the-jules-world - Tumblr blog

the-jules-world · 4 days ago

Text

#grishaverse #shadow and bone #reblogs #baghra morozova

23 notes · View notes

the-jules-world · 18 days ago

Text

Maturing is realizing the darkling was right…

When people talk about the Darkling, they usually jump straight to the worst parts: the Fold, the manipulation, the power plays…

But if you actually slow down and look at Aleksander Morozova — the real man behind the myth — things aren’t as black and white as they seem. If anything, once you understand what he was up against, it’s hard not to admit that, yes, the Darkling was bloody right.

First off, the Grisha weren’t just living peacefully in Ravka. They were soldiers. Tools. Everywhere else ( Fjerda, Shu Han, Kerch ) they were slaves, test subjects, or executed on sight. The world hated Grisha for what they were, not what they did.

Aleksander grew up seeing that.

He wasn’t someone who just “wanted power for power’s sake” — he wanted to build a world where Grisha didn’t have to live in fear of being burned at the stake or locked in a cage for existing.

And something a lot of people don’t talk about enough is how realistic Aleksander’s mindset was. The man lived for hundreds of years. Watching history repeat itself. Watching Grisha get slaughtered over and over again. Watching kings promise change and then stab them in the back.

Of course he snapped. Of course he stopped believing in “being good” for the sake of it.

How many lifetimes can you live watching people you love die before you realize being “good” means nothing if you’re powerless?

Honestly, I wish Bardugo had explored that more : the mental cost of immortality.

Because it explains soooo much about him.

He wasn’t some cartoon villain twirling a mustache.

He was exhausted. He was furious.

He had lived too long to keep pretending that hope alone could save anyone.

When he created the Fold, yeah, it was a mistake. No one’s arguing that summoning a nightmare wasteland was good. But what people miss is why he did it. He was trying to create a weapon strong enough to force the world to respect the Grisha. The Fold was meant to protect them.

It got out of control, sure, but Aleksander kept fighting to find a solution, even as the world twisted the story and made him the monster.

What makes it even sadder is that he knew kindness wasn’t going to save anyone.

Hope wasn’t going to stop armies from marching.

Diplomacy wasn’t going to stop Grisha from getting hunted down in secret.

He understood something the others refused to face: survival in their world was going to require fear. Without it, Grisha would never be free — just tolerated until the next convenient purge.

Even when you look at Alina’s story ; what happens after the Darkling dies? Ravka stays broken. The Grisha lose their organized army. Their future? Uncertain.

Aleksander’s death didn’t solve the world’s hate.

It didn’t create peace. It just left the Grisha weaker, and more vulnerable, without anyone strong enough to defend them.

If you really think about it, Aleksander wasn’t the villain in his own story. He was the only one who truly understood the game they were playing and he was willing to make himself the villain if it meant the Grisha could live. He carried all that hatred, all that loneliness, and kept going anyway.

For them.

He’s one of those characters who’s not “good” or “bad” he’s … necessary.

He wasn’t perfect. He wasn’t gentle. But he wasn’t wrong.

And honestly?

The world he was fighting for would’ve been safer for Grisha than the one they ended up with.

Aleksander Morozova wasn’t just right.

He was the only one willing to do what was necessary when everyone else was too scared or too naive to see what it would cost.

#reblogs #the darkling #aleksander kirigan #grishaverse #aleksander morovoza #shadow and bone

204 notes · View notes

the-jules-world · 18 days ago

Note

the reason i cannot excuse the darkling’s crimes is because he has no loyalty to his people. sure, everything he did was to create a better, safer world for grisha, and he did a lot of good things for them, but how many grisha did he kill because they didn’t agree with his methods? how many innocent children did he sacrifice because they were pawns in his plan? how many otkazat’sya that also wanted a better world for grisha did he kill or try to kill because, at the end of the day, his goals were not to make the world safer for grisha, it was to make a world where grisha were the rulers of society and everyone else was left to suffer

Hey,

Thank you for your ask. You're entitled to your opinions and I'm truly not trying to change your perspective here. You liking the Darkling is your prerogative. However, many of your points here seem to be conflating with the modern, post WW era with established institutes and bodies of governance to keep the governments in check and it's not your fault for thinking that way. The book claims to be in a historic setting but it has serious modern tones that it throws off the readers.

So let me give a quick background before I jump in. First, the story is set based on 19th century feudal Russia with an absolute monarchy. An absolute monarchy means there are no checks and balances. The government is run based on the whims of the king. You can have the king's favor one day and the next day, he can very well order you to be thrown into the dungeon or order your beheading without a trial. Bloodlines matter; your position and your influence in court are the only things that can save you or allow you to do whatever good you wish to do. So alliances matter and anyone who is not your ally is your enemy and a threat. And a coup is the only way to go if you want a regime change.

Now let me paint a picture of the lives of Grisha from the books. In Demon in the woods, we learn that not just Fjerda and Shu Han but Ravka itself was not safe to the Grisha. So the Grisha were scattered and they had to live and learn their craft in hiding and had no one to advocate for them because they were killed on sight. Time jump to 500-700yrs in the future, the Grisha now have a place to call home, have food in their bellies and have a place to practise their gifts without being killed. Does that mean, they are free? Nope. They're essentially serfs and they have earn their keep by serving in the frontlines or serving in noble family homes. They're not real citizens and cannot own lands. The're still treated poorly by otkazatsyas who were quick to turn on them and kill them in their sleep or sham trials when the chance presented(book 2). Also with the advent of technology they might soon make them obsolete. So the deal Aleksander struck up with the Lanstovs to spare Grisha lives in exchange for servitude is on a timer.

With that out of the way, let me breakdown your accusations:

You claim that the Darkling was disloyal to his people and I disagree with it completely. He was nothing but loyal to his Grisha and he has proved it time and time again.

He started as a nobody in the Demon in the woods and ended up building a palace for the people who once were forced to live in caves and woods. You think that's an easy achievement for a man who was born not only without a noble bloodline(probably in 12th or 13th century) but was also a Shadow Summoner who even Grishas are weary of? You cannot dismiss that as a 'sure he did a lot of good things for Grisha.' because without him taking that initiation, there would have been no Grisha. They would have been hunted to extinction.

In Book 1, we see how the Grisha are well fed, protected in keftas, have better living conditions and supplies than otkazatsya because Aleksander, as a General of the Second Army made sure that his people are taken care of unlike the corrupt First Army Generals. Even through Alina's POV we see how his soldiers love and respect him.

In Book 2, the Darkling survived but so did Ivan and a few others. He did not create the shadow monsters to protect himself alone, did he? He did not abandon his people, he took them to safety. Is that not a sign of loyalty?

In Book 3, he literally uses merzost over and over again, so he could spare the Grisha lives being killed in frontlines. Is that not a sign of loyalty?

You said 'how many Grisha did he kill because they didn't agree with his methods?' And how many people did he kill? Did he go around on a killing spree because he woke up with a crimp in his neck? Or did he used the Cut on his people because his tea was tepid?

This is again a talking point I often see amongst Anti-darkling. You take a canon event of him punishing the Grisha who chose Alina and talk about it as if that's how he normally treats all his opposers when there is no proof of it happening outside of the event. And I see this happening only to the Darkling. None of you anti-darkling folks seem to call Nikolai a rape-apologist although canonically that is who he truly is. Weird how double standards work eh?🙄

Anyhow, coming back, how do you think defectors are treated in military? A google search will show you even today defectors and deserters are killed in leiu of punishment across all the world armies without exceptions. Not just the defectors, even those who harbour them are punished. That's how war time crimes are treated. The Grisha who chose Alina forfeited his protection when they chose sides and cannot expect his loyalty afterwards. Loyalty is a two-way street.

Next you claim he killed innocent children as his pawn. Again where is the proof? When did he kill children? He took the grishenka and hid them elsewhere to deceive Alina. He never harmed them.

If you're meaning it in the context of him 'taking' Grisha children from their 'parents' as morally wrong then you must not understand the concept of x-men or why Charles Xavier uses cerebro to find mutant children.

Or if you're thinking of Genya and treating it as a standard for all then I suggest you read my other post.

You also claim he killed otkazatsya who wanted a better world. Again, where.is.the.proof? You're taking the grishaverse and treating it through the modern lens of oppression and allyship. The 19th century people were not well-read or educated. The majority of the people clung to religion and believed whatever was taught to them by their priests. Alina herself believed that the Darklings were born without souls. That's how common ignorance was. Even the final climax of Zoya destroying the Fjerdans and getting accepted by all people was not done as an acknowledgement of the Grisha genocide. The acceptance happened because they otkazatsya started believing in saints. So whatever allyship you're imagining never existed in the first place.

And your final claim was that the Darkling wanted a world where Grisha were rulers. I'm not gonna lie, I actually laughed out loud reading it. You've never read the books, have you? The fifth chapter of book 1 itself refutes your claim and gives you the answers you seek. And if he truly thought so less of otkazatsya why was his oprichniki only consisting of them? It was the oprichniki who stood with him through thick and thin and bravely fought off the palace guards when they attacked the Little palace, ensuring that the Grisha had a chance to escape.

If you're going to believe the anti-darkling rhetoric then I suggest you atleast do it after reading the books ( s&b, s&s, r&r, the Tailor and the demon in the woods). I also suggest you to read historic accounts on how 19th century was and why coup was the only solution Aleksander had. The anti-darkling crowd is an echo chamber and they do nothing but scream about how the Darkling should have done better without truly understanding the books or history of the oppression of marginalized communities. So if you're going to continue there, I hope you're intellectually equipped to see through their trauma dump and form your own opinions.

#reblogs #grishaverse #shadow and bone #the darkling #grisha

36 notes · View notes

the-jules-world · 1 month ago

Text