I see something deeply unsettling in the way some young people approach Aleksander. Itโs not just that they dislike him, that's fair, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But the level of hatred they express is not only disproportionate to their understanding, it feels like a performance. Itโs not rooted in genuine engagement or critique but in sheer emotional outbursts: shouting, mocking, name-calling, and vilifying him in ways that feel more like a show than anything else. Whatโs most troubling is how loud this condemnation is and how empty it is in terms of actual understanding. Weโre living in a time when emotional intelligence, trauma awareness, and social consciousness are celebrated, so why is it so difficult for these young viewers to extend those same values to a character like Aleksander? The speed at which they abandon the very principles they claim to uphold the moment a character challenges their worldview is amazing. Aleksander isnโt some mindless villain or sadistic monster, no matter how often they says he is. His actions are born from years of pain, betrayal, loss, and an overwhelming need to protect his people from history repeating itself. Yet, instead of attempting to understand the deeper layers of his character, the response is pure disdain. These are the same people who claim to care about empathy for trauma survivors, who value moral ambiguity in characters, and yet Aleksander gets nothing but rejection. Itโs not just that they donโt like him, itโs that they refuse to understand him. They throw around words like "manipulator", "villain", "monster", "groomer", without even considering whether they apply in his case. They strip away centuries of his personal suffering, the weight of his decisions, the heartbreak and loneliness he carries, and reduce him to nothing more than a one-dimensional bad guy. And hereโs the thing: they donโt hate him because heโs evil. They hate him because heโs complex. Because he challenges their understanding of good and evil. He forces them to think and wrestle with moral grey areas. And instead of taking that challenge, they retreat into their comfort zones and shout louder.Itโs a kind of intellectual cowardice, really. Itโs easier to dismiss a character like Aleksander with a label than to sit with the discomfort of trying to understand his motivations. But here's the thing: Aleksander doesnโt need to be loved by them unconditionally. He doesnโt need to be idolized by them. But he does deserve to be understood. And it seems to me that too many of these young voices, who claim to appreciate complexity, are either unwilling or unable to do that. The more mature readers and viewers, those whoโve lived long enough to understand that life isnโt just black and white donโt shout or blindly condemn. They reflect. They see that Aleksanderโs actions were shaped by survival, by war, by love, and by loss. They see the tragedy of a man who has lived for centuries in isolation, carrying the burden of all that pain. They understand that his greatest tragedy wasnโt his downfall, but the fact that no one ever really saw him. Not his mother and not his lover. And, tragically, not those who claim to be his critics. Younger generation claims to be champions of complexity and nuance, and yet, when faced with a character like Aleksander who is drenched in sorrow and burdened with trauma they shrink. They refuse to engage. They diminish him. They condemn him. And all the while, they shout, not to uncover the truth, but to silence it.
Itโs frustrating, honestly. Because itโs not about blindly supporting Aleksander, itโs about having the maturity to look beyond the surface, to understand what makes him tick, and to ask yourself: Why does he do what he does? But sadly, the loudest voices seem too focused on proving their moral superiority to take the time to ask that question. And in doing so, they miss the real story. That's why I think that Aleksander would be perfect for a genre intended for an older audience, but more on that next time.
