"Don't Bring Up Rhysand When I'm Criticizing Tamlin" - Thoughts
Let's discuss this thing I see happen a lot in ACOTAR convos. When someone is going in on Tamlin for his wrongdoings and they receive the expected “But what about Rhysand?” reply - frequently the rebuttal is some variation of “Why do we have to discuss Rhysand when I am just trying to talk about Tamlin?”
I have a couple of thoughts here and there is an aspect of this I kind of understand from the “don’t compare them” side. Soooort of. But I am going to explore why I think a lot of people’s issues REQUIRE a comparison. The criticisms I have (and suspect others have) are distinctly BECAUSE of the comparison point as forced onto us by the series.. not because of the characters individually.
Tamlin and Rhysand as they function narratively as love interests are intentionally set up in comparison to one another.
Tamlin is the failed, bad love interest who is intended to represent a slew of negative relational qualities and Rhysand is intended to show up and replace him as the better, healthier option. In my mind, that framing is impossible to escape and the framing *itself* is precisely the thing I have an issue with even moreso than Rhysand as a character in isolation.
Some people will not agree with this (they HATE Rhysand no matter what the context).. but I know there are some other people out there who think about this similarly.
I can’t discuss Tamlin or Rhysand in a moral context without referring to the other because my complaints are specifically about the way in which they are juxtaposed in the same story.
If Rhysand existed in a book as the sole MMC and was not functioning in comparison to someone else, I would have far less issue with him (perhaps none). I would still understand the criticisms of him not *actually* being a good guy by real life standards.. I’d think that angle was interesting, I’d laugh at some of the ridiculousness of presenting him as a perfect husband etc… but I’d probably just shrug and be like “idk he’s a silly, power fantasy, dark romance type guy for the girls to giggle about” and that would be the end of that. I have been known to defend the appeal and draw of problematic love interests (am a fan personally!) in fiction and I have to imagine he’d mentally fall into that pool for me.
Likewise, the Tamlin and Feyre arc in isolation would not bother me all that much either. I still think it could be improved upon and I don’t *love* utilizing aspects of romance/erotic storytelling that people generally understand to be tropes that are only fun in fiction and then going “HAHAA… it’s actually BAD!”. But it’s also relatively coherent and I could see the vision. You want to have the story be a slow realization of “omg, if a guy was like this in real life I bet it would be bad” .. whatever, sure. You can do that. And then I wouldn’t be all that surprised when we hate on that guy. Once we shifted the goal of the story over to showcasing a more grounded exploration of unhealthy romantic dynamics, we're good. No issues. Naturally though, I expect the rest of the story to maintain that tone going forward.
So a Tamlin-only story as written, I don’t mind people coming for him. A Rhysand-only story as written, I don’t mind people thinking he’s hot and having fun without criticizing him using a realistic framing. I have no real qualms with either of those stories existing in isolation.
My issue with Tamlin and Rhysand comes specifically when you MERGE them and utilize them as comparisons of one another. It becomes (imo) absurd when Rhysand becomes the “healthy” and “feminist” replacement for the bad love interest.
Stories have goals. If I read “Arranged Marriage Monster Romance” books, the set of goals is “make reader horny, excited, explore various desires using over the top symbolic representations of sexual feelings, create fun plot that keeps you entertained”. This is not the same goal as Beloved by Toni Morrison which is “explore the ways personal trauma haunts your life and make the reader contemplate the intensity of this reality through a maze of messy reflections that aren’t particularly fun but are emotionally resonant”. These two goals don’t work very well in the SAME story. They would likely weaken or contradict one another if you tried to attempt writing that simultaneously. But they both function perfectly well separately because as the reader you can enter into these individual stories with these distinct goals in mind and adjust what is being presented to you around the appropriate frame.
OBVIOUSLY I understand this is a dramatic comparison. The “Rhysand Story” and the “Tamlin Story” are nowhere near as stark as Generic Monster Romance vs. Beloved.. which is why plenty of people feel fine about them being combined. But they are still too opposed in goal and tone for me to feel that they work together.
Tamlin Story = Goal is to have the character (and reader by proxy) go through the process of falling for a problematic man and question in a real-life sense how this could turn into an unhealthy dynamic. Now, whether this was the goal from the beginning with Tamlin’s arc I have no idea. It very well may not have been. But that’s what it turns into long term.
Rhysand Story = Over the top, larger than life morally gray “burn the world down for you” love interest doing a bunch of morally questionable actions and sexy dubious consent scenarios for the goal of excitement and titillation for the reader.
Unfortunately, in my mind, the “Rhysand Story” goal contradicts (or at minimum, undermines) the goals of the “Tamlin Story”.
So when I am pushing back on criticism of Tamlin or questioning Rhysand’s framing, it is impossible for me NOT to combine my criticism. Because the criticism only exists in the context of how the story itself compares them. Because I don’t know that I even have complaints if not in direct relation to one another. I am not sure how else to even discuss the topic.
I likely wouldn't have a complaint if the “Good guy Rhysand SAVES Feyre from terrible Tamlin” aspect wasn’t at the core of what is bothering me about it. They are inextricably linked in my criticism. So how can I discuss it without bringing in the very framework (the book’s comparison of them) that I am criticizing?
I’m curious if anyone feels similarly!
