If I was to describe grishaverse with the least amount of words, I'd say "cognitive dissonance"
Because the world we're introduced to is dark, unfair, full of predjudices rooted deeply into society, with strong religious propaganda in at least two countries, which in one of them is used as a reason for government-sanctioned eradication of a specific group of people. One could expect those heavy topics to be treated with appropriate care, since most authors who know they aren't able to write about such things with much needed nuance, simply don't create worlds that would require such skill from them. And yet, every problem in grishaverse is resolved by convinient lack of opposition towards protagonists' actions, and everyone important in a span of a second suddenly forget all the harmful views they've lived with all their life in order to create a new, completely different society, where nothing inconviniences the protagonists.
Because there are attempts at accurately portraying political injustice and how govenments can bend treaties and promises as it suits them with, eg. Shu's monarchy, their reaction to Kherguds and them not helping Ravka fight Fjerda, but it falls extremely flat when we keep in mind how earlier Fjerdans were shown to actually be very accepting of Grisha, and are more than eager to convert to the religion of Saints. And when we later see how Ravkans immediately forget about all predjudices they hold against Grisha and Suli, which were shown earlier in the same book, because the plot wants to put a crown on Zoya's head.
Because everything regarding jurda parem is designed to make your skin crawl, Shu labolatories, and Fjerdan breeding camps are intended to make you shiver with disgust and despair, and people working in them are written in a way so the most unempathetic person will understand how absolutely stripped they are of any human compassion, and how unbothered they are by monstrosities they're inflicting on innocent people, only for the plot to twist itself in a knot and say "So everything's okay now, no need to fear, there will be no consequences for perpetrators, and no one knows what will become of the victims, but that's completely irrelevant, there's peace because the author said so. And look how cute the main couple is :)"
Because it's shown that Grisha aren't able to protect themselves on their own, and that they're willing to stay hidden in forests if that allows them to avoid confrontations with otkazatsya's aggresors, but we also are supposed to be disgusted by Grisha seeking shelter in the Little Palace, and them cheering at opportunity of safety promised them by the Darkling.
Because it's known Grisha were working in service of Ravka for centuries, they were fighting, and dying hand in hand with otkazatsya, and it didn't win them anything except still ongoing hatred and lack of trust from otkazatsya, which turned into First Army soldiers straight up murdering Grisha at the first opportunity they got, but not a single protagonist seem to care for that, and don't spare it more than half a thought, even though great chunk of them is Grisha themselves, and all of them say they care oh-so-much for Grisha's cause.
Because it's known that up to KoS Grisha still aren't welcome in wide Ravkan society, and are driven away from some neighbourhoods, yet not one of the people in charge (who care for the Grisha so much!!!) seem to actually do anything with that. Because we get a main character's backstory, in which she is saved by the forced conscription of Grisha into the Second Army, but we are supposed to cheer when the same main character says they have the draft abolished, so now Grisha children can stay in enviornments that are unequipped to teach and train them, and are also plainly dangerous due to still present animosity toward Grisha.
Because the books state that Grisha are no better than serfs, only to later refer to them as "elite soldiers".
Because I'm supposed to read "There were still wars and there were still orphans", and then casually accept that "Alina deserved her peace".
Because I read "Is it a hero's origin story or a villain's? I've never been able to see Aleksander as purely one or the other", only to be slapped in the face with five books that dehumanize, insult, villainize, and rewrite history to the detriment of the man who tried to change something in the broken world for the better of his people, and country.
Because even though we're only told crumbs of Aleksander's life story, they always show that everything he ever did he had done with safety of Grisha and Ravka in mind, how inhumane amount of strenght, and love it required from him to not break, and go on on his task for so long. We're told how his whole life he was belittling himself, and remained Lantsovs' faithful servant for centuries, trying to accomodate his people into society, and grant them as much protection as he could, and reached for the crown only when the country's situation became too critical to ignore. And yet, we're to agree with protagonists, when they call him a monster, for whom human life lost it's meaning, a cruel dictator and an overly ambitious, powerhungry tyrant ready to destroy the whole world.
Because the heroes, if they aren't currently protected by the plot armour, are acheving their goals by the exact same means Aleksander tried to use, but instead of bashed, they are now praised for their strenght, resourcefulness, and humanity.
I cannot look at Grisha's situation in TGT, the many ways it worsened in both duologies, and not see how the heroes' moves are either making it all worse, or wouldn't work in real life. I cannot look at the way the premise of grishaverse books looks, and then believe that it was created by the same author who solves every problem with snap of a finger and wishfull thinking. I cannot look at the character of Aleksander, his backstory, everything he has gone through, and believe he was created by the same author, who then refused him every single human thing, including peace of death and deserved recognition for hundreds of years of neverending toil.
I don't know how to put in words how striking is the difference between what's presented in the text, and the reactions to it the narrative forces upon the reader.
