#but they're all equally wrong and one-sided and one-dimensional and transparent

[mc-critical]

Something I can never bring myself to understand is the MY fandom’s seeming obsession with *proving* Mahidevran or Hürrem as the more morally correct, more noble, more respect-worthy etc sultana. Or measuring whose actions and beliefs were the most justifiable or who suffered the most unfortunate circumstances. It seems to completely ignore the fact that most characters in the franchise, sans a small handful of characters, fall into the category of morally questionable or ambiguous. I feel like both Mahidevran and Hürrem are both victims to the same terrible circumstances and the enviornment in which they both lived and were forced to adapt to was a catalyst to a lot of their deplorable actions and beliefs. They both came to the palace as concubines with no family nor money to their names (I can’t recall if this was held consistent in the TV series for Mahidevran’s case or not but I know this is the case for her historically as well), both of them had their worth and their livelihood tied to their ability to produce princes and please the Sultan (who will take any opportunity to remind these women that they are a mere piece of property to him anytime they attempt to assert themselves in any way.) Then there’s the looming threat of the principle of fratricide that basically haunted them throughout the entirety of their motherhood. I’m in no way saying the immoral decisions they made was justifiable or somehow okay (Mahidevran killing Mehmet, Hürrem killing Mustafa, etc.) I just feel that there’s a lot of black-and-white thinking at play whenever the Mahi/Hürrem discourse comes up. What do you think?

Thank you for bringing this up, because it's probably the thing that bugs me the most about this fandom (outside of Tumblr currently). You voiced my overall thoughts into words so well!

I think these double standarts come from many places that can be both the only reasons for a person or just one of the many. In my experience, this "black or white", "all or nothing" attitude stems from the absolutist belief that people should pick sides and root for only one character (usually the protagonist) in a narrative. They're using the standard, superficial narrative roles of the protagonist and the antagonist in terms of Hürrem, thinking that for some reason the protagonist is always morally right in all she does, simply because she's the protagonist and we're supposed to unconditionally root for her. And if they don't like the protagonist, they choose root for "the other side" instead. They're better than that anyway, so of course, we should root for them!!

To be honest, the earlier seasons of the show make an attempt in justifying this assessment, with them having the narrative voice be rooted in Hürrem's favor, despite of all possible problematic actions that tell a different story altogether. MC Hürrem was given very understandable and sympathetic motivations, thorough character exploration, gradual character development and the privilege of far too obvious Plot Armor (make no mistake, every historical figure in the show has Plot Armor, but with the many attempts at her life, Hürrem's in particular, was way too glaring at points, sometimes to a ridiculous degree.) and the writers making her enemies doom themselves by their own failings, with her seemingly only enduring the "charade". (Valide's flanderization post-E38 is the most egregious example of this.) People I've encountered that are excusing Hürrem's behavior, are citing precisely the first episodes to present their arguments, often refusing to go beyond that. Mahidevran's motivations, while as nuanced as Hürrem's, don't seem as delved into in comparison at first (the origins and backstory of MC Mahidevran are shrouded in ambiguity, and while this is thematically appropriate for her character arc, as I explained here, it definetly doesn't help her case in bringing in more vocal sympathy.) and it could seem that her character is simply antagonistic to Hürrem, doesn't go anywhere and later revels in the depths of her ambition and wounded pride earlier than Hürrem began that similar development of hers. Some Mahi stans could see that probable difference of treatment in narrative and support her simply because of that, as well.

Assessing moral ambiguity isn't all that easy in the grand scheme of things, but it especially falls short when the narrative voice seemingly doesn't support it at first. But many miss that there's a very thin line between the actions and the narrative voice, that only turns into a very deep incongruity as the series progresses. I don't know, perhaps determing the moral ambiguity is indeed so complex, confusing and conflicting, since the whole story could get too complex and many might wonder who they'll root for now when everyone is so problematic. And that's a show that began as a simple soap opera, no less! Why would they even put in the effort in this case?

Not many people are used to ambiguous and questionable character development and are still trying to prove that there is one main positive characters in the show, which is why they try to make Mahidevran or Hürrem more morally right and justifiable than they actually are. They are so passionate about the debates they engage in, because this time period and MC is truly so ripe in analysis and it could be very fun to figure out where these characters come from and go through their 4-seasons long evolution in one chosen context, but by doing this, they so often miss the depth and nuance of the subject at hand and it all turns into a one-sided discourse that drives me nuts.

There is a historical context of the issue is also important to note, in my opinion. Both Mahidevran and Hürrem are historical figures and quite a bit of facts and deeds of theirs are now widely known. Most people in the fandom have opinions of them in advance or could've gained opinions of them a while after they began to watch the show. (There are also numerous fictional interpretations of the events during Süleiman's reign and the players in it, which may also play a part in the overall judgement.) Either way, the known historical facts about them (and other fictional interpretations one could've read, of course) could influence their points of view by a certain amount and use these general impressions to present them while analyzing the characters in the show. I've heard numerous arguments that this Hürrem isn't like the Hürrem the history knows about, that she isn't "their" Hürrem and what they read about her isn't depicted all that much in the show, which takes a lot away, according to them. I especially hate when they call MC Hürrem a one-dimensional "evil" caricature that only has vileness and smug about her, no conscience, no complexity whatsoever. (no, MC Hürrem isn't as simplistic and is much deeper and more nuanced. As far as fictional interpretations go, what they're describing is Hürrem in "The Sultan's Harem" from Colin Falconer, not MC Hürrem! In the MC/K franchise's terms, all they're doing is reducing her to the level of MCK Turhan Sultan, which is disrespectful to this character, to say the least. Turhan is the exact thematic contrast to Hürrem smh while Falconer's Hürrem is the most absurdly evil caricature imaginable, at least IMO, please and thank you!) Or even more unbelievably and outright hilariously, considering Hürrem's actions and the Sultanate of Women overall the downfall of the Ottoman Empire o.o and that's why Hürrem is so ruthless, so cruel, always intentionally, of course. This is plain ridiculous. Mahidevran, on the other hand, is presented by this clique as her "victim", as a completely innocent victim that had everything taken away from her. That Hürrem had stood between her and Süleiman and "ruined" their family. This take ignores every other factor of this falling out (Süleiman, that is) and a part of the nuance of Mahidevran's character. Reducing her to a simple "victim" doesn't cut it at all. Conversely, we have fans that simplify MC Mahidevran's character beyond every belief, loving the historical figure, but claiming they made her an "evil" and "stupid" bitch that cries and whines all the time. It's limiting and one-sided and even if it appears so, there are way far more layers to her character, that develop consistently throughout the narrative. The historical context of the time period itself is usually brought up in the debates, too, justifying whoever they want to justify by "It's a war, only the strongest ones survive!" or "You eat or get eaten! We should understand their time period, not judge by our contemporary times !", which is understandable and valid, but the only thing they end up doing is applying this logic only to their preferred characters when it should be applied to everyone. They try their best efforts to make one more morally right than the other, but they continually fail in the process, because the metric they judge them from is plagued by double standarts.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that excusing one of them, but not the other for most situations is wrong, because Mahidevran and Hürrem.... aren't all that different. What most people seem to miss, is that their character arcs are so contrastingly paralleling, because both of their endings were far from victorious and they got it for the exact same character reason, gained in a different way and in a different time. The persistent insistence of the fandom wanting a main character necessarily having a triumphant grand finale fails flat immediately, because there is no true victory in the franchise. They also miss the negative character development of both of them, them having to do the exact same stuff in many instances, both of them letting go of their pasts and/or former attachments, becoming vicious and ruthless in order to adapt to the circumstances, both of them had to make moves out of desperation because they felt threatened and they both protected their lives and the ones of their children at the end of the day. Heck, they're way more alike than they're different in my book. There is no morally right, no more noble here. Both of them had no qualms to do whatever it took to secure their own future and as you said, the narrative presented very neat motivations for them to do so as a whole. There is always a shade of grey and yes, who has the lighter shade of gray could be up for debate due to differing sympathies and perceptions, but that mustn't stop people to at least try looking at the "bigger picture" and try to view their characters with a bit more criticality, depth and respect.

Rooting for both conflicting sides is still seen as questionable and contradictory by some, but there really is nothing wrong with exploring their motivations without justifying them, no matter where your sympathies extend. I think it creates a more unbiased outlook on the both these characters and the themes around them and it's always awesome to see people doing that in any fandom, really.

And both Sultanas are worthy of respect, I said what I said.