Polyamory: roadmaps for the clueless & hopeful is THE definitive resource guide to polyamorous relationships. Sure, there are other books on polyamory out there (but only a few), and most of them have helpful sections and interesting explorations of the subject. But all of them collectively aren't as honest, as thought-provoking, as helpful, as comprehensive, and as all-around terrific as this one book.

Now that I've gushed, let me tell you a bit about why you might not want to read it.

The first twenty-five pages alone will probably raise your hackles, unless you're the sort of person who actually has an open mind (rather than just claiming it, along with wit & sensitivity). Hell, the first seven pages alone made me stop and think pretty darned hard about more than a few concepts, and I've been a fan of the author's writing - especially on this subject - for years (there's my admitted bias). Also, this is not a book for the casual reader or someone who's barely interested in polyamory; it's got something more than twice the wordcount of the average non-fiction book. We're talking textbook here - but not, thank heavens, a dry or difficult read. There is a phenomenal amount of information here, presented sensibly with a lot of heart and wit, but I highly discourage trying to read it cover-to-cover. You miss too much great stuff if you don't take it in moderate-sized bites, to digest and ponder and discuss with your friends & lovers.

Let me be exceedingly clear about one thing: this is not a chick book. It is a book about relationships, and - let's face it - most people who aren't SNAGs (Sensitive New Age Guys/Gals) assume a relationship book is for women, largely relevant mainly to women, and probably chock-full of gooey sticky emotional stuff, to boot. That's most definitely not the case here. In the introduction alone, the author outlines out the basic mechanics of scientific method, properly pointing out that it's "something employed to solve problems by every thinking being, not merely scientists." This is a practical book that, while acknowledging the impractical & emotional aspects of relationships, doesn't pull punches and doesn't tolerate conveniently-drippy emotional excuses for illogical unethical behavior.

Now for some basic information about the workings of the book: It's divided into two basic parts, Background & History (what polyamory is, what it isn't, common mistakes, a few dozen blunt truths about relationships and communication and all the other stuff that polyamorists assume they're really good at, and much more), and How to actually be polyamorous (core requirements, theory & intent, motivations, boundaries & agreements, the tyranny of time and hydraulics and human failings, and much more). The book is further divided into 75 mini-chapters, each from 2-12 pages long. I personally think this is a fantastic format, considering that each of these mini-chapters is a good chunk to contemplate all on its own. (I have an idle dream about buying a dozen copies and starting a book discussion group where we only talk about this book - because a handful of intelligent, perceptive, communicative adults could easily spend a few hours each week discussing each mini-chapter, so there's over a year of material for a group right there!)

Now for the obligatory excerpt. It's astonishing how difficult it is to choose what to excerpt, because it's all such Good Stuff, but here's a bit from the terminology section:

PRIMARY, SECONDARY, TERTIARY: these words have nothing to do with how important a given person is to you, but rather indicate how thoroughly your lives as individuals are intertwined. In part, these terms are a legacy of decades-old sociology, where it was assumed that each person had exactly one primary relationship (spouse or equivalent) and all others were secondary. In modern usage, the terms can be a little vague and slippery, shifting with circumstance, but their utility is nonetheless important for quickly mapping out the territory.

Many people who consider themselves polyamorous don't like this "heirarchal" paradigm. Generally, those people don't yet have a whole lot of experience with maintaining simultaneous multiple deeply intimate relationships over a period of months, much less years. Life does force us to set priorities (even if they have to change every few days), and ignoring this necessity is both dishonest and willfully ignorant, neither trait particularly predisposing someone for the rigors of this lifestyle.

If I am living with a lover, we likely have all sorts of things we share that won't occur in our interactions with other people: a lease, children, shared bank accounts, housecleaning concerns, pet care. Each of these facets brings with it responsibilities and rewards, which we share in a manner others do not experience with us. People likely think of us as a "couple"; if they see me with a secondary partner, their impression is probably something like "close friends."

A primary relationship has generally survived past its initial bout of NRE, and the partners are capable of having involved productive arguments that don't readily endanger the continuation of the dyad. Some people who don't presently have a primary relationship in this sense might refer to one lover as their primary partner, by which they actually mean "most primary." As we'll get into later, it's almost always a cop-out to say something like "All my relationships are primary," or "Everyone is important."

I don't agree with everything in this book, even some points which are clearly intended to be Really Important. For instance, I don't think that polyamory is necessarily more difficult than monogamy; it's more work, sure, but along the same lines that it's more work to parent three kids than one. But whether you're monogamous or polyamorous, if you have (or want to have) an adult romantic relationship with at least one other person, it's still having a relationship - and that's a lot of work, period. As long as the return is worth the effort, though, how much work you put into it isn't as big a deal as it might otherwise be.

One of the reasons I'd recommend this book to anyone is that most of what the author says about relationships can easily be adapted to apply to any interaction with someone you care about, whether it be monogamous romances, totally platonic friendships, and even familial relationships. (Sure, you don't have sex with relatives or platonic friends, but all the non-sexual aspects of love & relationships examined in the book translate quite well.) The sections on examining yourself - as an individual who has relationships, rather than an individual who is part of a relationship - are priceless. I really enjoyed the sections on language and meta-language, agendas, coping with change, problem-solving, and the delightfully matter-of-fact tone throughout the book.

There are also those basic points that virtually all other books on the topic overlook entirely, or gloss over, such as the difference between polyamorous relationships that are intentionally closed (aka "polyfidelitous") and those that are situationally so, or the idea that it's not possible to dive right into polyamory without making a whole lot of very painful mistakes, or that relationships of any kind have a fairly-predictable progression (cleverly comparing it to the old computer standard of MTBF, or mean time between failures). I got real tired, real fast, of books - or postings in online groups, or conversational assumptions by polyfolk I've met - that imply that if you're polyamorous, you're always juggling a couple or three lovers, or you're always "in sync" with the NRE of the other two of your triad, or that "all you need is love & trust & honesty" to be polyamorous, or that polyfidelity is a more-mature type of polyamory (especially as others have argued, with quite a bit of merit behind them, that polyfidelity is just "monogamy with more than two people"). Likewise, I've become almost aggressively annoyed with those who take the attitude that being polyamorous means you're somehow smarter or more "evolved" or a better person.

The author makes it quite clear that there is no One True Way, and that everything in the book that isn't scientifically-proven fact is at least a bit tinged by his experiences and biases. And one of those biases is more than a little cynicism (or, as I like to call it, realistic expectations). Parts of the book do seem to lean rather toward the flavor of, "Are you sure you want to do this poly thing? No, really, it's not all sunshine & flowers. Just think about it a little more. Please, let me tell you about a few more pitfalls before you make up your mind. Well, okay, be polyamorous then...but it's gonna sting." Now, while that's a hell of a lot better than, "Oh, polyamory is soooo joyous and rewarding and bee-you-tee-ful, that I can't imagine why you wouldn't want to immediately hop into a happy little quad and convert all your friends to polyamory (or dump your non-poly friends) and spread the word that love is all you need, don'cha know?!", it can almost start to seem less like a matter-of-fact discussion and more like a pointed warning. As I said before, taking the book in moderate batches is a really good idea, and I recommend reading it with as much objectivity as possible.

But do read it. You won't regret it.