#sure all of his wives except like... one were kidnapped and have stockholm syndrome | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

sometimesrosy · 4 years

Note

1: Do you think it’s odd that C fell in love with L after she was not only responsible for Finn’s death, causing C to have to mercy-kill him, but also the reason C was forced to kill all those people in Mt Weather? I’m trying to understand their relationship and how it all worked. Her people were so angry at C for falling for L, but she wasn’t trying to betray them; it was innocent. And she chose her people in the end, right before L was killed. L’s made to be this great love for C. Is she?

(I’m answering your 1 and 2 separately because I think they are separate questions about two separate characters’ experiences with the same narrative element.)

Okay. So I didn’t understand in season 3 what all was going on with that and did a lot of work to understand how Clarke could so easily forgive and love L for what she did and what I came up with is two different interpretations one authorial (the Doylist explanation) and one in narrative (the Watsonian explanation.)

Before I start, no. I don’t think L was made to be this great love for C. I think the fandom fell in love with L for many decent reasons, and picked up on some archetypes in the story as a whole, and the traditional romantic tale of the warrior king and the captive princess, and they just really wanted that story, even deserved that story, so the fandom interpretation made The 100 INTO that story.

I have rewatched the story looking for that great romance, and while there’s some hints of it, and it’s NOT subtextual (which is possibly why the LGBT community was so happy to get it since they are denied that in most of pop culture) the romance of C and L was for me far, FAR too political in nature for me to find it a great, passionate romance. It was all power games except for the episode with Pauna, if I must be honest. And their love scene, in which L had already sentenced her people to death and Clarke had already decided to go home and it was just two women outside of politics consummating their connection. That part didn’t bother me, it was lovely and a moment of peace. I didn’t love that they didn’t talk about anything important, that they COULDN’T, because for me, intimacy and a great love REQUIRES that kind of openness and honesty, at least for the moment. What I need to see in a romance wasn’t there for me. But I’m sure what other people need to see in a romance WAS. It is quite clear that a large portion of the shipping community LOVEloveLOVES the dynamic of powerful dominating warrior who kidnaps and falls for the warrior princess turned vulnerable maiden (witness the latest craze in Star Wars which is also something I *do not like.*) My distaste for that dynamic does not mean that others are wrong for loving that dynamic. I don’t have to get it. It’s not my preference to reconcile with my life and understanding. It’s theirs. Ship and let ship.

Okay, onto my understanding of what the heck was going on with CL in Polis after L betrayed and harmed her so terribly. The doylist interpretation, why they would write that story and what their intention is, is about themes and symbolism and the journey of the hero. No problem there. But my watsonian interpretation, about why Clarke, the character, would submit herself to that, is psychological, and has gotten me into major trouble. But I’m gonna say it anyway, so if you love Lxa and are offended by people looking at the dark side of the CL relationship please do not read. I’ll put it under the jump, but for some reason that doesn’t work all the time, so when I warn you to stop reading please stop. Be a responsible consumer of the media. And if you choose to read it anyway, recognize that it was your choice and I gave you plenty of opportunity to not be offended, so don’t send me nasty anons please, because you accepted the risk to your sensibilities.

Allright. Doylist:

Clarke is the hero, and Lxa is Clarke’s shadow, her dark side. Her animus.The masculine version of herself who is a ruthless mass murderer willing to sacrifice anyone and anything for her goals. She has always had this side. Maybe her first kill, Atom, was one of mercy, but her second kill, the grounder holding her hostage was NOT. It was to get free and save her people. But Atom and the grounder guard were killed in the same way. Get close, distract with gentleness, then insert blade into jugular. Clarke’s shadow side is the one that allowed the bomb to drop on TonDC (notice she was egged on, if not bullied into it, by L.) It was the same part of her that even contemplated killing all of MW to save her people. Her shadow betrays her allies for her own people. Clarke was unable to do it on her own until Bellamy helped her. Bellamy is a different kind of dark to her light, but with a similar symbolism, yin/yang, and kind of actually ends up being the light to her dark, which is a whole other symbolic journey that totally transforms the yin yang of CL into something healing seasons later and not what we’re talking about but if you can recognize that similarity to the archetypes there you can recognize what it is about that dynamic that people love so much.

Okay, so the whole point of having that shadow side for a hero is that the hero has to EMBRACE their shadow side in order to be a full identity. They need to stop resisting their darkness and encompass it in their selves, only then can they step into their full powers. I think this is considered Jungian analysis, if you want to read up on it. That’s where you get a lot of the archetypes and symbolism going. Also, you can see it in the Hero’s Journey by Joseph Campbell which builds on Jungian analysis to create a mythic journey we see in many archetypal tales.

Oh, also. Another doylist interpretation. Clarke in Polis is like Odysseus on Circe’s island. Odysseus stays with Circe and is enchanted with her, despite her turning his crew into pigs. He stays for years with her. All while Penelope is left behind to fend off suitors. So Clarke in Polis would be alluding to The Odyssey, a text that is OFTEN referenced on this show. Yes, that would make Bellamy Penelope. (does that mean the suitors are Pike and Kane as well as Gina and Echo? I think it might, actually.)

So why does Clarke fall for L after all that damage? My Doylist interpretation says because Clarke needed to embrace the shadow and because they were reinterpreting The Odyssey. L was Clarke’s shadow the way Circe was Odysseus’ shadow. Anima/Animus. Also, this embracing and acceptance of the shadow story continued on all the way until s5, and I think you can see it in the “be the good guys/maybe there are no good guys/there are no good guys/be the good guys” journey, which was NOT embraced until Clarke talked with flame Lxa and she said she was wrong, betrayal was wrong and love was not a weakness. Shortly after that, Clarke identified the good guy, and it was Bellamy. Then Monty told them to be the good guys and Clarke has not wavered since.

OKAY. Watsonian incoming. All CL and L faithful, please turn away.

okay, so it turns out that when i write about something that once got me harassed or made friends/fandom turn against me, I have to emotionally prepare for it.

So here’s the thing. The 100 is about Clarke Griffin as the protagonist (and Bellamy Blake as the secondary protagonist,) and s3 is about TRAUMA. Trauma and recovery. Both Clarke and Bellamy are traumatized by MW and encounter a shadow self that represents who they COULD have been, if not for the presence of the other. Clarke could have been the tyrannical leader who thinks she is always right and Bellamy could have been the vengeful leader out to exterminate his enemies. Here you connect the symbolic shadow symbology to the psychological wounding of the trauma and recovery.

If you read Polis as Clarke’s mental journey, it starts to make sense. She lost it and became feral, L kidnapped her and dragged her to Polis. She imprisoned her and, through a series of positive and negative reinforcements (the carrot and the stick), gaslighting, and power games, she turned Clarke to her side and made her empathize with her captor and betrayer. She gave her a way to survive the trauma of what she’d done by telling her everyone does it, it’s okay.

Why does she believe her? Because she is traumatized and she’s been isolated from her people in a dangerous place where only L keeps her safe.

Why does she begin to empathize with L? Because this is a psychological phenomenon that is actually common when a person has been kidnapped, removed from their world, and forced to join the other side. We call it Stockholm Syndrome, and the most basic definition is when a kidnap victim begins to have feelings for and empathize with their kidnap victim.

It’s how you survive. And it’s not a thing that is just about Clarke. It turns out that it happened to a LOT of women in tribal times when one tribe would raid another and kidnap women to bring back as wives or slaves or what have you.

The women who were kidnapped JOINED the kidnappers tribe, because what else could they do?

Anyway. Clarke is dealing with her dark traumatic experiences, L kidnaps her and draws her to her side, she empathizes with L, falls in love, psychologically accepts that her dark side is the right side to handle all this horror, and then returns to her people, not quite whole, but partly healed and limping along in her journey.

Polis itself was part of the seduction. It was beautiful and comfortable and passionate and romantic and candlelit. A lot of the fandom saw the romance of the seduction and decided that meant the creators were saying that CL was beautiful and L was the new hero of the story, without noticing that it was Clarke’s unreliable narrator, traumatized POV that was clinging to that beauty so she didn’t have to face the pain of what she did, and her people. Shoot. No matter if some people, when getting confirmation from the writers that Polis was a dark psychological story for Clarke, then blamed the FANDOM for never noticing and saying that the only people who did were screaming “ABUSE!” and so were then clearly unreliable. Yes. They were talking about me. Because I TOLD them, personally, in a huge meta discussion, that it was a dark psychological journey and I laid it out for them, and they well. Turned on me, blocked me, ignored me, and then blamed me for them not understanding the damn story. I am still salty to this day. But then, they are no longer in the fandom.

Other people, CL fans, didn’t like that I said Clarke was suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, but if you look it up, you’ll see she fits the definition. L literally kidnapped and imprisoned her and this is evident in narrative, dialogue and word of god.

Why do we think that’s a romantic story? Because it is an old school, traditional romance tale of literal raiding warriors kidnapping women and bringing them back as wives. So romantic. It had to be, because otherwise the women suffering from trauma would not be able to survive.

There are no more raiders in modern western society, but the story is imbedded in our collective unconscious and our archetypal stories.

I hate them.

Some people love them.

And the people who love them are immensely offended that the people who hate them recognize an abusive, oppressive and traumatic story within them. And then they send us hate anons and mock us for being abuse survivors and “irrational” and telling us “it’s just fiction, Janice.” and on and on and on.

#the 100 #clarke griffin #character development #cl fans turn away please #dark psychological journey #shadow

47 notes · View notes