The Boy Said Green But He Should Have Said Gold

In the whole Handmaid's Tale the series he stays a weak man. When he meets Nick, the first time, it takes him nearly ten minutes to even ask about his daughter. He barely ever does anything useful for anyone, certainly not June. He could have been certainly worse, still, there isn't much substance to him. He wants to be part of Mayday because of the reflected glory more than anything, he constantly leaves June to fend for herself. He's meh.

But the series wants to make it very clear that because this mediocre man called dibs first, June belongs with him. No matter it's been Nick that kept her alive to do everything she has done. She's cheating on Luke with Nick, so Nick has to be left so June can be in her traditional place as loyal wife. Both she and Luke were once bystanders in Gilead; I'm sure the only reason Luke decided to flee was because the regime wanted to rip apart his "unlawful" family. But Luke has always been too passive for this game, as was the pre-Gilead June. This being an American show, she had to have a glow up, but since she has had one, Nick is a far more logical, strategic partner.

But The Handmaid's Tale, the series, delights in a very subtle misogyny, a strange sort of traditionalism through it all. Magical Motherhood - the way baby Charlotte could only be saved from death by her birth mother. The neverending cruelty inflicted upon its female characters where men's suffering is shielded from view. This weird voiceover by June calling the Pre-Gilead view of fashion wasteful and airheaded and inconsequential. Bitch, what? Only a man could have written that. The way women are judged by their clothing makes it anything but an airheaded part of their life. "They've forgotten that red is also the color of rage." No June, they very much knew red is the color of rage, only they channeled that rage into using the Handmaids as state executioners. Given that actually killing someone is taxing to people's mental health. This whole insistence on violence being the only way to oppose a regime correctly when we've just seen how easily that can be co-opted. Credit to Luke, he seemed to do his best non violently. Much more credit to Luke if he'd said: "June, I am better at PR" instead of "Now it's my time to fight for Hannah." (What took you so long then, if that's not what you'd been doing before?)

Hmpf. Don't we want to admit that this whole milquetoast performative progressive nonthreatening feminism is something Atwood was critiquing? O, June keeps her own name as long as Hannah has Luke's and Luke can stay sure of his rightful place in the world, when he may not be evil but is far, far too happy to be complicit? Whereas Nick, before he was sacrificed on the altar of suburban American respectability, was someone who was seduced, actually understood how sick this world was, and when it really counted tried very much to protect Eden, a young girl he didn't love? Willing to stay married and have a baby if that meant she didn't die? Even if he had everything to gain from her death? Only for June to go back to a man who, as far as we are shown, has done very little of consequence to fight for his actual family... Until June came back and upstaged him?

Why wasn't he with June in Alaska as soon as he got half a chance? Because adopted children do not count? Please. Tell that to the children who need to get adopted! I am not condoning baby robbing but I also can't deny how vital non blood family can be in giving children a good life. The fact that Serena has no interest whatsoever in Nichole's welfare after she has given her up I do believe, but as a sign of dysfunction, not as a sign of "only blood relatives count." It would have been much more believable to me if Serena would still have a bond with Nichole. It would have given the renaming her Nichole (possibly after Nick) after Serena gave her up much more weight.

But ah, if blood doesn't count for so much, that diminishes the role of the father even further, doesn't it? Can't have that!

Stop performing “feminism” and start understanding wtf the impact of it actually is. Start supporting people of any gender who celebrate equality and understand that true feminism is complex and compassionate and requires both men and women to care about each other.

Back off from attacking people who love love. Because guess what? Love is EVERYTHING. I will fight anyone who says otherwise.

And selfless love? Comparative media that started out with a real point and a true north heart that let us glimpse it? Utterly fantastical at this point. A unicorn in the wasteland of 2026.

Today I’m going to discuss the top 6 theories about the most controversial character in Gilead. We’ll have a look at the evidence, the motivations behind some of the most popular theories and see where we land. I would ask that we all stay in our respective corners, no hissing please and let’s try not to get blood on the drapes.

1. Nicole wasn’t Nicks baby / Nicole isn't Daisy

It’s this kind of scenario that makes me feel like a parent trying to explain something simple to a child. For those seemingly obsessed with this, lets go over some evidence and just put this to bed once and for all. This theory simply holds no water because there’s no evidence to substantiate it, essentially everything in the books and the show dictated without question that he was. Firstly, both the author and the show runner said that he was her father. The characters in the show ALWAYS referred to Nick as Nicole’s biological father. There were no indications in either the book or the show to say that he wasn’t, like for instance a character saying “Are you sure he’s the father?” Or “Maybe he’s not the father”. These are story telling mechanics used to tell you information and subsequently call his parentage into question……these mechanics were never used.

In Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale there are symbols of fertility, like flowers, when Nick appears, as opposed to the commander where these are replaced instead with images of dusty books. Atwood also specifically insisted that Nick and June’s baby be called Nicole, a female derivative of Nick.

Here we come to the whole Daisy isn't Holly / Nicole business, which let's not fuck around, was basically cooked up to try and reassemble some kind of linear narrative after they killed off Nick Blaine. In season 3 we had the whole “Gilead wants Nicole back” debacle. In the book the character of Daisy is found out to be “baby Nicole” who was being demanded back by Gilead. In both the novel The Testaments and the show The Handmaid’s Tale, Nicole was born to a rebel handmaid and smuggled out via Mayday. In both Atwood’s The Testaments and the show The Handmaid’s Tale Nicole has a half sister called Agnes. To say that Nick and June’s daughter from the Handmaid’s Tale is not baby Nicole from The Testaments requires me to believe that the author asked the show runners to give the character the name Nicole (Miller stated that Atwood actually made him WAIT for this) WHILE she was writing a book about a child with exactly the same name, with a half sister with exactly the same name, both with a rebel handmaid called June for a mother, who Gilead tried to assassinate twice, with one father in Gilead and one father in Canada, and she was smuggled out as a baby…..and Gilead demanded her back….but somehow its a totally different kid. Urgh. At the end of the Testaments is a clear note saying that both these girls were re united with both of their respective fathers and this essentially tells us that the show writers killed off a character that they definitely shouldn’t have. This isn’t rocket science, it’s not even fucking hard….it’s just logic.

Now there’s actually something quite disturbing about this ongoing attempt to strip Nick of his paternity of Holly / Nicole, and it’s got nothing to do with whether you’re team Nick or Luke, it’s a message of deep shame. The relationship that the protagonist had with this individual and the child that she bore with him is now seen as shameful. In order to restore the protagonists virtue and the child’s value, some audience members have seen fit to question this child’s paternity. This stems from some sort of puritanical seed planted by the writers and purposefully fed, that seeks to sever his parentage. In season 6 writers made sure that he renounced his paternity in spirit, severing this bond entirely and removing his presence from her life for all time. This is all less about who her father truly is, whether genetically or spiritually, and more about erasing the protagonists sinful act of “forbidden love” and removing his ties to the product of it. In season 6 we saw June revert to calling their daughter Holly instead of Nicole. Any possible trace of Nick was being removed, including his name, in order to “cleanse” her of him. This whole “first and forever” speech by Nick was the icing on the shame cake….I was disgusted that these writers had found it necessary to “purify” this child. Unfortunately this attitude of shame and guilt concerning love and sex is not rare throughout this show and even less throughout writing in countries heavily governed by religious theology. I expected more from these people, who are boasting a show about feminism. It seems I was wrong to do so.

2. Nick was / wasn't part of Mayday

Let’s start with the basics, both books said that Nick part of Mayday, it’s mentioned in the afterword of the first book and again throughout the second book. Now whatever the writers and show runners have cooked up to say that he wasn’t part of this organisation is not a true adaptation, it’s their personal fan fic and they are CHANGING the authors work. Let’s be CRYSTAL clear, I’m not throwing any shade on fan fic, but the fact is that fan fic writers are not passing off their work under the authors title and claiming it’s the original work. I’m seeing studios doing this constantly now, buying up authors works, using the title and changing major elements. To be honest audiences have had an absolute gut full. To all you screenwriters out there, No you don’t know better than the author….and please just fucking stop “getting creative”. Unfortunately had the show runners respected the authors work, at the end of the day this character would have been construed as the underground rebel fighter that he was. They didn’t. If you are a fan who wishes to follow the storyline EXCLUSIVELY of the show you also have to acknowledge that for years and years show runners ran pr to suggest that he was part of Mayday. In season 4 they ran trailers depicting the words “we are Mayday” followed with shots of characters, Nick was featured amongst them. To show just how mixed this messaging was In season 6 Hulu put up selection of drawings from fans entitled “we are Mayday” with the first drawing to appear being that of Nick Blaine. This was the week after episode 7 had aired. Not only that but for years they ran storylines that heavily suggested that he was a member. He used them twice in escape attempts for June, in season 4 episode 9, he gave a file to June and said that photographs had been taken by “friendlies”. He spoke to Marthas who addressed him as an equal and gave him information.

Now EVEN if you would like to believe he was never part of Mayday in the television series, you have to acknowledge that he was definitely not a regular run of the mill Eye. If he truly was a Gilead loyalist, he definitely should not have had contacts in these areas, definitely shouldn’t be meeting up with them, he shouldn’t be running black market goods through them to the jezebels, shouldn’t be delivering letters that sabotaged Gilead’s trade negotiations, shouldn’t be using Mayday to help a handmaid and a child flee Gilead TWICE, shouldn’t be handing over a prisoner to a Gilead fugitive, shouldn’t be handing over confidential information OR acting as a confidential informant, shouldn’t be aiding the escape of Mayday rebels, shouldn’t be killing the Eyes or running around with a handmaid in the first place. All this shit gets you killed in Gilead, why? Because you shouldn’t fucking be doing it. What do they call that when you do a bunch of shit that you shouldn’t be doing? Oh yes that’s right, REBELLING. I mean I’m not actually sure what people are waiting for in terms of defining Blaine to be a part of Mayday, does he need to know the secret hand shake? Is there a special t-shirt? A secret magic decoder ring?

In The Testament’s Daisy’s father is a character that is described by Atwood as being “up to his neck” in the resistance and Daisy IS baby Nicole who, as we’ve established, IS Nicks daughter. Let’s be clear, we’re not having a debate, this isn’t an argument, the facts are very, very clear; this show took a character and changed his allegiances completely. Atwood’s book very clearly states that Daisy’s father was not a commander, Atwood therefore never intended for Nick to become one. When the show made him one a power shift occurred and Nick was submerged in a corruptive environment of patriarchal power. Not content with simply shifting his status, they also made Blaine a MILITARY commander a position which required him to command troops against Canada. Now to say that you’ve taken artistic licence with something is one thing but this is quite another. It’s a long stroll right off the garden path. Nick was part of Mayday and to have him suddenly running around bombing rebels is insanely counterintuitive to his intended character as a subversive. Atwood was consulted closely throughout season 1 and 2 but much less throughout season 3 when writers made Nick a commander. Atwood has herself stated that she really didn’t have that much say over what happened. The fact is MGM bought the rights to this authors work years ago, they already made a movie of it in which surprise, surprise Nick is actually very much part of Mayday, because well the people who interpreted the text back then, could fucking read. In the show they consulted Atwood in the first 2 seasons merely as a courtesy, after that they didn’t really bother and while the narrative for The Testaments was put in place during season 2 (naming the baby Nicole, smuggling the baby out, calling Hannah, Agnes) the show chose to alter major planning elements of The Testaments during season 3-6. The show runners have now seen fit to pollute an authors work so completely that in the up and coming manifestation of The Testaments, it will have already ruined continuity, killed off characters and excluded others that play a major role before it even hits the ground. As an audience member who loved this show for years and now can’t watch a single episode without cringing, I have to say, this is exhausting. Why they bothered to buy the rights I’ll never know. So ultimately, was Nick Blaine a member of Mayday? Well he was a rebel and a engaged in subversive activity so yes he was. In the show he was never given that secret magic decoder ring, but in Atwood’s books he would have been running the fucking joint.

3. Nick was a Nazi

This has become THE point of central debate about this character, so for this one we are going to get a straight up definition of what Nazism is and the definition of Fascism. This is not my opinion, this is a definition from academic sources. If you have any doubts about these definitions, feel free to google / research your brains out. I’m not going to debate whether these definitions are right or wrong in the comments section. I’m a pragmatist, you don’t get to negotiate facts.

Nazism - Nazism is a specific, radicalised and RACIST form of fascism that is distinguished by its central focus on ethnic purity, antisemitism, and the concept of an "Aryan master race.” It’s sympathies are expressed most vocally by present day white Nationalists. Fascism - a broader ideology exemplified by Mussolini's Italy, prioritises the state, nationalism, and a totalitarian, authoritarian political system but does not include the same extreme racial doctrine or racial expansionist goals as Nazism. Therefore, while Nazism is a subset of fascism, not all fascisms are Nazism.

Therefore the political ideology that existed in Gilead was certainly that of Fascism, but not of Nazism. This term was incorrectly used by the writers and believe me, it matters. It matters to those who suffered through Nazism and continue to feel the effects of white supremacy movements to this day. So why was THIS particular label used instead of the correct title of fascism? Simply because calling a person a Nazi is one of the WORST things you can call them, you can’t be a Nazi and still be a good person, regardless of any additional charity work you might do. You can’t be a Nazi and have any shot at redemption or forgiveness. There are just simply NO shades of grey about being a Nazi and that’s entirely the point. Up until that point Nick Blaine had been walking around draped in lovely shades of ambiguous grey, no one really knew what he was up to, he was kind of always walking that tightrope and he even had a shot at redemption through his deal with Tuello. By calling him a Nazi the writers pushed him off the tightrope, flat onto the ground, dissolving any artfully crafted shades of grey into straight up black and white.

Now, let’s not fuck around; both of these labels are pretty damning, but these writers knew that using the term “Nazi” hits a lot harder than fascist. The label “fascist” is simply too undefined as opposed to “Nazi” which comes with a notorious reputation for racial genocide already attached. The writers wanted to strip this character of any appeal or ambiguity whatsoever, they knew this would do it and no one would dare ask any questions….fuck that, I have questions. Like, why would a writing team be so stupid as to use such an inflammatory label in such a casual and incorrect manner? Did they truly not anticipate the firestorm it would incite? In Atwood’s text the issue of race and racial purity was raised, as a component of a regime such as Gilead. The show was heavily criticised for failing to follow through with this. In one lone scene Serena and Naomi are seen to observe children of multiracial descent and make comments about “whether anyone will take them” in a childless society…..and that’s it. Unless you count of course the acts of bullying and victimisation that June herself perpetrated on several non caucasian characters.

It was interesting to me that while this label was applied to other characters like Serena and Lawrence, it slid off them like teflon, despite their part in the construction of the actual regime. In episode one Serena was called a Nazi but by the end of the season June proclaimed to Mayday “she’s one of us now”. HIGH COMMANDER Lawrence walked through the Mayday camp and was called a Nazi, he simply kept walking tossing the offhand comment “you haven’t seen what I’ve done” over his shoulder. And that was it. The Architect of Gilead shrugged it off, kept walking and got a heroes death. In comparison to Lawrence, Nick is the office coffee boy, so why did the label stick so ferociously? In order to understand why, it’s crucial to note the proximity of the application of this label to the protagonist personally. Serena was called a Nazi by the women on the train carriage and Lawrence was called one by random members of Mayday in passing. In both of these instances, the protagonist had no real personal emotional connection to them and no personal investment in their opinion. In comparison Nick was called a Nazi by both the protagonists mother and her husband, the two people she had the most personal and emotional investment in, in her life. This was of course by design and it was done for several reasons and NONE of them had anything to do with pointing out a personally held political ideology. The protagonists mother is the source of ultimate wisdom, particularly in a show which seemed to have suddenly switched gears from being about feminism, to being all about motherhood. June’s mother screeching this to her over Nick and June’s child essentially served to sever the bond between Nick and his own daughter and to a larger extent, of the idea of Nick, June and Nicole as a family. The other person to use this label; Luke, is the other element in the infamous love triangle. By calling him this name, Luke basically set off an atomic bomb that obliterated Nick as any kind of competition completely. By using characters that the protagonist had high emotional investment in, it ensured that both she and the audience swallowed it and asked no questions.

So, can you call Nick a fascist instead? Fair question. Well writers didn’t actually label him because they wanted to point out any particular belief system, I mean if you hadn’t worked out by now that Gilead was a religious totalitarian regime then you simply hadn’t been paying attention. Writers did it because they basically wanted to distinguish Blaine as the ultimate villain, and if they gave this title to all of the Gilead four in equal measures then it would’ve kinda defeated the purpose. Ultimately I’m pretty reluctant to swallow this line given it’s sudden appearance, the way it was applied and the previous narrative from writers and show runners that this wasn’t even remotely the case. Does he live in a Fascist regime? Yes. Is he a fascist? If I believe everything the writers and show runners tell me NOW and swallow the content from season 6 without question….then yes. But even then, you STILL have questions to answer about the coercive control he was under, questions the writers and show runners seem unable to answer with any real clarity. If I pay attention to the commentary from writers and show runners through out the years prior to season 6, script notes and the characters portrayal up until that point….then no he’s absolutely not a fascist. The problem with defining him as one is that there’s not a lot of evidence at all to suggest that he’s invested in a political ideology of ANY kind. He just seems to be towing the line to stay alive. He’s not shown on screen demeaning individuals of other genders, faiths, creeds or colour, which is sort of important when you’re trying to construct a fascist element of a character. He vocalises on many occasions that he feels trapped, there’s evidence on screen that he is, there are plenty of situations in which he appears coerced and fearful. There’s a TON of evidence to testify to the fact that the show runners changed their mind about this character at the last minute. It’s not based on theory, it’s documented over years and years, in scripting notes, through podcasts, interviews……it’s fucking everywhere. In previous interviews Miller stated that Nick wasn’t invested in Gilead’s political ideology, in fact he really, really didn’t like it all. Below is just a drop in an ocean of evidence that conflicts with the narrative that Chang and Tuchman would later define as gospel.

Now I AM willing to accept that Blaine had signed up for it in the beginning, to say that he was completely naive would be foolish, but Miller was clear, commenting that Nick quickly became disillusioned with it as soon as it turned violent….and the regime turned violent very, very early in the piece. We were also given a breakdown by a writer in the book “The Making of the Handmaids Tale” early on, who outlined Blaine’s backstory as being targeted by recruiters, disillusioned by the movement and moving to curb it as soon as possible. Later Miller changed his tune right around the time that the season 6 backlash hit, and likened Nick to the Jan 6th rioters and called him the “Gestapo”. Not only would his own script notes betray him, but more importantly it highlighted the inconsistencies in the messaging that audiences received about Blaine throughout the years. It’s simply not good enough. There’s enough evidence to sink a boat that the creators of this show contradicted themselves and the final hours sought to entirely change the narrative surrounding this character. It’s been described as an example of creators gaslighting an audience to “retrofit an entire character through a new lens” and I couldn’t agree more. This character has been living in Gilead for 6 seasons now and THIS is the first time we’ve heard this specific term used? I mean, COME ON. Can people PLEASE start asking questions about the motivations behind these creators manoeuvrings instead of just being the victims of them? Personally I loved this character’s ambiguity and all the shades of grey that had been crafted for him. Come season 6, writers slapped this inflammatory label on him, flattening him out completely and leaving him with no dimension. Up until that point he’d been artfully constructed and this seemed so utterly clumsy, hacky and careless. It almost seemed like they couldn’t help themselves, they had to show their hand and paint it with the same old trite black and white moralism instead of maintaining that rare humanity that made Blaine so real. In literary terms it was a hard fail. Blaine’s name belied his classic noir roots, characters centrist by nature who defy solid definition. The season 6 creators stole away this classism, they ripped out his core nature and then claimed it had been that way all along.

In interviews during season 6, Minghella stated that he knew Nicks story line would be “divisive” and the writers should have known it too. I suspect they did. I suspect they thought the controversy would be good for viewership, but to do that with a subject matter that inflammatory, is just reckless. When the writers called Nick a Nazi they also made the fans of the “Nick and June” pairing the show had carefully promoted for years, the target of online bullying. This was one of the most irresponsible things I’ve ever seen a show do. Fans that questioned why they’d been sent mixed messaging throughout the years and felt angry and misled were dismissed as “war criminal apologists”. The very show that had romanticised this pairing now inserted dialogue that transparently mocked the audience with an unbelievable contempt, for shipping them. Now if you’re someone who believes “this isn't a love story” or “Nick’s a war criminal” then I just want to say this, the creators of this show chose to romanticise this character, they encouraged others to do so, they ACTIVELY promoted audience engagement over the pairing of Nick and June, they changed the narrative around this character and then they mocked their audience for believing them. That is not clever story telling. That is just cruel. Content creators need to be more aware of the fact that audiences clash online over their favourite shows. What they write, the labels they use, how they apply them, the consistency in the morality by which they judge their characters, the lessons they choose to teach and the PR they run, ALL has consequences. Now, whether or not Nick was a fascist leads us straight to theory number four.

4. Nick could have left any time he wanted.

This feeds into the question of his responsibility in the construction and perpetuation of this regime and exactly how much choice he had to partake in it. Writers have constantly muddied the waters by telling the audience that Blaine had both free choice AND was the victim of coercive control. This is not a thing. In the last season we had Wharton surveilling him, terrifying the fuck out of him, questioning his every movement and motive AND we had writers trying to tell us that he could have just calmly lied or left whenever he wanted. Strangely this was in direct contrast to writers earlier statements from Blaine where he “didn’t have a choice” or “was risking his life” and from Osborne where she repeatedly claimed she “didn’t want to put him in any danger” when she asked for information. Now audiences are demanding to know why he didn’t just shuttle handmaids across the border and put Eden on the next train out of Gilead. Fucking really? I’ve also noticed the absence of questions about the woman who married her to him out of sheer spite or any about June’s demand he sleep with her despite his protests…..nothing….crickets. Just as Serena got away with blue murder at the end of season 6, she seems to also be getting away with it in any online discourse regarding her cruelty, repeated manipulations of power, her betrayal of women and refusal to act; and that is pretty telling. It’s the same for Aunt Lydia….not a peep…just granted instant hero hood and that’s that. Lawrence got actual tears and outpourings of sympathy………seems legit.

Whether Nick had free autonomy or was a victim of coercive control has become a point of intense debate online creating a hostile environment on social media; and the writers and show runners are entirely responsible for this. They are responsible for the portrayal of these characters to the audience, for the press they serve them, for their online profiles and posts. The audience only knows as much as the writers and show runners show them. When they are shown conflicting messages, inconsistent storylines and a narrative that is completely opposed to the authors work, it is divisive. Audience members are right to be confused, they have not been given a consistent narrative, it is both unfair and irresponsible. Audiences should also not have to rely on interviews and press releases to try and deduce a characters true motivations, that’s just fucking ridiculous. The difference between Blaine as the victim of coercive control and having full autonomy distinguishes whether or not you CAN actually say that he was or was not complicit or whether or not you can actually call him a fascist. Basically it’s fucking key and the writers just kept refusing to commit. In the last moments of the characters existence, they slid some ham fisted line in about the protagonist asking him to leave many times, with absolutely no evidence that this had ever actually occurred. The fact that we were told that Blaine only ever had two motivations; survival and to help June, by the writers themselves, indicates he was NEVER motivated by any specific ideology either. Writers in fact used those two singular motivations as a means to portray him as selfish and entirely self motivated, which kind of shoots the whole political ideology / fascist / Nazi thing in the foot. Any ideology requires commitment and sacrifice to ideals you believe are higher than your own self interest. So which one is it? A believer? A survivalist? It can’t be both.

But the writers wanted to have their cake and eat it too, they knew that unless they portrayed him as fully jumping on board the Gilead train, he’d still illicit some sort of empathy and they reeeeally couldn’t have that, if they wanted to have a storyline like let’s say, his girlfriend killing him and feeling super justified about it. The sudden appearance of Blaine ranting on about how awesome Gilead’s political ideals were, like an absolute nutter, seemed so absurd I actually laughed out loud, he was utterly unrecognisable. The butchery of a once so artfully crafted benevolent character, was so very Disney and cartoonish it seemed surreal. I was simply astonished at the audaciousness of attempting such a clumsily executed act of obvious deception, and I will never understand why some actually believed it. In previous interviews Miller had stated that Blaine did not subscribe to their doctrine, but basically towed the line in order to survive. I suspect that many who live inside these political systems would be able to identify with this, fortunately most of us don’t live in a totalitarian regime. Unfortunately it makes our view of the reality of day to day life, quite limited. Our view is narrow, we’ve had the luxury of not compromising our principles if we don’t want to simply because in our society, if you choose not to compromise, it’s not like you’ll get a bullet. To say that Nick Blaine could leave any time he wanted is simplistic, it’s reductionist and nonsensical. It ignores all the other factors that combine to make the soft cell of a regime. It ignores the vulnerability, the sly sell, the coercion, the constant fear, the alienation, the entrapment of guilt, duty and loyalty with such demands as a wife and child. It ignores all these things and simply demands that individuals find the strength and means to resist after 10 years of being slowly strangled. Under the circumstances, I think that Blaine did fucking more than most, and then some. I can’t actually compare the things that Nick and Luke did for June or the resistance because the fact is, Luke never lived In a totalitarian regime, he had no idea what it meant and his view of it was shaped, like most by the free world around him. When he did finally dip toe in there he found that the reality was horrifically different. He was captured, Blaine brutally murdered guards in front of him in order to ensure his freedom and Luke quickly slid into a state of mind that allowed him to see the Jezebels as collateral damage…..until his wife wanted to save her bestie. So do I think Blaine could have left any time he wanted? Absolutely not. Gilead made sure of it.

5. Nick was just selfish

This theory is actually one of my favourites because of how easily audiences were manipulated into buying it. I have to admit, this was a masterclass in how to take a characters own mechanic and actually fuck them with it. It was sly, it was sneaky, but not quite sneaky enough I’m afraid. In season 6 writers embarked on a campaign to try and convince audiences that all of Nick’s motives had been completely self motivated. I have to hand it to them, managing to convince an audience that loving and helping another person is somehow selfish is five star work. They must have sweated for HOURS before they came up with the whole “he only ever did it for June” bit and If they’d had more time to back that shit up with actual evidence, they may have had a shot. So let me start by talking about his essential character construct, a supporting character. So Nick Blaine is designed as a character to SUPPORT the protagonist, all of his actions are therefore motivated towards her. He’s her love interest, and a means of quiet rebellion, so by his nature all his actions are designed to centre on her. When you look at his actions down throughout the seasons, until season 5, whenever he appeared it was exclusively in relation to a matter regarding her and to her benefit. His role as a character is to support her, they’re not going to give him a seperate elaborate plot line that includes saving a bunch of handmaids because, as the protagonist of the show, that’s June’s job. He merely acts in a protective capacity, he’s her “sidekick”, her ally, messenger and guardian. Throughout the previous seasons, creators had actually seemed concerned about the intensity of the spotlight on this particular character, and made a point of claiming that they “didn’t need any male saviours in a female centred show”. Suddenly in season 6, writers condemned him for not running around for the last 5 seasons setting handmaid’s free or similar acts of heroism. This was a prime example of how the writers used their own storytelling mechanics to twist this characters narrative.

In season 6 the writers actually chose to take their OWN story mechanic, of Blaine being just a supporting character, primarily focused on the protagonist, and use it as a device to turn it against him…..which was extremely sneaky and pretty shitty of them really. The idea that Blaine was selfish was also not actually true and inevitably it was picked apart pretty quickly. If Nick Blaine had just been some selfish fuck boy, as the writers would have you believe, he wouldn’t have given a shit about what happened to June at all. He would have just knocked her up, hand balled his kid onto the Waterford’s and sent June off to the next commander. He would have taken the child bride and all the Gilead spoils. He would have been up at Jezebels as soon as he got that commander suit on. But he didn’t do any of that, instead he helped her, he defended her, saved her life and engineered her escape TWICE, even though it meant risking his own, and that he’d probably never see her or his daughter ever again. In season 2 he went out of his way to find Luke and took a message from him back to June. He was deeply in love with her by then, regardless he put aside his personal feelings and delivered this message to her. He also delivered the letters to Luke from the Jezebels, and he definitely didn’t have to do it. He could have just let June burn them in the sink or tossed them away, but instead he took them across the border and made sure they got out. When he returned to June he said the words “The letters got out, THEY MADE A DIFFERENCE” If Nick was a Gilead loyalist why would he think that letters that had served to sabotage Gilead, would have changed things for the better? Yeah, doesn’t really make sense does it?

In the first season Blaine witnessed a handmaid dying and then opted to become an Eye in order to monitor the commanders actions around him and report on them. This action was neither done for his own survival or for June. It was done because he believed this violence is morally wrong and it’s an act of resistance that he can carry out within that system. Now before anyone gets all ranty; lets all just remember that this story line is not theory or speculation, it has been confirmed by creators as the actual plot line of this characters arc. Creators are on record as citing this character as acting as a subversive rebel. So either they lied or they changed their minds and it’s really just that simple. There’s no logical explanation as to why they would lie in interviews repeatedly about this characters motivations for this action. The ONLY logical explanation is that the creators of season 6 attempted to gaslight an audience into believing that they’d been mistaken…..despite their repeated former explanations for all of his supposedly sincere actions. I was most disturbed by actions which they had previously described to the audience as benign and benevolent, now being played off as malicious. A prime example being, the previous romantic and selfless phrasing of: “he’d do anything for June”, being rephrased as the height of selfishness that “he’ll ONLY do things for June”. I KNOW if you’ve turned hating on this character into a past time, that you’ll have worked out some way to turn every single action he ever did into a source of self serving, cowardice. That despite the fact that you have a litany of villain's to chose from, somehow the Gilead coffee boy is the personification of the most Evilest Evil to ever Evil. Similarly I’m aware that if you absolutely adore him, every single thing he ever does, looks like utter fucking magic but neither of these are true. He’s not a saint, he’s not a demon, he’s a human being. This character was intended to be fallible, to be weak at times and strong at others, we were actually graced with a glimpse of humanity earlier on in the piece……but in season 6 it was absolutely nuked out of existence. I saw it as an incredible shortcoming in the writers abilities, that they seemed unable to carry a character of this complexity to its conclusion, and I was saddened that audience members seemed to prefer to indulge in this type of simplified character construct. I’m also stunned that other characters motivated ONLY by self interest had it brushed under the carpet and completely ignored.

6. June didn't really love Nick

And here we come to the heart of the matter (scuse the pun) because ultimately the destruction of this love triangle was at the very centre of the decimation of Blaine’s character during season 6, and it’s really not any more complicated than that. His position as a competitor in this love triangle painted a target squarely on his back and ensured that he would be nominated the resident Big Bad. They had to pick one out of the Gilead Four to play villain, and the unrelenting popularity of Nick and June, made him an excellent candidate. I’ve said several times that when the writers used Nicks actions to destroy this love triangle, they took away June’s autonomy in her choice, but I think they were willing to sacrifice it. In a show that boasts a “feminist” line, thats just a compromise you really shouldn’t be making. Over the years Nick and June had gathered such a strong following, that Luke had simply been left in the dust. Even now I’m not hearing too much about how magical Luke and June were together, probably because people are way too busy fighting over Nick and Nick and June’s relationship.…possibly the biggest clue yet as to how much more engaging this character and this couple were. But come Hell or high water, writers wanted him gone and they knew it wouldn’t be enough for June just to choose her devoted hubby, Nick would have to be REMOVED as a viable option instead. It’s why the writers had Holly and Luke call him a Nazi and it’s why the writers laid the blame for the murder of the Jezebels at his feet. It did not escape my attention that Serena said nothing to Mr Waterford 2.0, who actually ordered their execution, in fact his involvement was pretty much brushed under the carpet and never mentioned again. This love triangle is what lies beneath all the poisonous discourse online. It’s the reason that issues of fascism, culpability, autonomy and power have all been directed specifically at this character. People absolutely have the right to ask questions, and level criticism at characters, but my spidey senses start tingling when there’s only one character amongst the frey that people are asking questions about. That’s when I start wondering exactly what the writers did and WHY, in order for that to occur.

When it comes to Nick and June it’s impossible to ignore that show runners had painted a portrait of timeless love for seasons and then sought to somehow squash this aura under the guise that it was actually a superficial illusion. The visual symbols that accompanied their interactions, the dialogue between them and Blaines very character construct had been built meticulously from the ground up to appear timeless. There was the classic analogy of “running away” together, a fantasy of a sun drenched beach, heart breaking displays of affection disrupted by the villains of the piece, and Blaine himself as a walking talking reference to Casablanca. Yet in season 6 I was told that all of this was actually nothing more than June thinking Nick was hot and him being selfish and obsessed. What a fucking waste. This truly was a crash course in how to shit all over another creators vision. Someone had spent time, effort and care building this bond and in the end those that decided they had other plans, went absolutely overboard trying to erase it. Do I think June loved Nick? Yes definitely, in fact this image of deep and timeless love was so convincing that even after multiple seasons of heavy June and Luke content, the bulk of the audience was still cheering for the two star crossed lovers. The writers were so desperate to destroy this image, they had to literally change history by inserting a dreamy flashback in order to try and banish it once and for all. The trademark golden hour light sought to blend it seamlessly with all those other shared moments, it was somehow meant to disguise the fact that it had been concocted to justify a paper thin last minute drastic narrative shift. It contained some reference to Paris, which was just odd because for seasons and seasons now all Id ever heard about was Hawaii…..little did I know, that the writers had chosen steal this reference and hand it over to Serena and Tuello. Fucking wut?

This relationships weak ending completely obliterated the symbolic narrative of rebellion that it represented, and it was all done in the most callous and nonsensical fashion. It also simultaneously proved Fred’s point entirely that “Love was nothing but lust with a good marketing campaign” with a ridiculous reference to Rhianna. if the writers were right and the protagonist only “loved” him for how he looked and what he could give her, what does that say about her? I understand that their goal was to devalue their love, but actually it just served to just make the protagonist look horrifically shallow and opportunistic. Essentially, she’d used him for sex and power….a power she used and then denounced, washing her lily white hands of it’s inevitable catastrophic consequences. The writers seemed unperturbed as long as Nick was out of the way and June simply moved onto Lawrence as a means for power. There we go, love triangle disposed of…..after 5 and a half seasons……and 9 years. Fuck you very much. I would caution future writers; this is a lesson in how to utterly destroy a once beautiful image, how to decimate a source of sanctuary in an evil wasteland and leave nothing behind but desolation. Season 6 took this light in the dark, extinguished it and effectively turned everything black. The idea of this relationship as valuable, pure, timeless or even love has now been completely destroyed, and the protagonists entire existence inside Gilead now looks like torture porn. For many, it has made rewatches absolutely impossible.

So why didn't he get redemption?

The writers needed at least one out of the Gilead four to be their scapegoat and lets face it, Nick was very inconvenient. They’d created a lack of an antagonist in season 4 with the death of Fred which was also inconvenient as she needed a recognisable face of Gilead to fight against. All the other candidates were apparently deemed inappropriate of true villainy even though their CV was dripping with experience. But you know how it goes with these things, the protagonist was in love with him and she was married. Naughty naughty. This season was horrifically misshapen by traditional views about marriage, sex and the roles that writers believed women should occupy. The irony was a horrific slap in the face. The love triangle was determined by a mans actions, robbing the protagonist of the autonomy of any choice. Motherhood was determined as the be all end all, essentially proving Fred Waterford right that love was a worthless illusion and bearing children was women's biological destiny. The protagonist was screamed at for daring to fall in love with someone else by a man who met her through infidelity, thus proving once again, ok for a man but not for a woman. The husband berated and humiliated the protagonist in public on more than one occasion only to have her crawl back to him pathetically (honestly this made me not only feel angry but physically sick to watch her do it). Her other love interest was painted as a villainous object of superficial lust, personifying nothing more than a sinful indulgence that she’d had behind devoted hubby’s back. The protagonist declared tearfully “he waited for me” about her untouchable spouse, like she now owed him something and her feelings meant nothing. Ultimately ALL of it added up to a puritanical statement about her expected role as a wife no matter the emotional cost. I was and am disgusted. You can’t just stack your show full of women and call it feminist, it can still be a steaming pile of puritanical garbage. I have been deeply disturbed by the extremely traditionalist misogynistic nature of the messaging that was sent to audiences during season 6. This has already been called out as highly hypocritical and in years to come it will age very very poorly.

Atwood's text depicted Luke as very comfortable in the male privilege Gilead’s inception afforded him. Offred observed that he baited her mother into arguments with anti feminist sentiment and seemed to enjoy his patriarchal control over her. Nick was actually a more active part of the resistance than June ever was, his claws deep in Mayday and operations deep in Gilead’s underground. The writers actively polluted the portrait of his character, depicting him as part of the upper echelon which was in direct opposition to his characters actual trajectory. While people can argue the point until they’re blue in the face that “he had it coming”, trust me in years to come future audiences won’t give a shit. I lived through the hysteria of the original Twin Peaks and the whole “Mulder and Scully” thing when the X Files first aired. Audiences rediscovering these series have NO clue as to the hype that surrounded them at the time of initial airing and it will be the same for this one. Future audiences won’t be scouring reddit for people’s personal opinion, they’ll just notice that the series and the book are not the same and that the writers changed a character and killed them off when they shouldn’t have. They’ll just notice that characters that had done evil shit for seasons and seasons were now getting away scot free. They won’t have all the interviews and PR from show runners and streaming services, they won’t have the current political climate to contextualise it. They won’t have to wait years between seasons, they’ll just binge it. They also won’t know who the fuck Rhianna is. Stop and think for a second what that characters journey and his relationship with the protagonist will look like to them. Many were puzzled as to why Blaine was suddenly made a commander after holding Fred at gun point, he should have been sent to the gallows. Joseph Fiennes clarified in an interview that he’d been promoted so that Fred could have him sent to the Front to die.

Future audiences won’t know this, the article will probably have become buried or removed and as a result they wont have a clue as to why it was done. Atwood’s text was careful to state that he wasn’t one, they’ll be confused as to why it was changed. It’s just one in a litany of ways this show and this character will be decontextualised……and the writers and show runners will no longer be able to lean on interviews for explanations and justifications. All that will be left is the show, the books and the scripts…..The accompanying book to the series in which they contextualise this character as benevolent will also survive, probably as a collectors item….think about what that means. Take away all the noise, all the hype, emotion, clear the table and look at just these things….now, does everything look right? Does it look consistent? Does it look like the character in Atwood’s text? If not, why? If you’re sitting at home thinking that the reason that people are going toe to toe over this character is because he’s pretty as fuck, then you’d be dead wrong. There’s a very simple problem with this show, it thinks its smarter than it actually is. Nick Blaine was possibly one of the most complex characters on this show and it failed him miserably. It cast him as a subversive, then pivoted last minute to depict him as a weak willed, selfish prick, pointed to him as a cautionary tale, all the while neglecting to truly discuss the cause. The Handmaids Tale failed to make any serious commentary about the capitalist systems that form the very bedrock on which Authoritarian regimes stand upon. He could have been used to make valuable commentaries about breaking cycles, about quiet rebellion (as Atwood had intended), instead someone got pissy that the protagonist fucked someone she wasn't married to, and decided to turn him into a villain.

Even if you do believe this character IS a fascist, who went from young recruit to a position of power. His journey was essentially a portrait of an individual who dug themselves a hole and basically tried to dig themselves out. Out of all the Gilead four he was the one who should have garnered the MOST empathy and understanding or at least SOME semblance of sympathy. But final season show runners have now imbued this character with some new found malicious intent, that despite the shows consistent transparency of events and character construct, had somehow remained hidden all along. I would ask them to please please please fuck right off with that.

One of the calling cards of a false or altered narrative being fed to the audience is the number of adjustments that have had to be made in terms of sheer mechanics, in order to try and make the scenario believable. Here we had a time jump, a flashback scene that featured this particular character, references to off screen occurrences, an uneven moral compass by which to judge characters, altered definitions for previously utilised terms and phrasing and distinct physical and vocal shifts. These are by no means all of them. If you’re wondering if it’s a lot….yes, it’s a lot. One of the biggest red flags that they had pivoted in season 6, was Blaine's broken deal with Tuello, these two had been super chummy at the end of season 5 with a plot line all set up to go toe to toe against Laurence and co. but all of a sudden it was dumped, with Blaine suddenly giving Tuello attitude like a snarky school boy. A previously carefully constructed plot line that audiences had been anxiously awaiting, had been suddenly abandoned. This was just the first mistake of many for season 6, but after the rip cord was pulled on it the rest tumbled after it like dominoes.

Just as this character appears to walk in many worlds, it seems that the writers, actors and show runners all had their own idea of who Nick Blaine was and in the end none of them could agree. As a result audience members have either been left to point out evidence of rampant inconsistency OR they’ve accepted the current take by the show runners and have happily accepted what was dished out in season 6. They’re free to do that but they should realise, it’s not actually a true adaptation they’re watching, the vision for this character by the author has been deeply tampered with. It’s also not a character arc consistent with the one previously planned, it’s a last minute deviation. Like it or not the evidence of this doesn’t exist in theory or rhetoric, it’s actually in black and white on their own scripts….and out of creators own mouths…..for years and years…….right up until the last season. Because the character is ambiguous it’s easy for these creators to now try and reframe his motivations in hindsight, but that won’t change history. That won’t change all their previous narrative around this character. Nick Blaine was built to be an enigma, in Atwood’s novel he reads like a shadow, his nature feels conspiratorial, and the afterword confirms his loyalties. The Testaments did too. The writers of this show should have respected this, they didn’t. Imagine if they had, Personally I would have been happy for those loyalties to remain ambiguous right up until the end, for him to walk between these two worlds for all time. I once heard him described as like a matryoshka doll, unending layers of opposing loyalties, conflicting and conflicted. I loved his complexities, his greyness, his facets. I loved that his internalised conflict felt like it was constantly shifting, never allowing you pin him down. I wondered at the dimension he could have achieved had he been given more time on screen.