Great, we're all bloody inspired...

First, I think it's worth acknowledging that book Alby and movie Alby feel like very different characters. The same is true for several characters, honestly (namely, Minho, but Thomas too). I watched the first movie before I read the books, so my first impression of Alby came from the film, where I felt pretty neutral about him. When I later read the book, I was surprised by how much harsher and more intimidating he came across, especially in his early interactions with Thomas. Of course, he had every reason to be stressed—he'd just become the leader of a group of teenagers trapped in an impossible situation—but that doesn't necessarily make him immediately likeable from a reader's perspective.

I also think it's important to remember that we're experiencing the story almost entirely through Thomas' eyes. Thomas is intimidated by Alby and openly says he doesn't really like or trust him at first. Since these are YA books with a close POV, readers are naturally encouraged to share Thomas' impressions. By contrast, Thomas trusts Newt almost immediately, so readers tend to warm up to Newt just as quickly (which also explains why Newt became a fandom favourite). Whether that framing itself unintentionally plays into racial stereotypes is a separate discussion, and I do think it's worth having. But I also don't think it's fair to assume that every reader who came away liking Newt more than Alby did so because of conscious racial bias.

As for my own fic, my decision honestly wasn't based on Alby's canon characterisation at all. I'm a Newtmas shipper, and for me, Thomas and Newt are each other's only romantic pairing. Over the years, I've had some negative experiences with people trying to convince me that I should ship Nalby or Thominho instead, and in some cases, that crossed into harassment or personal insults simply because I didn't share their preferences. Looking back, I think that frustration influenced my writing more than I realised. I wasn't choosing Alby because I thought "this character would canonically be abusive"; I was reacting to my experiences with parts of the fandom and projecting my frustration with them on their preferred pairing.

That said, since people pointed out to me how common the "abusive ex Alby" trope actually is, I've had to reconsider my own writing. I genuinely wasn't aware that I was contributing to a larger pattern, and that realisation is one of the reasons that fic has been on hiatus for some years now. Even if my intentions weren't racist, intentions don't erase impact. If a trope consistently casts one of the few Black characters in that role, it's worth asking why, and it's worth reflecting on.

At the same time, I also don't think the conversation is as simple as saying, "Anyone who dislikes Alby is racist." There are legitimate reasons someone might not connect with his character, just as there are legitimate reasons to dislike any character. The important part is recognising when those individual preferences become a broader fandom pattern that might reflect unconscious bias.

One thing I also found odd in the responses to your post here was dismissing Frypan's representation!? While I also don’t agree with the take made that Alby wasn’t that important a character (he was, maybe not that much to Thomas, but definitely to Newt and Minho!) Even if his race isn't explicitly stated in the first book, he's widely understood within the fandom to be Black, especially because of the films. I don't think ignoring Frypan helps the conversation. Representation matters across the board, not just for whichever character best supports a particular argument.

Realistically, he couldn’t have been immune before the maze since WCKD surely would have run tests on them, including blood tests. And Brenda is cured at the end of the Scorch Trials, meaning something between then and coming up into the maze is what made Thomas immune.

The griever sting is very similar to the flare, even visually when you compare Ben’s sting to Newt’s flare. However, not being given the serum means the infected doesn’t survive it / loses their sanity. This could be because they’re 1) not immune, or 2) the sting isn’t actually the flare but a simulation of the effects to map out how the immune’s systems react to it and what makes them immune.

but the effects of getting Stung is canonically the Flare!! its a strain WICKED made to help invent the cure that for some reason thats never explained affects immunes but is still unable to be transferred by anyone

More importantly, the Griever sting and the Flare are fundamentally different in both origin and purpose. The Flare is a man-made viral pandemic that progressively destroys higher brain function. The Grievers, by contrast, are biomechanical constructs engineered by WICKED to physically test subjects and extract neurological data from Immunes. Nowhere in canon are they described as carrying a virus or simulating infection. Their sting is explicitly a pain and neuro-disruption mechanism that, in combination with the Grief Serum, triggers the “Changing”—a forced neurological response that unlocks or restores memories—not a biological infection. If it were truly viral, it would have spread through the Glade rapidly, which it never does.

The idea that the sting is a “simulation” of the Flare also doesn’t really align with how WICKED’s experiments are structured. WICKED already has direct access to both Flare-infected individuals and controlled Crank Zones. Their tests in the Maze and Scorch Trials are focused on stress responses in Immunes under extreme psychological and environmental pressure, not on mechanically recreating disease progression.

The visual similarity between people undergoing the Changing and actual Cranks is likely just that—visual. It functions more as an external stress factor, another one of WICKED’S precious variables, for the other Gladers witnessing it than as evidence that the same pathology is being replicated in the stung individual. (This is also just my interpretation, it's never stated in canon!)

As far as we know, every Glader who received the serum also survived the Changing. There is a fan theory that those who died or failed to recover were actually non-immune, but Ben complicates that interpretation due to inconsistencies between the books and movies. In the latter, Thomas (and everyone else) discovers Ben has been stung only after arriving, and Ben is Banished even before receiving the serum (i think? since the serum only enters the Glade with Teresa so in movie canon Alby actually is the first to receive it)—not because he’s turning, but because he threatens Thomas and breaks Glade law. In the books, however, Ben is already mid-Changing (they already have access to the serum here) when Thomas arrives, and his hostility is tied to fragmented memories from that process. He recognises Thomas (this is true to both movies and books) and reacts out of fear and confusion rather than full-blown madness. In either version, it’s reasonable to assume he might have recovered if given proper time or treatment.

That said, if you start pushing these questions too far (which, to be fair, the series practically invites), the entire internal logic starts to unravel. Why release a catastrophic virus without a deployed cure? (rookie blunder) Why invest in elaborate Maze systems and waste resources on that instead of more direct simulations? (like those we see with Minho in TDC, way more efficient if you ask me, but no one ever asks me…) Why risk killing Immunes when they might be humanity’s only viable hope? If Immunes exist, shouldn’t antibodies exist too—making a vaccine the obvious focus instead of a cure??????

Realistically, he couldn’t have been immune before the maze since WCKD surely would have run tests on them, including blood tests. And Brenda is cured at the end of the Scorch Trials, meaning something between then and coming up into the maze is what made Thomas immune.

The griever sting is very similar to the flare, even visually when you compare Ben’s sting to Newt’s flare. However, not being given the serum means the infected doesn’t survive it / loses their sanity. This could be because they’re 1) not immune, or 2) the sting isn’t actually the flare but a simulation of the effects to map out how the immune’s systems react to it and what makes them immune.

but the effects of getting Stung is canonically the Flare!! its a strain WICKED made to help invent the cure that for some reason thats never explained affects immunes but is still unable to be transferred by anyone

More importantly, the Griever sting and the Flare are fundamentally different in both origin and purpose. The Flare is a man-made viral pandemic that progressively destroys higher brain function. The Grievers, by contrast, are biomechanical constructs engineered by WICKED to physically test subjects and extract neurological data from Immunes. Nowhere in canon are they described as carrying a virus or simulating infection. Their sting is explicitly a pain and neuro-disruption mechanism that, in combination with the Grief Serum, triggers the “Changing”—a forced neurological response that unlocks or restores memories—not a biological infection. If it were truly viral, it would have spread through the Glade rapidly, which it never does.

The idea that the sting is a “simulation” of the Flare also doesn’t really align with how WICKED’s experiments are structured. WICKED already has direct access to both Flare-infected individuals and controlled Crank Zones. Their tests in the Maze and Scorch Trials are focused on stress responses in Immunes under extreme psychological and environmental pressure, not on mechanically recreating disease progression.

The visual similarity between people undergoing the Changing and actual Cranks is likely just that—visual. It functions more as an external stress factor, another one of WICKED’S precious variables, for the other Gladers witnessing it than as evidence that the same pathology is being replicated in the stung individual. (This is also just my interpretation, it's never stated in canon!)

As far as we know, every Glader who received the serum also survived the Changing. There is a fan theory that those who died or failed to recover were actually non-immune, but Ben complicates that interpretation due to inconsistencies between the books and movies. In the latter, Thomas (and everyone else) discovers Ben has been stung only after arriving, and Ben is Banished even before receiving the serum (i think? since the serum only enters the Glade with Teresa so in movie canon Alby actually is the first to receive it)—not because he’s turning, but because he threatens Thomas and breaks Glade law. In the books, however, Ben is already mid-Changing (they already have access to the serum here) when Thomas arrives, and his hostility is tied to fragmented memories from that process. He recognises Thomas (this is true to both movies and books) and reacts out of fear and confusion rather than full-blown madness. In either version, it’s reasonable to assume he might have recovered if given proper time or treatment.

That said, if you start pushing these questions too far (which, to be fair, the series practically invites), the entire internal logic starts to unravel. Why release a catastrophic virus without a deployed cure? (rookie blunder) Why invest in elaborate Maze systems and waste resources on that instead of more direct simulations? (like those we see with Minho in TDC, way more efficient if you ask me, but no one ever asks me…) Why risk killing Immunes when they might be humanity’s only viable hope? If Immunes exist, shouldn’t antibodies exist too—making a vaccine the obvious focus instead of a cure??????

To take a more serious approach:

I imagine James Dashner once again didn't put as much thought into this but there's various scopes for a desert to arise. But that usually takes millions if years. Like sand forms over thousands to millions of years through weathering and erosion by wind, water and ice. Of course it can get carried too, we have some small "deserts" (dunes) in Germany just in the middle of nowhere but we know from history that there used to be rivers that carried the sand there and just dried up over time. For a big desert like the Scorch to come to be there had to be a major event. I'm not sure something like Sun Flares could be the reason in reality but let's just entertain that idea for a second. In the story, solar flares and other environmental catastrophes likely disrupted the climate, causing prolonged heat and reduced rainfall. Without sufficient precipitation, vegetation dies off, and soils dry, creating desert-like conditions. That doesn't yet explain were all that sand came from but the Scorch is described as an intensely hot, sun-baked region... so prolonged exposure to solar radiation dries out soils and kills most plant life, mimicking arid climates like the Sahara. Without plants to anchor the soil, wind erosion dominates, creating shifting sands and barren landscapes. And maybe the sand just was carried all the way from other deserts around the earth!? 🤷‍♀️ I mean we also get rain sometimes that carries Sahara sand to us, not nearly as much but enough that you can see it on cars and streets after. It's also happening more these last years which is most definitely a sign of climate change.