𝓓𝓮𝓪𝓻 𝓡𝓾𝓫𝔂. ..𓂃 ࣪ ִֶָ🪽་༘

Even the least problematic manhwas have something wrong with them. Like HTGMHOMS for example, can you think of a character with darker skin colour?? Did you think of Caesar, because I did.

I don't remember a single character from that manhwa having darker skin tone other that the incestual rapist murderer. Kinda crazy isn't it or maybe I'm reaching too far.

Knowing how the story will go based on the spoilers I have received, I am very likely in the wrong about the message Kim Suji wanted to send to their readers, but art is known for its ability to be interpreted in various ways separate from the canon by its audience, and my interpretation is that Varkas and Thalia are not only a terrible match, they have one of the most toxic relationship dynamics with each other in all of the historical fantasy genre of manhwa.

Thalia is no doubt a tragic character. We as the readers see her childhood firsthand, we know that her mother uses her as a political pawn, we know that her half-brother is physically abusive towards her and that her half-sister is the golden child to her scapegoat, and because we know why she's like this, we see how older men would take advantage of her vulnerabilities growing up to sexually exploit her, we are more inclined to take whatever she says as an adult at face value because she is the protagonist who has been wronged time and time again.

Now, I personally find it unrealistic that a survivor of such trauma would ever grow up to be a perfect person, it's certainly possible for a survivor with experiences identical to Thalia's come out as a better person but that usually only can happen if the survivor has access to some sort of support system, which Thalia never gets and it partially explains why she continuously stoops to the same level as her abusers.

With all that in mind though, I still hate her, I want to suffer some comeuppance for her behavior, and I don't feel all too bad for her when other characters such as Ayla see her as a monster.

For once though, I don't hate her just because I think she's badly written entirely. Don't get me wrong, I have plenty of critique for her character writing that further my disdain for her, but that's not the entire reason I dislike her. I dislike Thalia because she's a grown woman by the time the story takes place. While the evil maid trope is a lazy method of convincing readers to feel bad for the wealthy protagonist in general, at the very least, a child acting out is easier to defend in comparison to an adult because a child does not have the cognitive ability to always be the bigger person, especially if they are living in a stressful environment, ESPECIALLY if those negative behaviors are encouraged and rewarded. I can't feel bad for a woman who can retain her ability to use her brain, think for herself, and make her own choices, she at that point should know better regardless of how she was raised because can adult can cause far more damage than the average child.

I think it's great to see a doomed protagonist like Thalia, we have so many "safe" examples of villainess female leads but The Forgotten Field doesn't play it safe with Thalia, she is almost always portrayed as a hostile, envious, and obsessive woman and I like how Kim Suji plays it to us straight that she is a dangerous individual in spite of her tragic her childhood was. However, while I currently think that she is a breath of fresh air for the villainess subgenre, that doesn't mean I should have to like her beyond that.

Thalia isn't a misunderstood tragic heroine like her fanbase paints her as, she's a self-destructive abuser who believes she is entitled to a man simply because he was the first person to show her a sliver of kindness. The fact that she fell in love with Varkas when she was still a little girl should already tell you that what she feels for him is not really love, she was a vulnerable child with no proper reference of love to off of because she was never around any healthy relationships, she didn't know what actual romantic feelings are supposed to feel like. What if Varkas wasn't the one to get her out of that ditch and it was another knight instead? Their first meeting was entirely circumstantial, there's nothing specific so far that we know of that explains why Thalia is obsessed with Varkas, we just know that he was nice to her a few times.

Their story is tragic, yes, but not for the reasons the fandom claims. It's not tragic because they were genuinely happy together only for that happiness to be snuffed out by an outside force, it's tragic because they're so obsessed with each other that it's sickening. Thalia "loves" Varkas but she's quick to abuse him if he even slightly moves from the pedestal she placed him off, she has shown that she is completely willing to verbally, physically, and sexually abuse him throughout the course of the story because she thinks that she is entitled to do so, she is in love with him, so only she deserves to have him all to herself, and she will "correct" his misbehavior if she thinks it is in her right. Lashing out at him because he didn't kill her attempted rapist does have its nuance no doubt, but ignoring his lack of consent has no nuance, it's just pure evil and the peak of Thalia's selfishness.

These two were never going to have a happy ending, they were doomed from the start.

And the fact that the authors turned the slaves into the villains while constantly uplifting the nobles who either abuses them (Penelope literally bought Eckles to use as a shield) or turn a blind eye to it all together

When I started reading remarried empress I honestly believe they were going to write Navier as this good empress who will free herself and her people from Sovieshu’s bs but turns out she’s just like him

The whole red flag male lead trope really gets to me. Half the time these characters don't have anything interesting about them, they're just physically attractive and somehow that substitutes a personality. Hell, sometimes they're not even a love interest, and the plot revolves around them! I get that it's because readers like attractive characters, and a lot of people have fantasies revolving around this type of character. But still! Characters and the story you're telling should take precedence over fan service!

And some times they do give him a personality outside of mc, and he ends up being worse! Because it's always the same regurgitated crap! One or more of the parents is abusive or dead, and his bad childhood suddenly makes up for everything else he's done. While it's true that a bad childhood can influence actions, you can't go to court and be like, 'my dad sucks so thats why i murdered 10 people'!

He's always creepily possessive too, which is interesting as psychological horror or something, but most of the time it's presented as sweet, which it absolutely isn't. That isn't healthy, and it shouldn't be romanticized. He isn't even caring while being possessive. Half the time the dude's a complete jerk to her, and the fandom's like 'omg he smiled at her kinda if you look at it from 174 angle and squint!! they're so in love!' Meanwhile the dude holding a sword to her throat for some inane reason (cough, Callisto, cough). It's NOT sweet, and it's not even enemies to lovers, so you can't use that excuse. Enemies to lovers is meant to involve growth and change, and in half of these it's the girl who has to 'fix' him. It's downright gross.

First I’d like to thank you for the recents posts bringing some very welcomed nuance to the character of Iklies I’m VADD. After the release of the new season cover, I felt like there was a significant wave of hate directed to the character - and, well, kinda for the wrong reasons? I mean, it’s absolutely understandable to not like him and call out the toxicity, but there were some readers who actively spread misinformation to get the character in a very bad light? And using some colonising rhetoric?? Guys??? This is not the take you might think this is???

I think I might’ve wanted to vent a bit with someone more open to a nuanced discussion, since I think the whole work is too well crafted to be reduced to a ‘black and white’ interpretation.

First what really caught my attention was using the description seen in the novel about how “Delman’s are savages” like?? 1. the poster themselves recognises that it’s a description used by Derrick (if I’m not mistaken), who is anything BUT a trustworthy source; 2. I bet the colonising, slaving country won’t have nice things to say about the people they just conquered? Not to mention is a description frequently used to even justify such actions, as it was in our own world (colonising nations having the “duty” to bring reason, advancement and enlightenment to such poor, barbaric people, who couldn’t know any better); 3. even if all of that was true, who is to say that every single countryman is like that? Are they not allowed to have their own individuality? Should we judge every Eorka citizen using Derrick as the standard then? Would that be fair?

Then what most caught my attention was the description that “He had a nice childhood, despite being a bastard (???), therefore he had it easy and by being such a violent man it only shows how much of a monster he’s always been”. I don’t even? Aside from the argument itself not making the slightest sense, from my reading of the novel the whole “bastard-lost prince” (a very beloved common trope for MLs in any other case, mind you) seemed pretty vague, and I thought it might’ve even been the result of Leila’s manipulation/mindcontrolling - since this way, with Iklies having some sort of “pedigree”, he would seem himself as “worthy” of Penelope, like Callisto (the Crown Prince) is. Was that part of his backstory truly confirmed? It could just be a wrong interpretation of mine, since it’s been some months since I’ve read it (thought, quite sincerely, I don’t think it being truth or not would change anything - the story starts with him being already a slave, being sold in an auction after fighting hungry dogs that would devour him to show his prowess for potential buyers, no amount of happy childhood will make this less f up).

Sorry for ranting so much! I was just really happy to see your posts and analysis!

Hope you have a nice day!

I remember that post! The pro slavery and colonising rhetoric was very uncomfortable to read and I think I blocked them after they tried to "educate" me in the comments of my posts and eventually used insults to force me to change my opinion.

I'm interested to see the passage that says Iklies allegiently had a good childhood when he was an illegitimate child of the King, because manhwas traditionally show the struggles and trauma of being a bastard. Princes often didn't have a good relationship with their half brothers. See the Ottoman Empire where they eventually legalized systematic fratricide. Furthermore if Delman is a warrior nation as implied and Iklies was really treated as a prince then wouldn't he have been expected to fight in the Livius war and gain combat experience? If he was then he's a child soldier and still didn't have a good childhood. If he was not then it's likely that he was just treated as a nobody. And no matter how good his childhood was it's not going to become an armor that can protect him against the trauma of having his rights stripped off him and treated like human garbage. What kind of logic is that anyway. Penelope didn't have a good childhood but Iklies had one that's why he deserves to suffer in the future, because he never had to suffer before?

"such a violent man it only shows how much of a monster he’s always been" I have huge issues when they call Iklies a psychopath or claim he was born evil. Together with them claiming that the people of Delman are thieving, murdering savages consumed by greed and violence. It doesn't only sound like stereotyping but also as if the root of the evil is in their genes. Which we know was historically used to justify ethnic clensing. They echo the words of Derrick who believes in the superiority of the Eorkan military power and the intrinsic evil of the Delman's that is defined by colonialism ideology. Why should we trust the words of someone who treated his own stepsister as a subhuman because she was of commoner blood? His family owns a diamond mine, he directly benefits from slavery. Of course he would defend it with every breath.

My discomfort comes from a few reasons:

1. The story’s narrative feels uncomfortably similar to the stereotype of “a colonized POC prisoner or slave wanting to harm white women.”

2. Is the author consciously opening a history book? Because the character is from a colonized country, so in the story, it is his own women who are at risk of sexual assault—and he himself is at high risk of being gang-raped as a war slave. Yet the narrative frames him as a predator, yeah, totally not biased at all.

3. He is the only male love interest whose age is ambiguous (17–18?), even with a question mark. There’s no need to make a character’s age uncertain unless he is potentially too young, which is troubling in this context.

You either have to make up headcanons.

Deal with constant yuri baiting.

Accept the few lesbian coded pairings with a depressing ending.

Or create a female oc to ship with a canon female character.

And then there's not sew wicked stepmother stepping up to the plate and giving us a true lesbian couple. No yuri baiting, no man to step in and ruin it for everyone, just an undisturbed lesbian pairing.

Penelope is an abuse victim, a victim of the cruel hands of men, and the victim of the world that is essentially a death trap designed to kill her at every turn.

Penelope IS ALSO an abuser herself who bought a teenage boy, violated his autonomy by treating him like a dog, and didn't initially take responsibility for her actions by playing the victim when he betrayed her. Two things can be true at the same time

Nobody is denying that Penelope had her reasons to buy a slave but absolutely no reason will justify financially supporting literal human trafficking with one million gold, nothing will justify Penelope grooming a teenage boy, just because she wasn't grooming him for sexual gratification doesn't mean he wasn't being groomed to love her for the sake of survival.

And as much as I love VADTD, the author really dropped the ball when they abandoned the original idea of Penelope being a terrible person and it is why I think the fanbase has a problem with babying her. I don't know if the author sold out because the readers really liked woobify Penelope, or if the author just accidentally wrote her as a well written depiction of a horrible person up until "Eckles' betrayal" and I'm just giving the story more credit than it deserves.

I didn't really like the implication of Eckles wanting to sexually assault Penelope, it wasn't exactly out of character for him to be obsessed with her on that kind of level but we already had Derrick as the guy who was the "creep" of the cast, we didn't really need ANOTHER guy who wanted to abuse Penelope like that. I especially didn't like the ending, it didn't feel like Penelope really atoned for her actions, Eckles just kind of forgets what she did to him and she never has to suffer proper consequences.