the darkling (as a character) deserved so much better than lb because his story was that of a persecuted minority radicalized by an oppressive government that committed the prolonged abuse and torture and genocide of his people for centuries. his story deserved better because it was handled with little care or thought to the implications of the way it was told, and had an underlying tone of anti-semitism and bigotry. he deserved better because he was written poorly, given a backstory that was harmful to many readers and treated very callously, and demonized for many of the actions of his oppressors. he deserved better because there was no real thought put into the plight of the grisha, because the protagonist sided with the oppressive monarchy and then stripped the grisha of protection and then made the situation worse, because the actual issues in society that radicalized him were never addressed. his story and his character deserved better because they never should have been written as they were in the first place without some serious issues being addressed by the author.
he deserved better because he was dehumanized constantly, treated like an animal, and put down like an animal. he deserved better because he was then brought back to be tormented even further. he deserved better because he could have been left dead and instead he was subjected to a sickening end of eternal torment after living through eternal torment because of others. he deserved better because what happens to him is seen as justified when it’s disgusting. he deserves better because lb clearly didn’t understand what she was getting into when she gave him the backstory that she did and then gave him the ending that she did.
he didn’t deserve better because he was pretty and people are attracted to him. he deserved better because the author that wrote him did it in a harmful and callous and ignorant way. this has nothing to do with romanticizing him and everything to do with critiquing the narrative framing of a story that makes the leader of a persecuted minority the villain whilst referring to him in demeaning and downright bigoted ways as the protagonist fights for a separate cause, never addresses the root of the problem, and then abandons the cause he fought for to live out a peaceful life after making everything worse.
if he’d fought for his cause “incorrectly” and “wrong” then Alina’s story should have been different. the author should have known to make her story different.
that’s what people mean when they say he deserved better than lb. and there’s nothing wrong with critiquing literature that incorporates such harmful tropes into the narrative. in fact, the practice is pretty damn common.
“he is the villain and she wrote him as such” - okay then, maybe you should be wondering why she made him the villain, and why she had the story develop and end the way it did? just because he’s a villain and she wrote him as a villain doesn’t mean that the points raised about the implications of such a choice aren’t valid.
