Discussion Main / StrangledByTheRedString

I 100% agree. That you're biased ;). While most couples in Manga's finale fall here, this couple is not one of them. First of all the finale didn't even show them to be a couple in the first place. They had no on-screen panel together in that chapter and the only thing to suggest they were a couple is that Himawari kinda looked similar to Naruto. For all we know she could be result of one-night stand, Bed Trick by Hinata, or some LEGO Genetics experiment by someone (fanfic writers, make me proud!). but ok, for the sake of argument let's assume they were indeed a couple by the end of the manga. Is it really as asspulled as you claim? from Hinata's side i don't think i need to convince anyone, she was in love with him from the begginning. From Naruto's side while he was for most part interested in Sakura there were warm feelings towards Hinata as well, while his feelings towards Sakura seem less and less important to him. When Nagato almost killed Hinata the result was Traumatic Superpower Awakening, when later Sasuke almost killed Sakura Naruto wasn't even angry that Sakura was attacked, but that Sasuke attacked a teammate. I could probably point out a few other scenes, but the best one would probably be the big Ship Tease moment after Naruto landed on receiving end of Hinata's Get A Hold Of Yourself Man. The potential and buildup was there, so no, it's not qualified for this trope.

As for the movie, while i don't like everything the movie did(the scene where Naruto's crush on Sakura was portrayed as rivalry with Sasuke was just dumb) but i think you're misinterpreting this particular scene. The point wasn't to make Naruto fall in love with Hinata, but to realise that he was in love all along.

There's also the fact that most, if not all, of the arguments that claim that Naruto/Hinata is an example of this trope essentially boil down to shipping bias. Which is not permitted on Tv Tropes.

We don't care, really.

Without knowing the source, the first example seems valid except for the parabomb and Character Derailment link.

The second doesn't make sense because this is about sudden, poorly done Relationship Upgrades. If their romance is a large part of the show, then it's not an example, no matter how poorly done it is.

EDIT: Just restored the first example, because the replacement example in there was really poorly done and broke a bunch of rules.

While these examples seem fairly weak to me, Sara Jaye has been edit warring them. I'll report it to Ask The Tropers.

I think it applies for all three. Maybe not Sokka and Suki, but Sokka and Yue wind up having most of their development after the aforementioned dramatic scene, and Zuko and Mai seriously came out of left field.

Also, the examples as written hardly sound like complaining. They're actually pretty even-handed.

Ah, no, those are definitely complaining. At worst, they're seriously misrepresenting the events in the show to try and complain about couples they don't like.

Also, for what it's worth, let's break these down:

1. Sokka and Yue are pretty obviously the first time either of them has actually had a relationship. Yue being emotional about not actually being allowed to pursue a relationship of her own free will is not this trope, it's a woman recognizing that she's bound by the choices of other people and having a breakdown. Then she basically dies. No crap Sokka has issues over that - the show takes place over a timespan of what, six months? Less? He also doesn't "angst throughout the series" - it happens only twice, in the second season, when Yue's death was at most what, three weeks ago? And these instances were directly related to the fact that she died when she was under his protection. I think a guy is allowed to be sad over a girl he dated dying when it pretty much just happened and something is happening that dredged it up.
2. Sokka and Suki met right at the start of the series. When they meet again, in universe, it's been only a few weeks. When they meet yet again in Season 3, it's still not really been that much time. Also, no, they don't go straight from "I lost my last girlfriend" to "Let's make out" with no transition. They go from "I lost my last girlfriend a month ago and I'm scared it will happen again" to "Break Suki out of prison" to "Now that I've had time to grieve and you've survived a life-threatening encounter, we can actually have a relationship." Time frame - about six months total? And that "making out" is the indication that they've started a relationship, which is perfectly expected given the history they have.
3. Uh, Zuko and Mai may not be directly interacting in season 2, but there was far more than just a flashback that indicated they'd had a long history together before Season 3. So it makes sense that when he goes back home, he follows up on it. Also, they're shown to be on really shaky ground during that season - which is pretty appropriate for two people that have history but not much else. Zuko runs out on her and Mai is hard-pressed to actually help him out when he needs it - and when she does state that she loves him more than she fears Azula, it's meant to show less that Mai really loves him and more that Mai does in fact have feelings and that both she and Ty Lee are no longer going to be Azula's flunkies just because she threatens them. This is even with me ignoring that there's side media that further elaborates on what their relationship is like and I suppose I don't even need to point out that Zuko and Mai broke up in the comics which really keeps them out of this trope because having a shaky relationship that eventually ends would seem to suggest the story is NOT implying they're a great, perfect couple.

You say it is a "bug" with Aetheyta, but how is it a bug? The only time Aetheyta will not speak of a relationship is if you import one from ME 2, a relationship imported from ME 1, or no confirmed relationship, will assume Liara is girlfriend. The Paragon Interrupt, in which Shepard will close Liara "my girl", is evidence of this, an assumption of a relationship when there isn't one.

Regarding Ashley and Kaidan in ME 1, I recommend you play it again without getting Liara first. If you establish a relationship with Ashley or Kaidan, then get Liara on board, there will be a romantic confrontation between that person and Liara, it will be forced as if you romanced both of them: Liara will argue, Shepard will have to mediate, that he/she didn't want to hurt people's feelings. And this happens regardless of how you treat Liara. That's assuming a relationship (by the narrative, since Shepard is assumed to be romantically interested in her given what he/she says)

In regards to your third response, that's actually the trope, albeit in a non-romantic way. An established relationship (even friendship) unsupported by any evidence.

Further, if you believe Liara to be an inverse of the trope, a fairly unique situation, you should not remove the definition, you should call it an inverse. Inverted Trope examples are valid on this board. I'd disagree with that assertion: The relationship is the evidence that was provided, despite the fact that none of it means romance in nature.

Matt620, your claim that them being friends and NOT romantic is this trope but platonic is you straight up admitting this entry does not fit this trope. This is explicitly a romance trope.

I'm sorry, you're stretching this trope so far out of the range of possibility - Shepherd does not romance Liara unless the player intends her to (yea, Fem!Shep forever here.) Having more opportunities to romance with her (which isn't entirely true either and the "confrontation" scene is non-romantic if you've had a chance to turn Liara down) is not this trope.

The same thing happens with romance. The platonic part is a little much, but Aetheyta and Shepard *WILL* say that Liara and Shepard are dating when they aren't. And the romance confrontation of ME 1 *WILL* happen with Liara assumed to have expressed an interest. That's the trope: Bringing Liara on the ship, treating her with hostility and suspicion, then before you even leave the comm room, a romance confrontation happens where Ash/Kaidan and Liara are both assumed to have been flirted with (by Shepard, no less)

Even if you disagree with that assertion about how it extends to non=romance, you cannot deny the first two, which are exclusive to a romance.

It's not the same.

No matter how rude and hostile Shepard is to Liara, they're still clearly on good terms. Shepard allows her on the ship. Hugs her on Illium. Fights the Broker with her. Dives for her when the Broker throws the desk. Liara in turn recovers Shepard's body, stays alongside him or her, talks to Shepard often.

All of those things canonically happen. Shepard and Liara are canonically friends. There's no way to justify all of those actions otherwise.

And they don't just happen with Liara. Not matter how rude Shepard is to Anderson, they're still on good enough terms for Anderson to leave Shepard his apartment. No matter how ugly Shepard is to Miranda, Jacob, Garrus, Jack, and Grunt, they all still stay on the ship. They relationship canonically isn't bad enough for Shepard to kick them off, even if the responses indicate as much. Regardless of how poorly Shepard treats various characters, they usually get along and help each other regardless.

It's an inevitably and necessary discrepancy of the player character being free to feel however s/he wants but events occurring regardless of those feelings.

So although there might be a trope here, it's a trope that needs to be clearly defined as a result of the fundamental contradiction between a fixed story within an RPG video game and a player character with 'free' feelings. Not a result of any kind of writing mistake.

As for Aetheyta, it's a bug because it's not supposed to happen. Aetheyta is only supposed to mention Liara and Shepard being together if they are actually together.

You're getting off topic, nothing in your statement addresses the topic. You only say it's a bug that Aetheyta does it, and provide no proof to say it's so. I just did it with a Shepard that didn't romance anyone over the series of the game, and it comes out: Shepard and Liara are dating. We also see scenes that are exclusive to love interests given to Liara, and the same dialogue plays out regardless of whether Shepard and Liara are dating, or they aren't. Such as the pre-Extended Cut giving Liara the last thought, or Liara showing up at the Citadel and flirting with you if you're in a romance with Steve.

Further, when Liara is brought on the ship in ME 1, she and Shepard are assumed to be in a relationship. You have to actually tell the game that you don't want a relationship with her in order to drop it, otherwise, you get a relationship confrontation.

These are facts. Further, that's not the way relationships work in real life. That's an assumed relationship on the part of the game, the narrative, and Shepard (the dialogue shows this). That is the trope. If you want to say they're bugs, prove it with Word of God, who can confirm bugs. Otherwise, it's intentional.

If Liara asks Shepard if s/he's interested, that's Liara asking Shepard something. Not the game. Not the narrative. Liara. When Shepard replies that s/he is or isn't, that's Shepard telling Liara something. Not the game. Not the narrative.

Even if the game did 'assume' there was a relationship, (which it doesn't), it's not the trope. The narrative 'assumes' Shepard and Anderson have a father-son or father-daughter relationship. The narrative 'assumes' that Shepard is on good terms with pretty much every squadmate. And those things happen regardless of how nasty the player is to those characters.

Liara and Shepard are canonically friends, and have canonically gone through many adventures together. Even if the narrative did establish that Shepard and Liara were together even if the player chose someone else or chose not to romance anyone (which it doesn't), it wouldn't be the trope since the romance is perfectly justified. Just like Anderson and Shepard have a warm relationship regardless of how nasty the player is, Liara and Shepard might have a romantic relationship regardless of how nasty the player is.

Of course, that's not the case. Because if Liara and Shepard are not together, they aren't together. Whatever subtext is in the series, the final word of the narrative is that Shepard is together with whoever he or she is together with.

David, I'm sorry, that makes no sense, and I don't think you've listened to what I've written. It is true that you can "tell" Liara you aren't interested, however, if you do not (as in, you don't talk to her at all about romance), the game assumes you are in a relationship with her. That's not Shepard or the narrative agreeing to anything, the default state is the two are in a relationship, and you have to go out of your way to stop it (That's the trope). You'll have a romantic confrontation where you have to choose after defeating several of the story missions, and Shepard will say such things as "I didn't mean for both of you to get hurt." That's the trope.

You've actually admitted it in your previous post. You say the romance is perfectly justified because they go on adventures together, but Shepard also does this with Wrex and there's no romance between them. Doing something with another person doesn't mean you're in a relationship. There's no flirting, no gift-giving, no shared feelings, none of the stuff you'd expect from normal relationships. You don't have to say one word to Liara after you bring her on the ship, and you're assumed to be in a relationship with her.

That's the trope. There's no backstory of a relationship between them, you play it out over the game, and no romantic things need to be said, and bam, instant relationship.

Stop telling us about an assumption of friendship: We're talking about the assumed relationship, which is a fact.

Unless you have something to stop that instance (The ME 1 instance of instant assuming Liara is in a relationship with Shepard by the narrative) then the trope is in full force, and you're just edit-warring and offering no justification. All of the other parts (Aetheyta, hugging Liara in ME 2, warm greetings in ME 3) are part of it, but that's where the trope is in full effect.

There is no assumed relationship.

The game presenting Liara as the most obvious option for a love interest does not equate to an 'assumed relationship.'

Liara openly asking if Shepard is interested when other love interests have to be sought out a little more does not equate to an 'assumed relationship.'

The idea that the player has to 'go out of their way' to not have a relationship with Liara is just absurd. You're not going to convince anyone of anything with nonsense like that. And even if it was true, no, it isn't the trope at all.

There might be an example of the trope in Liara having a relationship confrontation with Shepard after being brought on the ship. But that's a big might, and depends much on the dialogue of the scene. Does Liara say anything that explicitly assumes a relationship or does she merely tell Shepard she's interested? Even if it is an example, it needs to be very clear that it's a result of the scripting of the game. That since relationship confrontations are only scripted to occur after the second and third major missions, recruiting Liara later necessitates the confrontation to happen immediately so the player doesn't miss out on the opportunity to romance her entirely.

Having played ME 1 and not romanced Liara, I can say for certain that the idea of the game assuming Liara and Shepard are in a relationship by default is flatly wrong. So the relationship confrontation is the only evidence I see here, if it is worthy evidence at all.

David, I've just told you exactly how it happens, and the only reasons you're giving for, well, anything at all is "Because I said so!" Deliberate, reasonable examples, such as "Shepard is assumed to be in a relationship with Liara as soon as she comes on the ship, and one must speak to her to stop it" are perfectly valid reasons for the trope (the definition of which is: Two characters get a Relationship Upgrade without any of the in-betweens.)

In regards to the example you are given, the answer is no, Liara says nothing that would imply a relationship of any kind. She asks why the geth would come to kill her, and if Matriarch Benezia is involved. That's it.

After the conversation is over (which is what I'm talking about), and before you leave the comm room, you are given a relationship confrontation with Ashley/Kaidan, where the scene that plays is the relationship confrontation.

That's actually the trope: A relationship is assumed even though there was absolutely zero buildup to it. There was no sexual banter, flirting, shared feelings. Nothing to assume anything other than the fact that she's present.

Liara hasn't even been on your ship for five minutes and already it's assumed you've flirted with her and expressed an interest in her. And it's not just assumed by Ashley/Kaidan, it's assumed by Liara and Shepard (Shepard's diplomatic response being "I never wanted both of you to get hurt")

You've not answered anything, just stated that it doesn't exist because you say so. No examples provided how it doesn't fit the trope at all. Unless someone else is going to weigh in on this conversation, I'm going to put it back on the list, modified so as to avoid any mention of platonic feelings, but it's going back up.

First of all, the reasoning I'm giving is that you're attempting to falsely equate one thing with another. Several things into another, as a matter of fact. Secondly, I conceded that the ME 1 confrontation might be an example, so your tirade is unnecessary.

Don't put any examples up without first posting them here.

In regards to your earlier post claiming that I need Word of God evidence to prove something is a bug and not intentional, no, I don't. I simple need to indicate it as the most plausible explanation. Consider the Aetheyta example. If the developers intentionally wanted Liara and Shepard to be in a relationship regardless of the player's choice, why are their countless bits of dialogue throughout the series that correctly identify Shepard's love interest? Why are multiple love interests an option at all?

I would advise you keep that in mind.

Now, I want to make sure I understand your claims perfectly clearly. You are claiming to me that if the player never speaks to Liara aside from the mandatory conversations in ME 1, it will automatically be assumed that the two are in a relationship?

Pretty much, yeah. You can also talk to Liara about non-romantic things (such as the "Investigate") options asking her about asari culture or Benezia. Bam, relationship. David, I've been constantly repeating myself.

That's it, no sexual banter, no shared feelings, no gift-giving, no anything that assumes a relationship. You don't do it to Ashley or Kaidan, nothing happens.

The only "equations" I'm mentioning, David, is that Aetheyta states Shepard and Liara are in a relationship when they are not (and Shepard agrees). This is a fact. You are the one equating that is a bug, not me. You are the one who needs to provide proof that it is. I'm also stating that you get a relationship (and relationship conflict, if it so arises) with Liara despite showing zero romantic interest in her, and that you must actively tell the game you don't want a relationship with her in order to stop it.

That's the trope: Asking an alien about their culture is not romantic banter. Asking an Alien about The Dragon they have as a mother is not romantic banter. Putting her on the ship because she's in danger if she's not is not romantic banter. There is no relationship, full stop.

In the course of this discussion, you've gone through about a half-dozen different explanations for why Liara supposedly fits the trope.

First it's because Liara and Shepard are supposedly in a relationship even if Shepard is rude to her. (False.)

Then it's because Aetheyta sometimes mentions Liara and Shepard being in a relationship, which is first of all due to a bug, and secondly not near enough to presume a relationship where it's made clear no such relationship exists elsewhere throughout the story.

Then it's because the player must go 'out of their way' to not romance Liara. Completely untrue for one thing, and not the trope for another.

Next you upped the ante and claimed Shepard must romance Liara fully regardless of what the player says or does, which is laughably untrue.

And now you're claiming that a legitimate, player chosen, bug-free romance of Liara is the trope because there supposedly wasn't enough build up. Which has nothing whatsoever to do with what has been discussed up to this point.

You topped all of this off by putting in an entry with the ridiculous claim that Shepard is 'forced' to romance Liara no matter what. Not only that, you have the audacity to claim you're 'repeating yourself' when in reality you're attempting to give a different explanation every time and have failed to stick to your reasoning.

It's clear to me that you're simply grasping at straws trying to justify putting a character you don't like into a 'bad writing' trope. You have effectively pissed away any credibility at this point. I'm withdrawing my concession that a trope might exist. That concession was based on evidence you provided, and you've proven to me you can't be relied on to be truthful.

In the course of this discussion, David, you've done utterly nothing but talk about irrelevant topics (Shepard and Liara's friendship), offered baseless accusations with no reasons other than "Because I said so!"

All of those "differences" you've mentioned are the trope. Just because you like the character doesn't mean it's poorly written. You've also not even answered a damn thing other than your hyperactive whining.

I've given crystal-clear examples on what happens so that you can check for yourself if you don't believe me.

Also, I never said one "must" romance Liara, I said the romance is started regardless of your choices, with all it entails (such as love interests asking about it if you question them, or relationship conflicts). You're making massive jumps in Insane Troll Logic, which I guess is more than you've given before. I've stuck to the reasoning (in which Shepard and Liara are assumed to be romantic) and stated that in many different ways.

You, by contrast, have whined like a child and thrown temper tantrums. Does anyone else have anything relevant to discuss, because arguing with you is like playing chess with a pigeon.

Guys, keep it cool.

Honestly, the disclaimer that "this trope is not bad, honest!" is utterly undone by the tone of the page, which implies that every one of these couples is awful due to this trope.

Actually, I agree with the example being deleted. Remember that this trope doesn't just mean that couple came out of nowhere. It's that the romance has to be laid on too thickly. You even said in the example that it was given a realistic feel because it came in short, small doses. That right there means it doesn't fit the trope.

More annoyed, personally.

Then again, people who rage over ships tend to annoy me in general.

Just read the entry. It was ridiculously slanted

Nuked Zuko/Mai. AGAIN.

You're right that we should keep the example (note that I supported this position in the discussion above, even before this was YMMV). Maybe I was too quick to delete it, and I apologize; I failed to notice that since the discussion where we defaulted to removing it, this has become a YMMV trope, which means a lot more flexibility on what stays.

But even YMMV has standards, and we should be trying to characterize the mileage varying, not pass rulings on who's right and who's wrong. You can't just state things you know aren't universally agreed upon and expect the example to remain intact.

The tone, for one, was definitely not neutral. It starts "Some of the hate against them as a couple...", which is obviously trying to convey the impression that there's some huge critical mass of such hate in the fandom (polls say: not even remotely). Then it proceeds to pile on some very controversial accusations (no meaningful interaction since book 2? Even now, after all these years, I can hear the ghost of the fandom's collective consciousness writhe in response, "CHOOOCOLATEEE IN THE LIBRAAARRRYYYY!"). In short, it wasn't being fair. I rewrote it in an effort to make it fairer. I imagine there's a lot of work still to be done on that front.

Also, @Fallen Legend: You do not get to remove YMMV examples wholesale without discussion. Quoting some part of the fandom which thinks it's not an example does not equal "the example admitting it is not an example". I restored what you removed, and if you want to discuss the removal of these examples properly- go ahead. But I do not recommend unilaterally removing them again.

Because it doesn't fit. Strangled by the Red String is for pairings that go from no hints to definitely together. HBP shows Harry's feelings for Ginny shifting from friendship to romance. The start of the relationship might be abrupt, but that's teenagers for you. Please stop adding it back in.

"shifting" as in "going the full scale transformation in the duration of a second" and "that's teenagers for you" means it's a Justified Trope. Yes, this isn't the textbook case, and it has foreshadowing and a built-in Unrequited Love Switcheroo and whatnot, which is why the example said "have shades".

Listen, back in my jolly day I hung out on the perimeter of the hardcore H/G crowd (you know, Sugar Quill, Gryffindor Tower, the Fiction Alley.org debate thread...) and even we would freely admit that it blindsided us. The only way we saw it coming was laborious analysis of really backwards considerations plus heavy-duty Shipping Goggles, and even then we only knew that it may possibly hopefully be coming, not how or why it was going to get started. I think I'd be on steady ground saying even half a setence prior to the Wham Line featuring the chest monster we were still none the wiser. And this is crazy shippers; what this was probably like for the regular reader is, well, left as an exercise.

To whomever removed this again, would you please take the argument here? The whole point of discussion pages is to avert edit warring.

Anyway:

"It's not really "straddling the line" if there's plenty of evidence this was going to happen. An entry either is definitely this trope, or it isn't."

Well, fine, I should've put it up as an "abnormal" example or some such. Yes, something can be this trope if there's plenty of evidence that it's going to happen. The trope is about Relationship Upgrade sans the character development that leads up to it. Having tropes and Word of God that seem to point in the direction of something happening is not the same as development.

Sorry, this trope is "This romance comes out of nowhere", yet it was foreshadowed for years in the story itself. I don't do shipping, I find it a waste of time, but even I saw that romance coming a mile away. I keep taking it out because it's just not this trope and not liking how she wrote the romance doesn't make it an example. Now please stop adding Harry Potter entries.

There are no "abnormal" or "almost" examples, something either is this trope, or something actually classified as a trope example like a subversion (it's not) an aversion (obviously not notable if it was) or an inversion (not sure what that would be here, but none the less...)

If I didn't make myself clear earlier, as far as I can see this is this trope. A honest-to-God example. Just an atypical one.

Liking or not liking anything has nothing to do with it. This is not a YMMV trope. This is about lack of development. That a lot of people saw it coming a mile away has nothing to do with anything. People seeing a romance coming correlates with development, but it doesn't flat-out imply it, as is demonstrated here.

The trope: Friends-> BAM -> Relationship Upgrade. This is exactly what happened with Harry and Ginny. How is this not an example? There's no need to get value judgments involved in it; Tropes Are Not Bad. It was probably done this way to avert Romantic Plot Tumor.

Because that's not how it turns out in the books. It happens a little fast, but there's plenty of warning and people seeing it come together from hints earlier in the series already disqualifies it.

Unfortunately, since this is not currently a subjective trope, where I'd be okay with the Harry/Ginny example, it's more rigid.

Hm. Well, I'm willing to concede this. The rule on tropes like these is usually that if something is too contested to stay on a page it should stay off.

This trope is not synonymous with bad couples, although most of them are. There can be good examples of being Strangled By The Red String, and this is one of them. It is in fact possible for characters to become a couple with little to no interaction before and still be a great couple.

Look, I admit I love Harry and Ginny as a couple, but the sad truth is that this trope applies to them, regardless of how good of a couple they are. Before I read the book, I had it spoiled for me that they hook up, and I actually though that it made perfect sense. However, this was before I had read the 3rd, 4th, and 5th books. After that I then found myself puzzled.

Harry and Ginny are definitely this trope. I do not know how anyone not wearing Shipping Goggles can deny this. Yes, it could have been predicted after Book 2, but Rowling screwed up on having it done well. There were hints in Order of the Phoenix, but none of them are recognizable except in retrospect.

Now, it is true that most of the 6th book does build up to it which does soften how bad it is, but only having it built up in one book when the past three books completely ignored it does not excuse it. By that logic many of the other examples on the page wouldn't count. So if a whole season of a TV series was spent building up a relationship between two characters who had rarely interacted over the course of the past several seasons, does that mean it wouldn't fall under this trope?

That depends. Whether a couple falls under this trope depends on what stages, if any, of the Romance Arc they actually go through. I guess time is a factor (you can't believably squeeze it all into an episode), but a season should be enough, so generally the answer is no, what you describe doesn't fall under the trope.

Actually, I think that now that the Romance Arc page has been fleshed out we can look at things more objectively. With Harry and Ginny we do get to see how Boy Meets Girl and do get one (implicit) She Is Not My Girlfriend scene, and they go on to become Just Friends. The next thing we know, Nothing Is the Same Anymore- we have a Green-Eyed Epiphany that induces an Unrequited Love Switcheroo. In other words the problem is with the Will They or Won't They? phase. Namely, that it was so faint that the question wasn't even Will They or Won't They? but rather "Do they have a Will They or Won't They? thing going on to begin with?". We had two Romantic False Leads and exactly one Moment Killer (no chocolate allowed in the library!), and that's it.

Given that this pairing had ridiculous effort put into in on every other front- just check how many tropes on the Love Tropes index apply to it— it's an excellent case study of how much that phase matters in a romance. The execution on everything else is great, but that part is missing, and you have people feeling cheated out of something.

Is this bona fide red string strangulation? It's hard to tell. Certainly it's not a typical example. Maybe using this more precise analysis we can write about them on a page in an objective way that doesn't make judgment calls about whether development was "good enough".

Forgot to mention. This is YMMV trope, which means some of the fandom feels it fits this while the rest may not. Only part of the fandom feeling this way is all that is required for it to fit this trope. You don't delete an example just because you feel it doesn't fit there. Hence, the entire point of YMMV.

The Romance Arc.

Obviously you're not going to have all of the bells and whistles in there, but you get the gist. Between Hi and They Do you have to go through a stage or two, and there's your list of what that stage or two may be.

As for the name- I agree we should change it (we have a few good redirects), but the last time I tried to bring this up on the Trope Repair Shop it didn't go through.

Sorry, that was my fault- when I rewrote the description I kind of completely forgot that most people don't know what the red string is. In my defense, this reference was also missing from the description I replaced. Added the metaphor.

To be honest, until you mentioned it, I never thought of it like that. But in thinking of a response, I can't come up with a single reason why not. I'd be for it if there are no other objections.

Well...nobody ever add it. So I did. Because...yea, this is subjective as hell. One person's "TWOO WUV!" is another person's "WTF?!".

No subjective trope banner. Why? Because a lot of it can be done by the Author on purpose and is not all what the viewer sees.

Also, why is the YMMV banner missing when most of the page's curators agree it's subjective?

I agree, it really needs one since really, a pairing with a poor set up really can be in the eye of the beholder.

The banner was taken off by Fast Eddie.

This is not subjective trope. The title may seem that way, but it isn't. It's not about "poor setup", it's about when a couple goes straight from "hi" to Relationship Upgrade.

Okay, that's understandable.

I'd recommend keeping a watchful eye on the page in case someone tries to sneak in the former. We may even need to add a large disclaimer to the page, underlining its definition.

Gwen and Kevin from Ben 10?

Looks like Trope Repair Shop has overruled you, and left us with yet another unsolved problem.

This crowner seems to indicate there's a lot of support for splitting of "Designated Love Interest", whatever that is. I've made up a definition based on what the title sounds like, so let's see if Wiki Magic can take it from here.

Yeah, I know that the Trope Repair Shop has overruled me. When I did this I was under the impression that I had reasonable consensus to do it. Nobody has bothered to make a single serious argument in support of keeping this specific name for this specific trope, but, well, vox populi vox dei.

I think so. Normally its a good idea to avoid it, but its rare enough to find a picture that pertains to this trope at all (at least outside of context) that I think this needs to be up.

I disagree with making an exception. There are plenty of other tropes that don't have pictures for the same reason.

I disagree with making an exception. There are plenty of other tropes that don't have pictures for the same reason.