I feel like you may be understanding something. Its not about real life. its about the lack of chemistry. Trauma bonding and continous fucking is not chemistry.
The bar is so low I swear.
“Y’all he’s in the mafia of course he’s gonna do bad things??”
But he didn’t have to do it to Ian.
im not saying its justified. i personally think that ian shouldnt end up w TJ because he’s too toxic. the thing is tho that we should look at these characters with nuance. TJ doesnt think he’s hurting ian, hes just clinging onto the one thing that makes him happy. He is awful to ian, but what makes him an interesting character is that he doesnt know he’s being awful and his ‘love’ is just as flawed as his other actions
their ‘chemistry’ is that theyre both stuck in this awful cucle of running back to eachother. it sets up development for chemistry where 1) ian finds a healthy relationship with jo or 2) TJ changes and reflects on his previous actions. the continuous trauma bonding isnt the result, its the path the author is taking to develop ian’s character with TJ and reflect that in his relationship w jo
Oh. My bad. I just realized. And I thought you were justifying his actions and wanting them together. Good points you have! Their only chemistry is them being stuck together and having only each other, no other good social circle, codepdent basicslly
So Jo should just be used as catalyst?? Then whats the point of the love triangle. I disagree there is no chemistry, trauma bonding does not equate to chemistry, and why is TJ suddenly changing?? because Ian wants to move on, and why do stans not care what Ian wants its always "TJ love Ian, and then they expect Ian to go back to him and they claim Ian must love TJ" when that's not how trauma bonds work.
GODDD this is such a good manwha. For those arguing abt TJ… yall he’s in the mafia of course he’s gonna do bad things?? and if you want TJ and ian to end up together doesn’t mean that you would find that acceptable irl… please yall use ur brains while reading