TJ and Ian are both well written, flawed characters, and their relationship is what makes Wet Sand stand out in the first place.
You can say TJ has a large fanbase because of his looks or whatever, but that doesn't change the fact that he's still a well written character, especially when it comes to how his toxicity is portrayed. Why do you think people who read Wet Sand and prefer Jo can still not hate TJ, or why does the TJIan relationship still grip them? It's because TJ's toxicity wasn't written without nuance. You can hate him, but you can't really paint him as nothing but the villain without looking at his relationship with Ian, how he got into the gang, and his relationship with Jason.
And I will never understand the idea that the author made TJ into nothing but a simp for Ian, or that Ian doesn't deserve his devotion, because AGAIN, their relationship is the core of Wet Sand. You literally cannot talk about TJ or Ian's characters without looking at their relationship as a whole.
TJ wasn't the only one who made sacrifices. Both of them did, and they made those sacrifices because of their feelings for each other. Why do you think TJ was, in a way, asking Ian to understand him during their conversation in the bathroom? Why do you think TJ told him to be realistic? Because Ian knew the circumstances they were in. He looked the other way and still accompanied TJ throughout those years.
The thing is, their sacrifices weren't one sided. They both made choices based on what they believed would protect, help or benefit the other person. Unfortunately, those choices ended up hurting each other because these two dumbasses couldn't properly communicate with each other.
And if TJ is “nothing more than a simp” for Ian, then so is Ian for TJ. They both love each other. They both made sacrifices for each other. They both shaped each other's lives.
Their relationship is literally the backbone of this story.
You literally can't be be heavily faulting both of them or make them out to be black and white character.
Even Jo would have more depth if people stopped reducing him to the “green flag” label. He is a grown man, and he knows about TJ and Ian’s relationship. He wasn't really “led on” in the way people make it sound.
He literally saw TJ coming out of Ian’s apartment, then saw Ian rushing out to find TJ. And what did Jo do? He stopped Ian from going after TJ when TJ was literally walking back to Ian too.
He also asked Ian to be friends despite all the pushback Ian gave him and everything Ian told him. Jo does genuinely love Ian, but he also has an idealized version of Ian in his head.
When Jo went looking for Ian after Ian killed someone, Ian literally told him that he was tired of pretending to be someone he wasn't. Ian was trying to push Jo away because he didn't want to implicate him in what he had done. Jo knew why Ian was saying those things, and what did he do? He called Ian "CRUEL".
Deep down, Jo knows that if he doesn't emotionally push back if he doesn't low-key guilt trip Ian,Ian would probably immediately push him away. Calling Ian cruel is an emotional reaction, but it's also a way of resisting Ian's attempt to cut him off.
Then Jo tells Ian he'd give up everything for him. Bro... your relatives could potentially get killed because of this and you're STILL willing to do it? .
And even when Ian eventually broke up with him, we literally see Jo admit that he knew this was going to happen. He knew where this was heading and still chose to pursue Ian anyway. He didn't "get led on" he knew where it was heading and still pursue it because of just "what if" because he love and want Ian.
All 3 of them are morally gray. They all has flaws, they all made their own decisions TJ and Ian actions, their relationship, their decision are literally contextualize in the text. Same apply for Jo with his feeling, action and his selfishness because he loves Ian. They all are humanly realistic.
TJ and Ian are both well written, flawed characters, and their relationship is what makes Wet Sand stand out in the first place.
You can say TJ has a large fanbase because of his looks or whatever, but that doesn't change the fact that he's still a well written character, especially when it comes to how his toxicity is portrayed. Why do you think people who read Wet Sand and prefer Jo can still not hate TJ, or why does the TJIan relationship still grip them? It's because TJ's toxicity wasn't written without nuance. You can hate him, but you can't really paint him as nothing but the villain without looking at his relationship with Ian, how he got into the gang, and his relationship with Jason.
And I will never understand the idea that the author made TJ into nothing but a simp for Ian, or that Ian doesn't deserve his devotion, because AGAIN, their relationship is the core of Wet Sand. You literally cannot talk about TJ or Ian's characters without looking at their relationship as a whole.
TJ wasn't the only one who made sacrifices. Both of them did, and they made those sacrifices because of their feelings for each other. Why do you think TJ was, in a way, asking Ian to understand him during their conversation in the bathroom? Why do you think TJ told him to be realistic? Because Ian knew the circumstances they were in. He looked the other way and still accompanied TJ throughout those years.
The thing is, their sacrifices weren't one sided. They both made choices based on what they believed would protect, help or benefit the other person. Unfortunately, those choices ended up hurting each other because these two dumbasses couldn't properly communicate with each other.
And if TJ is “nothing more than a simp” for Ian, then so is Ian for TJ. They both love each other. They both made sacrifices for each other. They both shaped each other's lives.
Their relationship is literally the backbone of this story.
You literally can't be be heavily faulting both of them or make them out to be black and white character.
Even Jo would have more depth if people stopped reducing him to the “green flag” label. He is a grown man, and he knows about TJ and Ian’s relationship. He wasn't really “led on” in the way people make it sound.
He literally saw TJ coming out of Ian’s apartment, then saw Ian rushing out to find TJ. And what did Jo do? He stopped Ian from going after TJ when TJ was literally walking back to Ian too.
He also asked Ian to be friends despite all the pushback Ian gave him and everything Ian told him. Jo does genuinely love Ian, but he also has an idealized version of Ian in his head.
When Jo went looking for Ian after Ian killed someone, Ian literally told him that he was tired of pretending to be someone he wasn't. Ian was trying to push Jo away because he didn't want to implicate him in what he had done. Jo knew why Ian was saying those things, and what did he do? He called Ian "CRUEL".
Deep down, Jo knows that if he doesn't emotionally push back if he doesn't low-key guilt trip Ian,Ian would probably immediately push him away. Calling Ian cruel is an emotional reaction, but it's also a way of resisting Ian's attempt to cut him off.
Then Jo tells Ian he'd give up everything for him. Bro... your relatives could potentially get killed because of this and you're STILL willing to do it? .
And even when Ian eventually broke up with him, we literally see Jo admit that he knew this was going to happen. He knew where this was heading and still chose to pursue Ian anyway. He didn't "get led on" he knew where it was heading and still pursue it because of just "what if" because he love and want Ian.
All 3 of them are morally gray. They all has flaws, they all made their own decisions TJ and Ian actions, their relationship, their decision are literally contextualize in the text. Same apply for Jo with his feeling, action and his selfishness because he loves Ian. They all are humanly realistic.