Hetalia is about countries as people. Countries that are meant to show the history, culture, geography and nature of the people living in those countries.
Shipping boy x girl couples is perfectly NORMAL.
Hetalia needs to have more girl characters.
Shipping wars are pointless.
We need more culture or historical stuff and more representations of real countries (micronations coughs) both in canon and fanon!
Fanon stuffs are not canon.
Harassing real people over fictional characters is not OK.
No country is superior than others.
Countries' suffering and trauma should NOT be a compare competition.
Let people ship what they want, doesn't have to be popular, canon or non-strainght ships.
Sometimes I feel like people defending Rashta just because it is trending/popular because why people still don't understand why Eckles's writing is problematic, why Layla's victim blaming is wrong and why Mielle's classism deserves the harted and Aria is a victim of one (even if I extremely disklike like Aria)
I really like your blog, the post about Eckles is really nice to read, I think that what I can gather is that his character is handled very shallow
Thank you so much!
Yes, I am very disappointed on how Eckles is portrayed consider his large potential.
I always dislike the trope where a character is a prince but he does not act like a politician. He is just there as a plot device so the female lead has a free ATM and power.
I will never understand why Eckles has to be a prince, since:
1. He did not get to trained to be a sword master when he was a prince, he had to start from 0 when he was a slave
2. He was an illegitimate child, that was why he just live care-free in the palace. This means he wasn't trained to be a politician (Since it seemed like he wasn't qualified to inherit the throne).
If Eckles needs to be a knight, all he has to do is focusing on his training after entering the Eckart's mansion. If he needs to be a slave, he just need to be a commoner from Delman.
Now, if it because he needs to start a war, then the author is using something really horrible for a small petty love triangle. If it is not shallow, then what elses?
I would give the story credit if Eckles was a random commoner that was never loved and lived properly, that was why when Penelope saved and took him to the mansion, he become obessed and love her easily since he was never loved properly. It will allow him to be a romantic character without downplay the political horror since it never exists.
I know Eckles doesn't need to be a sympathic prince who cares about his people all of sudden. But if he needs to be evil, let he be an evil polictician!
(Source: SOUL, Villians are destinied to die, Tapas)
I know Penelope has her reasons to keep Ivonne as far aways from the Duke mainsion possible. She thinks this is a game set up, the og daughter returns mean death flags everywhere. Plus, she is supposed to morally grey, I am no saint to priotize someone else above my own life.
But having Ivonne alive would be a great moral dilemmas that force the readers to reconsider. By simply make Ivonne a possessed demon, the story doge the question.
Now show us young Ivonne eating mud, work hard at a 13 years old, getting harassed & threaten everyday, but still hanging on the belife her family will find her, so she tries to live to this day. Let the game system truely be the evil one.
And no, male leads threaten and assaluted Yvonne is not fun- but turned out she is possessed (bruh) so again, it justifies the trope we claim to hate at the start of the story in normal mode. (At least it is not for cheap high school dramma- Leila could handle it well).
But unlucky for Ivonne, this is OI, so if there are two daughters, only 1 can be loved. Judging on how the family is cold toward Leila even though Leila did not do anything yet & no one know she is a demon either, should tell you Ivonne meet the same fate
If I can get enough interactions & motivations, I might draw 1 or 2 illustrations for this AU.
If I had a nickel every time a Manhwa character at the start of the story was a slave, get "rescued" and "used" because the thoughts they might be useful, did not care about other slaves or their ppl once gained status, was compared and pit against someone who is a royal, scared they might get discarded for not being useful enough, & start doing terrible things, and being delusional... I would have two nickels.
Jokes aside, I don't believe they share much in common regarding their backgrounds, motivations, execution, and narrative roles. However, once you simplify the trope, a clear pattern appears.
The reason I know Eckles exist was because people keep mentioning him while I was scrolling Rashta's dicussions. So I have a impression he would somehow similiar to Rashta, but I was dissapointed he was not what I imaged, but hey, the authors must having good time tourturing them mentally.
The society they live in largely contributed to why they are so miserable.
Said society that ruined their lives treats them like the problem for not being grateful that they were lucky enough to be spared.
More likely to be a part of an oppressed group of people.
Either victims of grooming or sole survivors of a mass murder and/or genocide.
The commenters all hate them but you kind of see where they're coming from.
You root for them to succeed more than the protagonists.
You're 90% likely going to be disappointed in how the author ends their character arcs.
"Identify theft is no joke!"
Not actually the og fl and is instead somebody or something else entirely,
Sometimes they can be possessed by a supernatural force, other times they're just an ordinary amoral person playing the role
You typically weep for their original counterparts and the loving relationships they could have formed with the main characters.
Preferred since their authors put in a little more effort to stand out from the crowd.
Either the scariest masterminds you've ever witnessed or the only terrible deed they achieved was slandering the good name of whosever identity they are living as.
Sometimes they play the part so poorly, you start to wonder how and why everyone fell for their tricks for so long to the point where it starts to feel like natural selection.
The Meg Griffins.
"Shut up, Meg."
Didn't really do anything that bad but everyone in the fanbase and/or the writers room wanted them dead anyway for their mere existence.
At worst, they either said something rude to the FL or their existence interferes with the FL's life even if it wasn't their idea to do so.
Likely based on someone the author doesn't like on a personal level
They tend to feel more realistic than the protagonist.
Often times they are minor love interests for the male lead, but they are almost immediately shot down in favor of the FL.
Likely didn't want to date the ML anyway.
Some women just want to watch the world burn...
Have little to no reason to be haters, they just love hating for the fun of the game.
Capable of some of the most deplorable batshit insane evil deeds known to man and they don't know when to stop.
You have to specify you only like them as characters to prevent your location from being doxed.
Surprisingly, the chances of these types of antagonists turning out to be well written villains are rare because the author confuses spamming edgy shock value over and over with good writing.
Probably crawled out of hell itself to wreak havoc upon the world
They would immediately feel nauseous at the thought of the words "I'm sorry."
Evil protagonists.
Everyone feels more comfortable rooting for them because they're the protagonists.
Missing about at least 70% of their sanity but they somehow still be looking graceful everyday
Victims of abuse all their lives which shaped them into the maniacs they are today
They're either fun to follow because they walk the tight rope of an enjoyable female lead correctly, or horrible edgy things happen to their enemies to the point where it starts to feel uncomfortable when the narrative is asking you to root for them.
A bunch of men are head over heels for them.
More likely to attract problematic men as a result.
Girl failures.
Too pitiful to properly hate.
Written to actually act like antagonists this time but the game is still rigged in the protagonist's favor.
Ironically a mirror of the FL's behavior but since they aren't the protagonist, they are sentenced to cruel and unusual punishment.
Never will be as talented as the FL.
Their love interests leave them for the far more "interesting" FL
They suffer so much to the point where you kind of want to be their friend instead of rooting for their downfall.
Evil maids.
You probably read This isekai maid is forming a union and you don't think it's fair that the staff have to be reduced as villains for the sake of protagonist pity points.
Very classist in the way they are depicted.
Their faces are covered in bruises from all the times they've been slapped.
Villainized for wanting money and status.
They somehow still have a job despite bullying their employers for some reason.
More likely to be drawn with freckles to compare their lack of beauty to the beautiful FL because beauty standards.
I’ve been rotating Eckles in my brain for weeks, and I’ve finally pinpointed why the discourse around him feels so unsatisfying. It’s not about whether he’s a "sad puppy knight" or an "annoying yandere." It’s about how the writing intentionally sabotages any clean pity we could feel for him by dangling political weight and then yanking it away.
The problem with Eckles is that he exists in two completely different stories, and only one of them is allowed to matter. (Please read untill the end before comment)
But first, let use everything his stans use to pity him as a point to use "against" him.
1. He has a harsh life
Reality: Eckles wasn't born as a slave, not even a commoner. He was a spoiled prince who not even to be burdern by the work at the palace. He was protected & loved by the royal family till the war fell them apart.
2. He was forced into slavery
Reality: The slavery was his surviving card. The royal family erased his name so he would not be executed and be sent to a slave market as a commoner/another noble instead.
3. His country was invaded and destroyed
Reality: His country has had it coming. Delman wasn't a pure, innocent utopia. It was Central Asian steppe vibes harsh, raiding, Khan energy, a kingdom that plundered smaller nations. Those nations eventually betrayed Delman and helped the Eorka Empire wipe it off the map.
4. His PTSD from war & slavery must have shaped him
Reality: He was driven insane by his obession with Penelope. People could treat him like shit and the only thing makes him brust into tears was when Penny not properly look at him. He was fine with slavery & objectification as long as Penelope was on his side.
Now, before you think I am against his stans, you are... WRONG. Let me show you some confrontation for the same 4 points above.
1. The "Privileged" Orphan
To argue that he was "spoiled" as a way to dismiss his current trauma is a cruel irony. How do you use a man’s murdered family as "proof of his fortune"? Reminding an orphan that he used to have a home isn't a check on his privilege; it’s a salt rub in a fresh wound. His family exist just to remind you what a good life he had, and not a grieve for a teenager that has no home to return to anymore.
2. Gratitude as objectification
“At least you got to live.”
That line alone says everything.
When survival is framed as mercy, suffering becomes something you’re expected to be grateful for.
He wasn’t “saved”, he was repurposed.
And the idea that he should feel thankful for being kept alive, when many people prefer deaths over slavery, just exposes how deeply dehumanizing that system is.
3. The moral framing of conquest
How cruel does a country have to be for its destruction to be framed as justified?
Delman wasn’t innocent, but that doesn’t make colonization and enslavement righteous.
Yet the narrative leans dangerously close to turning imperial violence into something deserved
It’s not just backstory, it’s framing.
And that framing quietly asks the audience to accept conquest as justice.
4. His suffering reduced to Penelope
He’s not allowed to exist outside of her.
We’re only shown what she does for him, or what she does wrong to him, but never the full scope of what he’s endured.
His trauma from war, slavery, classism, racism? It’s background noise at best.
Even worse, the audience often acknowledges these issues more than the story itself does.
So in the end, his pain isn’t explored, it’s narrowed.
Reduced to an obsession, instead of recognized as something far more complex.
The portrayal of Eckles presents a significant imbalance between his political narrative and his romantic characterization, ultimately undermining the complexity of his character.
From a political perspective, Eckles is introduced as the sole survivor of a fallen royal lineage, a prince reduced to slavery after the destruction of his homeland by the Ekora Empire. His background is defined by extreme trauma: war crimes, systemic racism, classism, and dehumanization, particularly within the slave auction and the Ekharct mansion. These elements establish the foundation for a deeply layered character shaped by violence, loss, and survival.
However, this political dimension is markedly diminished as the narrative progresses, overtaken by a romantic framing that recontextualizes his motivations almost entirely through his attachment to Penelope. In this lens, Eckles becomes emotionally dependent on her due to her strategic “love bombing”, a pattern of manipulation through praise, gifts, and conditional affection. Rather than critically examining the psychological consequences of such treatment on a traumatized individual, the story reframes his descent into obsession as a product of romantic fixation, even if it acknowledges the toxicity.
This shift produces several troubling implications:
Eckles expresses willingness to remain enslaved, even rejecting opportunities for autonomy (e.g., refusing to remove the collar slave), not as a reflection of internalized oppression, but as proof of devotion.
His violent intentions toward the crown prince and the mansion’s inhabitants are not meaningfully rooted in the systemic abuse he endured, but instead in their role as obstacles to his relationship with Penelope. (Because he has every RIGHTS to be angry and ruthless towards the empire, but he refuses any of the valid reasons to do so).
Most critically, his lived experience of war crimes and genocide is narratively sidelined to the point where he is depicted as willing to sacrifice even his own people if it ensures proximity to her. And you do not get to see the serious payback/affect it has on him, because the political standpoint is just that irrelevant and unimportant.
All of this replaces the problems of structural violence: slavery, imperialism, war crimes, classism/racism and genocide, with his love for Penelope. While the story may gesture toward Penelope’s moral ambiguity and partial accountability, it fails to extend the same level of critical engagement to the broader injustices inflicted upon Eckles that were not done by her. Penelope is afforded moments of reflection and remorse, suggesting a degree of moral awareness. In contrast, Eckles is denied similar depth, he remains trapped in delusion, exhibiting possessiveness and entitlement without accountability or self-awareness.
His political narrative is significantly toned down, resulting in a full-blown yandere figure who feels entitled to violate Penelope’s life and autonomy as a consequence of toxic love, rather than being portrayed as a traumatized teenager broken by war.
So, does he deserve pity?
From a political perspective, yes, he does. Eckles is fundamentally a victim of extreme structural violence. He loses his homeland, his status, and his people, and is subjected to war, enslavement, and systemic dehumanization. Yet the narrative never allows him the space to properly grieve, process, or even understand these. I mean, we even get to see Derrick mourn to Ivonne. His suffering is never meaningfully explored; instead, it is reduced to something that can be misread as mere bitterness over losing his title. He is denied the opportunity to feel anger for legitimate reasons or to recognize that Penelope is not the sole source of his victimization. In that sense, he is deeply tragic and deserving of pity.
However, that does not absolve him of responsibility. He is also portrayed as callous and morally compromised, willing to disregard the lives of his own people and facing no meaningful consequences for it. This lack of accountability further weakens the political weight of his character, making his arc feel underdeveloped and unbalanced.
From a romantic perspective, however, it becomes far more difficult to sympathize with him. His behavior reads as uncomfortable and unsettling rather than tragic. His obsession is less a nuanced depiction of trauma and more reminiscent of toxic dependency, even evoking elements of Stockholm syndrome at best. Instead of eliciting empathy, his actions come across as invasive and distressing, making him difficult to view as a compelling romantic figure.
