Grishaverse fandom - hate, and the danger of dehumanisation
I want to reflect on something I keep encountering again and again in this fandom. Remarks like these are sadly common within the so-called tolerant Grishaverse. What stands out is that they are not ordinary criticisms of a character, they reveal something much darker. One person scoffs at the idea that Aleksandercould ever be described as morally grey, and another states that they would like to read three hundred pages of him being tortured and that even such an amount of suffering would not be enough.
This goes far beyond disagreeing over fiction. This is not a debate about narrative choices or literary archetypes. This is sadistic satisfaction expressed openly and proudly, and it exposes a worrying mindset that cannot be brushed aside as harmless fan banter.
Aleksander Morozova is the perfect definition of a morally grey character. He fought for the survival of the Grisha for centuries, a people who faced systemic persecution, oppression, and extermination. Without him, their survival as a group would likely not have been possible. His entire existence was a shield against annihilation. Yet he also relied on methods that were firm and relentless. This duality is precisely what defines him as morally grey: he is both savior and leader, both guardian and ruler, both a man shaped by suffering and a figure who carried immense responsibility.
To deny this complexity and insist that Aleksander is simply a villain is to ignore the essence of his role in the narrative. But it is easier for some people to flatten him into a caricature than to grapple with the discomfort of a character who resists simple classification. Complexity requires empathy, critical thought, and the ability to hold contradictions in mind. Not everyone is willing to make that effort.
But the hatred directed toward him goes beyond simplification. When someone writes that they want three hundred pages of him being tortured, they are no longer analyzing a story. They are indulging in violent fantasy. This reveals what I would call sadistic satisfaction, the psychological enjoyment of imagining another’s suffering. This matters, even if the target is a fictional character. Because it shows how some people respond to discomfort. Aleksander unsettles them. He is too powerful, too ambiguous, too resistant to easy labels. Rather than sit with that tension, they resolve it by destroying him in their imagination — not once, not briefly, but endlessly. They envision prolonged, humiliating suffering and then declare that even this would not be sufficient.
This is not criticism. This is cruelty. And cruelty, even when disguised as “just fandom,” is never harmless.
Why I think young people react this way?
Much of this extreme hostility comes from younger fans. There are psychological reasons for that.
Discomfort with ambiguity – Many younger people are raised on stories that divide the world neatly into heroes and villains. A character like Aleksander Morozova aka The Darkling, who cannot be neatly categorized, destabilizes that worldview. Sadistic fantasies become a way of pushing him back into the “villain box.”
Projection – Aleksander embodies traits that make people uneasy: power, control, charisma, and determination. Instead of reflecting on why those traits evoke discomfort, they project their hostility onto him. He becomes a safe vessel for hatred.
Illusion of power – Heis immensely powerful within the story. Fantasizing about his humiliation and torture provides a false sense of power over him. For someone who feels powerless in life, this reversal of roles can be intoxicating.
Group bonding through cruelty (found family...) – Online fandoms often create micro-communities built not around love for something but around shared hate. Within those groups, people compete to express more extreme disgust, more creative violence, and more vicious mockery. Saying you want three hundred pages of torture is not just about Aleksander Morozova — it is also a signal to the group: “Look how much I despise him. I belong here, please, like me!”
Normalization of exaggerated speech – internet culture thrives on hyperbole. Everything is the best or the worst, every opinion is exaggerated for effect. But when exaggeration becomes “I want endless torture,” the line between ironic exaggeration and genuine sadism is blurred.
The danger is not limited to fictional discussions. If someone finds joy in endlessly humiliating a fictional character, what prevents them from carrying the same mindset into the real world? Hatred is a habit. It is not easily contained. If a person learns to resolve discomfort through cruelty, they are more likely to apply the same strategy outside of fiction. If they are aggressive toward supporters of Aleksander online, what does that suggest about their tolerance for difference in the real world? If they cannot handle complexity in a books or a TV show, how will they handle the complexity of actual human beings?The truth is that many young people are already being radicalized online. They are drawn into communities where hatred is normalized, where cruelty becomes entertainment, where the destruction of “the enemy” is the central goal. When I see comments wishing endless torture upon Aleksander, I see the same pattern on a smaller scale. Today it is a fictional character. Tomorrow it could be a classmate, a co-worker in adult life, or anyone who represents something they dislike.
So why Aleksander in particular?
Aleksander is an especially effective lightning rod for this kind of sadistic aggression because he embodies qualities that both attract and repel. He is powerful, charismatic, and morally ambiguous. He inspires fascination and discomfort at the same time. For some, this duality is irresistible, they feel drawn to him, but also feel the need to punish him for what he represents. This ambivalence often produces the strongest reactions. A bland villain would not inspire three hundred pages of torture fantasies. A one-dimensional hero would not inspire denial of moral grey-ness. Aleksander provokes these reactions precisely because he is complex, layered, and emotionally challenging. The sadism of his opponents is a twisted acknowledgment of his power as a character.
Why this should not be ignored?
It would be easy to dismiss all of this as “just fandom”. But to do so is to ignore how people rehearse their moral instincts through fiction. If cruelty, sadism, and aggressive exclusion are normalized in the fictional sphere, they do not simply vanish when the book is closed. They shape how people think, how they argue, how they treat others. What I see in these comments is not harmless exaggeration but a symptom of something larger: the erosion of empathy, the glorification of cruelty, and the refusal to tolerate difference. That is really dangerous. It is dangerous in fandom, and it is dangerous in life. What troubles me most is how easily people can be taught to hate when it becomes a collective exercise. It often begins with words: exaggerations, ridicule, fantasies of suffering. Then it grows into a culture where cruelty is normal and where the target is stripped of humanity, reduced to nothing more than an object of blame. In the past, entire groups of people were pushed into this role — neighbours turned into enemies, individuals recast as threats simply for existing. Once the process of dehumanisation had taken root, cruelty was no longer questioned. If anyone knows the history of Europe in the 1930s and 1940s even a little, they know what I'm talking about.
Aleksander deserves to be discussed as the morally grey, tragic, and compelling character that he is. Those who deny this complexity and call for his endless suffering reveal far more about themselves than about him. They reveal a pattern of thought that thrives on cruelty, fears ambiguity, and seeks control through destruction. And I will say it plainly: such patterns are not confined to fiction. They are seeds of something that, left unchecked, can grow into real-world aggression and radicalization. That is why I find these voices not just unpleasant but deeply concerning.
