Of all the characters, I relate to Kane the most. While I don’t think that’s a requirement for liking a character, in his case (or in my case), it made a difference. I remember liking him as early as the second episode when most viewers still hated him. I could see that Kane was logically sound - totally wrong  - but right; that resonated with me more than all these other characters making reckless decisions. There was always something deeper about Kane as well. He wasn’t merely callous and that became apparent as the season went on. His season 1 arc felt like a tragedy to me, but unlike a classic tragedy, his story didn’t end there because he was able to learn from his mistakes.

So the reason I admire Kane because of this ability to move forward, learn from his errors, adapt rather than become stuck with patterns from the past. When something is no longer working, he lets it go and doesn’t look back. When he doesn’t see himself as a good leader, he gives that role to someone else. When following the law no longer works to make the best world, he becomes a rebel.

His forward thinking makes him an idealist, a visionary. This is both a flaw and a strength. He learns from the past, looks to the future, but has a blind spot to the present. People credit him as undergoing the biggest change through the seasons, but it’s not his mind that changed, just his outlook. In season 1, he chose his actions because he saw a bleak future where more people would have to die (and he was missing the present piece that earth was survivable). In season 3, he chose his actions because he could see a world of peace and cultural sharing (and he was missing the present piece where his own people felt oppressed). So why do I find this trait admirable? Because he can see what other people cannot. He wants the best for humanity and can see a better world. For this change to ever be reality in their world, there has to be people who can see it. It’s a lonely road because few can share in his vision but it’s also very hopeful. If a person can see the possibility of something, that means that it is possible to be real someday. The real tragedy may occur because he is unlikely to ever see it become a reality.

I also admire the way he interacts with other leaders. He is respectful; his first instinct is to offer advice and guidance. He will step into whatever leadership role is needed from him but ultimately he seeks peace, not power. When he disagrees with someone, he backs his perspective with facts and data. He doesn’t resort to emotional games like blackmail or manipulation nor put anyone down by being condescending. That’s one reason why he works well with the characters of the younger generation. He can be there to offer advice and support - and challenge them in their own roles. He believes in them. Perhaps it goes back to him “seeing” the future; he sees them as the future leaders and sees the potential of who they could be. He treats them as they could be, so as his equal. As a result, there is a very respectful and genuine way he interacts with them. 

Many shows feature “smart” characters, but Kane is not merely “smart.” He is a thinker and analytical, sure, but not in the sense that he has all the knowledge and answers. Rather he has a unique way of processing the world. I think that’s the part I both find unique in a character and can relate to. Plus - because I didn’t say this anywhere else - he has kindness about him and he sincerely cares about people, which is ultimately the quality that matters most.

In an AU world where she was trained for such a position and she believed in the country and/or polities she was representing, she could do well as diplomat. The later matters because I see Clarke being opinionated and is quick to buck the system… but if she was in agreement naturally, then she certainly has the skills to speak to other leaders, enable them to understand her, and then persuade them to agree with her. To be a diplomat, Clarke would need to learn some better listening skills and come across more tactful and patient, but I see no reason why she couldn’t learn that, especially if the fate of the world wasn’t at stake.However, currently, Clarke of The 100 universe would not make a good diplomat. Clarke has learned about leadership in a harsh way, and it has made her a harsh leader. She has learned that being an effective leader means taking it by force, by being firmly opinionated, by doing things even if the general population doesn’t want it and sometimes even doing things in secret against the people’s true wishes. A few of the reasons I don’t think she is a great leader (not to say she doesn’t have skills necessary for survival). As of now, she lacks PR and good communication skills to be a truly respected leader, which she first needs to be a good diplomat. When she was ambassador in season 3, she lacked… diplomacy. She started out by going to Kane and Abby and informing them what they had to do. An ambassador, a diplomat, has to be able to listen to the people they are representing. She can have opinions, of course, so long as she also has tactfulness - explain the situation, then listen, then give advice, then listen again, etc. In no other world would she have have ever been given a job as ambassador with her approach and attitude. Then when she was actually ambassador, she was all big-picture thinking, rather than acting in behalf of the people she represented (IE the Emerson situation is not how Skaikru would have handled it and they didn’t even get input and weren’t even told it happened). Plus, Skaikru needed to know more about what was going with Nia and Roan, etc. (Of course, the lack of communication wasn’t entirely her fault, something something plot reasons meant she couldn’t have a radio. She might have been able to find a way to communicate, but at that time, she was deliberately disconnected from the sky people.). 

Nonetheless, season 3a aside, Clarke currently lacks the nuances in communication to be a diplomat. She doesn’t know when to have opinions and when to listen, when to be open and when to keep situations secret. She’s learning, and I think she could learn more. So she has potential - she knows how to speak up for herself and really that’s the hardest part. That said, I’m not sure that Clarke would really want to be a diplomat? Maybe; there are different kinds of diplomats, so Clarke might find a niche, possibly economic or management. I say one of those because I see Clarke wanting to be an advocate for change. The character who would be a good diplomat and is naturally diplomatic is Marcus Kane. He is a resilient negotiator with an ability for discernment. He has that balance of listening and then stating his thoughts and opinions in a calm matter. Always respectful, he finds leaders and is generally well-received by them. He is about communication first and action second after there is a plan in place. He likes learning foreign languages - he was the second sky person to learn any Trig and first to do not out of necessity but as personal choice to show politeness. All of those are qualities necessary for a diplomat. I could go on about Kane being a diplomat, because he is such a diplomat - to the point, where he is not always the best leader in other respects; he gets lost in a cause or an idea and misses the people or problem in front of him. I’ve heard criticism from viewers who don’t think Kane is a good leader. I disagree with that as a broad statement. A good diplomat has to be a good leader, but it’s a role that I don’t think is always understood. Less in the spotlight, but it means he has certain weaknesses and strengths.

I find it interesting that in most AU stories, Kane is in the military. I can definitely see the military background, but diplomats and military use vastly different weapons and approaches. That said, I could also argue that both careers are related to national policy and both of their goals is ultimately peace and better terms with another group of people. Still, I think current Kane’s closest parallel to a modern AU would be a diplomat or other career in foreign policy. 

There are many specific parallels about the four characters you mentioned. Not so much that the story has to have one person feeling guilty about something, but I think of it more of a natural reaction based on the point where they are in their journeys. They are different paths, similar but not identical. Of course, there has been direct points where they merge – for example, Kane and Bellamy both felt responsible for the first culling. On the other hand, Abby feeling lost after killing someone comes seasons after Kane went through that feeling. It’s like a spiral, revisiting ideas but never exactly the same.Octavia’s journey has always been a different that those four, but in any case, I hope you are right about her story. One of my issues with the way the writers handle her character is that, with her, the message is “killing is badass.” From a character standpoint, I can understand why she reacted to killing the way she did. After Lincoln died, Octavia turned off a lot of her emotions to avoid the pain. Killing, in fact, was the action that allowed her to feel something. Not guilt but power, something she needed after feeling powerless with Lincoln. Does that mean that the guilt of what she has done will hit her later? Maybe, but I doubt we’ll see it. After all, six years later, it wouldn’t make narrative sense to have her torn up over killing a random grounder. In real life, guilt absolutely presents that way, but this is a show that likes to moves forward.However, as the leader of Wonkru, that will likely give her the opportunity to have to make difficult choices. Octavia throughout the seasons has always been able to have a high moral ground and quick to judge others, in part because she hasn’t had to make the decisions. Now she is in a position to make those decisions. If she ends up having to make a choice that ends up with people’s deaths, I think we will see a shift in her character, at least insofar as how she relates to other characters like Bellamy and Clarke. Why would you say that Abby, Kane, and Jaha will be less important to the story? (That’s true with Jaha as the actor will no longer be a season regular.) 

I don’t love the metaphor that much. I understand the idea of it, but it ignores the complexity of the characters. Also, that’s not how I see people in general. I believe everyone has a head and heart, and the goal of anyone should be to achieve balance in themselves, not depend on another person to balance them. This is actually supported by the narrative. It’s the fandom that tends to make “head” and “heart” out to be fixed traits in a person and thus, saying those characters can only be whole when they are together. 

The narrative loves to play around with “head” and “heart” metaphors but does so more fluidly. 

As a disclaimer to the head and heart metaphors, I don’t think anyone is saying that Clarke is heartless or Bellamy is brainless. Of course, Clarke has feelings and Bellamy can think. The idea is that Clarke is more likely to make decisions based on her mind and Bellamy makes decisions out of his emotions. I think that’s mostly true, but even that is oversimplified. 



If I were to pick two body metaphors for Clarke it would be head and guts. Lexa or Kane would be better examples of true head-types (in the sense that they dwell on their thoughts longer, not that that’s all there is to them either). Clarke has a drive that no other character has. She’s “gutsy,” which means she is sometimes impulsive – a thought-out impulse but there’s a reason that she is the one who is always making that last-minute decision when no one else has any solutions.

Clarke has a big heart too. Her ability to care for her people is her prime motivation for doing what she does. She has made heart-driven decisions as well. Rewatch season 1. Almost all of her choices are balanced head and heart choices. Like saving Jasper in 1.02. A “head” would never risks five people’s lives by going into enemy territory to try to save someone who was stabbed in the chest and probably already dead. It’s the heart that would say to try to save everyone regardless of odds. Clarke trying to save Finn in 2.08 was a heart decision (and finally killing him was a head and heart decision). There’s many smaller examples of her making a combination of head and heart decisions.


After Finn died, she shut that part of herself off and began to believe that in order to make good decisions, she should ONLY use her head. She began to believe saving the many always outweighed saving the few and to do that, she had to shut off part of herself, the part that cares about interpersonal relationships. The more difficult decisions that she had to make, the more she bought into “the only choice” ideology. 



I think the idea with bringing in Maddie in season 5 is to jump-start the “heart” side of her again. Although I disagree with the method (creating a five-year bond by skipping all those years is cheating us out of seeing the growth), I like the concept of her becoming more heart-driven, because she’s always had that side. Now her development will be about achieving balance.



Bellamy has always been very heart-driven. That doesn’t mean he is brainless – he is very smart and a great strategist. He couldn’t do that if he was only impulse and emotion. Clarke’s advice to him in 4.13 was also about encouraging him to find balance, saying he has a big heart but he also needs to use his head. She said this believing she was going to die, but the sentiment is true no matter what. For him to be his best self, he needs to use his head and his heart. My takeaway from the scene is that Bellamy isn’t fixed as only one thing either.

Counting who we know were on the “essential personal” list:



1. Abby2. Jackson3. Jaha4. Raven5. Kane6 and 7. Unnamed engineers (assuming that there are one or two other important engineers that bumped Monty off the original list).



We also know that Bellamy and Clarke were promised spots on the list:

8. Bellamy9. Clarke

And of course, I’m assuming Octavia still has to count as a spot.

10. Octavia

Counting backwards from that list, with 20 total spots being held, we can infer that there were around 10 children, give or take one or two, from Arkadia. That is unrealistically low by any count.

Let’s count this a different way:There was a total of 464 Skaikru in the bunker (364 being culled and 100 being saved). If we were to divide those numbers equally between the ages of 1-75, that would means there ought to be 6.18 people each year or around 92 children under the age of 16.



However, it’s unlikely that the count is divided equally with every age. There’s probably fewer people over the age of 60. Also, with the 1 child rule that means fewer people with each generation. Most likely, the highest count of people is between 35-55, half that between 15-35 and half that between 0-15. 

Some rough estimates of Skaikru divided by age:

Over 55: 43 peopleBetween 35-55: 240 peopleBetween 15-35: 120 peopleUnder 15: 60 people

We know all of Farm Station’s children were murdered; however, that shouldn’t greatly make the total count of children lower because there can’t be more than 10 farm station people left. (Mt Weather blowing up and also Pike, Hannah, and three farm station died when they turned over Pike). For the sake of argument, I will give 10 spots to farm station adults and assume there are 10 fewer children in the total count.

That should still leave around 50 Skaikru children in the bunker.

We’ve been given NO reason to assume the count of children should be as low as 10. I mean, when they sent down the 6 stations from the Ark, they would have divided the children up evenly between each station. To put all the children together in factory station or something would be ludicrous because assuming they were the only station to survive, they would have no chance at all. And there hasn’t been any attacks in Arkadia that would have targeted children.



So, again, that means there ought to have been around 50 Skaikru children left in the bunker. 

Honestly, I think the writers either didn’t bother to count logically or just wanted our characters to save all the children (because that’s arguably the moral thing to do) without the Skaikru portion of the bunker becoming one big orphanage.



Maybe we are to assume that most of the kids died of a mysterious illness during the three months between season 2-3. Best guess I have, because canon is telling us that there are around 10 kids left.

I would say Clarke is Slytherin with Gryffindor tendencies, and Bellamy is Gryffindor with Slytherin tendencies. I say “tendencies” rather that secondary house because I don’t see them reaching a hatstall - but each of them do have strong characteristics of more than one house.



In Clarke’s case, she’s easily Slytherin. She’s the embodiment of the “do whatever it takes” mentality. Nothing will get in her way when she has a goal, even if she has to cheat or manipulate circumstances to achieve those ends. She’s very good about rationalizing her decisions as well. “I had no choice.” Not to say the weight of her choices don’t wear her down because they do, but rarely does she regret them to the point of saying she shouldn’t have done those things. Instead she constantly pushes forward with determination.

She is extremely ambitious as well. Her ambition is for others (which many associate with Gryffindor but it’s not necessarily so). She isn’t out just for herself like some Slytherins are, but she does elevate herself and her position, saying things like “You may be chancellor but I’m in charge” to all the way to trying to become commander. She says she does this for the greater good, but it’s also a power play. Clarke believes she has to be the one making the decisions (at least having a part in it), and even when she isn’t in a position to be making them, she does it anyway as she feels is needed. For example, stealing the bunker in Polis.

She has strong Gryffindor traits too - she is brave, bold, and has much nerve. I think the hat would say “you would do well in Gryffin –” before Clarke would cut it off saying “but I need —” and ten seconds later she would be sorted into Slytherin. Interestingly, I think Clarke on the Ark (and the Clarke who was first on the ground) was a lot more Gryffindor. It would be pretty easy to imagine her being Gryffindor in an AU, say a modern AU where she goes to the actual Hogwarts. This is because she does have natural Gryffindor tendencies which could be nurtured. The Clarke we know has those tendencies too but her mindset and choices are more Slytherin. Ultimately, it comes down to choice, and she chooses Slytherin with what she has and does.
In Bellamy’s case, he is Gryffindor because those traits are part of who he is and more importantly, that’s who he wants to be. When most people talk about Slytherin!Bellamy, they are referring to his actions when we first meet him in season 1. He makes stereotypical Slytherin choices, only looking out for himself and his sister and is willing to screw over the world to do that. But this isn’t Bellamy as he wishes to be – this is broken Bellamy, one who lost everything he cared about on the Ark. This is also reflective of how he was raised. From what we know, he was taught to admire Gryffindor traits while being asked to make Slytherin choices. For example, “face your demons while you are awake” and “do not be afraid” (both very Gryffindor statements) - but in order to keep Octavia safe, he had to lie, sneak, and deceive others. We see this internal conflict in season 1 before he tries to figure out who he wants to be.



The Kane/Clarke scene in 4.06 is beautiful. It really highlights the mutual respect and understanding they have for each other. Clarke understanding Kane’s motivation for going to the island, and Kane assuring Clarke that there would still be a home to save when she returned to Arkadia – without even knowing each other all that well, they are able to have that insight. They can also reach each other, because they communicate similarly. Clarke gives Kane a reason he has to stay, and he hears her. It was also nice to see Clarke giving a reason rather than a command, which goes back to the respect they have for each other. They both trust that the another one will do what they need to do. Also, the hug was everything. That said, what I’ve been wanting since season 2 is a Kane/Clarke team-up, where they have to work together to accomplish a goal. Not work separately towards the same goal but work in the same location. I want to see them put their minds together to figure out a solution, because in many ways they think alike, but they also compliment one another as they are different too. Kane has more patience and ability to see many angles, while Clarke is stubborn and gets fixated on her idea to figure something out. When plan go awry, Kane is out of solutions, while Clarke excels at quick thinking. Combine that with the respect and understanding they have for each other, they would be a great team.The story seems like it is keeping Kane and Clarke separate for the moment - the writers know that they would be unstoppable together (haha - actually, I think the writers like to separate the characters, especially Clarke, as to challenge them individually). But if Abby’s mind deteriorates more, I think it would be amazing to see Kane and Clarke working together to figure out a way to help her. Their love for Abby is another thing they have in common.   

He was arrogant in season 1, about his ideas, his perspective. In season 1, he was so certain that he was right, it lead to him being ridged and close-minded. After the culling lead to the unnecessary death of hundreds of people, he realized he was wrong. After that, Kane never returned to that level of arrogance and certainty. 

Out of all the seasons, in season 2, I think he was the least certain of himself. In the beginning of season 2, he was in charge and he seemed fine with that but the very first major decision he had to make (what to do with Abby), he hesitated. He wanted another way, but he didn’t know how to find that way. That’s why he went back to the law. The very next thing he did was relinquish the chancellorship to Abby.  For the rest of the season, he had the role of advisor and peacekeeper. He still had ideas and opinions, of course, and he knew how to make a case, but he seemed fine with supporting both Abby and Clarke. I don’t see him being arrogant about his ideas but rather just… he had ideas. He was still recognizably himself, just softened.Interestingly enough, in season 3, you can see a little bit of season 1 Kane come out - while at the same time, he is the complete opposite of who he was in season 1. In season 1, he is a law abider and in season 3, he is a rebel. The common thread is in both cases he has very strong ideas of what needs to be done and goes for them with everything he has. In season 3, he tells Pike right before attempting to turn him over to the grounders: 

Which mirrors what he told Abby in season 1 before arresting her:

Compared to season 2: 

Season 1 and 3 are also different because, although Kane is certain about his ideas in season 3, that’s also balanced with moments of uncertainly and doubt. His actions come across as the acts of a desperate man, not an arrogant one (though arguably, he still has the flaw of being overly certain in his ideas rather than listening to others).

I’m fascinated by the way that Clarke’s thoughts and emotions connects to her actions. I’m fascinated because Clarke isn’t any one thing. She’s a planner but she’s also not. Or put it this way, her greatest strength isn’t long-term planning but quick-thinking. That’s a skill that Clarke has that no other character has, and what’s why she has become essential to everyone’s survival so many times. Plans go awry, and Clarke has the ability to adapt, reassess, and always always continue forward. Action is what Clarke is ultimately about. Not as in swinging a sword around action-film style but finding a way, accomplishing a goal. Clarke is a force because she doesn’t stop until her goal is finished. What is behind her driving force, giving her fuel to keep going? Emotion, caring. She takes that fuel, uses thought to find a logical solution in her mind, then converts all of that into action. Sometimes that whole process can happen in a matter of seconds. To me, the most impressive thing Clarke has ever done was mercy kill Finn. Clarke spent most of 2.08 making desperate but poorly planned choices to try and save him. Finally, she was out of options but yet still she was driven to do something. It’s worth nothing that Clarke didn’t HAVE to do anything, if merely going by logic (the grounders could have killed Finn and they would have gotten their treaty). Viewers can argue whether Clarke was “in love” with Finn or not but what she did for him was an act of love. While Clarke was drive to action by emotion, she didn’t react off that emotion but processed the situation through her mind. Clarke could have used the knife to kill Lexa, but she knew that starting a war would save no one, least of all Finn. So Clarke quickly made a quick plan and did the only thing she could do.That’s the combination that is so fascinating. Emotion = thought = action. Even Mt Weather was a modified form of this. Seeing her mom and her friends being tortured gave Clarke to the motivation to go threw with her plan, that she already knew she had to do. Since season 2b, Clarke has tried shutting off her emotions, to varying degrees of success. Clarke has felt like she has to, like she couldn’t choose to save her mom over ending ALIE in season 3. So Clarke has become more and more pragmatic to the point of systematically creating a list of one hundred people to save (and conversely, 400 to kill). But her friends no longer recognize her and people don’t want to follow her, because part of her is out of balance. Clarke needs connections to people, because it’s those connections and motivations that allow her to make more balanced decisions. It’s the difference between “there has to be another way” and “I had no choice.” Clarke has been stuck in the latter philosophy for a long time.

Potentially, if she continues to learn and grow from her mistakes and successes, she could become a great leader in every way.However, right now, with the path she had been on for the past two seasons, I don’t see her being a great leader of the people. Her narrative act has been leading her to be mythic hero: savior of humanity, savior of the world. She’s legendary. She’s a leader but also more and less.She hasn’t been leading a large group of people since season 1. Even in season 1, she was focused on goals and missions in effort to save everyone. As early as the pilot episode, she tried to lead a team to Mt Weather, which at the time was portrayed as a promise land of food and supplies. That failed and Clarke’s new goal was about saving Jasper. By the end of In season 1, Clarke’s leadership role became redefined and expanded. When she pulled the lever on the dropship and gave the command that set off the ring of fire, that’s when everything really shifted. She was no longer leader of the people, she was leader for the people: looking out for them, making the difficult decisions to keep everyone safe. 

For the past 2 seasons, Clarke’s arc has been taking her to be a leader for her people, doing everything for them to keep them save. At the same time, Clarke has not been truly part of the group since that time. In Season 2, Clarke ran away from her people in Mt Weather (Jasper stepped up as leader within the mountain). Clarke led the mission to save them. She was in a detached position from her people - she was looking out for them but she was not with them. Clarke tried to make Lexa her partner, but in the end, Clarke’s team was Bellamy and Monty - and others who helped along the way to make what they did a possibility. Ultimately, Clarke and her team saved their people and brought down the Mount Weather.

I would put Bellamy at the top of most punished/least elevated list, especially in season 3. Comparatively, he was held accountable for his mistakes in season 1, but he wasn’t blamed more than he deserved. For example, he felt great guilt of the culling and both Clarke and Raven reprimanded him for destroying the radio, but the viewers takeaway from the whole thing was never “Bellamy was the sole person responsible for the death of 300 innocent people,” which is exactly many people’s takeaway from Hakeldama. Well, maybe not quite that but close - and it’s missing the point about what war is (war is tragic, but a strategic battle attack, even a poorly planned one, is not the equivalent to “killing innocents.”). There was a few issues with season 3a and Bellamy. First, we weren’t given his perspective, so viewers had difficulty understanding his motivations. His reasons were there, but at the same time, not clearly enough. Second, even if we understand Bellamy’s personal reasons for joining with Pike, there’s nothing even objective “good” - morally or strategically - about what they accomplished or potentially could have accomplished.  Like with culling, it would have saved lives if the hundred died like they thought they had. With the TonDC, the missiles landing there might have kept Bellamy’s cover and been the reason they were able to rescue everyone in Mt Weather. On the other hand, the ONLY thing Hakeldama did was be another obstacle for Clarke: nothing positive happened or could have ever happened. Instead the narrative said that if it wasn’t for hero Clarke standing up for the sky people and benevolent Lexa agreeing to change her entire policy and not attack, Bellamy and other 9 people would have been the cause of genocide of the sky people. So the head scracher is, why would any of the sky people think attacking the warriors was a good idea? Was there a legit reason they believed Trikru was a threat? Not that was shown on screen. 

I agree with all of the characters you listed. With Clarke, part of it is that she is the main character, so we are given her perspective the most. We understand her motivations and goals. And that’s good, a story should allow for the protagonist’s perspective. The issue I have with Clarke is that she has developed into having a savior complex. She is portrayed as always right - and quite often she IS right, she IS the one with the solutions, etc, but she isn’t given much breathing room to make mistakes. When she does make mistakes, it’s passed of as her having no choice and it being another burden she has to carry. Clarke is a very strong-willed person and she says she has no choice over and over and over, so we as viewers tend to believe that’s true. 

Other characters have always been willing to criticize Clarke but the issue with that is those characters are portrayed as wrong and the takeaway is “poor Clarke. She tries her best and is dumped on for it.” For example, Jasper confronts Clarke about Mt Weather and Bellamy confronts Clarke about her leaving after Mt Weather. Those scenes are powerful, but it doesn’t allow Clarke to grow from her mistakes, because her mistakes aren’t radiating Mt Weather or leaving Arkadia. Her mistake in season 3a was thinking that she still has a right to lead despite being away from three months and having no idea what her people want or need. She’s not willing to listen either. She fails to ask questions, even to other leaders. For example, in 3.03, she basically informs Kane and Abby that they have to join the coalition. Her methods aren’t necessarily portrayed as good in the narrative, but the end message is still “war is bad and Clarke can stop all of this, so everyone should just listen to her.” That’s why I REALLY like episode 4.04, because the writers finally acknowledged Clarke’s complex. Clarke is faced with another impossible decision and has to create a list on who to save. Objectively she is “right” – she has chosen the best people to ensure their survival, but her methods are wrong - the keeping secrets and single-handedly choosing others’ fates. The episode allowed Clarke to be confronted in a very organic way. There’s not a wrong and right choice here, but there are other characters with very legitimate concerns. Jasper also pointed out the flaw in Clarke always believing she has no choice, that that philosophy is in fact just an illusion. All in all, I think this episode took Clarke down a notch and because of that, it gives her room to grow as person and earn her place as a leader. All very good things for the future of her character.

Yes. She often uses emotional manipulation. Or emotional persuasion would be a better word in most cases. In manipulation, there is only one “right” choice and the manipulator sets it up so they have to choose that choice. That is certainly Clarke in some cases but other times, she just influences the other person but still allows them to counter. Anyway, Clarke uses both persuasion and manipulation as a tool, especially when she needs someone to do something or she needs to persuade them to see her view. Rarely, does Clarke give the whole truth; instead she brings an emotional argument to give her opponent a push in her direction.Clarke has done this from the beginning of season 1. Bellamy had a gun and Clarke needed him to help find Jasper. Here’s how she phrased her argument:

Clarke figured out Bellamy core motivation and targeted that specifically.  She didn’t lay out the facts – by saying the gun was the only way to survive if they ran into grounders or by appealing to his human decency of saving a life. Instead, Clarke baited Bellamy into a corner, making an argument that he couldn’t refute. The only way he could counter her would be if he said he didn’t want the delinquents to follow him and admit that he was afraid. Of course, he does want the followers and he doesn’t want to show fear. He has his own reasons for going as well but still, Clarke’s speech to him was all about crafty reasons to make sure he would not or could not tell her no (also note that after she says this, she raises her eyebrow and walks away, not giving him time to form a counter-agruement even if he could find one).  Another method of manipulation that Clarke uses is telling people who they are: