bobosaur

[bobosaur]

peaceful windows 🌸✨

[bobosaur]

To keep this concise, I'll address each of your points directly.

"The 'sweet' passage just shows the same thing we saw in Cofton - Alina's far from thriving, but Malyen's faring well and there's no danger to their status quo, so he can afford to be nice to her."

Yes, partially true when you ignore where his loyalty is most visible and most costly...when their circumstances are at their worst. At the Winter Fete, his jealousy disappears instantly when Alina's threatened, and he fights through assassins without hesitation. During their escape from the Little Palace, he's a deserter risking everything to guide her to safety. Even consumed by jealousy during the sea whip hunt, he charges into battle beside her. And when facing death to become her amplifier, he comforts her through it. His love proves unconditional when it's under the most duress.

"Since the epilogue's written from the POV of an omniscient narrator, we can assume Alina's biases aren't present. The background noise, as you call it, therefore exists, and apparently IS worth mentioning. Constant whispers behind one's back, off-hand remarks, scoffing… that is bullying, and one would need to be totally stupid not to notice."

You have to consider the context of what came before. For years, Alina and Mal lived with the constant, acute threat of torture, assassination, and perpetual war. They were relentlessly hunted by the Darkling, an insane cult, and hostile armies on all fronts. In comparison, the "animosity" of village gossip or a few snide remarks from the household staff feels more like background noise - to the point where it's worth mentioning that the narrative describes Alina as being oblivious to it. She's finally reached a place of contentment where these petty comments don't even pierce her peace. I think the epilogue's narrator's primary purpose is to show the contrast between the outside world's perception and Alina and Mal's private reality. The whispers are meant to emphasize how little they affect the genuine happiness the couple has found.

"Besides, why should I care if Mal cares about their opinion?! This is about him IGNORING verbal abuse of his wife. It doesn't matter if he believes she hung the moon, there are people ridiculing her in her own house! People paid from her allowance! Malyen's supposed to be the most attentive, loving hubby."

Okay, I'm going to assume you're referring to this scene since you didn't provide one:

Where is this alleged unforgivable ridicule from the staff? The passage shows Mal actively engaging with the children (teaching hunting/trapping) and maintaining discipline (refused to take the switch to some hellion). This demonstrates his awareness of his environment and willingness to intervene when needed, hardly the behavior of someone who would tolerate abuse toward his wife. The text explicitly states Alina is "seemingly oblivious to the glares and disapproving clucks", not because Mal failed to protect her, but because she's deliberately choosing indifference. Her whimsical behavior (bare feet, painting murals) reads as defiance, not victimhood. This aligns with her post war character growth. She's learned to tune out petty judgments. The only direct critique mentioned is a teacher sniffing, "Not much of an artist." This is snark, not systemic verbal abuse. There's no evidence of Mal witnessing this remark, or showing a pattern of harassment requiring intervention - or more importantly, Alina being distressed by it. I don't think his affection for her is measured by policing every whisper (which would validate their importance), but by creating a life where Alina feels safe enough to be unapologetically herself.

"I didn't get to his 'sacrifice' yet, but I've re-read Siege and Storm already, and I can't quite appreciate such grand gesture, when committed by a person who doesn't value their own life."

Mal was absolutely in his villain era during Siege and Storm. The way he acted out, especially during that whole Zoya mess, was painful to read. However, I am trying to look at it from his perspective. Readers have to keep in mind this is a former soldier dealing with some serious PTSD. His entire identity was built on being this elite tracker and protector. Suddenly he's stuck on a ship where his skills are useless, watching Alina navigate this crazy political world he doesn't understand. People seem to forget he's also an orphaned teenage boy whose only known war. No one ever taught him how to process grief, jealousy, or helplessness. Despite his darker moments, he never abandons Alina. He deserts the army for her, hunts down the sea whip for her, and ultimately offers his life so she can end the Fold and save Ravka. He offers it freely, not as a grand gesture, but simply as a boy who has loved the same girl through every version of herself. The orphan, the soldier, the saint, and the woman who just wanted peace for Ravka.

"Then he pulls his blade act, loudly proclaiming his devotion to the Sun Saint, when that's literally the only place left for him in his world - by Alina's side, as her oh-so-loyal blunt tool."

Mal isn't some desperate man with no options. He's the most gifted tracker in Ravka. He may be a fugitive on the run, but he's also a soldier. Those skills could have easily secured him safety, status, or wealth - especially in places like Ketterdam and Novyi Zem where the only language these merchants respect is coin. Yet he chooses to remain at Alina's side, knowing it would endanger his life. I don't think that's someone with "no place left".

Ultimately we're seeing the same text through different lenses. Where you see passivity, I see hard won peace for both Alina and Mal, where you see blind devotion, I see conscious choice.

Ruin and Rising- After

Either Malyen doesn't see the way strangers and their own servants alike treat Alina, which hardly makes him the attentive hubby LB's trying to present, or he does see, but doesn't care enough to stand up for her, which... *slow clap* that's exactly Malyen from the beginning of the story.

[bobosaur]

Traumatized brains don't act according to logic, they act according to survival.

whenloveisalie

[bobosaur]

I’m honestly indifferent to Mal but the level of vitriol directed at him over this scene baffles me. The epilogue isn’t Mal’s POV, its a narrator glossing their quiet life. The “gossip girls” are just background noise. He wasn’t even present in the scene, nor did the author suggest he cared what anyone thought of Alina. His love for her was singular, uncomplicated and he’d already proven its depth when he willingly gave his life for hers. The final chapter’s epilogue, literally the next few pages shows this in full context, and in my opinion is incredibly emotional and sweet.

Ruin and Rising- After

Either Malyen doesn't see the way strangers and their own servants alike treat Alina, which hardly makes him the attentive hubby LB's trying to present, or he does see, but doesn't care enough to stand up for her, which... *slow clap* that's exactly Malyen from the beginning of the story.

[bobosaur]

circa June, 1968 Anne Sexton: A Self-Portrait in Letters First published: 1977

[ID: Date — circa June 1968 Text — I too, am in love with the sun. END ID]

[bobosaur]

These lyrics nail their energy perfectly. To me this is the very essence of Darklina. A toxic love so volatile and consuming it becomes its own undoing. A bond that mistakes possession for passion and ruin for romance. A beautiful and tragic catastrophe.

LOVE IS JUST ANOTHER FOUR LETTER WORD

[bobosaur]

Dreamy ✨💭

[bobosaur]

I'm not here to score debate points or collect likes. This isn't about winning some fandom popularity contest where the prize is what? A gold star for best Darkling apologist? I couldn't care less who agrees with me or clutches their pearls over my takes. Facts remain facts, even when someone's too busy simping for a 500 year old war criminal to notice them. What you're defending isn't the book canon, it's your fanfiction version, or more accurately, the watered down TV adaptation. As you've admitted yourself, you haven't read the books. If we're talking strictly about the show's portrayal (especially the dumpster fire that was Season 2), then sure, they stripped away all nuance from both Alina and the Darkling's characters.

"I can't forgive her for killing Aleksander and destroying the Fold, without having anything to protect the Grisha afterward."

In canon the Darkling is long past redemption. By the end he’s riding merzost and killing indiscriminately, grisha included. The Fold was never a shield. It was a loaded gun pointed at Ravka's head. It strangled the kingdom’s economy by cutting off West Ravka’s only seaport, which is exactly why Zlatan led a secession movement. The Fold choked his province’s trade so badly that breaking away (with Fjerdan help) looked safer than staying loyal. Yes, the Fold may have scared off a few invasions, but it also wiped out innocent Ravkans. (Novokribirsk, anyone?) It didn’t stop the real threats. Grisha were still hunted in Fjerda, trafficked in Shu Han, and sold on Kerch auction blocks. The Fold changed none of that. It just made everyone in Ravka poorer, hungrier, and easier to exploit.

"Aleksander spent centuries protecting the grisha from genocide, mass executions, torture, rape, and experimentation. He built political power and military might to provide them with a shield against forces determined to annihilate them"

"Protection" on his terms only. Loyal grisha got safety. Everyone else was collateral. He equated his rule with grisha survival, meaning any dissent became a threat. Genya's scarring, Alina's collar, Baghra's blinding - see the pattern?

"She made decisions based on emotion, not strategic planning. She failed to create alliances strong enough to ensure the Grisha's safety, lacked the infrastructure to replace the deterrent value of the Fold, and exposed her people to more danger than they had in generations."

She did the only sensible thing which was to destroy an indiscriminate WMD. This allowed power to be shared (Triumvirate + Nikolai) rather than concentrated in one person. Was it perfect? No. But it was actual nation building, distributing authority, restoring infrastructure, reopening borders.

"It's about recognizing that Aleksander possessed the knowledge, vision, and ability to protect his people in a way that Alina never equaled. It's possible to rejoice in their ship while also realizing that her actions had devastating consequences that extended far beyond the defeat of one man."

Sorry to break it to you sweetheart, but that's not the Aleksander of the books. Do these sound like the actions of a benevolent protector of his people?

(1) Destroys Novokribirsk - He expands the Fold to annihilate an entire city, massacring his own grisha stationed there (healers, inferni, materialki). Strategic or petty vengeance?

(2) Unleashes nichevo’ya - These shadow monsters slaughter indiscriminately. Ravkan rebels, foreign sailors, even his own soldiers. The True Sea washes up corpses of grisha squallers and tidemakers. So much for "protecting" them.

(3) Turns Nikolai into a monster - His merzost corruption mutates Nikolai into a winged terror that attacks grisha refugees and villages. Whoops, guess "shield of the grisha" doesn’t cover his own magical blowback.

(4) Creates the Rift - After his resurrection, he weaponizes this new abyss to blackmail Nikolai. "Free me, or I’ll let it devour grisha garrisons and their families." Classic "protector" move. Using his people as bargaining chips.

(5) Empowers the Starless cult - Fanatics kidnap fabrikators, bomb grisha safehouses, and try to assassinate Zoya/Nikolai, all with his blessing. Their "devotion" is just another weapon to him.

(6) Steals Sankt Feliks’s heart - He murders a grisha archivist, wrecks critical research, and injures materialki. All to fuel his own power fix. Alina resisted amplifier addiction while he doubles down.

(7) Zero remorse - No apology for Genya’s scars, Baghra’s blinding, or the Fold. He continues to justify his choices as necessary and post-resurrection, uses the growing shadow rift as leverage against Ravka, effectively keeping a new doomsday weapon loaded and ready

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Aleksander's return could have been an opportunity for redemption - to protect grisha through diplomacy or shared knowledge. Instead he doubled down on extortion. "Give me power or people die." And when the Darkling makes threats, grisha are always the first casualties. So like it or not Alina is a hero because she had the moral courage to sacrifice everything to stop him. The kind that saves lives instead of using them as pawns on his chessboard in pursuit of power.

Darkling: literally creates the Fold, expands it, and murders thousands Fans: “He’s just misunderstood!” Alina: kills him to save the country Fans: “Wow, what a selfish bitch.” So to summarize: His war crimes = Complexity Her survival instincts = Flaws His obsession = Passion Her boundaries = Bad writing Got it.

[bobosaur]

Calling the Shadow and Bone trilogy a "love-interest POV" might be the most unserious take I’ve ever read. The whole trilogy is called shadow and bone for a reason. Shadow is the living darkness only she can destroy, Bone is the amplifier magic literally carved into Alina's body. This isn't a love story, its her story of survival and power. We’re inside her head for every difficult choice she makes - hiding her power, bargaining with Nikolai, leading an army (yes it's small and pitiful but at least the girl is trying), and finally stabbing Mal to save Ravka. If she were truly just a passive love interest, the Darkling would’ve won in Book 1, and Mal would’ve been stuck writing sad letters from a ditch somewhere. Saying Alina is just Mal’s or the Darkling’s love interest POV is as wrong as saying Kaz exists only to complement Inej. You ignore the fact that Kaz and Alina drive their plots - they scheme, suffer, and change the world around them. However when a woman carries her own story, suddenly she’s reduced to "so-and-so’s love interest." Why is it so hard to accept that Alina’s narrative is about her trauma, her power, her sacrifices?

Anti's love to cherry pick text to justify their Alina hate. Sure, let's ignore pivotal moments where Alina’s goals clash with Mal’s, erase her complicated feelings about the Little Palace, the cult, and Grisha politics just to sell the “she copies Mal” line. The whole argument falls apart when you actually read the books. She hides her power (Shadow & Bone, Ch.5) long before Mal even knows she’s Grisha - pretty hard to follow his lead when he has no idea there’s a lead to follow. She hunts amplifiers (Siege & Storm, Ch 6-13), while he’s literally begging her to stop, fully aware it might destroy her. She turns down Nikolai’s crown (Siege & Storm, Ch 20) when Mal would’ve fled to the nearest farm because she’s thinking about Ravka, not him. And let’s not forget the final act of resistance when she drives a knife through Mal (Ruin & Rising, Ch 20) to complete the amplifier bond, then immediately pivots to kill the Darkling. Funny how "Mal’s puppet" keeps making choices he hates. Almost like... she has her own damn mind.

You use pseudo literary jargon "From a Doylist perspective" but then proceed to treat the “love interest” like a one note trope that can’t evolve, ignoring how Bardugo intentionally plays with and subverts that trope. So let’s recap a few examples. The Chosen One loses her power, the grand romance ends in quiet anonymity instead of royal spectacle, and the heroine rejects both the dark prince’s obsession and the golden boy’s political proposal. These are deliberate critiques of YA conventions. A real Doylist analysis wouldn't just lazily label Alina a "love interest". It would ask why did Bardugo craft two mirror image attachments. Alina's bond with Mal, where she chooses him after after wielding and then relinquishing immense power, walking away from two thrones. The Darkling's obsession, where he demands her power and tries to burn the world when she refused. It's a realistic commentary on agency versus entitlement. Yet your post glosses right over that to paint Alina’s love for Mal as “unhealthy obsession” while the Darkling’s campaign of gaslighting, murder, and stalking gets framed as "morally gray depth". The hypocrisy is blinding. You accuse Alina of parroting Mal’s views while giving the Darkling a free pass for his actual dependence - when his entire endgame revolves around possessing her power and validation. If anyone fits the “clingy love interest” mold it’s the centuries old immortal who can’t function without her, but hey at least he's pretty and looks good brooding in black, right? That totally cancels out the war crimes. Next time maybe actually apply that Doylist perspective instead of using it as a fancy hat for your biases.

Darkling: literally creates the Fold, expands it, and murders thousands Fans: “He’s just misunderstood!” Alina: kills him to save the country Fans: “Wow, what a selfish bitch.” So to summarize: His war crimes = Complexity Her survival instincts = Flaws His obsession = Passion Her boundaries = Bad writing Got it.

[bobosaur]

Okay let’s be real because I'm tired of seeing this bs on my dash. You can’t call yourself a Darklina shipper while constantly belittling Alina, dismissing her agency, calling her “weak” or “Mal’s donkey,” as you put it, and reducing her to a prop in the Darkling’s narrative and still claim “neutrality.” That’s not shipping, that’s stanning the Darkling while performatively pretending the Alina is the problem. True Darklina chemistry hinges on their dynamic - two forces of wills clashing, each with their own power and flaws. If you strip Alina of her autonomy (or worse, blame her for his atrocities), you’re not celebrating the ship, you’re just excusing the Darkling with extra steps. And let’s not pretend this is about “criticism”. Calling a traumatized 19 year old “passive” for ending and surviving a genocide while giving a 500 year old immortal endless passes for causing it isn’t analysis, it’s a double standard. It’s like saying "I love peanut butter and jelly…. but jelly is disgusting and ruins everything." At this point, you’re just a Darkling apologist with a shipping kink.

Finally riddle me this - if Alina’s so passive how exactly did she end the Fold and the Darkling? Did he monologue himself to death? Maybe he tripped on his dramatic cape and impaled himself on his own ego? Or perhaps the nichevo'ya unionized and staged a walkout? Give me a break.

Darkling: literally creates the Fold, expands it, and murders thousands Fans: “He’s just misunderstood!” Alina: kills him to save the country Fans: “Wow, what a selfish bitch.” So to summarize: His war crimes = Complexity Her survival instincts = Flaws His obsession = Passion Her boundaries = Bad writing Got it.

[bobosaur]

Darkling: literally creates the Fold, expands it, and murders thousands Fans: “He’s just misunderstood!” Alina: kills him to save the country Fans: “Wow, what a selfish bitch.” So to summarize: His war crimes = Complexity Her survival instincts = Flaws His obsession = Passion Her boundaries = Bad writing Got it.

[bobosaur]

nicoles_moments

[bobosaur]

I should be able to both read for 8hrs a night and sleep for 8hrs a night. That I cannot is very rude and, frankly, poor design.

[bobosaur]

I am aware and acknowledge Aleksander’s trauma, and I never minimize or dismiss it entirely, unlike your pro-Darkling followers who constantly do to Alina. I am sure you are not blind to these posts, and I defend her in that context the same way you do for your character. The show does make him seem more sympathetic than the Darkling in the books, so I can understand your enthusiasm for defending him. But if you read the later books, you’ll see he was extremely cruel to Alina, especially after the collar incident, retraumatizing her repeatedly to force her submission. I won’t spoil it for you, but one of his worst acts involves her childhood orphanage, the way he carries it out in the last book is heartbreaking to read.

Regarding the Fold, I was referring to its expansion, not its creation. The destruction of Novokribirsk - he knew full well the act would result in a massacre of innocents, both civilians and Grisha. Yet he did it anyway. What would that have accomplished? He already had Alina under his control. Was this about brokering peace for his people by killing en masse? No. It was about expanding the Fold, which was always his intention after discovering the Sun Summoner - with or without her consent (though her consent would have made it easier).

“He uses merzost to protect Grisha from slaughter.” “And yes, it hurts him, but that does not erase the reason he reached for it in the first place. It was not selfish. It was a response to centuries of loss and genocide.”

I understand his original intention may have been noble, but not afterward - especially when he uses the nichevo’ya created via merzost to indiscriminately cause mass deaths across Ravka - killing innocent Ravkans and Grisha. This is driven purely by his ambition to control Alina and Ravka, not to protect Grisha - not anymore. The “noble cause” becomes a facade for control and his personal suffering doesn’t negate the harm he inflicts on others.

“Meanwhile, Alina also bears responsibility. She engages in warfare, and people die.”

At this point, how is the Darkling’s merzost-driven, homicidal rampage her fault? Should she just lay down her arms and surrender to his demands like an obedient little puppet? This is the agency I keep emphasizing - the one that seems to fall on deaf ears. She defies him and chooses to hunt for the amplifiers instead. Yes, war has casualties, but she isn’t the one going scorch-earth across Ravka.

“She follows Aleksander’s path almost immediately after his death, despite swearing she would never use merzost.”

Sorry, I don’t follow. She immediately loses her power afterward, she doesn’t use merzost. I’ve seen antis use that quote from ROW to push that narrative, so I’ll address it in a future post when I have the time. The same goes for her giving up power in the books.

“She would not last even a few years in what Aleksander endured for centuries.”

Nor would he if the roles were reversed. In Demon in the Wood, he was equally vulnerable at a young age - betrayed, nearly drowned, and almost killed for trusting the wrong person. His inexperience led to betrayal, just as Alina’s trust in him led to the collar. Neither was inherently more resilient in their youth. The difference? Alina overcomes her naivety, rejects him, and sacrifices her power, while Aleksander’s survival hardens him into violence and distrust.

“Yes, her pain is real. But so is his. And if we are going to talk about cycles, power, and choices, then let’s do it without turning one character into a villain just to paint the other as a savior.”

Again, I never dismissed his trauma. I use it to highlight the hypocrisy in your supporters’ arguments. If you’d read any of my posts, you’d see I never called him a villain. Alina is the protagonist, he is the antagonist. Neither is morally superior. My issue is with Aleksander’s later choices and how you and your supporters use his past trauma to justify them.

I've „love” reading comments from antis saying things like “The Darkling is 500 years old, he should have processed his trauma and gotten over it by now” and honestly, it’s disturbing how common this line of thinking is. Especially when it comes with the second part: “Our (enter all Grishaverse characters) have a right to be traumatized, they were just kids dragged into war.”

Yes, they were young. Yes, they suffered. No one is taking that away. But what shocks me is how quickly these same people dismiss the concept that long-term trauma doesn't fade with age. If anything, untreated trauma accumulates. It changes a person in ways that are invisible until something breaks. There is no magical threshold of years after which you're “supposed” to be healed. It doesn’t work like that. Being exposed to war, death, betrayal and existential fear for centuries without a moment of true rest or help does not heal someone. It destroys them gradually. It reshapes how they think, how they love, how they connect. Some of the most devastating cases of PTSD I’ve ever read about were people who didn’t even begin to feel the full weight of their experiences until decades later. Some were veterans of the Second World War who never spoke about what they saw until they were in their seventies or eighties, when their defenses started slipping. Some carried guilt and grief for over half a century and it still haunted them in their sleep. And those were people who had families, support, and the knowledge that the war eventually ended. Now compare that to a person who never gets peace. Never had the war end. Never had help. Someone who is constantly under threat. Who sees each generation repeat the same mistakes and bury the people they once fought beside. Who walks through the ashes of every hope and must start again, knowing how it will end. That’s not an excuse for every decision he made. But it is a necessary perspective if we’re talking about trauma. What antis are doing is trivializing the condition they claim to care about. Because if trauma only matters when it’s happening to a 20-year-old, and not to a person who’s been in survival mode for centuries, then you’ve reduced the concept of PTSD and depression to a short-term teen plot device. Some of these people don’t even realize how dehumanizing their arguments are. I’ve seen people say that age should equal healing—as if time itself is a cure. It isn’t. People live and die with trauma. They carry it into every relationship and every silence. Healing is possible, yes, but not in conditions that keep re-traumatizing you over and over again. Not in a world that refuses to change. And certainly not alone. I don’t know how anyone can genuinely think that after 500 years of war, grief, and loss, someone should have healed unless they fundamentally don’t understand what trauma is. Or unless they’ve only ever seen trauma in fiction—specifically in stories tailored to let them insert themselves into young protagonists while disregarding any character who doesn’t fit the healing narrative they prefer. This kind of thinking doesn’t come from people who understand war. It comes from people who need their heroes clean and simple, and their villains easily disposable. And that’s not analysis. That’s comfort.

[bobosaur]

As a Darklina fan, I understand the delicate balance of critiquing your own ship without feeling like you're arming the opposition. While the Darkling receives his share of exaggerated hate, much of it transparent rage bait, I've been increasingly frustrated by the toxic discourse surrounding Alina. My arguments have never been about modern standards or age of consent. I'm analyzing how trauma shapes personality through the lens of their vastly different lived experiences.

Let me be clear, just because I defend Alina against unfair criticism doesn’t mean I think she’s perfect. I can acknowledge her flaws while still pushing back against takes that completely miss the point. Case in point her early dependence on Mal. Burning those maps to follow him onto the skiff? That was selfish and shortsighted, even if she didn’t know the cartography team would die, it was reckless. Same goes for the Darkling. I get his trauma. I understand why he is the way he is. But understanding isn’t the same as excusing. Where Alina turns her pain inward, doubt, guilt, the weight of never feeling enough, he turns his outward: destructive ambition, violence, etc. The books spell this contrast out plainly. You can appreciate the complexity of both characters without pretending they’re equally at fault.

I often see the argument that 'Aleksander didn’t manipulate Alina, he just wanted an equal.' And while I understand why some fans interpret their relationship this way, his actions tell a different story. Yes, he tells her she’s the first Grisha who could stand beside him. Yes, he shares his vision for Ravka and encourages her power, until she begins to question him. Then the dynamic shifts.

This is a man who has survived for centuries by mastering persuasion. He doesn’t rely on brute force alone - he makes his targets want to comply. The stag collar is the ultimate proof of this. A so-called 'gift' of shared power he calls it, that leaves him in total control. Even his moments of vulnerability, like his confession at the fountain served a purpose - to bind Alina to him emotionally so that her obedience feels like choice, not coercion.

Does this mean his feelings weren’t genuine? No. Love and manipulation aren’t always mutually exclusive. I think he truly cared for her, but that care was intertwined with manipulation. He needed her power, her influence, her willingness to stay and he used every tool at his disposal, from charm to fear, to secure them. That’s the tragedy of their dynamic. Even his affection becomes another form of control. Aleksander’s greatest flaw isn’t that he didn’t love her, it’s that he couldn’t love her freely without conditions.

About Alina ignoring other Grisha until her freedom is threatened. You have to remember that early on she was under lock and key at the Little Palace - her circle is tightly controlled by the Darkling and the Apparat. Once she grasps the extent of their manipulation she does start organizing Grisha resistance, funding a sanctuary through Nikolai, and refusing to hand Genya over to the king. The criticism overlooks that her autonomy grows in real time, she can’t champion Grisha rights when she can’t even leave her room without an escort.

Alina's decision to destroy the Fold, for this context is crucial. At that moment the Fold was devastating Ravka, Novokribirsk had been consumed, Os alta was under attack, and nichevo'ya were slaughtering civilians. With immediate threats unfolding, Alina made the difficult choice to act rather than wait for an ideal solution that might have come too late. Her decision had consequences, which the narrative addresses in Rule of Wolves. However it's worth comparing this to the Darkling's creation of the Fold centuries earlier. While his initial intent of protecting Grisha may have been understandable, he continued to weaponize the Fold long after seeing its destructive potential. Both characters made choices with far reaching impacts, but under very different circumstances.

Women can absolutely criticize a female character without that criticism being sexist. But bias doesn’t disappear just because the critic is also a woman. All of us absorb and impose cultural expectations, especially about how heroines “should” behave. Alina’s entire arc spans barely two years of nonstop war. In that window she goes from orphan to soldier, saint, political pawn, and living weapon. Her progress jerks forward, claiming the Little Palace as home, then snaps back clinging to Mal, exactly how real trauma healing behaves under constant threat. Compare that to the Darkling - he swings from benevolent leader to genocidal mastermind to pleading penitent over centuries of history, and fandom labels it “layered, tragic complexity.” Yet Alina’s two year whiplash is branded “inconsistent.” The double standard suggests we still expect a teenage girl to sort out her fear and identity faster than we demand coherence from a centuries old immortal. Finally her emotional attachment to Mal. I ask you to reverse the genders and look around the Grishaverse - Kaz keeps Inej as his moral North Star, and Matthias can’t imagine a future that doesn’t orbit Nina. In their cases we label the attachment “loyalty,” “devotion,” or even “couple goals.” When Alina does the same, hanging on to the one person who knew her before saint, soldier, or weapon suddenly it’s “emotional weakness.” The behavior is identical, the judgment shifts because the clingy one this time is a teenage girl. Critique Alina all you want, she’s flawed and that’s the point. I openly admit that in all my posts. But if we forgive an immortal man for a generational atrocity while roasting a teenage girl for stumbling through two years of hell, we’re not judging characters, we’re exposing our biases.

In Defense of Alina Starkov (Yes, She's a Teenage Girl, Just Not the One You Wanted)

So we can all read the minds of teenage girls now? We expect them to be passionate, curious, rebellious, and socially conscious, but only in the ways we find palatable. Apparently, if a girl is orphaned, ostracized, and raised in a war-torn country with no family, no stability, and no guarantee of tomorrow, she should still be able to shake off all her trauma responses and become a flawless war heroine overnight. No fear, no resistance, no hesitation, just instant savior mode.

But Alina Starkov doesn’t exist to meet your modern-day generalizations of how a teenage girl should behave. Personality isn’t one-size-fits-all. It’s shaped by lived experience. Alina grew up in survival mode...small, quiet, and inconspicuous, because drawing attention could get her hurt or killed. Her so-called passivity isn’t laziness, it’s trauma doing its job. And the point of her arc is that she learns to grow beyond it.

What really annoys me is how quickly people dismiss her as “that whiny girl obsessed with Mal,” as if her emotional dependence is petty or immature. Mal isn’t just her childhood friend—he’s the only tether to a life before sainthood was forced onto her. He’s her anchor in a world that sees her as a weapon. Imagine being told the one person who makes you feel human is a distraction. Imagine being called weak for refusing to sever the last thread that connects you to who you are.

Judging Alina through modern expectations completely misses the point. Her story may be fantasy, but her struggles are metaphors for real emotional truths. Her supposed "privilege" as the Sun Summoner is anything but it's a curse that makes her a target for the Darkling’s manipulation, the royal court’s exploitation, and the Grisha’s resentment. Her “whining” about the weight of it all isn’t entitlement, it’s human. Her arc from self-doubt to self-possession reflects the internal battle of someone carrying a burden no teenager should have to bear.

You see this pattern again with Genya. On the surface, she “had it easy”....pretty dresses, royal access, life in the Grand Palace. But her beauty was a weapon she never asked for. Her loyalty turned her into a pawn. And her so-called privilege left her isolated, objectified, and abused. Her trauma, especially the sexual violence she endured deserves every ounce of sympathy.

But it raises a question: why does that sympathy seem to stop with Genya? Why is Alina, who was collared, controlled, and turned into a weapon, so often dragged for being emotionally affected? Their trauma isn’t the same and shouldn’t be equated, but both girls were exploited, both fought to reclaim their autonomy, and both bore the weight of power they didn’t choose. So why is Genya praised when she breaks from her oppressors, but Alina is mocked for taking longer? If one is worthy of empathy, why not the other?

Like Alina, Genya’s “advantages” were just trauma wrapped in silk. Gilded cages are still cages.

And that's why Alina’s arc does mirror real teenage resilience. Her journey from hiding her power to choosing to lead is a fantasy translation of universal coming-of-age struggles: insecurity, identity, growing pains. Real teens don’t battle shadow monsters or have mythical amplifiers for best friends, but they do experience emotional whiplash when relationships evolve. They do fear abandonment. They do wrestle with expectations they never asked for. The magic doesn’t trivialize her pain, it amplifies it. Power doesn’t equal privilege. And resilience isn’t about being fearless, it’s about surviving in spite of fear.

The critiques of Alina’s “passivity” ignore the fact that it’s the starting point of her arc, not the destination. She hides her power because being different is dangerous. She clings to Mal because he’s her only family, and orphans in Ravka don’t get the luxury of being emotionally independent. Her dependence isn’t weakness, it’s honest and real. It’s what trauma looks like.

As for the so called “trivial complaints”? The herring thing is laughable when even battle hardened soldiers like Zoya have food preferences. Alina’s grief over the stag? It’s not some vegan protest, it’s a soul deep response to the death of a magical creature she was bonded to. Her distress over Mal’s silence? In a world where letters are the only form of communication, her anxiety reflects fear of abandonment, not petulance over not getting a text back. These aren’t signs of being out of touch. They’re evidence of her being human.

One of the most tone-deaf criticisms is that Alina should be grateful to be Ravka’s Living Saint. Grateful for what, exactly? Being labeled the country’s only hope while being collared, controlled, and used as leverage against the one person she loves? That’s not destiny, it’s a carefully disguised prison. Her so-called “whining” is fear, plain and raw, the kind that hits when you realize you’ve been handed a live grenade and told to smile for the crowd. And real people would crumble under far less.

By Ruin and Rising, Alina does completes a powerful arc: she leads an army "I’m going to fight", defies the Darkling "I won’t be your pawn", and sacrifices her power "I had wanted to be whole". Her arc from self-erasure to agency proves she’s resilient, not a “wilted potato.” If this growth from a traumatized orphan to someone who makes these choices is "spineless," what exactly counts as bravery?

Alina isn’t Katniss or Inej, and that’s okay. Her story isn’t about being a perfect revolutionary, but about a damaged girl learning to claim agency in a world that wants to use her. If she were male, her fears would be "humanizing" and her flaws "complex." Because she’s female, they’re dismissed as "annoying." That says more about our biases than it does about her character.

[bobosaur]

That’s the issue I have with pro-darkling supporters, is that your empathy seems to only extend one way. Both Alina and Alexander are deeply shaped by their trauma, and as I said in my original post, I empathize with both of them. However when the conversation only allows space for the Alexander ’s pain but not Alina’s, it’s peak hypocrisy.

Trauma can explain behavior but it doesn’t excuse harm. And that’s where the line between Alina and the Darkling becomes clear. His trauma leads to destruction, hers to healing. No one is asking the Darkling to magically recover from centuries of pain, most fans critique the damage he causes, not the pain itself. The same grace should be extended to Alina. Her youth doesn’t make her trauma less valid. If anything her ability to grow through it, however imperfectly is what makes her strong.

Both Alina and the Darkling are products of suffering. But only Alina chooses accountability over justification. She fears power because she’s seen what it can do. She gives up her light to stop the cycle of violence. Choosing peace isn’t surrender, its her first real act of self care. Her pain lives quietly beneath the surface, where she unpacks it piece by piece and learns how to begin again.

The Darkling, by contrast externalizes his pain. He expands the fold not to protect ravka, but to make it feel the weight of his suffering. He manipulates Alina under the illusion of shared purpose. He uses the grisha, (his own people) as tools in a war driven more by fear and legacy than justice. And as the books progress, you can tragically see merzost begin to erode what’s left of his humanity. That slow unraveling pulls Aleksander further from the ideals he once fought for, twisting his desire to protect into a force that harms the very people he meant to save.

Alina’s relationship with merzost on the other hand reflects her growth. She immediately recognizes its danger and she sees the cost in her white hair, in the toll it takes on her soul. Where Aleksander leans into it losing himself more with every use, Alina holds back. Her restraint is her clarity. It’s the conscious choice to avoid the moral and physical decay he couldn’t escape. Fans may call her hesitation weakness, but it’s precisely that restraint that separates her from him. Her trauma doesn’t spiral into destruction, it leads her to keep her humanity.

That’s the difference. She breaks the cycle and he becomes it.

I've „love” reading comments from antis saying things like “The Darkling is 500 years old, he should have processed his trauma and gotten over it by now” and honestly, it’s disturbing how common this line of thinking is. Especially when it comes with the second part: “Our (enter all Grishaverse characters) have a right to be traumatized, they were just kids dragged into war.”

Yes, they were young. Yes, they suffered. No one is taking that away. But what shocks me is how quickly these same people dismiss the concept that long-term trauma doesn't fade with age. If anything, untreated trauma accumulates. It changes a person in ways that are invisible until something breaks. There is no magical threshold of years after which you're “supposed” to be healed. It doesn’t work like that. Being exposed to war, death, betrayal and existential fear for centuries without a moment of true rest or help does not heal someone. It destroys them gradually. It reshapes how they think, how they love, how they connect. Some of the most devastating cases of PTSD I’ve ever read about were people who didn’t even begin to feel the full weight of their experiences until decades later. Some were veterans of the Second World War who never spoke about what they saw until they were in their seventies or eighties, when their defenses started slipping. Some carried guilt and grief for over half a century and it still haunted them in their sleep. And those were people who had families, support, and the knowledge that the war eventually ended. Now compare that to a person who never gets peace. Never had the war end. Never had help. Someone who is constantly under threat. Who sees each generation repeat the same mistakes and bury the people they once fought beside. Who walks through the ashes of every hope and must start again, knowing how it will end. That’s not an excuse for every decision he made. But it is a necessary perspective if we’re talking about trauma. What antis are doing is trivializing the condition they claim to care about. Because if trauma only matters when it’s happening to a 20-year-old, and not to a person who’s been in survival mode for centuries, then you’ve reduced the concept of PTSD and depression to a short-term teen plot device. Some of these people don’t even realize how dehumanizing their arguments are. I’ve seen people say that age should equal healing—as if time itself is a cure. It isn’t. People live and die with trauma. They carry it into every relationship and every silence. Healing is possible, yes, but not in conditions that keep re-traumatizing you over and over again. Not in a world that refuses to change. And certainly not alone. I don’t know how anyone can genuinely think that after 500 years of war, grief, and loss, someone should have healed unless they fundamentally don’t understand what trauma is. Or unless they’ve only ever seen trauma in fiction—specifically in stories tailored to let them insert themselves into young protagonists while disregarding any character who doesn’t fit the healing narrative they prefer. This kind of thinking doesn’t come from people who understand war. It comes from people who need their heroes clean and simple, and their villains easily disposable. And that’s not analysis. That’s comfort.

[bobosaur]

Very few men are worthy of receiving the depth of a woman’s love. Remember that.