing his uncle. Was he abused? Is his Uncle his only parental figure? Is he scared just because his uncle is yakuza?