The most confusing part about the "what if Aranessa and Thjazi's relationship was disingenuous" theory to me is... what would even be the end goal? Like for the "Aranessa is secretly evil" thing I guess you could imagine some narratively unsatisfying reason that could technically make sense I suppose, but when it comes to their relationship their lives would have been significantly easier if they didn't fall in love with each other, why would they ever bother faking it this long
This is perhaps deeply cynical of me but I really do think that a lot of people think of fiction not as something to experience and talk about but pretty much exclusively as something to validate or vindicate them in some way. This explains everything from shipping wars/harassment to “this is why liking this story/trope/character makes you a Good Person [which itself can mean anything from conservative Christian ideals to specific flavors of Communism and more often than not means some weird mix of the two] and not liking it/them makes you a Bad Person.” It also explains what I called puzzle-boxing, which is when people look at a case that is already incredibly nuanced and complex (Thjazi and Aranessa as individuals and a couple) and decide the following: first, that what is actually being told in the story (or by others in the fandom) is very flat and black and white and simple (Aranessa and Thjazi are solely Good and no one is discussing Aranessa being naive about her privilege or Thjazi’s intricate webs of deception, when most people are talking about these things, often extensively) and second that THEY (and maybe their mutuals) ALONE perceive the truth: That Aranessa and Thjazi are EVIL and their marriage was purely one of access. It’s very “tries to do away with it entirely but lives as an inversion of it thus referring to it indirectly” except they are trying to do away with something that didn’t exist in the first place and by living as an inversion of it they actually introduce it as a concept. Indirectly.
Or in other words, the story introduces Thjazi as a deeply complicated person who was “Hero to many. Enemy to some” and consistently shows that he was a liar whose means of protecting people was not sharing information with them, and that he was absolutely willing to get his hands dirty in service of the cause; but also shows that the two people in this world he loved the most turned him down when he first noticed that the Sundered Houses were seizing a terrifying amount of power and asked him to join them, and in doing so answers the question of “gee, I wonder why this guy decided maybe it was best to work alone.” It consistently shows Aranessa as helpful and kind but also deeply sheltered even well into adulthood, expressing a lot of regrets over her past choices while still being clearly the person who made those choices and did not realize that she was also on the list of targets until it was too late. It also is directly stated that neither of them had ill intent towards, eg, the Seekers, or Dol-Makjar at large, but they did keep secrets. And in terms of them as a couple, Campaign 4 shows Aranessa and Thjazi as two people who very much loved each other, despite a pretty significant culture clash, and it was a love that survived even the Falconer’s Rebellion, but a relationship that could not. Frankly, without Thjazi, Aranessa turns a little bit into a “I was born into this but I’m Not Like Other Nobles” (ie, precisely what Alex has tried to avoid with Occtis and what Sam is doing a pretty good job avoiding with Wick). Meanwhile, without Aranessa, Thjazi is a much colder person. His scene with Hal in episode 12’s cold open hits because we see Hal at home with his infant daughter and Elodie, and we realize that Thjazi also wants this, but feels his cause is more important. Thjazi’s behavior would be much less meaningful if we did not understand how much he had personally sacrificed, up to and including his own life, both in terms of the love and family and friendships he might have had, and the fact that he literally was hanged by the neck until dead in his mid-40s.
But where’s the fun in exploring that, when that’s what the story is telling you? What are you, some kind of person who believes what the story repeatedly shows you in ways that are so deeply tied to its entire premise and plot that to subvert them would spell narrative disaster? You can’t theorize based on textual evidence, because then anyone has access to it and you’re not the smartest and therefore you can’t win! Nope, you have to pull something directly out of your ass, because as we all know, guessing plot points is like a lottery ticket and there’s a finite amount of money in the pot and if other people also guess the right thing you do not win as much.
Like, I would love to be wrong about that above paragraph but like. Really I think a number of people do not understand that media analysis is mostly saying “here’s what the story is telling us, but there are additional layers to it!" and that good theorizing is "based on the text, here are some legitimate thoughts on what might occur that tell an interesting and thematic story based on my long-developed sense of narrative,” because that is not as clickbait-sexy as saying EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS WRONG. Except EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS WRONG is almost always like, objectively incorrect, but damn if people don't keep flocking to it thinking it's the smart option.
