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
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)