I thought the love triangle worked really well because it didn’t stretch too long – while reading the third book I remember going CRAZY because of the triangle and saying that if Mercy didn’t make up her mind soon I was going to stop reading and lo and behold, she chose :) While I did like the man she ended up choosing better, I thought both of the men Mercy had were really likable. Briggs didn’t victimize or bash the one who wasn’t chosen; in fact I feel his character is heading for a really interesting character arc because he wasn’t chosen (and not necessarily a romantic one where he has his own book – he has quite the past that needs exploring IMO) after the fourth book. Then again this is an urban fantasy series so I’m not sure how much reader assumption/expectation would play into the likability of the execution of a love triangle.

On the other hand, I don’t like the lover triangle/quartet/howevermanyguysnow that Riley Jenson has in Keri Arthur’s Riley Jenson series, and that’s an urban fantasy series. So me and Riley are currently taking a break right now.

Emma Holly’s Menage, despite the title, gave me the feeling that the heroine had to choose between one or the other so the fact that in the end [SPOILER] she married one but kept the other in the relationship for sexy time here and there just annoyed me [END SPOILER]. Of course, this was before I read all those threesome erotic romances -____-

Unless of course it ends up with all of them together happily ever after, but that doesn’t happen too frequently outside of erotic romances.

That is definitely the crux of my problems with love triangles. Like Jane said, if you like the character…they must do something dastardly at the end to account for them not getting the girl. Which is just disappointing.

Like the Jack/Kate/Sawyer triangle in LOST or the Edward/Bella/Jacob Twilight triangle. No matter the outcome, someone is getting the shaft, and no matter who it is, you feel sad because they are all so likeable.

And for it to be a TRUE love triangle, all characters MUST be likeable. Otherwise, like someone else commented, it’s not really a love triangle but a brief annoying glitch in the hero/heroine story.

Before you go dissing someones new book, r-e-a-d it first,

Ehm, who was dissing anything? You sound just this side of aggressive there. What brought that on?

As for the Haymore title: I saw the ad on SBTB, clicked on it, read more and decided I didn’t want to go there, even though the initial hook of the triangle relationship worked for me. What decided me against, was that I immediately questioned how realistic the legal situation would be handled (she’s a bigamist after all) and then the fact that it did sound like there would be no good solution to this triangle. I’m not in the mood for sad right now.

I am eagerly waiting for the review of A Hint of Wicked, since it’s on my TBR list.

Then you have the triangle where only one person is having the triangle, oterwise known as infidelity. Those sorts are of triangles are behind most divorces, responsible for hirings and firings, replete in Hollywood, the backbone of the bi-sexual world and can be found even in the christian church (everything seems to be a trinity). So don’t look all shocked. Triangles are everywhere.

Before you go dissing someones new book, r-e-a-d it first, then remark on the style of the author and the quality of the relationship between the pages. You may not like a love triangle in your own life, but a fantasy is just that… a fantasy. Isn’t that why we read romance novels – for the fantasies?

I’m dithering.

I liked ’some’ triangle stories when I was younger but now I just don’t have the fortitude for a bittersweet romance. They generally also call for too much head-hopping and I want the focus of the story to be on the two main protagonist with a definite and well defined HEA. And a pony.

I voted No.

Sugar Daddy really threw me for a loop, because I expected Hardy to be the hero and felt jerked around when not only he wasn’t but then he was suddenly a ‘bad’ guy. That seemed totally out of character and a very ‘convenient’ plot device to explain why the heroine went with Gage whom I never warmed up to.

That book actually made me realize that I expect the people who are intro’d in the first couple of chapters to be the hero and heroine of the story. While this may not have been as much of a convention in earlier decades (I’ve been reading old Signets were the love triangles were really open until almost the end of the books), I firmly expect it now and was really annoyed at Kleypas for doing this to Hardy. I even knew he wasn’t the hero because I’d listened to the first 37 (good awfully narrated) minutes of Blue-eyed Devil and still the whole book (SD) felt wrong.

I’m sure there are folks who feel this was innovative genre bending… needless to say it didn’t work for me.

The ones in ‘regular’ romance where one party turns villain really don’t do jack for me and I’m feeling totally bad for the nice one left in the rain which is not what I read romance for. I want to be happy at the end!

As much as I dig menage, for regular romance, triangles aren’t my cup of tea.

Of course, you haven’t mentioned the very worst of love triangles: when two really great people are fighting over someone sucky. Like Highland Velvet by Jude Deveraux where Bronwyn is a royal biotch and yet Stephen and Roger and a buttload of other people are all fighting over her and I’m like “WHY???”

Oh, yeah. That one is the absolute worst thing possible.

Of course, stacked right up against it are the number of really, really bad triangles that feature not two guys and a gal but two gals and a guy. Why is it that competent romance writers can manage to halfway pull off two guys competing for one woman but totally blow it with two women doing the reverse and end up turning both of them into either shews or nitwits? It boggles the mind. (what is the emoticon for rolling eyes?)

This question reminded me of a thread on the AAR forums from last fall but the question there had more to do with whether we preferred the extra wheel to be a “good” or “bad” alternative. What I realized while thinking things over was how much starting to read erotic romances featuring menages had clarified or downright changed my thinking about triangles. After rereading my response back then, I don’t believe anything has changed that viewpoint. Here’s what I said then:

Love triangles are tricky things for both readers and writers. I want to say I run from them like the plague but I suspect a more honest response would be to admit I have love/hate feelings for them. I don’t consciously look for books with that theme but then unexpectedly find it in some of my favorites. And, no, I couldn’t tell which ones off the top of my head at the moment but I’ll keep an eye out. :wink:

It’s simply such a powerful plot device for relationships which can be used well but also conversely one that can so easily drive them off track in the wrong way or, well, drive readers insane. ;p

You know I never really thought about it until I started reading erotic romances that featured three people in relationships that actually work for me but I think the biggest problem with most love triangles in romances that don’t work for me is the imbalance between the choices. In order for any triangle to be strong all points and sides have to be of the same strength. Otherwise, it’s going to break. Fall apart. Just look idiotic, you know. They both don’t have to be exactly the same but they do have to be comparatively strong to hold their own.

And, let’s face it, what’s found in a lot of romance love triangles are weak third angles designed to lose to the competition. They’re either uninteresting, irritating, or downright melodramatic to read about. Whatever, the result is that the reader is ready to either forget about them or kill them off ourselves by the end of the story.

To me that’s not a true love triangle. That’s an annoyance.

In a true love triangle, there should be the honest capability of choice between either of the available options. There should be enough suspense that the reader doesn’t honestly know which one is going to be chosen until they’re, well, chosen. And it is possible for that to happen in a modern romance because while it doesn’t have to happen at the very end, it also doesn’t have to happen at the very beginning either. There’s some middle ground to work with, have a strong choice and still give us the security we need. It would sure be better than a weak third wheel.

One other thing that always bugs me about love triangles in romances is that many times when an author does get them right it can really backfire in the opposite direction because of that very balance of choice. I mean if the other choice is just as good as the one actually chosen . . . well, there’s a reason so many extras in love triangles die an honorable, sacrificial death instead of getting their own story.

Which can be great but also leave the reader wondering if the best man or woman really did win. Sigh. That one I do have a title for – [b]Heart’s Surrender[/b] by [i]Kathleen Morgan[/i] , early futuristic romance with so-so science fiction but a heartbreakingly bittersweet love triangle. Double sigh.

I don’t think I would have had a problem if Hardy had come back and they had both realized their moment together had passed. But I suppose that wouldn’t have left the proper amount of angst for Hardy in the next book.

Re: Love triangles in general.
I guess this is one of my guilty pleasure tropes. I acknowledge that there’s really no good turn-out (ie the demonizing of someone who was perfectly nice before OR the nice person getting screwed out of a HEA). But I still like them.

Of course, you haven’t mentioned the very worst of love triangles: when two really great people are fighting over someone sucky. Like Highland Velvet by Jude Deveraux where Bronwyn is a royal biotch and yet Stephen and Roger and a buttload of other people are all fighting over her and I’m like “WHY???”