chopsueyandnoodles

Here to ask my whys, say my thank yous, and repeat words worth repeating.

[currentlycryingaboutlancelot]

writing tip they don’t tell you is that in addition to reading good books you should occasionally read one really bad one so that it inspires you to write something better out of pure rage

[moonsandsmiles]

i wanted to share my thoughts on show rhaenyra. I hate to say it but show rhaenyra is just so vanilla and im saying it in the nicest possible way. where is her anger? her fury? her rage? her grief? she mentions luke only once & forgets visenya (her only daughter btw). she goes to meet alicent aka the enemy in the middle of war like she's going to a neighbor's house for dinner.....to talk about peace💀like what peace girl? also her lines "do you remember the tourney held on the day my mother died...we sat next to each other" idgaf if they were besties or that they were "secretly pinning for each other" or whatever bs rhaencients spew. ALICENT AND HER SIDE STILL USURPED YOU SIS WAKE UPPPPP MY GAWD!! alicent didn't think of yall friendship when she put that crown on her son's head, she didn't think of yall friendship when you were forced to walk all that way to her room carrying ur newborn 5 mins after you gave birth & she certainly didn't care about yall friendship when she wore that green dress on the day of ur wedding.

speaking of alicent...ofc they make her support the usurpation because of some misunderstanding and not because she actually wanted to see her son on the throne. what's so wrong in making her evil or give her agency? it would have been more interesting to see alicent evolve from this child bride forced into an unhappy marriage to a cruel, cold & shrewd woman who would move heavens and earth to get her boy on the throne even if it means getting blood on her hands. we see a glimpse of that in ep 6-7 of s1 and then nothing she goes back to being this passive uwu doe-eyed crybaby who can do nothing wrong. in ep 8 of s2, she hops on a ferry to dragonstone in hopes of reuniting with her long lost love rhaenyra & there she goes "ykw? my sons suck i only like my daughter. can we go on an adventure across the narrow sea?" which is just bizarre considering she was the one who browbeat aegon into being king and now she wants to just....escape the consequences??

with all these dogshit plot lines i can already imagine the show's ending. it will be alicent herself poisoning aegon's wine because he killed rhaenyra(and in extension his own sister) giving reasons like "he's gone too far" "I don't recognize you anymore my son, did I really give birth to a monster? " or sumn like that. and then we see a final shot of aegon iii & jaehaera getting married with alicent smiling in the distance or towards the end of her life when she gets the fever she hallucinate about rhaenyra and as she takes her last breath, she says "i hope it is not too late to accept your invitation about riding syrax and go across the narrow sea" with a tears streaming down her face.

Yep, this is what we call, benevolent sexism. The show thinks it's doing something, writing a story about female struggle in a feudal, patriarchal society. Except they forget one crucial thing—to write women as people.

Women are not the moral arbiters of the world. We're flawed, messy, inconsistent. We sometimes don't want to rise above, or be the better person; we want revenge, feel anger, jealousy, have ambition and hunger for power and status, same as any man. And most importantly, we're shaped by our social conditioning and the time we live in.

Book Rhaenyra, and Book Alicent aren't all that complex— especially book Alicent, who might as well be an evil Disney stepmom. But that's mostly because F&B is written as an in-universe history book instead of a POV rendition of the dance. We get to see third party accounts of these people, instead of their own voices, personalities, memories, experiences. And yet, despite this, you rarely, if ever have trouble understanding why these women act the way they do.

Book Alicent is a noble lady, raised in a patriarchal culture that drills into women that their only worth comes from marrying well, and birthing sons. They don't get power, or the same freedoms as men—but the tradeoff is that they might get their blood to inherit wealth and status, which in turn, gives them some sliver of respect and power.

Of course she's then going to feel upset that Viserys broke this unspoken social contract and decided to name a daughter over a son. Of course she's going to do whatever she can to claw back that power, feel jealousy, aggrieved entitlement and spite toward a woman who she thinks has it better than her. And most importantly, of course she's going to believe her children will be in danger if Rhaenyra ascends. Because in this worldview, women are lesser beings who exist below men in the hierarchy. Disrupting that order, and elevating a woman over a man is not going to be received well—especially not by men who rely on this system to stay in power.

Same with Rhaenyra. A Princess who has spent her life as an only child, initially derided for not being a son, only to then become the exception to the rule—a female heir, prized above all others, including the thing she's felt inferior to her whole childhood: a son. You combine that with years of Targaryen exceptionalism, and her being raised at the height of peace-time and Targaryen power and you get a spoiled, entitled person who is obviously going to tie her self-worth to being the heir.

It makes sense these women would be petty. It makes sense they'd jump into war, because they're feudal nobility, who grew up thinking their divine right to rule trumps the lives of worthless peasants. They'd want to be cruel and vicious, because this society expects them to be weak and pathetic, meaning they have to prove themselves competent three times over.

They are people, products of their time, and upbringing, and despite being selfish and *gasp* unlikable, doesn't make them any less deserving of sympathy.

The show doesn't seem to think that. They were of the belief that the audience could never sympathize with Rhaenyra if she unabashedly fought for the throne cause she wanted to. They thought we wouldn't be capable of loving a cunning, ambitious Queen who is convinced her values are correct and wants her son to receive what she thinks he's owed. And I sort of get their POV. Show Dany is a lot like book Rhaenyra (proud, stubborn, singularly focused on getting her crown and unapologetic about it), and the backlash her character received post S8 (and even before this) was rabid.

So ofc they thought toning both Alicent and Rhaenyra down and making their motivations be something other than personal ambition would help. But by doing this, they inadvertently jumped into the trap of benevolent sexism.

Neither of these women have any 'wants' of their own. Show Rhaenyra fights for the crown cause it's her 'duty', ie an ancient prophecy told her so. She disregards normal motherly grief and rage in favor of being a self sacrificing arbiter of peace who somehow feels no entitlement to rule, despite her environment, and the knowledge of her being the promised hero. All because she, as a woman, is more noble than that. I hope I don't have to tell you why this is sexist.

It's the same old gender essentialism that pegs women into the 'mother box'—she's the meek, passive voice of peace, there to manage the warmongering men and steer them toward a 'gentler' course. Its funny, cause Alicent and Rhaenys have a conversation about this in s1ep9, and Rhaenys rightfully points out how Alicent advocating for her son is her just making a wall in the window of her prison. And we as the audience are supposed to agree with Rhaenys, to see the hypocrisy of Alicent's reasoning. Except the show ends up vindicating that belief by having every single woman be like that.

Alicent is the same, doe-eyed child bride she was at 15. She has no agency of her own even as an adult 30+yo woman, and is always being forced to do stuff by her Father, or her sons. She feels no grief over the death of her grandson, is willing to sacrifice her own children simply cause 'war bad, Rhaenyra good.'

Despite arguably starting the war, the narrative wants to present her choice of surrendering to Rhaenyra as 'morally righteous'. Because by choosing the 'good side', she is atoning for her actions, and once again putting personal grievances aside for the sake of the greater good. Its asinine and doesn't work, because the choice makes her seem like an evil, callous hypocrite (she's legit offering up her sons for slaughter–including the one who was entirely uninvolved in this mess). Plus, it comes off as disingenuous, because the narrative has given her and Rhaenyra every fucking reason under the sun to hate each other and want the other dead.

But, because they're the noble, Angels in the House they are obligated to put aside all grievances and make peace. And if they do have any grievances, they are morally justified (like Rhaenyra taking out Aegon and Aemond, because both of them are just soooooo evil. Nvm that the son for a son justification doesn't work because Jaehaerys was killed. But oh, right, we can't have anyone be angry over that, so look away kids!)

And this pattern doesn't apply just to them—but to almost all the female characters in the show. In s1 Rhaenys tells Rhaenyra:

"Men would sooner put the realm to the torch, than see a woman on the Iron Throne."

The line not only reveals Rhaenys's bitterness over being passed over, but the innate understanding of the patriarchal culture they live in. The succession will always be challenged, because Rhaenyra is viewed as inherently inferior, because of her sex. And as a result, she will have to fight, tooth and nail, to not only be taken seriously, but keep her place.

Then, fast forward to s2, and what is Rhaenys telling her? Stop fighting, be passive, seek peace even while being attacked and undermined and hope the men will give you the crown because you asked nicely. It's bullshit. Nevermind that her reasons for supporting Rhaenyra make no sense either. Because she wants to keep the peace? Barely a few episodes ago, Rhaenys was convinced Rhaenyra and Daemon had her son killed. And instead of feeling resentment over it, feeling trapped and obligated to support Rhaenyra because Baela and Rhaena are Daemon's daughters and thus, intrinsically tied to the black cause... she gets over it. She sets aside righteous anger and suspicion over Laenor, to support Rhaenyra because 'she's fighting for the greater good'.

Baela too, has no ambition of her own. Neither she, nor Rhaena have any opinions on the Driftmark inheritance, nor are they allowed to feel resentment over the fact Daemon and Rhaenyra married before their Mom's body was even cold. Baela exists just to hype Rhaenyra up, and manage Jace's feelings for him, while Rhaena is there to cosplay Aemond's s1 arc, except make it worse.

Even Alys fucking Rivers and Mysaria were made the 'protectors of the innocent'. In the books, Mysaria is a female Varys, a cunning and ambitious woman who has no issue helping Daemon orchestrate the death of a child. She latches herself to power to secure benefits for herself, and if you believe the theory, may have been responsible for Rhaenyra's downfall, because she stoked her paranoia about Daemon and Nettles' affair. But on the show, she's the champion of the people, who supports Rhaenyra cause she's 'helping the smallfolk'.

Alys is fascinating. A baseborn witch who starts out as a victim of a 19yo dragonriding Prince who annihilates her entire family and takes her as a sex slave. But then, she flips the script on him, and gets him so obsessed with her, he disregards his own army, to the point that they get destroyed, all so he can stay with her. Depending on your reading, she maybe lets him to die as a possible sacrifice to make her child living, or he just dies on accident because she misinterpreted her vision of the Gods eye.

Regardless, she's adamant about being his widow and Queen post war, and is eager to launch a rebellion to conquer the throne on her son's behalf—by any means necessary, including exploding her enemies' heads and putting death curses on those who bad mouth her. And why does she do all this? Because she wants to. Maybe she has some greater, esoteric motivation, like book Euron, or maybe she's just ambitious. However you look at it, her goal is ultimately selfish because it seeks to destabilize a kingdom that is fresh off a brutal civil war, on behalf of a possibly illegitimate child and his witch mother.

Meanwhile, her show self is not only implied to be a Three Eyed Raven-like figure, but exists solely as the arbiter of fate. She's seemingly there to work out Daemon's feelings for him, mom him into stopping his war crimes and accepting his Queen. Her sole motivation—for now—seems to be the prophecy, and protecting the innocents; which is absurd, if you know her and Aemond's cannon relationship. So, in s3, its likely they'll just have her mom him like she did with Daemon, fail to stop his warcrimes, and then reluctantly send him to die at the God's eye to preserve the greater good. Which once again, would do nothing to dispel the benevolent sexism narrative, because she would only exist as an accessory to his villain arc; the sad woman who failed to redeem the bad man.

And you may ask, why is this a bad thing? Why shouldn't the media portray women as inherently better? Well, simple. Because it puts undo burden on women. It enforces the bullshit gender binary, that pidgeonholes women into passive, nurturing roles. It forces women to be perfect, to be the pinnacles of moral virture. And should they ever fail to live up to the standard, they get punished for it.

I already used this quote from Foz Meadows' essay "Gender, Orphan Black & The Meta Of Meta" but I have to use it again, because it so perfectly captures the core issue of why this trope is harmful:

We think of men as antiheroes, as capable of occupying an intense and fascinating moral grey area; of being able to fall, and rise, and fall again, but still be worthy of love on some fundamental level, because if it was the world and its failings that broke them, then we surely must owe them some sympathy. But women aren’t allowed to be broken by the world; or if we are, it’s the breaking that makes us villains. Wronged women turn into avenging furies, inhuman and monstrous: once we cross to the dark side, we become adversaries to be defeated, not lost souls in need of mending.

Which is what happens, when you let benevolent sexism invest you in the idea that women are humanity’s moral guardians and men its native renegades: because if female goodness is only ever an inherent quality – something we’re born both with and to be – then once lost, it must necessarily be lost forever, a severed limb we can’t regrow. Whereas male goodness, by virtue of being an acquired quality – something bestowed through the kindness of women, earned through right action or learned through struggle – can just as necessarily be gained and lost multiple times without being tarnished, like a jewel we might pawn in hardship, and later reclaim.

To conclude this rant, the show fucked all its female characters bad, and has suffered as a result. Now if you'll excuse me, I'll go drown my sorrow in fanfic and chant to the Spaghetti Monster to make George finish those fucking books.

[darklinaforever]

Emma really describing Alicent as the angel on Rhaenyra's shoulder and Daemon being the devil ?! What the actual fuck ! Objectively, it would be the opposite. But I guess the team of this show only knows demonize Daemon instead of accepting him as the anti hero he is and husband of Rhaenyra who love her and whom she is supposed to love in return. Without forgetting not capable of accept the canonical reality of Alicent which is that she is purely and simply a villain / antagonist, Rhaenyra's adversary and especially only for the pre-war period to then pass the baton to Aegon II as Rhaenyra's adversary. So Alicent isn't supposed to be that important when war is declared. I really hate how this show destroyed the characters and their stories and relationships to feed their pretentious and misogynistic fanfiction (which they ironically think is super progressive).

[darklinaforever]

I don't believe it... they continue with their delusion of Daemon being abusive towards Rhaenyra (at least bordering on physical violence)... ?! Ryan Condal really has a visceral problem with the character of Daemon and notably in view of his Rhaenicent propaganda... It's absolutely disgusting. I remind you that this kind of thing never happened in Fire and Blood. Daemon never challenged Rhaenyra's authority, at any time. There have never even been any suggestions about it even though the dance is literally written by pro greens maesters ! It's literally just there to demonize Daemon's character and add free violence towards a female character, as if this story didn't have enough of that in Fire and Blood ?! Yes, Daemon Targaryen was a man with violence in him, but a violence that was always directed towards his enemies, and not those he considered family and loved ! I'm outraged on a level you can't even imagine right now... When I think that Sara Hess spits on Daemon Targaryen (who is nothing that she and Ryan made for HOTD in general in Fire and Blood), but defends the behavior of Aegon II (rapist as much in Fire and Blood as HOTD)... When I say that those who make this show have a real problem of perspective on the history of dance and are pro Greens !

[darklinaforever]

Aegon II is a rapist in Fire and Blood too. This isn't something the show invented.

Daemon is not a child groomer. Literally, he isn't.

He is almost never with Rhaenyra when she is a child in the books, because either at his wife's house, then when he is no longer busy with his duties for the crown or his travels (when he comes back he offers gifts to his only niece, nothing crazy). Then he is banished during Rhaenyra's 7th birthday, only returning at 14, a time when, whether you like it or not, Rhaenyra was already courted by men of the kingdom, because it is the feudal era. Daemon only added himself to the list of suitors and spent time with her always accompanied by Rhaenyra's ladies-in-waiting, except during their flights on dragons.

In the show it's implied the same thing about Daemon never being at court much, and nothing romantic happens with Rhaenyra until she's 19.

We need to review you definition of grooming and child grooming.

It's a pleasure to be back in this fandom with the same old bullshit that I'm being fed and that I've already proven wrong. Continue drowning in your intellectual mediocrity if it makes you happy.

[taragreenfield]

Like calls to like, but nobody's answering

I may like the idea of "like calls to like," but I really hate the execution. Because it's a lie. Alina and Aleksander are really nothing alike. He almost gets killed by his friend at 13 and doesn't turn bitter; he recognizes his friend's desperation and promises himself to make a safe haven for Grisha so nobody else will have to live like this.

Alina doesn't have to scramble for a shelter or support; she's taken to the Little Palace and given the title of a general and a saint with no effort on her part, and she doesn't give a rat's ass about Grisha, Ravka, or anyone else; she's too busy feeling sorry for herself.

Aleksander gets a boon from the king and uses it to build the Little Palace, to carve a safe space for Grisha.

Alina gets an emerald from Nikolai and leaves Grisha to fend for themselves, fucking off to her orphanage because she wanted "a normal life."

He doesn't care if people see him as a monster; she's obsessing over what people would think of her.

I guess the attempt at a parallel was made when Alina destroyed the skiff right after he decimated Novokribirsk? Not really the same if you think about it. He spent 400 years trying other ways, trying to work within the system, before he made this decision. And it was done to stop wars and end Grisha persecution. His actions were born out of desperation and for a cause greater than himself; hers was a selfish outburst of a petulant brat.

Alina gets pissed that she was restrained (as a deserter, mind you) and forced to use her shiny powers as a lantern, and she dooms dozens of people to death so that she and her crappy tracker could run away.

They are both lonely, but if his loneliness is a result of his immensely long lifespan, full of suffering and losses, hers is a result of her judgmental attitude and unwillingness to show the slightest bit of interest in anyone but her malodorous bestie.

Their powers? Well, apart from the obvious sun and shadow concept, she needs three amplifiers to do anything noteworthy; he's an amplifier himself, so he doesn't need any. The parallel is weak.

Aleksander created the Fold with his powers; Alina lost hers before the Fold was destroyed, so even the poetic full circle is not really circling.

If Aleksander was anything like Alina, he'd become another Baghra—bitter, judgmental, reclusive, and uselessly rotting in his hut for years to come. They are about as "alike" as the ocean and a chamber pot: one holds eternal depths, the other—two liters of human waste.

[bobosaur]

Here’s how I picture the Darkling when I read the books, not the Netflix version, not anyone else’s take, but exactly how LB words painted him in my mind.

He has this commanding presence and a kind of predatory grace that's both captivating and unnerving. It’s that unnatural, almost unsettling beauty the books describe, the kind of striking look that makes you wonder "Is he even human?" He's all sharp angles and aristocratic precision, but with an edge that makes you nervous to hold his gaze for too long.

So yes darklina fans this is the man who haunts our collective imagination, mine anyways. May this image ruin you as thoroughly as the books did.

[black-rose-writings]

But what I’m wondering is: how is it that we Darklina fans are okay with the toxic nature of Darklina, but not with the toxicity of Malina? I mean, aside from the vibes between them, what exactly makes us think the Darkling should’ve been a morally grey character instead of a full-on villain? Because honestly, there are moments where I really saw how horrifying his actions were. Like when he hanged Alina’s loved ones from the trees, or how he tried to return to his body no matter what after his death, or what he did to Genya, or when he wounded Alina’s shoulder, or when he told her, “In the end, I’ll kill everyone you love so that you have no one left but me.” So I’m really confused—why do we still find the Darklina dynamic more appealing than Malina? Especially when Mal changed in the third book, what still made you not like him?

Oh, look, I've been blessed by the "Definitely not an anti" spam nonny. Hi.

So, first things first, I'm not really a Darklina shipper. I appreciate the aesthetics, but Alina needs to do some growing up and shed at least some of her prejudice and naivity, before I'd consider her a worthy partner for Aleksander.

Next, the Darkling is NOT a full-on villain as you've put it. Not by a long shot. Sure, he's not 100% morally pure, but that's what makes him interesting and also able to actually do shit, unlike the protagonists who care more about not doing anything wrong than doing anything right.

As for his "horrifying actions", he could have and should have done worse, actually. He's too nice to Alina and co.

Now, your points, one by one.

In terms of the toxicity of Darklina and Malina, there are two layers to it. Well, three, but two that are actually important, the third is just vibes.

Firstly, Darklina's toxicity is fake, while Malina's is real. What I mean by that is that most of what makes Darklina toxic is things that aren't really possible in real life. There's not many shadow wizards who want to use your magic powers to bring about world peace whether you like it or not. There's plenty of Mals around. From Aleksander's side, most of his "toxic" actions to Alina are done in service of the greater good, while Mal's (much more realistic) toxic actions are done in service of his ego.

Aleksander's toxicity is fantasy - it's magic and intrigue and the crushing weight of responsibility against the wishes of the heart. It's things that will never happen, and the toxicity is just kind of a spice.

Mal isn't just spicy toxic. He's abusive, and not in a fantasy way, either. He's a man who can't handle his girlfriend having a life of her own, a position higher than him, having options other than him (before they even started actually dating). He sleeps around, but slutshames Alina for having a guy look at her, for daring to be desired by someone. He treats her (nearly nonexistent) relationship with Aleksander as a permanent stain on her that he bravely and selflessly overlooks. He whines when she doesn't take time off from her very busy and demanding job to be his armcandy. When she's going through immense stress and also having (what she thinks are) halucinations, he's gets mad at her for refusing to be intimate with him. Alina won't confide in him about that, because the other guy is involved and Mal turns into a territorial idiot at the mention of him. And he solves these issues by getting wasted on the job, gambling and getting into fist fights, and cheating on her. And while Alina only witnesses one such incident, it's likely this was a regular thing for him. He's part of her guard, meant to represent and guard her, and he goes out of his way to embarass and humiliate her and is too wasted to notice her running off into the city to do a performative suicide.

As for his change in the third book, I'll just state that I don't buy it. I've almost certainly gone into it before (and if not, @stromuprisahat certainly has, I know you've been spamming her too, so go check out her anti-Malina posts). Big reason for that is that the entire change of heart occurs off-page and he's generally been able to act nice(ish) for periods of time while their lives were actively in danger, which they are for essentially the entirety of R&R. There is nothing that makes me believe he won't slide right back into being careless of Alina's well-being at best and abusive at worst once they get settled into their old-new life at Keramzin. In fact, the epilogue of R&R suggests he does exactly that. Alina is being ostracised by the community, a shadow of herself, and he doesn't notice or doesn't care, going on about his happy, rich, popular life as usual, because that's how he likes her. The "Old Alina", sickly, weak, overlooked, dependant on him. Yeah, sorry, that's just kinda regular shitty guy behavior. Fuck, my grandparents' 30 year, 4 child marriage broke apart because Grandma started outearning Grandpa and his ego couldn't handle it. These kinds of relationships happen all the fucking time in the real world. And TGT basically uncritically supports that kind of relationship as "true love". Yeah, fuck that.

Compare this to Aleksander, who loves to see Alina shine, both literally and figuratively. Even when he's an antagonist, when he's being "toxic", he constantly pushes Alina to improve, to be her best and most powerful self. Mal called Alina Darkling's whore for daring to have a guy look at her. Aleksander proposed to her and offered her a throne after she tried to kill him. Those are two very different types of men. Does Aleksander like Alina being powerful for external reasons (being more useful as a weapon in his plans)? Yeah. He wants her to be his equal, his queen, and when she refuses (on second-hand information), he does the necessary thing and ensures he still has access to her powers, with the belief that she will eventually understand his point of view and ally with him willingly.

Basically, Aleksander wants Alina to be his queen, Mal wants her to be his donkey, and I'm not gonna apologize for finding one sexy and appealing and the other off-putting and bad. Would you pick a guy who wants you to be his donkey? I don't think so.

The other level is the narrative. Darklinas, by and large, acknowledge that Darklina is toxic. It's part of the appeal, like eating spicy chips. Corruption and redemption stories, power couples, the aesthetics... the narrative, both in canon and in fanfiction, doesn't shy away from the "ugly" or "toxic" parts of their relationship. They're messy and complicated and generally, the people who write Darklina fanfics are well aware of that.

Meanwhile, the books treat Malina as true and pure love, when it's one of the most textbook abusive, codependent relationships possible.

And the third point is purely vibes, which is that a lot of people just prefer the tropes and vibes of Darklina (lightXdark, opposing sides and narrative foils fucking about it, ageless magic men and women) than Malina (childhood friends-to-lovers with an average fuckboy who drags his girlfriend down to be mediocre with him).

As for the Darkling's "horrifying actions":

"Loved ones" is a strong term for teachers, and her shitty ass cult-leader of a mother figure.

I don't know about trying to return to his body after death, I hadn't read the Nikolai books and I'm not planning to either, but I'd call that being a survivor. I would assume you would also prefer to not be dead.

Genya betrayed him. She was given a direct order and disobeyed it, letting an important prisoner escape (which made no sense, btw, but that's a post for another day). It's a pseudo 19th century army, he's a general, she's a soldier. Without magic, she probably would have been flogged instead, if not outright killed. But I suppose the fandom would prefer if he used a sword, so to speak.

The nichevoya bite on Alina is mostly a power play, against, mind you, an enemy. Alina is a deserter, she has sabotaged his plans, and she's tried to kill him before. He's trying to strenghten the bond between them, hoping to make it more stable and gain the upper hand, so she would stop getting in his way. Like, wow, a general wounds a deserter while capturing her, what a horrible thing that never happened.

I don't remember the whole context of the "no shelter but me" line, but again, Alina is his enemy. One he already treats with way more grace than she deserves. Alina is also super damn naive and ignorant about the state of the world she lives in, about the stakes of her actions. She's sheltered, massively so, especially for a fucking war orphan. Aleksander is constantly trying to goad her into growing the fuck up, and that line is in some way a part of it. He's trying to force her eyes open, to face reality, and to do so where he can assure she won't come to any long term harm.

I have said before that Darklina, especially the show version, would work much better as a father-daughter situation than a romantic relationship, because a lot of what Aleksander does comes of as (genuinely caring) tough love parenting. He knows the world sucks and he's trying to rip the bandaid off, take the blindfold off, before something much worse does it for Alina. In their very first conversation, he explains the situation of the Grisha around the world to her, after she'd almost been assassinated. But Alina remains blind. Over and over, she refuses to mingle with the other Grisha, looks away from their pain, refuses to see the world for what it is. So, yeah, I don't blame Aleksander for getting frustrated with her and going for harsher methods.

TL;DR: Darklina is spicy, Malina is bland and poisonous. I hope that helps

[siriuslyobsessedwithfiction]

I love when Mal becomes an alcoholic and a gambler in the middle of the Grisha trilogy "because he was stressed". Like, what ails you, you unemployed freeloader?

If anyone deserved to become an alcoholic and somewhat justify it, it's Alina. That girl was running a disbanded army with no knowledge and experience. And dealt with princes, nobles, creepy monks and her followers who formed a cult. All while the Darkling followed her around through the tether and annoyed her for attention.

I'm not endorsing addictions and harmful behaviors, but maybe taking a swing from Nikolai's brandy in the evening would stop Alina from running away in the city in her pajamas and attempting suicide.

But Mal gets a pass because "he felt trapped" in the palace? Because he's a manly man who needs to fight and sleep in the dirt and make out with a different woman every day. But if Alina had a drink or fantasized about a hot general, it would ruin the "perfect goodness and sunshine from the pure heart" image the narrative shoves in our faces?

It's giving "boys will be boys" and "a man likes to feel like a man" in a bad way. But how noble of Alina to resist the temptation! She will not sin, she will not succumb to temptations of the flesh. She'll just send people to their deaths and attempt suicide at every given opportunity. Yeah, that seems more pure.

[writerslittlelibrary]

Literally the gods have blessed me, and the best thing ever happened. I was reading a darklina fic and it was so fucking good so I clicked on the user and BAM

Keira_63 I would die for you. I worship you like the saint you are. Thank you for your service

All the fics are like 30k per work as well. I've found the treasure at the end of the rainbow

Link to keira_63

[starrfettii]

Book Alina: *brings a building down on him.*

Book Sasha: there are two thrones on that dais. Marry me. Rule Ravka with me. Please. Pretty please? You’re so hot when you try to kill me.

Show Alina: *leaves him for dead *

Show Sasha: *starts wearing a kefta embroidered with gold*

[theweeklydiscourse]

I don't understand WHY Bardugo wrote Alina's ending the way she did. Did she think it would make for a bittersweet, satisfactory ending? (It did not.) Did she think it would be sharp and realistic? (It unfortunately was a bit.) Did she think she'd be subverting expectations?? Did she love Mal so much she went insane?? I just don't get it. I just don't get it. If by the end of the series she forgot to add in more love interest for Alina (because she obviously didn't want to consider the other two despite being fascinated with Aleksander) she could just have. Let poor Alina be alone. Why condemn her to such a fate? I think everyone I've talked about this has unanimously agreed they'd cease to exist if they were in her place. It's so. So strange

It’s all a consequence of the underlying conservatism and misogyny of the series. This is best illustrated through the fact that even in Alina’s “happily ever after” she is still regarded as a weird outsider while Mal is beloved by their new community. It isolates Alina in a way that the Darkling never could, it’s representative of Alina’s permanent dependence on Mal as a consequence of their marriage. Mal is allowed to have a life outside of his marriage, while Alina has to depend on him for emotional connection. She can only find fulfillment in her husband while Mal is afforded the freedom (and means) to seek fulfillment from other places.

What I imagine Bardugo thought, was that it would be heartwarming and pleasant for the “boy and the girl” to return to simplicity and live happily ever after. Hence the line: “They had an ordinary life, full of ordinary things—if love can ever be called that.” In isolation, it’s certainly a sweet sentiment that one might smile at in a different story. However, in this story, it’s a clear attempt to romanticize the dire (and downright depressing) circumstances of Alina’s so-called “happily ever after”. It looks like a happily ever after, but readers with a critical eye can see it for what it truly is. They are able to see the way Alina is disempowered at nearly every level, that she had been relegated to this role because she dared to want more out of life.

This gestures towards the fundamental reason why Malina is far more disturbing than the likes of Darklina. It’s disturbing because it reflects the ways women are pushed to settle down and sacrifice themselves for their man and glorifies that sacrifice as the healthy alternative to “greed”. Sure, the Darkling is villainous, but his actions are so beyond the normal scope of everyday relationships that they fail to land the same impact as Mal’s mundane assholery. Alina is considered greedy for wanting to excercise her power and influence for a noble cause, but somehow Mal isn’t greedy for wanting Alina’s full undivided attention despite her many other responsibilities? The narrative validates his unreasonable requests by presenting the ending as something wholesome and heartwarming. Mal’s selfishness and greed is validated by the text because it is societally acceptable and encouraged men to have those traits. He has to be the more powerful one in the relationship for this traditional happy ending to work.

Bardugo condemned Alina to a depressing fate because she was so fixated on the image of a fairy tale happily ever after that she ignored how Alina would be impacted by it. I think this reveals Bardugo’s strange affection for Mal, but it also shows how she failed to see how the realistic mundanity of Malina would not work in her favour. Because…yeah it’s realistic all right, realistically misogynistic that is.

[lilu787788]

I've „love” reading comments from antis saying things like “The Darkling is 500 years old, he should have processed his trauma and gotten over it by now” and honestly, it’s disturbing how common this line of thinking is. Especially when it comes with the second part: “Our (enter all Grishaverse characters) have a right to be traumatized, they were just kids dragged into war.”

Yes, they were young. Yes, they suffered. No one is taking that away. But what shocks me is how quickly these same people dismiss the concept that long-term trauma doesn't fade with age. If anything, untreated trauma accumulates. It changes a person in ways that are invisible until something breaks. There is no magical threshold of years after which you're “supposed” to be healed. It doesn’t work like that. Being exposed to war, death, betrayal and existential fear for centuries without a moment of true rest or help does not heal someone. It destroys them gradually. It reshapes how they think, how they love, how they connect. Some of the most devastating cases of PTSD I’ve ever read about were people who didn’t even begin to feel the full weight of their experiences until decades later. Some were veterans of the Second World War who never spoke about what they saw until they were in their seventies or eighties, when their defenses started slipping. Some carried guilt and grief for over half a century and it still haunted them in their sleep. And those were people who had families, support, and the knowledge that the war eventually ended. Now compare that to a person who never gets peace. Never had the war end. Never had help. Someone who is constantly under threat. Who sees each generation repeat the same mistakes and bury the people they once fought beside. Who walks through the ashes of every hope and must start again, knowing how it will end. That’s not an excuse for every decision he made. But it is a necessary perspective if we’re talking about trauma. What antis are doing is trivializing the condition they claim to care about. Because if trauma only matters when it’s happening to a 20-year-old, and not to a person who’s been in survival mode for centuries, then you’ve reduced the concept of PTSD and depression to a short-term teen plot device. Some of these people don’t even realize how dehumanizing their arguments are. I’ve seen people say that age should equal healing—as if time itself is a cure. It isn’t. People live and die with trauma. They carry it into every relationship and every silence. Healing is possible, yes, but not in conditions that keep re-traumatizing you over and over again. Not in a world that refuses to change. And certainly not alone. I don’t know how anyone can genuinely think that after 500 years of war, grief, and loss, someone should have healed unless they fundamentally don’t understand what trauma is. Or unless they’ve only ever seen trauma in fiction—specifically in stories tailored to let them insert themselves into young protagonists while disregarding any character who doesn’t fit the healing narrative they prefer. This kind of thinking doesn’t come from people who understand war. It comes from people who need their heroes clean and simple, and their villains easily disposable. And that’s not analysis. That’s comfort.

[siriuslyobsessedwithfiction]

"Siege and Storm is boring, nothing happened there.", "I only remember Nikolai showing up". LIES. That's propaganda, actually. That's Grishaverse fans not wanting to reread the trilogy and especially that book because they've crafted a fanfic in their heads they're trying to pass as canon with encouragement from the author, actually.

Because rereading Siege and Storm would raise quite a few unsavory questions. For example:

Why is Mal drinking, gambling and fighting Grisha 24/7 instead of performing his duty as Alina's captain of the guard? (And don't give me "he was a stressed boy" bullshit, it was war, everyone was stressed. And everyone was coddling Mal. He was going hunting with nobles, living in luxury and insulting the prince).

Why did Mal fail his duty as Alina's protector and fell asleep on his watch, drunk, and didn't notice someone going in and out Alina's chamber?

Why did Alina run away in her pajamas aimlessly in the city, and when the crowd of worshippers started tearing her apart alive, she let them. Why did she attempt suicide? (Hint: she and Mal had a big fight earlier because Mal was being a drunk shithead. Alina still blamed herself).

Why did Mal slut-shame Alina one second and virgin-shame her the next? All while bragging about being with many women and kissing Zoya.

Why did the Darkling not manipulate Alina even though he visited her a lot through the tether? Why did he settle for petty little smirks and winks and silently kept her company through the long nights? Why did he admit he was lonely and stayed with her because she was lonely too? Where was loverboy Mal?

Why were the Bataar twins (especially Tolya) acting so weird towards Alina? Why were they brainwashed worshipers and viewed her only as a saint? Why is Tolya on his knees, shivering when Alina just pats his shoulder?

Oh, Nikolai is just an ambitious, conniving cunt who wants the throne, not a selfless fairytale prince? And he's only an improvement from his father and brother because the bar is so low it's in the seventh circle of hell? (Still the best character in that book).

Why is everyone so okay with murdering the Darkling's Grisha as if they aren't the same Grisha who they lived and fought alongside for years? Why is no one protesting that while the Lantsov prince is eager to engage in a civil war because he has big guns from his pirate privateer adventures , it's the oppressed minority (Grisha) who are dying the most?

Why isn't Alina more concerned that everyone turned on Grisha the second the times of trouble started, as if everyone was merely expecting an excuse? An absence of strong leader, so they could start sham trials and execute Grisha left and right.

[anetherealpoetess-deactivated20]

crazy how the world is a deeply violent place for women and yet we're only allowed to engage with violence in literature in the most superficial of ways, like wringing our hands and saying, 'oh, um, darkness is bad!' women are not permitted to explore violence in writing unless we do so without desire or agency. men fill libraries with brutality inflicted upon their female characters and no one blinks, but the moment a women enjoy dark romance, suddenly we are morally culpable.

the problem clearly isn't the violence; it's women choosing to explore violence in a way that is not seen as prim and proper. because we're not supposed to be curious or creative with anything that isn't gentle and domestic. when women write about darkness or violence in romance, and therefore own a piece of it, turning it into something that belongs to us instead of something that is done to us, it becomes a scandal. the issue isn't toxicity in dark romance. the issue is female agency.

[sailor-hobbiton]

(Disclaimer: there is MASSIVE speculation regarding a real person’s private life here, which should never be taken as fact, and should definitely never be used to belittle or hurt real people for their opinions on fictional characters.)

As a Shadow and Bone fan, and a Darkling supporter, the never ending question and controversy about over the series was and remains:

Why did LB make a 180 on her stance on Aleksander?

The usual answer is that purity politics got to her, and I’m not saying that has no part, but I think it’s deeper than that. I think it is 100% projection and deflection.

A distraction from how utterly, totally, pathetically terrible Mal is as a love interest.

Hear me out.

People make a big deal about how she wrote SaB while in an abusive relationship, and how that means the Darkling is based on her abusive ex. Even before that was thoroughly debunked, it never made sense to me. People don’t end up in abusive relationships because they’re drawn to bad boys. That’s an annoying stereotype that has been used against women since the dawn of time, when any of us can tell you that the worst abusers very, very rarely seem evil from the outside.

Rather, I think her writing the book while in abusive relationship means that she didn’t know what a healthy relationship looked like.

I think Aleksander was always supposed to be the Goblin King type temptation, rejected by the heroine for maturity and the true, emotional depth of a relationship with another human being.

Mal was *supposed* to be the slightly flawed, essentially good, real life happy ending for Alina once her days in the magical (Grisha) world was finished.

(We’re not going to touch on the abandonment of the Grisha to genocide here. That’s a whole other ballgame. Rather we’re going to look at Alina’s journey from mundane-> magical -> mundane again as if it belongs to the category of stories like Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, and the Labyrinth, wherein the naive female protagonist is swept away to a magical world where she battle demons symbolic of puberty, and returns to the real world wiser and more mature.)

Now, under this lens, the Darkling is meant to be alluring, not necessarily evil, but certainly not the wise choice. Mal, by contrast, is the literal childhood friend, boy next door, wholesome love interest that grown women know is the better option. If you read Alina’s thoughts about him, and the descriptions written about him, that is clearly what LB was going for.

The trouble is that he’s a cheater, emotional manipulator, and all around selfish prick. These little human flaws are overcome by the end, and he is the devoted partner our heroine deserves.

But the thing is that these aren’t little flaws. These aren’t youthful foibles that can be outgrown. These are the massive red flags of an abuser, unknowingly written by someone who was in close contact with someone just like that.

So the series is written. It gets popular. She leaves her abusive relationship (good for her!). And now she has to reconcile the fact that the VAST majority of fans find her oh-so-romantic ending… a bitter disappointment. That readers don’t believe Mal’s sudden change of heart. That they cannot see a disempowered heroine quietly toiling away in service of a man who so shamelessly used her to be satisfying.

What can LB do? Mal’s history has already been written - the donkey dream, the rotation of girls through his bedroll, the nickname “Sticks”, the abandonment of Alina at her most vulnerable. Those have been published and can’t be changed.

So the only thing left for her to do is make the Darkling look as BAD AS POSSIBLE.

He is no longer an alluring older man, captivated by Alina’s light, he is now a serial groomer and abuser of young girls.

He is no longer the freedom fighter who went too far in the protection of his people, he was their oppressor all along.

He is not longer the victim of prejudice and disenfranchisement, he now perpetuates it by sending young girls to be assaulted.

Do you see how much better Mal looks now?

In fact, most Malina defenders do very little actual defending of their beloved hero. Mostly they just say “okay, he wasn’t great, but do you see how terrible the Darkling is??”

I don’t think it was ever about Aleksander Morozova at all. The massive rewrites and retcons of the follow up books are mere smokescreens to hide the fact that she wrote what she thought was an epic romance, only to unconsciously expose her own inexperience with what a healthy relationship looks like.

They say liars think everyone lies and thieves think everyone steals. Perhaps she, as a victim, believed that every”good” man behaved the way hers did, and facing the truth of it is too painful, so she projects that cruelty somewhere else.

[lilu787788]

I’ve been thinking a lot about why some younger viewers seem to express such intense hatred for Aleksander, and even for those who love or support him. It’s something I notice more and more often — this aggressive, almost moralistic rejection of morally grey characters like Aleksander. And I don’t think it’s just about disliking him. There’s something deeper going on in how fandom spaces function today.

A large part of it, I believe, comes from the way stories are consumed online now. Platforms like TikTok or Twitter encourage fast takes, simplified narratives, and black-and-white ideas of who is “good” and who is “bad.” People aren’t always interested in nuance anymore. It’s easier to reduce someone like the Darkling to a red flag or a toxic man than to sit with the discomfort of a character who does morally questionable things, but also loves, suffers, and fights for a better life for the Grisha and all of Ravka. Grey areas are not trending. Moral certainty is.

I’ve also noticed a dominant narrative — the girlboss versus let’s say villain storyline. Those young people want Alina, Zoya, Genya to “free themselves” from him, and in doing so, they erase what was truly complex, painful, and layered between them. The romanticization of strength often forgets that real strength can come from understanding, not just rejection. And sadly, if you dare say you understand Aleksander or believe he had genuine feelings for Alina, you’re suddenly accused of romanticizing abuse. There is no space for symbolic storytelling or fictional dynamics that aren’t meant to mirror real-life healthy relationships.

Another issue is the casual misuse of psychological terminology. Words like “manipulator,” “gaslighter,” and “grooming” are thrown around without understanding their meaning. These young fans just follow the crowd and, like a frenzied inquisition, throw accusations. Aleksander is a character shaped by centuries of trauma, loneliness, and war. But instead of examining that, some people just diagnose him in fifteen seconds on TikTok and declare him irredeemable. It’s lazy, dishonest, and more importantly, it shuts down real conversation. I also think some people need to feel like they’re on the “right side.” If they hate the Darkling, they can prove they’re morally superior. In my opinion, that points to low self-esteem. It makes liking him feel like a flaw, or worse, a crime. In some fandom spaces, it turns into a ridiculous purity contest.

And if your interpretation doesn’t fit the mainstream narrative, suddenly you become a bad person. It’s such a toxic dynamic, especially when fiction is meant to give us a space to explore difficult things.

Honestly, I think many misunderstandings around Aleksander come from people who’ve never had to think deeply about war, power, or survival. People don’t relate to the Darkling just because he’s charming or a tragic figure. A A lot of us understand him because we know what it means to live in a world shaped by conflict — to watch systems collapse, to see the innocent suffer while leaders look the other way. And even if not, basic human empathy and emotional maturity, combined with historical knowledge, allow us to see more and, most of all, to avoid jumping to judgment. We don’t behave like an angry mob with pitchforks ready to burn someone at the stake. On a side note, I’ve been thinking about doing a post that points out how some parts of the fandom — especially certain Crows, Zoya, Nikolai, Genya, and Malina fans — act a lot like the Drüskelle.

Aleksander is not a villain. He is someone forged in blood and fire, who made impossible choices in a world that gave him none. People who have studied or lived close to the realities of war know that moral clarity is a luxury. He also fought for people who were hunted, tortured, erased. He refused to stand by while Grisha were murdered, burned at the stake, dissected like lab animals, or sold into slavery. And even though his methods became brutal, his cause was never about selfish gain. It was about protecting people like him in a world that never would.

Loving the Darkling is about recognizing the complexity of someone who stood between oppression and survival. It’s about understanding that some stories aren’t clean, and some leaders don’t have the luxury of kindness. Aleksander’s tragedy is that he knew he had to become a monster to stop the world from killing his people. And whether you agree with him or not, that kind of narrative deserves respect, not shallow rejection.

Fiction should be a place where we can explore those hard truths. Not everything is meant to make us feel safe. Some characters exist to make us think, not just to give us flashy action scenes or quick thrills. Let people explore stories the way they need to. Let them love the characters who challenge them. You don’t have to agree. Sometimes it’s just fiction and sometimes it’s the way we try to understand our own shadows.

[is-today-tomorrow-in-nz]

Only in GV I have noticed this blind hatred for a character compared to other fandoms. Not to mention GV has ample characters that have done true monstrous things and yet hatred is being spewed on the one character and several misinformation are spread everywhere about him as well.

Let me list some examples:

Jarl Brum: The man who took in young boys and brainwashed them to be killers. Yes, killers and not soldiers because the Second Army is not capturing peaceful druskelle to be burnt at stake. The man was not raising soldiers for battle front, he was raising killers to send to other countries to trap and capture Grisha who were blacksmiths and farmers

His cruelty does not stop there, he drugs the Grisha, orders his soldiers to rape them till the girls and women are impregnanted. He wants the drugged babies to use them as weapons.

How sadistic someone has to be to not just perpetuate a genocide but to rape the victims and grow babies as weapons for future warfare. And the highlight is his punishment- he goes BALD and his ordered into exile!

King Pyotr: The Ravkan king has committed atrocities not just against Genya but countless other women. He never cared for his country and lived lavishly while his country starved to death. Aleksander started a coup, not just to stop the wars but to cut off the unchecked Lantsov power. But when it all failed, nothing happened to Pyotr. He was never publicly shamed or even tried. Instead, he was sent off on a vacation with more servants to rape.

Makhi: Another genocider. She captured, tortured and maimed Grisha to convert them into weapons. The Iron Wing was a project born out of pure sadism. She literally killed hundreds of Grisha to make that flying bots with wings. How is this any different from nazi experimentations?

Even some of the most loved characters from antis are problematic.

Nikolai - the prince was a rape apologist. He never cared for fairness. He used Genya to get the throne and pardoned his father like it was nothing.

Matthias - He was literally a nazi. If he was truly 'changed' he would have happily let Nina kill him. But no.

Kaz - He bought a slave and fell in love with her. As much as I want to treat it as a romance, I have read enough American History to not ignore the implications of it.

Alina - Our beloved Sun Summoner was problematic too. She single handedly destroyed a oppressed communities protection and then f-ed off to become a housewife without taking an ounce of responsibility.

So in what universe Aleksander the monstrous of them all? Because of Zoya? The thing that never happened in the trilogy but was hastily added in the duology to garner sympathy for on otherwise intolerable character? Or Genya? Who was offered a chance to escape but who chose to stay to gain justice for all? And not to mention, Aleksander never went back on his word. He truly gave Genya a chance to avenge by starting a coup. The persons who stole her moment of vegeance were Alina and Nikolai. Or was it because of Alina- The girl who ran away? He did not slap on a collar on her as soon he discovered her, did he? She believed the words of a hag who had never been kind to her and ran away the first chance she got. So what is a war general supposed to do? Should he have spilled his guts to her? would her christian guilt ridden heart have accepted him? Fought alongside him? The answer is a big, fat No. So he chose the safety of his people over love. That's what leaders do. They will run the trolley on lane with less damage.

And all these fake moral crying, pear-clutching, antis don't seem to condemn the likes of Nikolai, Alina, Matthias or Kaz. Or even make one blip about Brum and the others. They continuosly bash Aleksander without giving a f about his circumstances and only cry about three 'victims' while conveniently ignoring the actual suffering of a group who are collectively being erased.

So yes, I will stand with Aleksander on this, he did the right thing.

[taragreenfield]

Their performative outrage is disgusting.

Once you look at the political situation described in the books, at the multiple incredibly twisted ways people have been suffering for centuries, Alina's and Zoya's self-pity looks pathetic, insensitive, and outright despicable. Some fans adopt this very same self-absorbed, narrow-minded, stick-your-head-into-your-ass-and-feel-sorry-for-yourself narrative. Their fave never owes anything to anyone, but everyone owes something to them. Their fave deserves sympathy and understanding, if they did something bad, it was always for "a good reason", while everyone who hurt them, of course, did it simply because they were horrible people. Their fave's assumptions become the gospel truth. If Alina says that the big bad Darkling manipulated and seduced her, it must be true, even if there is not a single piece of evidence of that in the books. If Zoya can't shut up about how the Darkling "used" her - then it must be true, even though nothing in the books indicates that he ever gave a single fuck about this particular self-important brat. If Genya, after a series of retcons, says that the Darkling intentionally let the King rape her - it must be true, even though realistically Genya couldn't know what exactly he planned, she doesn't read his mind.

The author guides those fans with her moralizing storytelling, reminding them through Alina, Zoya, Genya or any other mouthpiece of choice how evil the Darkling is, and they happily swallow it, enthusiastically spreading the message and congratulating themselves on "getting the point of the books". The author doesn't spew her vitriol about Jarl Brum's genocidal endeavors or about King Pyotr's history of predatory and abusive behavior, so the fandom is indifferent to them. All questionable acts of Nikolai, Zoya, Alina or Mal stay unaddressed; they are "good guys", they can do no wrong! The deaths and suffering of nameless characters because the fans cannot "relate" to them. These fans believe they are being all morally upstanding, throwing around smart words like 'abuse", "grooming", "manipulation", while in fact they come across exactly like the pretentious, sanctimonious hypocrites they are. Just like their favourite characters. That's why they find them so relatable, I guess.

[lilu787788]

@is-today-tomorrow-in-nz @taragreenfield

GV is one of the few fandoms where blind hatred toward a single character is so obsessive, often based on twisted takes or flat-out lies. What’s worse is how viciously reactive some younger fans are, acting more like a mob than a community of readers. Even more disappointing is that much of this hate comes from people in marginalized groups, especially sexual minorities. You’d expect more empathy from those who know what it’s like to be judged and misrepresented, yet they do the same to a fictional character—and to the fans who support him. Turns out, their so-called tolerance only applies to views that match their narrow sense of moral correctness.

[stromuprisahat]

I'd just add plenty of the Darkling antis like to claim they love morally grey fictional characters, but when you check their beloveds, it's only those easily digestible ones.

Characters with simple, purely personal goals, cool one-liners, morally clean relationships with their loved ones and no interest in systematic issues. If they do something cruel, it's either to "bad" characters, or nameless nobodies never again mentioned.

These "complex characters connoisseurs" often overlook their favs' less savoury decisions, ignore likely outcomes that aren't explicitly on page, or simply call them badass moments even though they're more than ready to condemn others for similar action.

[lilu787788]

Exactly. Their so-called "morally grey characters" are just safe YA-friendly versions of the trope. They might flirt with the edge, but never truly cross it in a way that challenges the reader or viewer and makes them uncomfortable. It’s all carefully curated rebellion—just enough darkness to feel edgy, but still palatable for a younger audience who want to see themselves as complex without actually confronting any difficult truths. It’s the fictional equivalent of tweeting anti-capitalist slogans from an iPhone. Performative resistance. These characters usually fight “the system” in vague, aesthetic ways, never digging into real consequences or moral ambiguity. If they hurt someone, it’s sanitized, off-screen, or justified with a one-liner. And because their relationships are kept morally clean, the fans can romanticize them without guilt.

They crave the aesthetic of complexity without the substance. That’s why a character like the Darkling, who is genuinely difficult to categorize, gets so much hate—he doesn’t fit the mold. He's not easily digestible, not conveniently packaged for instant validation, and he makes people uncomfortable in ways their YA comfort characters never will.

[cloudinthesky444]

This discussion is very interesting.

This is the moral dilemma of the Shadow and Bone trilogy.

Leigh Bardugo confused “depth” with morally darkening her characters.

Alina and other characters in the Grishaverse who are considered “heroes” committed acts that could be seen as morally questionable, yet still “justifiable” because of the cause and the context.

And that is where the confusion and the misinterpretation of the “hero” arc comes from. Many authors think that to make their characters “empowered” they need to darken them morally, make them aggressive, harsh, and vengeful. The result is a “hero” who behaves like an antagonist without the story acknowledging it.

There is also a narrative bias: everything the “heroes” do, no matter how questionable, is automatically justified.

This becomes a problem in worldbuilding. When there are no clear ethical or moral rules, any character can do whatever suits them and the narrative will justify it. This fits perfectly in this world full of war, death, hierarchies, and pain.

Aleksander is presented as a morally grey character, but the narrative judges him with extreme severity, while other characters commit actions that, if he had done them, would be considered atrocious.

The saga falls into this incoherence many times.

It pretends to have complexity but without consequences for the protagonists.

Alina and other characters have ethically dubious moments, selfishness, power-driven decisions, small cruelties, but the narrative softens them.

When the Darkling does something complex or ambiguous, the story marks it as “proof of evil,” not as moral conflict.

This is classic “poorly handled grey morality.”

Many readers feel that the Darkling has a more coherent worldview than Alina, but the plot needs to demonize him to maintain a binary hero vs. villain scheme, even if his actions are better justified within the logic of the universe.

The result:

The villain ends up more profound, but the narrative crushes him because it refuses to move away from the traditional mold.

Aleksander is far too compelling and complex for the role the author tries to force on him. He is an extraordinary strategist and understands Ravka’s political world perfectly because he has lived in it for centuries.

Bardugo created an antagonist who has clear motivations, seeks to protect the Grisha, understands the politics of the world, carries a collective historical trauma, and is strategic and visionary.

But then she treats him as if he were a one-dimensional villain.

This clash between his construction and his function produces the sense that the story punishes him for being complex.

This is not accidental: it also happens with other characters in the trilogy.

Mal, Zoya, and even Alina commit questionable actions that receive gentle narrative treatment.

The Darkling does not.

His decisions fit the morally grey character and he is actually an EXTRAORDINARY leader, even if his methods are harsh and aggressive, but they fit perfectly in the world Leigh Bardugo created. Every decision he makes aligns with what the universe presents as the only viable way to defend Grisha existence.

In Alina’s case, she makes decisions that endanger entire populations, but everything is justified by trauma, pressure, and the burden of being the chosen one, while other characters act foolishly and fail to understand her, and the narrative justifies this too. They never receive explicit moral judgment.

Clear double standard.

Aleksander is judged for the violence that other characters also commit. He is condemned for using force in a world at war, even though that force and violence are the only effective survival tools within the system of the saga.

Meanwhile, Mal acts impulsively, kills without hesitation, even puts Alina in danger, and treats her as if she were stupid, underestimating her at every level.

Darkling kills enemies – brutal

Alina or her group kill enemies – heroic

When the Darkling defends Grisha unity – “authoritarian”

When the protagonists impose decisions without consulting anyone – “courage.”

The Darkling understands the politics of Ravka and neighboring kingdoms. His decisions are oriented toward stopping Grisha from being used as cannon fodder.

The narrative calls him a tyrant.

Meanwhile Alina imposes strategic decisions without military or political experience.

Those decisions are treated as “the weight of destiny.”

Broken coherence.

When the Darkling controls or manipulates – “abuse.”

He uses his charisma, power, and position to influence others, and this is portrayed as wholly negative.

When Mal manipulates Alina brutally out of jealousy – “passionate.”

The story humanizes him.

Mal is morally grey, but the narrative treats him as if he were pure.

He is possessive, jealous, reactive.

He pulls back when Alina gains power.

He makes her feel guilty for growing.

He claims her attention as if it were a right, during a war.

He compares his suffering to hers.

Leigh Bardugo built a universe where Alina is kept in a cage: unable to leave or advance, because the narrative around her traps her.

Mal resents Alina’s power. Yes, it’s a strong statement, but that’s how I see it. Mal internalizes that Alina’s rise displaces him, and that’s why I don’t like Malina: he was NOT fair and NEVER will be. It weighs on him that she is special.

It is a conflict between ego and power, and they had to take Alina’s powers away, not because she wanted it, but because the narrative demanded it. Otherwise, the ending with Mal would have been impossible.

Another tragedy 💔

Overall, it’s miserable: Aleksander, unintentionally, ends up more coherent than any character in the trilogy. He understood what Alina needed and he understood that she could sustain him and he could sustain her.

Alina through Aleksander:

Aleksander is not just a possible love interest: he is the embodiment of her repressed identity.

That’s why his influence on her is so strong.

Aleksander is the mirror that reveals who Alina truly is.

His presence forces her to recognize her power, her strategic capacity, her ambitions, and her Grisha identity.

Before him, Alina denies who she is.

With him, she stops denying her nature.

That’s why the intensity is so powerful.

Aleksander activates Alina’s “real self,” not her comfortable self.

He sees her before she sees herself.

He is the only character who sees her full potential, does not want her small, does not want her dependent, does not fear her power, and pushes her to claim political space.

For Alina, that is new and addictive, because she comes from a past where she does not fit, is not seen, is not special, and the world has made her feel invisible.

Aleksander breaks that paradigm instantly.

But Alina fears what he awakens.

With Aleksander, she glimpses a version of herself that is ambitious, powerful, dangerous, irresistible, not limited by others, politically active.

That version scares her.

Alina is not ready to assume that identity, and the narrative does not let her explore it either.

Her conflict with Aleksander is not moral.

It is existential.

Aleksander represents her expansive self; she does not know how to handle it.

Their connection is so strong because he does not want to diminish her, does not need to protect her, does not infantilize her, does not depend on her fragility.

Alina, who has spent her whole life making herself small, is exposed before him.

Aleksander is power without guilt.

Alina does not yet know how to live without guilt.

Alina through Mal

Mal represents Alina’s former self: small, human, safe, limited.

That is why his influence is so different from Aleksander’s.

Mal is her emotional anchor, but also her limit.

Alina loves Mal because with him she finds belonging, memory, safety, closeness, childhood, grounded identity.

But Mal cannot follow her into the world where she is destined to be.

He belongs to Alina’s past, not to her expansive future.

When Alina grows, Mal feels threatened.

When Alina diminishes herself, Mal feels comfortable again.

Terrifying.

Mal fears Alina’s power, and that shapes how she sees herself.

Mal loves her, yes, but he shrinks before her brightness, pulls away when she rises, becomes reactive if she grows too fast, and suffers from feeling lesser.

Alina internalizes this tension.

She begins to associate her power with guilt, loss, and loneliness.

With Aleksander: power = identity.

With Mal: power = threat.

This emotional clash is brutal for her.

And here is the tragedy: Mal triggers Alina’s self-limitation mechanism.

When Alina gets closer to her destiny, Mal breaks.

When Alina moves away from him, Mal returns.

This creates in Alina a clear syndrome:

“If I grow, I lose; if I shrink, I am loved.”

Mal does not do this out of malice; it comes from his insecurity and the narrative that protects him.

But in Alina, it has direct consequences on her arc and her self-esteem.

Mal represents the self Alina can have without sacrificing her humanity.

This is what makes their conflict compelling:

With Aleksander she finds limitless power.

With Mal she finds humanity without falling into the abyss.

Alina wants both, but she cannot have them at the same time.

And her internal transformation is the battlefield between these two identities.

With Aleksander: the expansive and true self

The self that embraces power, greatness, political responsibility, and historical impact.

It is the version of Alina that could change the world.

But also the version that confronts her with her own shadow.

With Mal: the human and limited self

The self that remembers, cares, belongs, and loves from the everyday.

It is the version of Alina that avoids fear and loneliness.

But also the version that reduces her potential.

In the end, Alina runs from becoming what she truly is.

She spends the whole trilogy fighting an uncomfortable truth:

Her destiny is closer to Aleksander’s world than to Mal’s.

But emotionally she runs toward Mal because that path does not force her to face her ambition, her power, her capacity to destroy, or her real place in history.

The tension is this:

Aleksander activates her power; Mal activates her fear.

And Alina MAKES decisions from that fear.

And that is why she cries at the end, when he dies, because she knows what truly happened. She knows the depth of things.

The worst part is that she was his martyr and his Achilles heel. She defeated him not because she had more experience, strength, or power than he did, but because he stopped fighting her. He was a man with centuries of experience who never hesitated, but he always held back with Alina because he did not want to destroy her. He measured himself, contained himself, and always stayed within a line to avoid shattering her permanently. Despite having fought more wars than she could ever imagine, he had complete control of his power, knew the limits and nuances of amplification, and mastered strategies she probably did not even know existed. The “balanced fight” is not realistic in the logic of the world.

The only logical reason Alina “won” is because he was already emotionally broken by her.

This is key:

Aleksander does not lose because of physical weakness but because of emotional exhaustion.

He spends the entire trilogy trying to make Alina see his vision, understand the urgency, accept her own power, and join him.

When that bond breaks, he enters a narrative state of emotional surrender.

At that point, letting himself be defeated is not romantic.

It is resignation.

Bardugo builds the ending as a foretold tragedy.

There is a key idea in the Darkling’s construction:

he does not want to destroy Alina; he wants to build with her.

When he has to choose between winning the conflict or breaking her completely, he chooses not to break her.

That is why the ending feels like voluntary defeat.

It was not healthy love: it was tragic and destructive.

What he feels for Alina is not healthy romantic love.

It is a mix of obsession, projection, desire for an equal, vertigo at seeing his reflection in her, and a loneliness so chronic it becomes irrational.

This leads to terrible decisions.

One of them is not truly fighting her.

Not out of kindness.

But because emotionally he cannot do anything else.

This seals the depth of his character, and here his complexity becomes clear:

His entire life was defined by abandonment, fear, and persecution.

Aleksander spent centuries hiding, watching his people die, being used by monarchs, losing every human bond, living violence as his only language.

This prolonged trauma does not create the capacity for healthy love.

It creates obsession, the need for control, and a fierce fear of vulnerability.

And Alina reaches him exactly where he is weakest.

She sees him.

Alina breaks his chronic loneliness.

For someone like him, that is not a small detail:

it is an enormous emotional threat.

When Alina appears, he sees an equal, a possible future, real companionship, shared power.

This impact disarms him internally.

He cannot handle it.

He cannot love without mixing it with control, excessive protection, or idealization.

What he feels is real, but it is distorted.

It is real because he admires her, desires her as an equal, respects her power, and is fascinated by her light.

But distorted because he does not know how to love without fear, lose without violence, trust without controlling, or bond without absorbing the other.

It is not pure evil.

It is emotional incapacity shaped by centuries of trauma.

When Alina rejects him, he breaks internally.

That rejection triggers his wound of abandonment, his belief that no one will ever choose him, and his terror of being alone again.

That is why the relationship becomes stormy.

Not because he does not feel, but because feeling destroys him.

His final “defeat” is a symptom of extreme emotional wear.

He does not fall because Alina is stronger.

He falls because emotionally:

he is exhausted,

he sees no way forward,

he cannot fight her without breaking himself,

and he no longer has the inner strength to want to survive without her.

It is not romantic sacrifice.

It is existential surrender.

Alina breaks him from the one place where he had no defenses...

[lilu787788]

Hi @cloudinthesky444 !! Thank you for taking the time to write such a long and amazing analysis.

Aleksander is the only character in the entire SaB whose vision for the state, the military, and the future of the Grisha actually makes sense. His political outlook is consistent, and his decisions come from hard earned knowledge of a world that never stops hunting his people. He understands the structure of Ravka, the threats from Fjerda and Shu Han, the mechanics of power, and the realities of war. Meanwhile the rest of the "heroes" reacts impulsively or emotionally, yet the narrative treats them like innocent chatacters who can make every mistake without facing real consequences. The double standards are impossible to ignore.

I think that the core issue is that LB or EH could not handle the moral grey space they tried to create. Aleksander should have been a central political force, and in the world they created his victory would have been the most logical outcome. He was better prepared, he had strategy, and he had centuries of advantage. In a setting where survival depends on hard choices his methods were simply more effective.

And yet he could never be allowed to win, because the story was shaped from the beginning so that the idealized heroine’s narrative triumphs. Not because Alina was stronger, wiser, or better suited to the realities of war but because LB needed a classic good versus evil frame. His defeat is not a natural result of the world but a requirement of the author’s chosen structure.

Aleksander is a character built with logic but defeated by a narrative that could not carry that logic.