#grishanalyticritical

Her training progresses slowly because of her age and not because "wahh, I can't live without Mal for a month". Also because she and Baghra have the biggest old lady beef and bicker all the time. She's a better mother figure to Aleksander than Baghra. Kills the stag with zero hesitation because she had to butcher animals and store the meat for long winters. Has beef with the Apparat as well and tells the brainwashed children that he gathered in a cult to wise up and go get a life. Doesn't blame Genya for doing what she had to to survive and doesn't guilt trip her to take her side. She understands because her parents married her off when she was young, fortunately her bastard of a husband died soon after. Becomes friends with Ivan because paranoid Darkling assigned him to keep her heartbeat and blood pressure in check, so the old sun summoner won't randomly die. Is not impressed with Nikolai when he comes back to Ravka at all. In her opinion, everybody has done more for Ravka than him and he doesn't get to swoop in, decide he wants to be King and take all the credit.

yes, I've read the books. All of them. As it happens, I'm re-reading them for the second, third, fourth time right now.

Yes, I criticise Alina, and I'll keep doing so. She's a fictional character, and those are merely tools of storytelling. In her case about deliberate selfish blindness and regression.

No, I shan't praise a mediocre writer, lacking a spine, for failing the basics of the craft, and getting worse rather than better.

And yes, I love the Darkling, which has surprisingly nothing to do with his alleged good looks. I loved him before I started the show, I loved him, when those dilettanti butchered him in the second season, and I shall continue loving him for his character traits even if he happened to look like Quasimodo. The last we got to see him, he was a fucked up tree after all.

Use your block buttons some more, and learn to think for yourself at some point. You might need it one day. In REAL life.

This post is an inspiration from one of anon asks.

Time and time again antis have accused Aleksander of several hideous crimes without understanding the monarchy of 19th century Feudal Russia and what serfdom entails. Due to this lack of understanding(or willful ignorance), Aleksander is studied under a harsher light than Nikolai and other characters. I blame the author entirely for this, as she never gave Aleksander a voice until much later. In books 1-3, he is only projected to us through Alina who had nothing but disdain for him.

On the other hand, we see Nikolai, who was a prince and then a king, who did not do much for the country or Grisha. However, his actions are softened by LB and antis. He is considered a 'flawed' human who did his best. His manipulative actions are treated as an act of strategic brilliance while his mistakes are treated as an act of desperation/helplessness.

So, let me first start by explaining some of the vile accusations thrown at Aleksander and then contrast it with some of Nikolai's actions.

He sex-trafficked Genya.

In Book 1, the author herself says two key points 1) Grisha are no better than serfs and 2) After their training, Grisha are either posted in the borders or sent to serve in affluent households. So Genya was not a unique case. This, again, is the price Aleksander had to pay for the Grisha to live. Genya had to be sent as a child because an adult Genya could not get as close to the Queen as a child would and it worked for a while until the Queen turned on her. This were an understanding of serfdom is needed. A serf can be released only by the master not by anyone else. Aleksander cannot take her away and relocate her somewhere else. And if the antis had read the 'The Tailor' they would know that in spite of the challenges, Aleksander did give her a choice- to disappear forever or exact her revenge and it was Genya who chose to stay.

He committed genocide in Novokribirsk.

Even if we ignore Alina's unreliable POV, Zoya's POV tells us that only a part of the city, near the docks was destroyed. So what Aleksander did was just a warning and not a 'genocide'. Antis keep forgetting that Grisha's enemies were not just Fjerda and Shu Han but Ravka itself. Had the coup had succeeded, he not just wanted Fjerda and Shu Han to back off but the First Army soldiers as well. Book 2 shows how his paranoia were not unwarranted. Through Fedyor's story we learn how they were attacked in their sleep and how First Army conducted sham trials and slaughtered them. This alone shows how Ravka's sentiments about Grisha was not much different from Fjerda or Shu Han. So in the event of the coup, Aleksander had no choice but to issue a warning all of his enemies.

He is a predator/abuser.

This is the one that makes me laugh the most. Girl, he is an immortal. He has no choice. All his age-appropriate past lovers are long dead and buried. What is he supposed to do? Remain celibate? They often bring up the kiss near Baghra's hut as an example of his predatory nature. But what manipulation happened? That dummy fell for Alina and high-tailed from there.

Let me draw a comparison to show what actual manipulation and predatory behaviour looks like. (1) Nikolai who is about 7-8 years older than Alina, forcibly kissing her, against her will, in front of hundreds of people just to better his chances for the throne. (2) Mal who punishes Alina for flinching at his advances by getting it on with Zoya. (3) Baghra, who preys on Alina's fears/insecurities and turns her son's one true immortal companion, against him. These are actual manipulations, not the one Aleksander did.

A predator/abuser needs to have constant access to his victims. In LB, own words, Aleksander rarely stayed at the Little Palace. Compared to him, Nikolai, Mal and Baghra had more access to Alina and they did actually succeed isolating her.

The Stag amplifier

Then the stag incident is treated as a sign of his manipulation and perversion. This where we need to apply our critical thinking and ask the important question who benefits from this act? It certainly was not Aleksander.

Let's rewind the clock a bit, Alina who was the Sun Summoner and a key political figure ran away from the Little Palace. Aleksander did not know if it was an enemy attack or something more sinister. He lies to King, who would have his head for this mishap and, searches for her only to learn that she run away on her own violation. So the girl, he hoped to be his ally became a threat. He was forced to reveal his hand sooner and speed up the coup. People need to understand that Aleksander is not an ordinary, lovesick boy, he is a war general and Alina has proved herself to be unworthy of his trust. So he put a leash on her. This not a question of morality but a question of ethics, much like the trolley problem.

He turned on his own Grisha.

They were deserters for god's sake! and was fighting opposite him. They forfeited his protection the moment they joined hands with the enemy. So he was treating them as a normal enemy.

He stole Grisha children.

He did what Charles Xavier did in X-Men. Grisha powers were tied to emotions and are instinctive. Without proper training they are bound to hurt normal people. Not to mention, if the Grisha were born outside they were either killed or sold to pleasure houses. And considering Ravka's anti-Grisha sentiments, he did what he had to do to keep them safe from actual predators.

Now let's talk about some of Nikolai's actions and let's not forget that he was the King/Prince of Ravka.

Sent his father on a luxury retirement instead of punishing him for his crimes.

Used Genya's trauma to make himself the king instead of offering her justice.

Did not care or investigate the genocide of the Second Army soldiers even if the said soldiers were serving the crown. He punished none of the First Army soldiers and was happily brown-nosing them.

Was happy to start a Civil war even after knowing the kind of king his father was. For a 'peace-loving' person (we have seen him in KoS and RoW ass-kissing useless feudal lords instead of using his authority), he did not attempt to negotiate with Aleksander.

Starved his people so Aleksander would have no choice but to use his Grisha to cross the Fold to get supplies. Again for the antis crowing about Novokribirsk, what do you call this?

Stole Grisha inventions like corecloth etc in the name of unification and supplied it to First Army. Read point 2 once more to understand the cruel nature of this act. He felt Grisha were hoarding better supplies but did not question why the First Army were having subpar things because if he did then the blame would rest on his father and his corrupt noble supporters. So he chooses to steal using the unification propaganda. How noble!

Sent Grisha who were not of age to war fronts and missions. Why not send the First Army? Are there no highly skilled people in the First Army for such things?

Manipulated and used Alina to establish himself. Atleast Aleksander 'manipulated' her for the betterment of Grisha, Nikolai did it for himself.

Destroyed everything Aleksander did for Grisha in the name of unification. Or should we call it erasure? He erased centuries of progress and left them without protection.

He claimed Aleksander used his Grisha selfishly for 'his' wars and then shamelessly sends his minions to recruit them from other countries.

If Nikolai was indeed a just and kind king as the antis claim him to be, why didn't he announce Grisha as a protected class? Why didn't he offer them equal rights as a Ravkan citizen? Through his own spies he knows what is happening to them in Fjerda, Shu-Han and Kerch and yet knowingly he lets Zoya abolish the rule of finding and securing the Grisha children (which mind you, saved Zoya from child marriage).

Aleksander was not just a person, he carried the history of the Grisha that was rapidly being erased. He built a place to pass down that knowledge, their culture and practices. If Grisha were not tested and found, who would save them if they died from wasting sickness, who would offer them protection from slavers and Fjerdans? Once again in the name of 'liberation' Nikolai had truly pushed them into hiding. Without these laws what happens when anti-grisha sentiments raise again after a few centuries? He removed every true protection and erased a targeted group's shared history in the name of liberation.

In the end, Nikolai did not protect his country nor the Grisha. He is in no way the hero of this story nor is his echo chambers whom he calls friends. I could go on and on. Truth is, it is not my intention to minimize things like SA or genocide. These are heavy topics and should be treated as such. Readers or antis who throw around such words should know the weight of such words. I hope this sheds some light on the hypocrisy that resides in this fandom.

"You can't run from me, Alina!" the Darkling shouted. I couldn't let him come after us. I couldn't take the chance that he might survive. But I hated what I had to do. The others on the skiff had failed to come to my aid, but did they deserve to be abandoned to the volcra? "You can't leave us all here to die, Alina!" the Darkling shouted. "If you take this step, you know where it will lead." I felt a hysterical laugh burble up inside me. I knew. I knew it would make me more like him. "You begged me for clemency once," he called over the dead reaches of the Fold, over the hungry shrieks of the horrors he had made. "Is this your idea of mercy?"

One could interpret the Darkling's lines as him being manipulative and prideful. That's probably how Bardugo wanted you to interpret them.

But that's not the only way they can be interpreted.

"You can't run from me, Alina!" He has finally found his equal. His other half. He will not lose her. Not if he has anything to say about. She can run, yes, but she can only get so far before he finds her again.

"You can't leave us all here to die, Alina!" Not if you still want to think you have the moral high ground here. Not if you still want him to be the villain of this story. Yes, the Darkling did just murder an entire town. But that's to be expected of the terrifying general of the Second Army, direct descendent of the Black Heretic. Alina's own words and actions prove that no matter how much good he does, Aleksander will always be seen as a monster. So what is the point of him trying to act as anything else? Fear might actually prove to be a much more effective tool than loyalty and humility and endless service.

But Alina? She's supposed to be a saint. She's the holy, perfect heroine in their tale. Heroes and saints aren't supposed to kill people just because they didn't jump to save you from the monster. Particularly AMBASSADORS and REPRESENTATIVES OF THE KING.

By leaving them to die, Alina swaps the roles. "If you take this step, you know where it leads." Not to be more like him, but replacing him as the villain morally.

Not that Leigh would ever explore such an intriguing path in her story... I mean, I'm gonna have to assume all the ambassadors ended up dying that day, given how none of the other countries ever bring up the fact that the Sun Summoner tried to kill their ambassadors as an excuse to invade Ravka after the Fold vanished.

"You begged me for clemency once. Is this your idea of mercy?" Mal was a soldier. Who went AWOL. If Aleksander had spared his life, what sort of message would that have sent to his soldiers? That you can abandon your post, disobey any law, and it'll all be fine if you're just a friend of the Sun Summoner? Ravka's weak enough already. They don't need lax discipline to make it worse.

And Mal's death was likely meant to also serve as a punishment for Alina. Because, alas, she's too important and unique for Aleksander to execute.

So he showed her mercy by allowing her that final night with Mal. That was all the mercy Aleksander could afford to give without weakening his image.

But Alina's idea of mercy for those whose only crime is not standing with her to fight the Darkling appears to be a death at the hands of volcra.

I have been meaning to write this post for some time, but speaking about Aleksander’s death is not easy for me. At least I do not carry the kind of bitterness like antis that allows some to discuss it without feeling...ok, to the point.

In Shadow and Bone season 2, the story closes with two statements that mirror each other in form but not in substance. Both are spoken at the edge of loss. Both are meant to define love. Yet narratively, they reveal two entirely different truths.

I will begin with a man who cannot write, yet somehow decided to “save” the world — Mal, a man as sharp as a blunt blade.

When Mal says to Alina, “I don’t feel it anymore,” after she has quite literally brought him back from the dead, the line functions as a final verdict. It is not framed as confusion, exhaustion, or emotional overload. There is no hesitation and no struggle to remain. The wording is absolute. Feeling is gone, and with it goes responsibility.

What makes this moment narratively severe is not only the separation itself, but its timing. Alina is left alone at the beginning of what is clearly the most difficult chapter of her life. Mal’s choice is not simply to step away from a romantic relationship. It is a withdrawal of presence, loyalty, and care. Given their shared history, this absence cannot be softened or excused. The story presents it as a collapse of connection at the exact moment when that connection is tested by death and consequence. If love, or even enduring friendship, were real and independent, it would not disappear so cleanly.

This matters because the series repeatedly frames Mal and Alina’s bond as something foundational, and pure. Yet once the amplifier is gone and mortality asserts itself, that bond proves conditional. It didn't survive reality. Narratively, this exposes the relationship as dependent on circumstance rather than choice.

Aleksander:

Aleksander’s final moment operates on an entirely different level.

By the time he stands before Alina at the end, he has already surrendered everything that could have preserved him. He has accepted being remembered as a monster so that she can exist as a saint, something he explicitly articulates when he tells her, “Let me be your monster.” He does not attempt to rewrite the story in his favor, nor does he deny his sins. Most importantly, he does not resist death. He gives Alina permission to end him, fully aware that this act will secure her future and erase his own.

There is one crucial detail that was unfortunately removed from the final cut: just before his death, Aleksander transfers his shadow powers to Alina, because she has lost her Light powers and would otherwise be defenseless. This act alone reframes his end entirely.

This is not self destruction, but sacrifice with intention.

His last words, “My little saint,” are misread by antis as possession or obsession. Within the narrative, they function as recognition and as love in its most distilled form. He names what she has become and affirms it, even though doing so costs him everything. There is no demand in the line, no expectation of return, no attempt to bind her to him beyond the moment. He dies having chosen her life over his own, her legacy over his survival.

The crucial difference between these two expressions of love is endurance. Mal’s love does not survive the loss of amplification or the arrival of death. Aleksander’s does. One retreats when the illusion breaks. The other remains present when there is nothing left to gain.

Eric Heisserer and Christina Strain may have intended Mal to embody healthy love and Aleksander destructive devotion. But stories are not governed by intent alone. They are governed by structure, consequence, and meaning. Narratively, the text shows that one bond dissolves under pressure, while the other holds its shape even at the point of annihilation.

That is why these moments stand in such stark contrast. One says, I feel nothing, and...leaves. The other says, I see who you are, and stays, even when staying means dying.

Hi! I’ve been thinking a lot about the Grishaverse lately, especially its worldbuilding and magic system—and I’ve come to realize something that I both love and struggle with.

The idea of “Small Science” is incredibly compelling to me, mainly due to its scientific roots and it basically consisting in atoms manipulation. That concept is one of the things that drew me in the first place. But as the story progressed, i felt that the system doesn’t always stay consistent with that core idea (especially in the last duology). At times it feels grounded and rule-based, and at others it drifts into something much softer, where the initial rules do not exist (for example wearing multiple amplifiers) and magic starts to feel more like… well, magic.

This isn’t a criticism so much as an observation from someone who really enjoys digging into systems and structure. So, partly for fun and partly for my own sanity, I’ve started working on a small personal reference/headcanon book where I try to “make it make sense”.

If you’ve ever noticed inconsistencies, had your own interpretations/headcanons, or even come up with “fixes” in your head, I’d genuinely love to hear them. What would you change, clarify, or expand?