I'm starting to really understand why the love triangle is perceived as such a severely, limitingly YA plot conceit, perhaps more so than any other I can think of.
Its pathos comes from our investment in the choice to be made by the love triangle's apex, the silent agreement that these are high stakes, that one of the two romantic options stands to seriously lose out because it means losing something irreplaceable.
The conflict is propped up by certain cultural norms. It depends not just on two people having romantic prospects with the apex, but with a range of other social assumptions like:
Only one of those relationships can be actualised as romance
Romance is the sole acceptable outcome for them
Any other kind of relationship will be inpossible after rejection
Because for many teens, romance really is all of these things. You (or many people, anyway) grow up in a culture that elevates mono romantic relationships—and if you're alloromantic or otherwise inclined to do so, and you fall in love for the first time, that is your sole reference point for what it means to be in love. You really do think this is special and will never happen again.
The love triangle plays entirely off of that belief in that one special, unlikely bond.
But once you've fallen in love a few times, maybe with multiple people at the same time, it becomes very clear that the conceit of the love triangle is making a huge deal out of something that is not a huge deal at all! It is only compelling in a limited phase of one's life that confines its appeal to a specific demographic, in a way that even a first love scenario is not.
The experience of falling in love and finding that feeling new and different continues to resonate no matter how many people you've been in love with. But the idea that who the apex chooses is a point of tension on par with the outcome of a war? Not so much.




























