I've just noticed this "pattern" thanks to a post from someone I follow. So,I mostly read manhwas and that person does too and we both share a lot of opinions, One of which is Rashta, from the remarried empress having too much hate. Which brings me my main point.
Why is slavery so normal in manhwas? Yes,"normal". Sure,it may not be the author's intention. The author puts slavery as a theme in these stories and rather than address it, it's just a plot point to make the protagonists shine brighter.
In a lot of manhwas, when the heroine needs protection, she'll go to a slave market and purchase an able bodied slave solely for the purpose of protecting her (though she's rich and can hire a skilled bodyguard). Now,that slave, who should be traumatized or even,scarred due to the abuse they suffered will for some reason cling to the protagonist and will eventually become obsessive slaves and then, villains.
I'm not supporting their actions. Some of them do terrible things. But,why are the slaves, not slavery or the protagonist who saw a fellow human and purchased them like a commodity so often villains? Don't forget the slave masters,too who obviously abuse these people.
I know it's supposed to be historically accurate and all but slavery is a real life thing which still happens today. So bad that some people never recover from it.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Penelope and Eckles are interesting because you have to sit with the uncomfortable fact that they are both trying to commit acts that erase the other's basic rights to autonomy and selfhood at the most fundamental levels. Penelope's ownership of Eckles denies him power over his own self (a human right) and in response, he wants to sexually assault her to impose upon her the very power she denied him. It doesn't mean he's justified or by any means has a right to do that, but it does mean she can't meaningfully compensate him for her actions. That's probably why the ending feels so unsatisfying to so many people, but it's not a flaw imo.
Penelope still denies him the truth about his past, but she also frees him from any attachments to herself or the negative parts of that past (mostlt for selfish reasons, to be clear, but she did want him to move on as well). That's the best she can do because Eckles (pre-dragon) would only accept a total reversal of power as recompense and that's just not viable with a happy ending. He wasn't going to break the chain of abuse, so he had to be removed.
Eckles will probably always be the most difficult to understand because we know very little about how he feels towards anything but Penelope. We have objective facts (large & loving family, spoiled with a wealthy lifestyle and no responsibilities, brutal experience in slavery at a very young age) but we know almost nothing about his feelings towards these parts of his life. Everything we construct about whether he cared for the people of Delman, how politically aware he was, what his greatest conflict (internal or external) was pre-Eorkan conquest, whether shame or anger was stronger while he was enslaved is entirely based on assumptions (sometimes well founded ones, but still).
We know Derrick has always felt pressure to live up to the role of the heir and guilt the loss of over Ivonne, Reynold's anger is misplaced grief and he isn't introspective, Winter is guided by a sense of duty to do what's right and protect mages, Callisto is volatile but cares about his position for more than the power he uses constantly. Compared to that, we only know how Eckles feels about Penelope, and how he feels about other people (Callisto, the other slaves from Delman) in relation to her. We are never shown what he thinks of the man who led the conquest of his country or the people he betrays outside of Penelope. The only exception is when he taunts Derrick while teaching Penelope to use a crossbow, which shows his resentment for a) the family who legally owns him, b) the empire who destroyed his country, and c) his pride in his country. That's relatively little considering that the next time he talks about the Eckharts, he's fallen into the pattern of relating them to Penelope (post-coming of age, when he threatens to kill them for hurting her). His willingness to see the Delman slaves as nothing but a means to an end may suggest a lack of solidarity on his part (and I certainly don't disagree that it does). His confrontations with Callisto are far enough that he can't think of anything but Penelope (the laila's influence + his own progressing obsession), or maybe he just didn't say that part out loud but felt it nearly as strongly as his obsession. We just don't know.
Sometimes I feel like people defending Rashta just because it is trending/popular because why people still don't understand why Eckles's writing is problematic, why Layla's victim blaming is wrong and why Mielle's classism deserves the harted and Aria is a victim of one (even if I extremely disklike like Aria)
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
Thank you so much!
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)
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
If I had a nickel every time a Manhwa character at the start of the story was a slave, get "rescued" and "used" because the thoughts they might be useful, did not care about other slaves or their ppl once gained status, was compared and pit against someone who is a royal, scared they might get discarded for not being useful enough, & start doing terrible things, and being delusional... I would have two nickels.
Jokes aside, I don't believe they share much in common regarding their backgrounds, motivations, execution, and narrative roles. However, once you simplify the trope, a clear pattern appears.
The reason I know Eckles exist was because people keep mentioning him while I was scrolling Rashta's dicussions. So I have a impression he would somehow similiar to Rashta, but I was dissapointed he was not what I imaged, but hey, the authors must having good time tourturing them mentally.
I’ve been rotating Eckles in my brain for weeks, and I’ve finally pinpointed why the discourse around him feels so unsatisfying. It’s not about whether he’s a "sad puppy knight" or an "annoying yandere." It’s about how the writing intentionally sabotages any clean pity we could feel for him by dangling political weight and then yanking it away.
The problem with Eckles is that he exists in two completely different stories, and only one of them is allowed to matter. (Please read untill the end before comment)
But first, let use everything his stans use to pity him as a point to use "against" him.
1. He has a harsh life
Reality: Eckles wasn't born as a slave, not even a commoner. He was a spoiled prince who not even to be burdern by the work at the palace. He was protected & loved by the royal family till the war fell them apart.
2. He was forced into slavery
Reality: The slavery was his surviving card. The royal family erased his name so he would not be executed and be sent to a slave market as a commoner/another noble instead.
3. His country was invaded and destroyed
Reality: His country has had it coming. Delman wasn't a pure, innocent utopia. It was Central Asian steppe vibes harsh, raiding, Khan energy, a kingdom that plundered smaller nations. Those nations eventually betrayed Delman and helped the Eorka Empire wipe it off the map.
4. His PTSD from war & slavery must have shaped him
Reality: He was driven insane by his obession with Penelope. People could treat him like shit and the only thing makes him brust into tears was when Penny not properly look at him. He was fine with slavery & objectification as long as Penelope was on his side.
Now, before you think I am against his stans, you are... WRONG. Let me show you some confrontation for the same 4 points above.
1. The "Privileged" Orphan
To argue that he was "spoiled" as a way to dismiss his current trauma is a cruel irony. How do you use a man’s murdered family as "proof of his fortune"? Reminding an orphan that he used to have a home isn't a check on his privilege; it’s a salt rub in a fresh wound. His family exist just to remind you what a good life he had, and not a grieve for a teenager that has no home to return to anymore.
2. Gratitude as objectification
“At least you got to live.”
That line alone says everything.
When survival is framed as mercy, suffering becomes something you’re expected to be grateful for.
He wasn’t “saved”, he was repurposed.
And the idea that he should feel thankful for being kept alive, when many people prefer deaths over slavery, just exposes how deeply dehumanizing that system is.
3. The moral framing of conquest
How cruel does a country have to be for its destruction to be framed as justified?
Delman wasn’t innocent, but that doesn’t make colonization and enslavement righteous.
Yet the narrative leans dangerously close to turning imperial violence into something deserved
It’s not just backstory, it’s framing.
And that framing quietly asks the audience to accept conquest as justice.
4. His suffering reduced to Penelope
He’s not allowed to exist outside of her.
We’re only shown what she does for him, or what she does wrong to him, but never the full scope of what he’s endured.
His trauma from war, slavery, classism, racism? It’s background noise at best.
Even worse, the audience often acknowledges these issues more than the story itself does.
So in the end, his pain isn’t explored, it’s narrowed.
Reduced to an obsession, instead of recognized as something far more complex.
The portrayal of Eckles presents a significant imbalance between his political narrative and his romantic characterization, ultimately undermining the complexity of his character.
From a political perspective, Eckles is introduced as the sole survivor of a fallen royal lineage, a prince reduced to slavery after the destruction of his homeland by the Ekora Empire. His background is defined by extreme trauma: war crimes, systemic racism, classism, and dehumanization, particularly within the slave auction and the Ekharct mansion. These elements establish the foundation for a deeply layered character shaped by violence, loss, and survival.
However, this political dimension is markedly diminished as the narrative progresses, overtaken by a romantic framing that recontextualizes his motivations almost entirely through his attachment to Penelope. In this lens, Eckles becomes emotionally dependent on her due to her strategic “love bombing”, a pattern of manipulation through praise, gifts, and conditional affection. Rather than critically examining the psychological consequences of such treatment on a traumatized individual, the story reframes his descent into obsession as a product of romantic fixation, even if it acknowledges the toxicity.
This shift produces several troubling implications:
Eckles expresses willingness to remain enslaved, even rejecting opportunities for autonomy (e.g., refusing to remove the collar slave), not as a reflection of internalized oppression, but as proof of devotion.
His violent intentions toward the crown prince and the mansion’s inhabitants are not meaningfully rooted in the systemic abuse he endured, but instead in their role as obstacles to his relationship with Penelope. (Because he has every RIGHTS to be angry and ruthless towards the empire, but he refuses any of the valid reasons to do so).
Most critically, his lived experience of war crimes and genocide is narratively sidelined to the point where he is depicted as willing to sacrifice even his own people if it ensures proximity to her. And you do not get to see the serious payback/affect it has on him, because the political standpoint is just that irrelevant and unimportant.
All of this replaces the problems of structural violence: slavery, imperialism, war crimes, classism/racism and genocide, with his love for Penelope. While the story may gesture toward Penelope’s moral ambiguity and partial accountability, it fails to extend the same level of critical engagement to the broader injustices inflicted upon Eckles that were not done by her. Penelope is afforded moments of reflection and remorse, suggesting a degree of moral awareness. In contrast, Eckles is denied similar depth, he remains trapped in delusion, exhibiting possessiveness and entitlement without accountability or self-awareness.
His political narrative is significantly toned down, resulting in a full-blown yandere figure who feels entitled to violate Penelope’s life and autonomy as a consequence of toxic love, rather than being portrayed as a traumatized teenager broken by war.
So, does he deserve pity?
From a political perspective, yes, he does. Eckles is fundamentally a victim of extreme structural violence. He loses his homeland, his status, and his people, and is subjected to war, enslavement, and systemic dehumanization. Yet the narrative never allows him the space to properly grieve, process, or even understand these. I mean, we even get to see Derrick mourn to Ivonne. His suffering is never meaningfully explored; instead, it is reduced to something that can be misread as mere bitterness over losing his title. He is denied the opportunity to feel anger for legitimate reasons or to recognize that Penelope is not the sole source of his victimization. In that sense, he is deeply tragic and deserving of pity.
However, that does not absolve him of responsibility. He is also portrayed as callous and morally compromised, willing to disregard the lives of his own people and facing no meaningful consequences for it. This lack of accountability further weakens the political weight of his character, making his arc feel underdeveloped and unbalanced.
From a romantic perspective, however, it becomes far more difficult to sympathize with him. His behavior reads as uncomfortable and unsettling rather than tragic. His obsession is less a nuanced depiction of trauma and more reminiscent of toxic dependency, even evoking elements of Stockholm syndrome at best. Instead of eliciting empathy, his actions come across as invasive and distressing, making him difficult to view as a compelling romantic figure.
