u/FanofMLB

Ok before starting I want to make something clear, this post is mostly my personal opinion. Im not saying that everything im about to say is an absolute fact or that your wrong if you disagree with me. I just want to share my thoughts and hopefully hear what other people think about it. Also I apologize if some of my arguments seem unfair or if I misunderstood certain parts of the story, I recognize that sometimes we let our personal feelings toward a character influence how we see their actions, and sometimes we even exagerate things without realizing it.

The first time I heard about The Remarried Empress was around 2018-2019 when I saw one of those youtube ads promoting webtoons. Back then I wasn't really a huge fan of romantic drama stories so I didn't pay much attention to it. But one thing that caught my attention was how much people hated a character named Rashta while practically worshiping another character named Navier. From what I saw Navier was considered one of the greatest female protagonist in the genre, people constantly praised her intelligence, elegance, maturity and how strong she was. Meanwhile Rashta was treated like one of the most horrible characters to ever exist.

Eventually I forgot about the series. Fast foward several years and recently I've been reading alot more romance and drama manhwas, so after more than 7 years I decided to finally give The Remarried Empress a chance and see what all the hype was about. And well... I was genuinly surprised by how much I ended up disliking Navier and Heinrey while Rashta somehow became my favorite character.

Now before anyone gets the wrong idea, does that mean I think Rashta is a better person than Navier or Heinrey?

 Absolutely not. Im perfectly aware that Rashta is a horrible person who did alot of cruel and selfish things throughout the story. Im not going to pretend that everything she did was justified just because she had a horrible childhood. Likewise I don't think Navier is an evil person and I recognize that she has alot of admirable qualities. My problem isn't really with the characters themselves, my problem is how the story treats them.

One of my biggest personal frustrations when reading fiction is when a story constantly tells me how incredible a character is without actually showing me why I should believe it. I don't mind powerful protagonists, I don't mind intelligent protagonists and I don't even mind protagonists who are already extremely competent at the beginning of their stories. What bothers me is when the story keeps insisting that a character is extraordinary while barely showing anything that actually proves it. And unfortunately thats exactly how I felt about Navier.

Throughout The Remarried Empress Navier is constantly described as this extremely intelligent and competent empress. Were repeatedly told that shes practically the reason why the Eastern Empire is so prosperous and that her political abilities are extraordinary. But heres my question, what exactly has Navier done that makes her such an incredible political genius? Im not denying that shes competent, she clearly understands imperial etiquette, administration, diplomacy and the responsibilities that comes with being an empress. But being competent and being an extraordinary genius are two completely different things.

The story tells us that the empire prospered because of her but I rarely felt that it actually showed how she accomplished this. Where are the complicated political strategies? The impressive economic reforms? The difficult negotiations where she manages to outsmart an equally intelligent opponent? Im not saying that every political achievement needs to be explained in extreme detail because that would probably make the story unnecessarily complicated. But if a characters extraordinary intelligence is supposed to be one of their most important qualities then I expect the story to atleast show enough evidence to make that reputation believable.

Instead some of Naviers most noticeable victories involve embarassing Rashta or exposing Sovieshu stupidity. And to be completely fair neither of them are exactly impressive intellectual opponents. Rashta is a former slave who initially doesn't even know how to read or write properly, has practically no political education and barely knows anything about noble etiquette. Shes suddenly thrown into an enviroment where everyone expects her to understand subjects that Navier spent her entire childhood studying. Meanwhile Sovieshu constantly makes stupid decisions especially when his personal feelings interfere with his responsibilities. So when Navier manages to outsmart either of them I don't find it particulary impressive. Its like watching an experienced chess player defeat someone who only recently learned how the pieces move. Sure the experienced player is better but does that automatically makes them a genius? Not really.

And what frustrates me even more is how frequently other characters praise Naviers intelligence, almost like the story is afraid that readers might forget how brilliant shes supposed to be. Let me use a character I consider a much better example of how to write an intelligent person, L from Death Note. When L is first introduced were told that hes the worlds greatest detective and that he has solved alot of difficult cases. However the story doesn't spend the rest of its time having characters constantly remind us how intelligent he is. Instead it actually shows his abilities. We watch L analyze information, create theories, set traps, anticipate his opponents decisions and gradually narrow down Kiras identity. And the best part? L isn't always right. He makes mistakes, encounters obstacles and sometimes his opponent manages to outsmart him. Thats what makes his intelligence believable. The story doesn't need to constantly tell us that L is a genius because we already saw him proving it. Now im not saying Navier needs to be written exactly like L, they're completely different characters from different genres. Im just using him to explain the difference between telling the audience that a character is intelligent and actually showing that intelligence.

Another issue I have with Navier is how little I feel she develops throughout the story. Now this is mainly personal preference. I generally enjoy stories where characters gradually develop through their experiences, they make mistakes, face consequences, learn from their failures and eventually become different people from who they were at the beginning. That doesn't mean every protagonist needs to start weak, incompetent or morally flawed. However I do want to feel that their experiences actually changed them. With Navier I rarely felt that.

When the story begins shes already an accomplished empress. Shes intelligent, respected, wealthy, politically experienced and surrounded by people who admire her. And by the end shes still an accomplished empress except now shes married to another emperor. Of course thats an oversimplification but I think it explains my problem. Her most significant conflict is obviously Sovieshu betrayal and their eventual divorce. And I don't want to minimize that. Being betrayed by someone you've known since childhood, losing the marriage you believed in and having your position threatened would be horrible experiences. Navier absolutely has reasons to feel hurt. But outside that conflict I rarely felt that the story put her in situations where she was genuinly outmatched, forced to reconsider her worldview or made to confront serious personal flaws. Even after her divorce she manages to marry another emperor who absolutely adores her, keeps her status as an empress and eventually builds a new life, and yes I know Heinrey wasn't an emperor in the beginning, Im just saying this because he ends up turning into an emperor. Again theres nothing wrong with a protagonist finding happiness after suffering. My problem is that the story seems more interested in rewarding Navier than actually challenging her.

This brings me to probably my biggest criticism of the series, how the story treats Navier and Heinrey morality. I don't dislike morally questionable characters, in fact some of my favorite fictional characters are horrible people. What I dislike is when a story seems unwilling to acknowledge that its protagonists are capable of doing something morally questionable. And thats the impression I constantly got from Navier and Heinrey. Whenever Rashta or Sovieshu does something wrong the story makes sure we understand how horrible their actions are. Their mistakes are exposed, their decisions are criticized and their behavior constantly comes back to haunt them. But when Navier or Heinrey does something questionable I feel that the story becomes alot more forgiving.

Take Heinrey for example. Hes presented as this charming, affectionate and almost perfect romantic partner who genuinely loves Navier. And to be fair his affection for her does seem sincere. But Heinrey is also a politically ambitious ruler who engages in espionage and schemes against the Eastern Empire, including actions connected to weakening its magical power. These are not insignificant actions, they potentially affect people who have absolutely nothing to do with Naviers marriage or Sovieshu terrible decisions. Yet I rarely felt that the story gave those actions the same moral criticism it gave to the antagonists behavior.

And then theres Naviers relationship with Rashtas former owner. This is something that genuinly bothered me. Now before anyone misunderstands me, im not saying Navier should have single-handedly abolished slavery. I understand that shes an empress consort and not an absolute ruler who can simply change every law whenever she wants. I also understand that slavery is an established institution within the world of the story. But that doesn't automatically makes it morally acceptable. Rashta herself became a slave because of circumstances connected to her fathers actions rather than because she personally deserved such punishment. And the fact that this system can punish people for the actions of their relatives is already disturbing. So when Navier maintains a friendly relationship with someone who previously owned Rashta I can't help questioning the moral image the story tries to create around her.

Again my problem isn't that Navier fails to become some revolutionary fighting against slavery. My problem is that the story wants me to see her as this extremely just and compassionate person while rarely examining the uncomfortable implications of her accepting that system. And yes the same criticism should apply to Sovieshu. In fact since hes the reigning emperor I would argue that he has even more political responsibility for the institutions of his empire. Im not going to criticize Navier for something while conveniently ignoring Sovieshu responsibility because that would be hypocritical. But the difference is that the story doesn't constantly ask me to admire Sovieshu as some morally perfect ruler. With Navier I feel that it does. And thats where my frustration comes from. To be clear im not claiming that Navier and Heinrey are worse people than Rashta or Sovieshu. Im saying that I wish the story examined their questionable actions with the same seriousness it applies to the characters were supposed to dislike.

Now comes the part that will probably make some people disagree with me. Despite everything I've said Rashta ended up being my favorite character in The Remarried Empress. And no that doesn't mean I think shes innocent. Rashta is manipulative, selfish, dishonest and capable of tremendous cruelty. She hurts innocent people, abuses the power she obtains and makes decisions that can't simply be excused by pointing toward her tragic past. Im not going to defend those actions. But heres the thing, I don't need a character to be a good person to consider them a good character. What matters to me is how interesting they are, how their experiences shape their personalities and whether their development feels believable. And in that regard I found Rashta considerably more interesting than Navier.

Rashta begins her life at the very bottom of society. Shes born into slavery, deprived of opportunities, subjected to mistreatment and raised in an enviroment where her survival depends heavily on the decisions of people who have power over her. Unlike Navier she doesn't grow up surrounded by tutors preparing her for a prestigious political position. She doesn't have influential relatives protecting her reputation. She doesn't have the luxury of knowing that she'll always have a roof over her head or enough food to eat. For Rashta survival is a constant concern. And I think that difference is extremely important to understand her character.

When she encounters Sovieshu she suddenly discovers an opportunity to escape the life shes known. For perhaps the first time someone with extraordinary power is willing to protect her and provide her with luxuries she could never have imagined. So naturally she becomes desperate to preserve that protection. Does that justify her actions? No. But it makes her motivations understandable. And as the story progresses we watch that desperation gradually transform into something much uglier. Her fear of losing everything becomes an obsession with maintaining her position. Her desire for security becomes a desire for power. Her attempts to protect herself increasingly involve manipulating and hurting others. And eventually the person who once suffered under the cruelty of a deeply unequal system begins inflicting suffering on other people herself. Thats what makes Rashta so interesting to me, shes both a victim of cruelty and someone who eventually becomes cruel herself.

Her suffering explains part of her behavior but it doesn't absolve her of responsibility. In fact I find some of her actions even more disturbing precisely because she understands what it means to be powerless and mistreated. She knows how horrible it feels to be at the mercy of someone more powerful. Yet once she obtains power herself she becomes willing to subject others to similar suffering. Thats a genuinely tragic contradiction.

Another aspect of Rashtas character that I find fascinating is how frequently the people she depends on end up manipulating or betraying her. The Duke Ergi is probably one of the clearest examples. Rashta comes to see him as someone she can trust, someone who understands her situation and is willing to help her navigate the complicated world of nobility. And considering how isolated she is its not particularly surprising that she becomes attached to someone who appears to treat her kindly. But Ergi has his own motivations and his apparent friendship becomes another source of manipulation. I find that especially tragic. Rashta spends much of her life surrounded by people who have more power, education, wealth and influence than she does. And even after escaping slavery she continues to depend on people whose intentions she doesn't fully understand.

That doesn't mean she has no agency. She absolutely does. There are moments when she consciously chooses to hurt others and she should be held responsible for those decisions. But I think its important to recognize that being responsible for your actions and being manipulated by other people are not mutually exclusive. Both things can be true. Rashta can be a horrible person who makes horrible choices while simultaneously being someone who was exploited by people who knew exactly how vulnerable she was. And personally I find that combination far more interesting than a character whose virtues are constantly reinforced by the story.

This brings me to something I've been thinking about ever since finishing the series. I genuinely believe Rashta could have been the protagonist of an incredibly interesting tragedy. Imagine a story called The Rise of a Slave. It follows a young woman born into slavery who eventually escapes her circumstances and rises through the ranks of imperial society. At first readers sympathize with her. They understand her fear, her desperation and her desire to finally experience a life where she isn't treated as someone elses property. But as she gains influence she begins making increasingly questionable decisions. She lies to protect herself. She manipulates people because shes terrified of losing her position. She betrays others before they can betray her. Eventually her fear and ambition consume her and she becomes someone who inflicts the very suffering she once desperately wanted to escape. And throughout all of this the story never pretends that her actions are justified. It simply allows readers to understand how she became that person.

I think a story like that could create one of the most controversial female protagonists in the genre. Some readers would absolutely despise her. Others would sympathize with her despite recognizing how horrible her actions had become. And many would probably feel both emotions simultaneously. Thats the kind of character I personally enjoy reading about. Not someone whose every action is admirable but someone whose humanity remains recognizable even when they do horrible things.

Finally I want to emphasize one last time that im not saying Rashta is a better person than Navier. She isn't. Nor am I saying that Navier is objectively a horrible protagonist or that people are wrong for enjoying her story. I understand why so many readers like her. Shes composed, competent, dignified and manages to rebuild her life after being betrayed by someone she trusted. For readers who enjoy stories about a woman overcoming a painful marriage and finding happiness again I can understand why The Remarried Empress would be satisfying. Unfortunately that simply wasn't enough for me.

I went into this series expecting an extraordinary protagonist because of how frequently people praised Navier and compared her to other memorable female leads. Instead I found a character whose intelligence I felt was more often praised than demonstrated, whose personal development didn't particularly impress me and whose questionable decisions rarely received the criticism I wanted from the story. Meanwhile the character I was supposedly meant to hate ended up being the one whose psychology, contradictions and tragic downfall interested me the most. And thats probably the biggest reason I feel disappointed by The Remarried Empress.

I don't hate Navier because shes a flawed person. I dislike how the story seems reluctant to acknowledge those flaws. And I don't like Rashta because I think shes innocent. I like Rashta because shes deeply flawed and those flaws are an essential part of her story rather than something the narrative constantly tries to excuse.

Of course I recognize that my personal preferences may have influenced how I interpreted certain events and I might have overlooked details that other readers consider important. So im genuinely interested in hearing different opinions. Do you think Naviers intelligence and development were demonstrated convincingly? Do you think the story treats its protagonists and antagonists fairly? And do you think Rashta could have worked as the protagonist of her own tragic story?

I'd love to hear what other readers think even if you completely disagree with me.

Ok so recently ive been reading alot of reborn/transmigration Miraculous fics and I noticed that most of the time the main character gets powers in pretty similar ways. They either find some invented lost Miraculous, randomly get powers just because they arrived into the world or the Guardian simply chooses them.

So my childish brain started thinking about how I would make a reincarnated character get powers in a cool way without just getting lucky. Basically make them actually figure something out.

And my answer was... get akumatized.

Yeah seriously.

My idea is basically what if an akumatized person could somehow become independent from the Butterfly holder while still keeping the powers they were given?

The idea mostly comes from the concept of the Butterfly Miraculous itself which is Transmission. The actual power isnt really "turn people into supervillains" thats just how Hawk Moth uses it. The power is basically transmitting abilities to another person using an akuma.

So normally its something like:

Butterfly Holder > Akuma > Akumatized Person

The holder creates the akuma and sends power through it to another person. They still have control over the connection tho. Hawk Moth can talk to them through it and even remove their powers if they stop cooperating.

But that made me think, what if the person on the other side learned how to mess with that connection?

Imagine someone who already knows exactly how akumatization works. Instead of avoiding Hawk Moth they actually let themselves get akumatized on purpose.

At first everything works normally. Hawk Moth gives them powers and thinks he just got another villain he can control.

Except theres one problem.

The power was already transmitted to them.

So instead of somehow creating their own power or overpowering the Butterfly Miraculous they basically try to cut Hawk Moth out of the connection AFTER he already gave them the power.

The best way I can explain it is like someone sending you a file but still having remote access to your computer. Normally they can just delete the file whenever they want. So instead of trying to create another file yourself you just remove their access to your computer after they already sent it.

So Hawk Moth eventually realizes this person isnt listening and tries to remove their powers like normal.

And... nothing happens.

They basically hijacked the transmission.

Instead of:

Butterfly Holder > Akuma > Akumatized Person

It becomes:

Butterfly Holder × Akuma = Akumatized Person

Basically Hawk Moth dosent control the connection anymore. The akuma itself becomes the thing keeping their powers active.

Obviously I would give this some pretty big limits because otherwise someone just discovered infinite free superpowers.

First I dont think any random akumatized person could do this just because they have enough willpower. They would need to actually understand whats happening. They need to know what the akuma is, where the power comes from and what exactly they're trying to seperate themselves from.

Thats where a reincarnated character would have a massive advantage because they already know all of this before getting akumatized.

Second they're still akumatized.

They didnt magically become a Miraculous holder and their powers arent permanent. Their akumatized object is basically their biggest weakness.

Break the object, release the butterfly and let Ladybug purify it?

Goodbye powers.

But I think this could get even more interesting later.

If the character gets better at controlling the connection maybe they eventually realize that Transmission dosent necesarily have to work in only one direction.

Hawk Moth transmitted power to them. Now they control that power so maybe they could learn how to transmit PART of it to someone else.

Not create new akumas or suddenly get every Butterfly Miraculous ability. They would just be sharing parts of the power they already have.

For example lets say their akumatized power is controlling electricity. Maybe they could give part of that power to another person. One person can generate electricity while another can absorb it.

But theres a downside.

They're literally giving away parts of their own power.

The more people they give powers to the weaker they become personally.

So basically they slowly become this weird bootleg Butterfly holder without actually having the Butterfly Miraculous.

And thats mostly what I like about the idea.

The character dosent discover the Lost Miraculous of the Super Special Black Dragon™ that was hidden under Paris for 4,000 years. They dont randomly get a gamer system or some OP ability just because they reincarnated.

They basically just looked at how the Butterfly Miraculous works and went "wait... can I abuse this?"

Obviously im not saying this is 100% how the Butterfly Miraculous works in canon. Im mostly taking the idea of Transmission extremely literally and seeing how far you could push it.

But I think it would be a pretty fun way for a reincarnated character to get powers.

They werent chosen by the Guardian and they didnt randomly find some legendary Miraculous.

Hawk Moth just made the horrible mistake of giving powers to someone who knew enough about his own ability to steal them from him.

But what do you think? Do you think something like this could make sense with how Transmission works or am I stretching the Butterfly Miraculous way too much?

Recently I made a post where I talked about how Chloé and Marinette are judged very differently by some people in the fandom. Basically how people praise Chloé whenever she does something good while forgetting alot of the bad things she did, but whenever Marinette does something wrong people use it against her while ignoring all the good things she has done.

I also mentioned how I understand why people were disappointed with how Chloé's development was handled. She actually showed potential for a redemption and there were moments where it seemed like she could actually become a better person. My problem was more with how some people use those moments to idolize Chloé, when alot of her good actions were either because she was forced to do something or because she wanted something in return.

But one of the comments on that post had an opinion that I actually found pretty interesting and it made me think.

They mentioned how alot of Chloé's good actions were mainly for glory or to impress Ladybug and werent really selfless. But they also said something else, that if Chloé actually got redeemed people might've hated that version of her because she would've lost her iconic "mean girl" personality.

And I wanted to share my opinion about that.

First of all this isnt a post to send hate or insult the person who said it. I mainly made this because I genually found the idea interesting. Would people actually dislike a redeemed Chloé because she isnt the mean girl anymore? I just want to explain my point of view and hopefully hear what other people think.

In my opinion theres multiple ways a character who was originally a villain antagonist or enemy can get redeemed while still keeping the things that made them unique.

One of the best examples is Vegeta from Dragon Ball. He became a way more caring husband and father but he still has his pride arrogance and competitive personality. Becoming a better person didnt suddenly remove everything that made Vegeta who he is.

Another example could be Shadow from Sonic. He isnt really a normal hero or completely friends with Sonic but he still respects him and helps when its actually necesary. He isnt a villain anymore but he still follows his own path and does things his own way.

I think Chloé couldve been the same.

Her becoming a better person dosent mean she suddenly has to be nice and friendly with everyone. She could still be arrogant dramatic and obsessed with fashion. She could still have her pride about being the daughter of the mayor of Paris, still care about status and still have that attitude that makes her Chloé.

She also dosent need to suddenly become Marinette's best friend. I actually think it would be more interesting if they still didnt really like each other. The difference would be that Chloé eventually learns to respect Marinette and stops treating her and everyone else like they're below her.

A redemption arc dosent have to remove what made a character iconic, it just means they grow from their worst traits. Chloé could still be Chloé without needing to be a bully or a terrible person.

Also I dont think starting to do good things for selfish reasons is necesarily a bad thing, specially at the beginning of a redemption. Sometimes a character can start doing something for completely selfish reasons but slowly realize that doing something good for someone actually feels good.

We could use the typical helping an old lady cross the street cliche as an example.

Imagine Chloé sees Ladybug nearby so she decides to help an old lady cross the street just because she wants Ladybug to see it and praise her. Ladybug realizes what Chloé is trying to do and basically ignores her. Obviously this frustates Chloé because the entire reason she did it was to impress Ladybug.

But then the old lady genually thanks Chloé for helping her.

Chloé probably wouldnt care that much at first maybe she would just say "whatever" and leave. But later she starts thinking about it. So she decides to experiment a little and starts helping other people with small things.

At first she still expects something from it. Praise attention or people telling her how amazing she is. But eventually she starts realizing that she actually likes helping people and seeing them happy.

And I think thats where her good actions being selfish at first could actually become part of her development instead of being proof that she could never change.

She wouldnt suddenly become this completely sweet and selfless person either. She could still complain while helping someone, still act like what she did wasnt a big deal and still want attention sometimes. She would still have her pride attitude and personality. The important part is that slowly her reasons for doing good things starts changing.

And personally I think the climax of her redemption couldve been her relationship with her mother.

For most of her life Chloé desperately wanted Audrey's attention and approval even tho Audrey barely cared about her. So instead of Chloé's redemption ending with her simply becoming "nice" I think it would've been way more interesting if it ended with her finally letting go of that obsession.

Imagine Audrey gets akumatized again and Chloé has to confront her as Queen Bee.

This time Chloé isnt fighting because she wants Ladybug to praise her or because she wants everyone to see how amazing Queen Bee is. She's fighting against the person whose approval she spent so much of her life trying to get because she finally understands that she dosent need Audrey's approval anymore.

I think something like that couldve completed her redemption without completely changing who Chloé is.

She could still be arrogant dramatic, prideful and obsessed with fashion. She could still have arguments with Marinette and still think she's better than most people sometimes. She just wouldnt be the same person who constantly hurts others and treats them like they're worthless.

To me thats what would've made a Chloé redemption interesting. Not replacing her personality with a completely different one but watching the same personality slowly become better.

But what do you think? Would Chloé actually lose what makes her interesting if she became a better person? Or do you think she couldve been redeemed while still keeping the personality that made people like her in the first place?