Yeah, another one of ~those~ posts appeared in the tag...

I’m getting really sick of seeing people claim that Katniss and Alina’s ending are effectively the same and have the same effect on the narrative as one another. That because both stories end with the heroines settling down, it must mean that both are at the same level of thematic coherence and satisfaction for readers.

But they aren’t.

If they were truly as similar as people claim they are, Katniss’s story would have ended with herself and Peeta being plucked out of the games via some deus ex machina, and given the opportunity to run off together where they could settle down and start a family. The hunger games wouldn’t have ended, Katniss would’ve just escaped from it and washed her hands of that experience. The games would still exist, but Katniss would have the chance to escape from it all and live a “normal” settled life.

This is why Shadow and Bone’s ending is not of the same calibre as The Hunger Games. The issue of Grisha persecution isn’t resolved in Ruin and Rising, therefore Alina would still have had to live as a member of a persecuted group even after the Darkling had been defeated. So, to end the story in a “happy” way, Bardugo gives Alina a “get out of oppression” free card by fabricating a contrived narrative about power corrupting and relieving her of her marginalized status so she can live a “normal” life. Alina doesn’t have to confront any difficult truths or use her status to rise to the occasion and contribute to Grisha liberation when she’s been conveniently disempowered.

It isn’t even Alina’s choice to give up her powers, it happens because the narrative needs it to happen. Sure, you could take it at face value and accept the conditions of the story, but people aren’t misunderstanding the story when they criticize this ending. The truth is, one is clearly better than the other at what it tries to accomplish.

It seems to me that you just don't interact with most of the people that discuss Baghra. I've rarely seen discussion criticizing Baghra that didn't also acknowledge Aleksander's own follies, and someone mentioning how Baghra's abuse shaped Aleksander is not offering to absolve him, they're offering insight. Why is it that any attempt at honestly analyzing a character through a compassionate lens is seen as apology?

Accountability for one's actions is important, but to deny the influence of someone who quite literally shaped them feels like a purposeful refusal to engage in critical thinking. It was inevitable that he did the things he did because he is a character, and everything he is is defined by the other moving pieces of the story. He's not a real person, and people don't lose anything by speaking of him as a character.

Baghra didn't make her son do anything, but she took active part in his life and groomed him. These are reasons for his outlook on life. These are insights into his thought process. Knowing Baghra destroyed a village for her son casts a light on his own destruction of cities later. This does not mean she guided his hand to expand the fold. It means she had an impact.

Why are you out here fighting ghosts? These people who you apparently see out in vast numbers absolving Aleksander whilst condemning Baghra are not as many as you think. Discussions of Aleksander's psyche and his relationship with Baghra have been going on for ages, at real depth and with quite a bit of criticisms for them both.

Also, the reason you see so much discussion of Baghra's bad parenting is because those that condemn Aleksander are pretty big to praise his mother for the same crimes - a lot of the time because she's a woman. Most of it is simply reaction to things you likely aren't seeing.

Not to mention that saying Baghra was abusive while saying the Darkling was moreso is part of the problem. They're both absolutely terrible. We have a scope of the problems Aleksander causes because of the perspective of the books, but that doesn't actually make him worse. Especially considering the difference in their relationships with the people they hurt.

Plus, Baghra is his mother?? Why are you surprised that people are talking about the abuse the son of a woman faced at her hands?? I've seen those criticizing Baghra often discussing her behavior towards the other children as well - especially Alina - but it's certainly not a crime to focus on Aleksander when he's literally Baghra's child. That's not favoritism, it's basic correlation.

The types of harms they cause are also different, and will resonate with different people. Those discussing Baghra's abuse may find her behavior more triggering than Aleksander's own, based on their own life experiences. It's hardly that sinister.

"None of those children grew up to be war criminals, though they were victims just as much as Alexandr. Being abused doesn't make you make you abuse other people. It's your choices that do." - I'd like to note that these children also grew up with very different outside influences than he did. You're creating false equivalences and it's showing. Your last statement is basically opinion. And honestly it just seems to me that you need to interact with more of the fandom.

Something I spend a lot of time thinking about is that no one in the Shadow and Bone fandom seems capable of comprehending that Baghra was an abusive piece of shit and The Darkling was even more so.

I've seen people talk about how Baghra's terrible parenting had a profound effect on The Darkling. I've heard people say that The Darkling was a terrible person and completely irredemable. Although I've never seen both statements mentioned relative to each other, both are equally true.

I've also seen people use Baghra's abuse to try and absolve The Darkling of responsibility. These people make it seem like it was inevitable that he groomed Alina, killed and tortured hundreds, orchestrated the conditions that led to Genya's abuse, and did countless other terible things. It was not.

Baghra absolutely abused Alexandr. She absolutely was a terrible person. But she didn't make her son do anything. Every choice The Darkling made was his own.

Also, the people who talk about Baghra's cruelty only ever mention Alexandr. They never mention the countless other children she physically and verbally abused.

None of those children grew up to be war criminals, though they were victims just as much as Alexandr. Being abused doesn't make you make you abuse other people. It's your choices that do.

At the end of the day, Baghra Morozova was a terrible, horrible, abusive piece of shit. But The Darkling was worse than her in every way.

of course I hate darklina, but there's a certain beauty in people who ship them simply because of how it proves Leigh's point of his manipulation. how even though he's a murderer, predator, and so much worse, people still manage to think he deserves a relationship with Alina. that they should be together. the darkling's whole thing is his ability to manipulate people to empathize with him despite his wrongdoings and the fandom just proves that

It's ridiculously funny that antis still believe this when Leigh Bardugo's arguments in KoS + RoW were so sloppily written and poorly supported that they practically destroyed most anti arguments against the Darkling in one fell swoop. The Nikolai Duology has to be one of the worst written series' I've ever laid eyes on, and it couldn't even tackle cults and religion correctly, let alone the complex state of political power exchanges. I'm sorry but Leigh Bardugo's "answer" to her fans analyzing one of her characters in a favorable light holds up about as accurately as someone's myopic anti ramblings on tumblr.com.

the king of scars duology was leigh bardugo’s answer to every darklina shipper/darkling fan justifying the darkling’s crimes. in kos+row they explicitly call out every single one of the darkling’s crimes, which is why i’ll always be a malina shipper (in canon ships at least, genyalina supremacy) because the other option is simply terrible. so please learn to separate an artist from his art, which in this case the artist is ben barnes, and the art is his portrayal of the darkling.

Alina's sun summoner ability cannot be a metaphor for her escaping the cycle of abuse and living her own peaceful life when its very presence indicates something entirely different about her character. When her abilities are tied more closely to her identity and her growing path to self discovery, any framing of their presence in her life as only a fight against abuse comes across as cheap and shows a spectacular misunderstanding of her character.

Alina losing her abilities doesn't show a need to no longer fight. It doesn't show freedom or liberation. It shows instead brutal oppression and cruelty. 'She can be on her own and the darkness cant get to her anymore' is a funny way of describing the loss of a light power that could by nature repel the darkness and bring her kinship. In fact, it is almost a direct misinterpretation of the events that took place, and through its very wording contradicts itself.

Alina losing her powers cannot be a big metaphor for letting go of the past and moving onto internal peace when it drives her into a horrific regression and throws her into an eternal misery and grief stricken state. Where her very being is repressed so that she may conform and assimilate to her oppressors.

You cannot state that this hatred of her ending is only because it has been done terribly to other female characters before as if this is all some transferred bias. Alina's story is itself regressive through it's own path throughout the books. Her repression and the championing of her internalized bigotry through a narrative that structures itself around restrictive and puritanical morality can be easily tracked, picked apart, and analyzed as itself a story that rejects any real liberation or character progression to force the main female character into a box of conformity.

While Alina strives to be loved and cared for, she states multiple times what she truly wants. Which is the ability to accept and love all of herself in every way, with the freedom to love who she wants and to craft an ending that she wants, where she does not have to give up any of this. That Alina's very desire to have an ending where she can live freely is rejected so that fans can pat themselves on the back for liking her canonical regression feels grotesque. She did not actually want her ending. She could barely stomach it.

Alina's powers did not only represent her fight against abuse. They represented something more to her fundamental character and her arc of self actualization. There is no peoticism in her losing her powers except that of a greek tragedy and it's unfortunate protagonist. Alina didn't even choose to lose her powers. They were stripped from her against her will. In every way, her agency and pershonhood and very wishes are violated. But this is ignored in favor of championing some "subversive" and "enlightened" and apparently feminist story that simply does not exist.

the absolute BEST rival dynamic is where one of them is like “you are my equal unlike any other, you respect me and my power even if you disagree with my methods, i will only die by your hand and you by mine, perhaps i want your attention perhaps i love you, together we challenge each other to unseen heights, we are each other’s destiny, we are intrinsically linked,” and the other person is genuinely like “please die”

"For you."

Aleksander: "I am going to kill all of them, I, I -" *hyperventilates*

Nikolai, patting him like an overgrown cat: "Calm down, love. It's alright. You can stop now. You can let go. You did enough.

Let ME kill some of them." 😊😈

Alina is never beating the “miniature version of Baghra” allegations. It’s moments like these that really inform me of how closely associated their beliefs are with one another.

The two of them share the same naive worldview and approach problems with the same degree of unawareness and lack of understanding of the world. Alina ends up adopting so many of Baghra’s beliefs that her words to Aleksander become almost indistinguishable from his mother’s. Alina even seems to accept Baghra’s “power = evil “ idea absolutely, admonishing herself for her greed (even though doing so enabled her to achieve her goal of destroying the fold).

I love reading Aleksander’s point of view chapters in Rule of Wolves because it gives me a glimpse into the mind of a character that isn’t spewing revisionist nonsense every other chapter. Behold, example #1.

You know what? As I was reading this passage, I was suddenly struck by a strange sensation. It was if I could here Bardugo herself speaking to me through the pages, as if I was watching a puppet show and suddenly the puppeteer popped out to interject their opinion. To be fair to Zoya, he did do these things but the way her statement is delivered is so insufferable. Like please spare me of your inane moralizing (and this is especially ironic given that Zoya herself ends up in a position of power similar to his) It obliterates my suspension of disbelief and no matter how true it might be, makes me laugh at how clumsy Bardugo was with her conveyance of Zoya’s point.

One of the few things I actually liked about season 2 was Aleksander's "Abandon all hope" line. I feel like it reflects pretty well what's going on inside of him since season 1. The downward spiral from (still) hope, to disappointment, to rage, to resignation. He's already sick with merzost poisoning, can't control the monsters he created, lost his mother in a traumatic way, and not even Alina - finally someone who is partly like him, unique and powerful (but not as feared, mistrusted and despised as a Shadow Summoner) - wants to stay with him (for obvious reasons). He's had enough, he's tired, and it shows. And while he is finally giving up on the hope he once had and carried through an impressive amount of centuries, Alina appears and - in a heartbeat - brings hope to others and is the shining hero / Saint in their world. It's actually pretty ironic. And sad. And tragic. Sigh.

honestly I don’t even blame show darkling for the fold because like what was the only other option presented to him? by the only person in that room who was actually in a rational state of mind and who had not just experienced a highly traumatic event?

“leave everyone to die and save yourself”

and people have the gall to frame baghra as the voice of reason. yeah sure let’s leave everyone to die fighting back against unwarranted persecution is useless we can just vibe by ourselves. not fighting against other people’s wrongs is so much more moral than fighting against them. I surely haven’t heard this one before.

"I only like the fanon darklina where he's good 🥰" "I don't support the darkling" "Fine, ship them but it's problema-

who asked you? shut your mouth and get out of my house.

Maybe Mal was just an unlikable character with a terrible resolution to his character arc.

Sometimes…the writing was just bad.

I’ve always disliked these sorts of explanations of Mal’s behaviour in Shadow and Bone. I find that there’s something reductive about framing Mal as a little hapless teenage boy who only ever got angry about justified matters and only wanted to help. It flattens him and makes him very boring to engage with. I find that this argument removes his agency and attempts to obscure the legitimate issues Mal has seemingly by characterizing him as just a “boy” who’s actions are less severe as a result of that boyishness.

Additionally, I don’t like how the commenter intentionally revises their summary of the book’s events. Mal was never bullied at the Little Palace (quite the opposite actually) and implying that Alina made him feel worthless during that time unnecessarily vilifies Alina for putting more effort into saving Ravka than her sulking boyfriend. It uses Mal’s youth as a pass for his meanness and pettiness’s towards Alina in Shadow and Bone while masquerading as a defence of a character being unjustly criticized.

In the text, it seems clear that Mal acting out is an immature response to an unfamiliar situation. He acts childish, but the issue is not the childishness itself but is instead with the way the narrative addresses it. Mal’s bad attitude towards Alina’s powers and her connection to the Darkling are validated by an ending where Alina is stripped of both as a punishment for her greed. It validates Mal’s discomfort with Alina’s new identity and somewhat justifies his cruel words to her during their arguments in Shadow and Bone and Siege and Storm. This is in conflict with the actual arguments themselves because Mal’s points in those scenes are immature and flawed but aren’t confronted in a manner that shifts the status quo.

I’d also like to add that this appeal to Mal’s youth and inexperience approaches Mal as though he is not a fictional character. As a fictional creation, Mal’s actions and words influence the overarching themes of Shadow and Bone and thus, require a resolution that addresses them. It’s not surprising that readers had such an adverse reaction to Mal when he acted like an asshole for at least 2/3 of the trilogy.

I view Mal as a character with a botched arc. I believe that his character could have been something truly compelling if we had seen his journey from a petulant and selfish boy into a self-assured young man. Mal is challenged by the revelation of Alina’s Grisha identity because it confronts him with a version of the future that reveals a diverging path. Therefore, coming to terms with his codependency and becoming his own person would allow him and Alina to reconcile and find identities outside of one another. But because this never happens, I can’t really buy into Mal’s youth being a legitimate factor in his assholery because it isn’t supported in the text and is never fully understood.

So once again:

Stop putting DNI on your tags and stop bringing shipping discourse into AO3

AO3 hid the story and asked OP to remove the tag (the fanfic is not even removed) due to the inflammatory tag. That's deserved. AO3 is not a social media for people to fight over ship and chronically online discourse. It's a library. If people keep bringing DNI and discourse into AO3 it'll make the place toxic for writers and reader.

What are you trying to accomplish with putting DNI? Do you think people actually care about DNI? No, it's just making you looking like an asshole doing this

Also AO3 was founded by a Wincest and Thorki shipper. Astolat made AO3 because FF net and other sites keep purging nsfw fanfic. AO3 is literally made for problematique shipper that op don't like.

Then OP doing this? For what? People want to enjoy reading their fanfic not seeing DNI and online discourse on AO3. I hate using the word virtue signaling as it's often used to demean progress but this is what a real virtue signaling looks like 🤦🤦‍♀️

(I bet op wrote more inflammatory tags on their fic other than 'proshitter DNI get a life' because it take a lot to get your story hidden or removed)

Alina is never beating the “miniature version of Baghra” allegations. It’s moments like these that really inform me of how closely associated their beliefs are with one another.

The two of them share the same naive worldview and approach problems with the same degree of unawareness and lack of understanding of the world. Alina ends up adopting so many of Baghra’s beliefs that her words to Aleksander become almost indistinguishable from his mother’s. Alina even seems to accept Baghra’s “power = evil “ idea absolutely, admonishing herself for her greed (even though doing so enabled her to achieve her goal of destroying the fold).

I love reading Aleksander’s point of view chapters in Rule of Wolves because it gives me a glimpse into the mind of a character that isn’t spewing revisionist nonsense every other chapter. Behold, example #1.

You know what? As I was reading this passage, I was suddenly struck by a strange sensation. It was if I could hear Bardugo herself speaking to me through the pages, as if I was watching a puppet show and suddenly the puppeteer popped out to interject their opinion. To be fair to Zoya, he did do these things but the way her statement is delivered is so insufferable. Like please spare me of your inane moralizing (and this is especially ironic given that Zoya herself ends up in a position of power similar to his) It obliterates my suspension of disbelief and no matter how true it might be, makes me laugh at how clumsy Bardugo was with her conveyance of Zoya’s point.