Ellen's Topics (154)

Yuppp the very sihwa itself

I just finished chapter 38 and I think I might drop this since I dont like both the MC and ML lol. To answer your question, no theres’s a reason why the ML is acting the way he is but also doesnt make him any less of an asshole lmao.

Right? the art is beautiful and I can’t like the story. Thank you for the advised <3

Yea! The art the gorgeous but the characters are also glad my advice helped! (If it did lol)

You must have a good life of you're just realizing that. You're lucky, make good with what you've been given.

How?

How? Every time a problem arises, the Uke is too quick to give up. It’s easier for him to hate the ML because it helps justify his own emotions.

Throughout their relationship, the ML constantly made sure to check on the uke’s behavior and emotional state. Yet when they had an argument with the uke’s father, instead of telling the truth and standing by the ML’s side, the uke chose to remain silent.

When the uke got into the accident, he decided to rebuild his life on his own, completely forgetting that the ML was still there, waiting for him all those years while struggling as well. (Blaming himself for what happened to uke)

The uke continued living his life while holding onto hatred for the ML, even though many of the decisions that caused their fallout came from his own actions.

He tried finding love in someone else because he could never truly forget the ML, but at the same time, he kept hating the ML and himself.

So yeah, that’s my “HOW.” T.T

Bb, imma need you to read the whole manhwa again bc your how has been clearly answered. To top it all of, Hangun was the one who chased the whole entire time. You need to understand that people like Hangun don't really like receiving, he's a giver. You'd know that if you actually understood what you read. ╮(￣▽￣)╭

Yes babe, but being the giver doesn’t mean he should have to carry everything alone.

The situation they’re in is already heavy, and as I said, this is just my opinion on why the storyline realistically didn’t click for me the way I expected it to. Some readers who followed the story felt the same way too.

But that doesn’t mean I’m ignoring or disrespecting the author’s craft. I can appreciate the work and effort put into the story while still having my own perspective about how the characters and conflicts were handled.

That is what you called “deep reading”

I don't think you're as well read as you claim to be. Trauma manifests in many ways, Ellen, for Leewon, who's a star student primarily because of appeasement to his parents, the very thought of going against his parents means going against the very foundation of his being. Leewon was micromanaged since he was a child, his first experience at being free was with Han-gun and as his father came to find out their relationship and confronts them, his only course of action for self-preservation was to stay quiet, because that was the only method he knew how. Defiance was met with abuse and he knows that first hand, he literally cut himself just to get a sense of release from the toxic environment he calls home.

After the accident, and this is where I think you really didn't comprehend what you read, Leewon's mom made him move to Busan. Leewon didn't want to move but for his and Han-gun's sake, he did, because he thought the best course of action was to just let it all be. And this is exactly what abuse does to people, it makes them detached and dissociative. He doesn't know any other way to react to the situation precisely because he wasn't exposed to any other method. For him, to run is to survive, and to survive means taking the punches lying down.

Lastly, Leewon never hated Han-gun. Idk where you got that idea from but he never ever hated him. He was literally stuck on him for 10 years. He never fully moved on. He tried to cope by sleeping with someone but inevitably let go of the idea. Which is understandable, distractions are what most people go for in similar situations. It just so happens that his vice was not alcohol or cigarettes but a hookup.

If Leewon hated anyone, it was himself, and that I agree with you. He blamed himself so much he never fully recovered from his other traumas which is his fear of fast moving cars, his self-harm coping methods, and his avoidant coping mechanism. Though I still find it highly unrealistic that Han-gun can just wash and soothe that specific trauma especially since it wasn't tied to him, but rather his deceased father.

If you're truly well read then you'd understand why their story is a lot more realistic that so many manhwas out there. Heck this is more realistic that Love is an Illusion and Cherry Blossoms After Winter.

Being well read also means broadening horizons. You have to understand that the world is bigger than you and that people like Hangun exist, givers who never ask for anything in return; and people like Leewon, who's unresolved trauma manifests into unhealthy coping mechanisms and even unhealthier methods for approaching life.

Sorry if that triggered you, didn't mean to refute your opinion, mine was a genuine question, just felt like I needed you to elaborate to really understand what you mean...
That said

I think it's a bit too soon to judge?
I don't think they are truly out of the woods yet, like you said ML is the one putting the most effort currently, he always did from the start. But I don't see how this makes MC a bad person, at most he's flawed, of course I hope he will care and try as much as ML is, eventually. He might have behaved "selfishly" to you, but I think it was more of a natural response to trauma and all the events thus far, not to say it's fair towards ML.
First you can't control what you feel, two, even if dad was a piece of shit, his death was still impactful emotionally and literally to his life, just like the incident itself, considering he's still afraid of high speed.
Sounds like you hate how he tried to move on, but it's not like they promised to be togheter again, ML knows and understands that.
ML puts more effort and it might be frustrating, but it's his own choice, they are still growing emotionally, maybe MC will finally step up, if not ML has a right to walk away. Just wait till mom (if it happens) finds out he's dating the dude that indirectly was involved in his dad's death, maybe she won't care or the opposite, but if MC decides to break up over that, I will also be disappointed

Uh uh babe, I only explained my “how” because you asked, and I wasn’t even upset when I wrote it. So don’t worry, I’m not triggered. I genuinely thought you were asking why I see the storyline that way, and I guess my perspective just came across differently to you.

I’ve read and understood every bit of it, and if I may say so, your first points are actually correct. I understand that trauma manifests differently and that Leewon’s lack of courage came from years of abuse, control, and emotional suppression. I’m not denying that at all. What I’m pointing out is the way he handled it throughout the story felt selfish to me.

Yes, his fear, avoidance, and silence are understandable. But understanding a character’s behavior does not automatically mean I have to agree with or excuse every action he takes. There were many moments where he chose silence, chose to run, and found it easier to hate or push away the ML instead of fighting alongside him. That is the part I’m criticizing.

And babe, I never said the portrayal was unrealistic. My point was specifically about his selfish way of thinking and how little character development I personally saw from him, especially in the later chapters. Even at the end, most of his actions still revolved around self-preservation regardless of how it affected Han-gun emotionally.

Also, when you said he never hated Han-gun, please read that part again carefully because he literally said it was easier to hate both Han-gun and himself so he could move forward with his life. Whether that hatred was temporary, self-destructive, or trauma-driven doesn’t erase the fact that he still chose that mindset.

And respectfully, this isn’t a competition about who is “well-read” or who understands trauma more. Knowledge alone does not always equal wisdom. A person can analyze psychological behavior deeply and still fail to understand why others may interpret the same story differently. Literature and storytelling are subjective, and different readers will naturally focus on different emotional impacts.

You viewed Leewon through the lens of trauma and survival, while I viewed him through the lens of accountability within a relationship. Both perspectives can exist at the same time.

I think this is where we fundamentally disagree, babe. You’re reading Leewon through the lens of relational accountability while I’m reading him through the lens of psychological conditioning.

The thing is, accountability assumes agency. And Leewon’s whole character is literally built around the destruction of his agency since childhood. He wasn’t written as a healthy person making bad relationship decisions. He was written as someone whose entire nervous system was trained to survive through silence, appeasement, avoidance, and emotional shutdown.

So when you say “he chose silence” or “he chose to run,” I genuinely don’t think the story wants us to view those as fully conscious choices in the first place. Beacuse to begin with, it was never a choice. Trauma responses are not rational relationship tactics. They’re survival mechanisms. Especially for someone who grew up learning that defiance = punishment.

And that’s why I personally can’t reduce him to being “selfish.” Because selfishness implies intentional disregard. Leewon wasn’t prioritizing pleasure, ego, or convenience. He was trying to minimize damage in the only way he knew how, even if that method ended up hurting Han-gun in the process. Those are two VERY different things.

I also think people underestimate how realistic it is for traumatized people to hurt the people they love unintentionally. Love does not magically undo years of abuse and conditioning. If anything, trauma makes intimacy harder because now you have someone you’re terrified of losing.

And honestly? If Leewon suddenly became emotionally secure, confrontational, and communicative after the accident, that would’ve been unrealistic to me. His avoidance, regression, emotional detachment, and inability to properly process guilt are exactly what made him feel painfully human.

You’re absolutely free to dislike him btw, that’s not my issue. I just don’t think the narrative was framing him as this selfish villain failing Han-gun. To me, it was portraying someone so psychologically cornered by abuse that survival itself became maladaptive. And that’s what made their relationship tragic in the first place. Because Leewon saw Hangun as an escape of his reality. That foundation for their relationship inevitably made it very fragile.

As they are now, they're star-crossed lovers. I won't be shocked if in the coming chapters they start drifting apart again. It'd be more shocking if this ends where it's at right now. Lol.

Respectfully, I never started an argument or debate — I simply shared my own opinion and perspective on the story. What I found unnecessary was how you kept insisting that my interpretation was “wrong,” even though stories are naturally open to different perspectives.

I also noticed that instead of directly addressing my point about selfishness, the discussion shifted into deeper narratives and metaphors that felt out of context with what I originally said. It came across less like a respectful exchange of opinions and more like an attempt to prove your interpretation was the only correct one.

At the end of the day, we simply viewed the character differently, and that should’ve been enough without turning it into who understood the story better. As I said before, knowledge and wisdom are two different things.

Respectfully, babe, I think you’re misunderstanding why I pushed back in the first place. You presented Leewon’s behavior as “selfish,” which is not just a neutral interpretation, it’s a moral judgment. And moral judgments naturally invite discussion on whether the standard being applied even makes sense for the character being analyzed.

Because my point was never “your opinion is illegal.” My point was that your framework for reading him ignores the psychological reality the story spent chapters establishing.

You keep talking about accountability as though Leewon was operating from a psychologically healthy baseline capable of normal emotional decision-making. He wasn’t. That’s the entire tragedy of his character. You cannot meaningfully evaluate a trauma-conditioned person the same way you evaluate an emotionally secure one and then act surprised when their behavior looks irrational or harmful.

That’s like looking at an addict and going, “Well, they still made the choice to relapse.” Technically true? Sure. But it completely misses the structural and psychological mechanisms behind the behavior. Once you remove those layers from the analysis, the reading becomes shallow because now you’re evaluating symptoms while ignoring the disease.

And honestly, I think this is why I said you didn’t fully comprehend the story. Not as an insult, but because the narrative repeatedly emphasizes that Leewon’s survival instincts override his emotional wants. His avoidance is not framed as empowerment, cruelty, or malice. It’s framed as damage.

So when you ask for accountability from him in the way you do, it feels a bit like asking a drowning person why they weren’t swimming gracefully enough for the people trying to save them.
You’re free to dislike him. You’re free to feel frustrated by him. But frustration with a traumatized character is different from the story morally condemning them, and I think that distinction matters a lot.

And just to be clear, this was never about “winning” or proving intellectual superiority. You responded publicly with an interpretation, I responded publicly with a critique of that interpretation. That’s literally how literary discussion works. :3

There is a clear difference between a literary discussion and telling someone they lack comprehension.

Instructing another reader to reread a story because they don't share your view isn't a critique—it's an attempt to invalidate their perspective.

Literature is highly subjective, and readers naturally form different interpretations based on how they analyze a character's choices.

A constructive dialogue starts with curiosity about another person's viewpoint, not by bringing in irrelevant comparisons or claiming intellectual superiority. I am always open to discussing different angles of a story, but it requires a foundation of mutual respect.

Bb, I think you’re assigning intent to my words that simply wasn’t there.

I didn’t tell you to reread because “you disagree with me.” I told you to reread because the specific point you were criticizing was already directly addressed by the narrative itself multiple times. Those are two very different things.

If someone misses a crucial contextual detail in a story and another reader points it out, that is not “invalidating interpretation.” That’s literally basic literary discussion. Readers revisit material all the time because people miss things, forget details, overlook subtext, or interpret scenes without the full context in mind. That’s normal.

And honestly, if we’re discussing a character critically, then yes, the discussion should still be grounded in the actual text. Interpretation is subjective, but it is not infinitely detached from the material. Otherwise, what’s the point of textual analysis at all?

You framed Leewon’s behavior as selfish while overlooking the repeated narrative emphasis on dissociation, conditioning, self-preservation, abuse response, and emotional paralysis. That’s why I kept bringing those points up. Not to sound intellectually superior, but because those details are foundational to understanding why he acts the way he does.

And respectfully, being asked to reread something should not immediately be taken as a personal attack. People reread stories, essays, and even legal texts all the time precisely because nuance gets missed on the first pass. If anything, serious discussion requires that level of revisiting.

Because at the end of the day, debates aren’t won by how politely we phrase things. They’re strengthened by how well our arguments hold up against the material itself.
╮(￣▽￣)╭

Your claim that you are just engaging in "basic literary discussion" directly contradicts your previous remarks.

A constructive discussion involves exploring different viewpoints, yet your comments have repeatedly targeted my capacity to understand the text rather than addressing the actual argument.

For instance, your comment regarding Han-gun—“You need to understand that people like Hangun don't really like receiving, he's a giver. You'd know that if you actually understood what you read”—was a explicit attack on my literacy, not a neutral pointer on subtext.

Furthermore, stating, “I don't think you're as well read as you claim to be,” is a personal dismissal. I had already established that I understand Leewon's trauma; my choice to analyze the narrative weight of his actions differently is a valid critical approach, not a lack of comprehension. I never once claimed to be "well-read"—I simply stated that I was engaging in deep reading. By mischaracterizing my words, you are inventing a claim just to attack it.

Additionally, your assertion that Leewon never hated Han-gun disregards alternative interpretations of their dynamic, treating your personal reading as absolute fact.

There is a clear intent in your responses to shield Leewon from narrative accountability by using his trauma as an absolute defense, and you are treating anyone who disagrees as objectively wrong. True textual analysis accommodates different perspectives. Continuing to take a domineering stance to force your specific interpretation completely defeats the purpose of an open, respectful dialogue.

And I will not engage with a domineering approach that treats differing opinions as a failure of comprehension.

I think the problem here is that you’re reframing the conversation from “Was the analysis textually grounded?” into “Was the tone perfectly soft?” and those are two separate discussions.

You’re absolutely correct that some of my phrasing was pointed. I never denied that. But pointed phrasing does not automatically invalidate the substance of the argument being made.

Because at the core of this entire exchange is still the same issue: your reading isolates Leewon’s actions from the psychological framework the narrative explicitly builds around him. And that’s why I kept saying certain details were being overlooked, not because I think disagreement itself is impossible.

You say you understand his trauma, but understanding trauma as information is different from allowing it to meaningfully alter how accountability is evaluated within the story. That’s the disconnect I keep pointing out.

Because the narrative does not present Leewon as a psychologically stable person making fully rational relational choices. It presents him as someone operating under severe emotional conditioning, repression, dissociation, guilt, fear, and self-destructive coping mechanisms. Those are not decorative character traits. They are the explanatory architecture of the plot itself.

So when you say I’m “shielding him from accountability,” I honestly think you’re misunderstanding the distinction between explanation and justification. Explaining why someone behaves destructively is not the same as saying no harm occurred.

But asking for conventional accountability from someone whose entire characterization revolves around impaired emotional functioning feels analytically incomplete to me. It’s like evaluating a person in the middle of a panic attack for not communicating efficiently enough. At some point the critique starts flattening the condition that the story is actively centering.

And regarding the “hatred” point: yes, Leewon verbally says it was easier to hate Han-gun and himself. But narratives are not interpreted through isolated lines detached from surrounding context. The story repeatedly shows that his “hatred” was tied to avoidance, guilt, repression, and emotional self-defense rather than genuine resentment toward Han-gun as a person. That distinction matters because language in trauma narratives is often emotionally defensive rather than literally reflective.

Also, I never said alternative interpretations cannot exist. My point was that interpretations still need to remain proportionate to the textual framework established by the author. Otherwise, you eventually start evaluating the character through external moral expectations rather than through the psychological logic the narrative itself constructed.

And honestly, if my interpretation sounds “domineering,” I think that’s partly because I’m speaking with certainty about a reading I believe is strongly supported by the text. My confidence in my analysis is because it's actually canon, it's in the text.

Pointed phrasing can coexist with a valid argument, but it can also be used to mask the invalidation of another person's perspective.

That is the exact contradiction in your stance.

You claim to accept that alternative interpretations exist, yet you completely REJECTED mine the moment it differed from your own.

My initial comments explicitly stated that I understood Leewon’s trauma; I simply chose to analyze his selfishness and the real-world impact of his choices differently.

Instead of accepting this as a valid, alternative reading, you repeatedly instructed me to REREAD the text under the assumption that my disagreement stems from a lack of comprehension.

What has made this exchange tedious is your refusal to accept that two readers can view the exact same textual framework and reach entirely different conclusions. Throughout this conversation, I have never once dismissed or invalidated your interpretation of his trauma—I simply offered a different critical focus.

If you truly believe that alternative interpretations need to remain proportionate to the text, you must accept that holding a character accountable for the narrative weight of their actions is a foundational element of literary critique.