#also like imo being calculating is not inherently bad in and of itself

[cesium-sheep]

I feel a little bad for putting off going to joann for closeout bargains until arin is here specifically because I'm hoping she'll buy me some craft supplies, since that's a manipulation I've had to do on my mom A Lot. but I was telling matt last night that they both like getting to buy me things, but he takes me out every weekend and she hasn't been here for a month, which is also true. they do like getting to give me things, but it's also not the only thing they ever do for me. I won't even be disappointed if she doesn't offer to pay or whatever, because I also just enjoy going to the craft store with her. it comes off as calculating but not after that.

[thefatlannister]

It’s finally time...to talk about Clarke + Manipulation: Part 1

Part 2: Bellarke

The “finally” in the title is in honor of @wellsjahasghost, who almost literally has been waiting for this meta for years.

So, over the course of my time in the 100 fandom, I’ve had many Thoughts about Clarke’s use of manipulation in the narrative and, just as important, fandom’s responses to this character trait/these instances of manipulation. So I wanted to take some time to discuss what I think are some misconceptions about Clarke’s use manipulation in the narrative, what it means for her character development, AND what it means for Bellarke (which will be in a separate part 2 post). 

Disclaimer: As usual, this meta was written entirely for my own (and Jade’s) benefit, and isn’t a response to anything in particular or an automatic dismissal of rival perspectives or even a guarantee that this is the interpretation I will stick with in the future. It’s just a fun discussion I (and Jade) felt like having about Clarke and Bellarke before s4, so feel free to take it or leave it!

Disclaimer 2: I am NOT talking about manipulation in this meta as an inherently bad thing or as something I think the narrative /should/ condemn! I think that’s kind of a limited perspective, and I’m more interested in the details of how this trait actually manifests in Clarke and her relationships than how it /should/ manifest or if it’s capital-R “Right.” I’m gonna mention this a couple of times throughout this meta, but truly it can’t be said enough. When it’s okay to manipulate (for the greater good v. for personal gain? for your people’s good v. all people’s good?) is outside the scope of this meta. I’m more interested in how the narrative treats Clarke’s manipulation (in part 1) and how this trait plays in Bellarke’s relationship (in part 2).

To start, a couple helpful definitions of (interpersonal) manipulation:

1. to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one's own advantage 

2.  to manage skillfully and especially with intent to deceive

*you’ll notice that these definitions imply the inclusion of intent/motivation, which is an inherently subjective thing to identify in a character so that’s definitely something I’m keeping in mind!

I think Clarke’s penchant for manipulation is a really fascinating part of her character. It gives her so much power - it has since day 1 - and it has both been an unapologetic part of Clarke’s political repertoire but also, at the same time, a power she never really asked for. Clarke has, over the course of the seasons, become more comfortable with manipulation as a tool and ostensibly has learned to use this power she has for good - to protect her people. By the end of s3, however, I do think the narrative is challenging us to ask ourselves whether Clarke has come to stretch this power and take it too far in violating people’s ability to fully consent to a situation. This progression, whether it’s purposeful, whether it matters, and what I think about it are what I’m gonna talk about in this section through looking at several scenes (Note: These are not the *only* scenes where Clarke uses her powers of manipulation, just the ones I had something to say about.).

Classic Clarke: Getting What She Needs

1x02 “they’re thinking only one of us is afraid”: In this scene, Clarke plays Bellamy like a fiddle and immediately alters the power dynamic in their relationship. It is one of the first and best examples of Clarke’s intuition when it comes to getting people on her side. She’s already using the source of the legitimacy of Bellamy’s power against him: the mob. The mob only follows him because he is “less afraid” (lol they have no idea) than them and gives them what they want - so she threatens to undercut that legitimacy to ensure she has a gun on her team when she goes to find Jasper. It’s a brilliant scene for Clarke’s character and also establishes the pattern of Clarke and Bellamy constantly re-evaluating their impressions of each other each time one of them does something the other doesn’t expect.

1x10: This is a tiny scene but I wanted to include it for a couple of reasons. One is that this is one of the last times Clarke manipulates Bellamy in their partnership. The thing is though, I’m not even sure how successful Clarke’s “manipulation” is in this scene. She convinces Bellamy to let Clarke keep Octavia in quarantine ostensibly by saying “think of it as another way to keep her from sneaking out.” That sentence is deceitful because Clarke plans on having Octavia do just that - sneak out - but it is manipulative because Clarke is playing into Bellamy’s (rather problematic) s1a wish to keep tabs on Octavia to get him to agree to have her in quarantine. 

But the thing is, Bellamy has basically already agreed to Clarke’s reasoning before she says this line; Clarke would have gotten her way (Octavia in quarantine - her sneaking out was never gonna be ok) whether she’d tried to “manipulate” him or not because they’re coming to the point in their relationship where they trust each other’s motives and judgments enough to let themselves be swayed by the other. I suppose the halfheartedness of Clarke’s manipulation attempt here could be brushed off as her exhaustion from sickness, but I really think it’s a key indication that both she and Bellamy are weary of playing that game and that Clarke is starting to see Bellamy as someone to depend on, not someone she has to manipulate to her side. More on bellarke + manipulation in part 2.

(source)

Okay I’m covering these all together because I think they’re representative of many instances over the course of s1-s3 where Clarke uses manipulation to try and achieve a particular end, and the narrative doesn’t really question or challenge her methods. I think up until some scenes in s3b that I’ll talk about, the narrative treats Clarke’s ability and willingness to bend people to her way of thinking through manipulation - ranging from deceit to lies of omission to strategic selection of context - pretty neutrally. The show has historically been good (barring some glaring examples) at presenting character’s actions (especially Clarke’s) in a morally-neutral light that allows the audience to engage with the narrative and decide right/wrong/what they would do in Clarke’s shoes for themselves. 

I myself have never had an issue with Clarke’s penchant for using manipulation because I see it as a kind of morally-neutral trait and she is always using it for the betterment of her people and not for individual gain. I’ve also never agreed with members of the fandom who believe people “romanticize” this trait of Clarke’s. Tbh, I think Clarke’s manipulation IS a praiseworthy character trait to the extent that it’s a gutsy trait to give a main female character that you want your audience to root for. Traditionally, femininity + manipulation = the boogeyman of the patriarchy, and so it seems like every female villain ever is manipulative, and most female “heroines” we’re supposed to root for are naive/honest/earnest (often to a ridiculous extent) or otherwise nonthreatening when it comes to manipulation. 

Clarke + Consent: A Lesson to Learn? 

But of course it wouldn’t be the 100 if they didn’t ever challenge assumptions about what is right and wrong, and which side of that line the main characters are falling on (obvi they do not always execute this balance well, but I still want to talk about what’s going on with Clarke in 3b).

So there are a couple scenes in 3b where Clarke is called tf out by the narrative through characters like Niylah and Luna (who the audience is supposed to Trust) about how her manipulation can border on coercion and rob the people she interacts with of the ability to consent. Let’s take a look at two of these instances.

3x11:

(x)

*note: Clarke actually says “YOU wouldn’t have helped” in screencap #1

So basically all of us know that 3x11 is the Episode of Clarke (and everyone tbh) Getting Called Out. But I think a particularly interesting moment (one that @metastation podcast also talked about in their 3x11 podcast, if I remember correctly) is at the end of the ep, when Niylah admonishes Clarke after she finds out that Bellamy was involved in the Trikru massacre.

Niylah basically says to Clarke here: you robbed both Bellamy and I a chance to decide on this issue for ourselves, the opportunity to maybe rise above it or deal with it in another way because you didn’t want to risk me not helping you. And I think Niylah’s point is interesting for 2 reasons: (1) She basically articulates the risk/reward calculation Clarke makes every time she manipulates someone. Which is: what is the risk they won’t do what I want/agree with me if just give them the bald-faced truth? And (2) the fact that the narrative points this out through Niylah signals to me that we the audience should question whether Clarke’s gauging system for the risk/reward calculation has become a bit too skewed towards “the end justifies the means.”

3x13/14: 

Okay so Clarke’s interactions with Luna are great imo because they truly span the gamut of Clarke + manipulation. This first scene at the end of 3x13 is what I like to call Manipulation Lite™ when Clarke basically just whitewashes the journey she and the chip have been through to get to Luna, as well as glosses over the details of the state of the Commandership itself.

Except Luna knows what the fuck she’s about and it’s definitely not being warlord to a culture that made her kill her brother, so Clarke’s attempts fail. And so we move to 3x14, where I think things get both interesting and confusing as far as Clarke’s moral/manipulation “arc.”

In 3x14, specifically the scene where Clarke tries to force the chip on Luna, it’s really the first time I can remember that Clarke’s willingness to twist situations to her advantage full on graduates into physical coercion. Clarke can see that there is no way to convince or manipulate Luna into taking the chip and, desperate as she is to save humanity, she bypasses any semblance of allowing Luna free will.

I think this is really interesting because the narrative definitely isn’t supporting Clarke whole-heartedly in this moment: the scene becomes an ode to how badass Luna is, how mentally strong her pacifist ideology makes her, and the considerable lethal skill that lurks beneath her peaceful beliefs. When Luna puts Clarke on her back, the audience is like “damn, get her girl!! sorry Clarke you deserved that!” Luna isn’t framed as selfish or mean or inordinately violent for putting Clarke on her ass; in a sense the narrative sees that she’s justified for resisting this coercion.

But here’s where things get confusing. The narrative doesn’t defend Clarke’s decision in 3x14 but in 3x15 and 3x16 it doesn’t really follow up on it. In other words, the narrative doesn’t really address the implication it makes in 3x14 that Clarke went too far. I thought the moments with Niylah and Luna were meant to contribute to an arc about Clarke learning that she needs to respect free will more than ALIE does in order to beat her. But as far as I can remember, there’s not another instance where Clarke can choose between manipulation/coercion and free will and she chooses the latter, which would have been a fitting closure to the arc. 

So am I crazy for thinking that this arc is something that exists? Maybe, but I don’t think so. I mean, as much as I don’t love the show framing its moral arcs in the mouth of Octavia, especially after 3x10, she articulates the Free Will Problem in 3x14:

“Even ALIE gives people a choice.” Basically all of 3x14 is implying that the Sky People in general, and Clarke in particular, have some work to do where free will is concerned. And so one would think that this “work” would come before our protagonists ultimately prevail in the finale. But it really doesn’t seem to. I have a couple possible explanations for this. I tend to think the answer is a little of both. (1) is lazy writing (possible with so much other stuff they wanted to fit into the finale). I think (1) has merit because the writing makes a couple weak passes at the Clarke x free will arc in 3x16 during these two moments:

#1

#2

These are two moments in the finale where Clarke gives some impassioned lines on free will. And clearly free will is something Clarke values, but these scenes are interesting in juxtaposition with the lengths Clarke was willing to go to to get Luna to take the chip. Does she regret that decision now? If she could go back would she make the same choice? The answers to these questions are unclear. As much as the writing on this show tries to get us to questions characters’ decisions, I think there is a tendency towards hypocrisy sometimes, and I’m wondering if this is one of those instances.

Clarke only goes “too far” (as defined by the narrative) with her manipulation-turned-coercion  when she feels like there is no other choice. Is the narrative suggesting that Clarke’s desperation excuses the coercion in 3x14? If so, why did the narrative frame that scene as Clarke “going too far?” 

(2) The more satisfying and, I think, convincing conclusion about the poor landing of Clarke’s Free Will arc in s3 is because it is a theme that will feature in s4.

Right after the second scene screenshotted above, where Clarke asks ALIE to give people a choice about whether or not to leave the COL, Becca answers Clarke’s plea by telling her that ALIE literally cannot offer the people in the COL. “Her core command is to make life better,” Becca says. And allowing the residents of the COL to choose for themselves would contravene that core command. Is it just me, or does this draw a parallel to Clarke’s, like, entire storyline? 

Clarke only ever does morally questionable things for the good of her people, and barring that, the good of all humanity. But at what point does working towards the greater good matter if it involves robbing people of their free choice? This seems like the fundamental reason ALIE as a concept doesn’t work: she doesn’t allow people to choose their own destruction, to opt out of “salvation,” and so she is forced into perverse instantiation to save humanity. To me, this is an extraordinarily interesting theme to introduce before season 4. To what extent will Clarke (and Bellamy) choose to let people opt out of salvation in s4? How far is Clarke willing to go to coerce people into making the “right” decision? And far can she go until she, like ALIE, commits an unacceptably inhumane level of perverse instantiation? The idea that s4 might be a lot about free will in the face of the apocalypse is a very real (and very exciting!) prospect to me. I think it would set the stage for some truly wonderful character moments, for Clarke and for everyone else.

Part 1 Conclusion

I love Clarke Griffin. I think Clarke’s manipulation makes her interesting, and it makes her CLARKE. It’s the other side of the coin from her ability to empathize so deeply with people, so deeply that she knows what to say to get them on her side. I’m really glad I wrote this meta because, even though it might bore some of you Bellarke diehards out there (part 2 is for you I PROMISE), it helped me work out some of my thoughts and feelings about Clarke in 3b going into season 4. And ultimately I’m excited at the prospect of seeing the growth of a possible Free Will Arc, both through Clarke as a character but also as a larger theme of the show.