the 100 clarke griffin commander lexa bellamy blake eliza taylor alycia debnam carey bob morley the 100 spoilers femslash related stuff so…yeahhh I think lexa’s turnabout was written too quickly but I think that’s on the writers because it’s not ooc? she’s always been giving them leeway from the start and clarke’s always going to be scrambling to save her worthless people that’s what it is I just think it could have been written better than clarke CONVINCING lexa I assume they’ll still be made to pay in some way?? you can’t just walk away from this… but aside from that aside from that I’m liking clexa itself quite a bit
Unless they do a major switch around (which they might, given they did that with Bell), Lexa is keeping to the oath she swore to Clarke, even though Indra, one of her biggest supporters, let her know that… basically she’s gonna lose everything. She was already weakened by offering Skaikru inclusion as the 13th Clan. Every single one of the clan leaders voted No Confidence against her! And she pulled out a victory in killing the queen and stabilized things.
But then Skaikru went and slaughtered 300 of her warriors to “send her a message” that they rejected her offer and, after that, open act of war (a sneak attack! on people trying to protect them!), if she rolls over… /shakes head/ I’m afraid they’re going to kill her off. My best hope is that she’s merely deposed. But there is no way her people are going to stand for that level of “weakness.”
I felt like the episode actually dealt a blow to both Clexa and Bellarke in different ways – with Clexa, it showed love actually threatening Lexa’s leadership in a way that her previous brave attempts at peace did not. Forging new alliances and taking risks? Okay. Even letting Wanheda live? Doable.
But taking an atrocity and a declaration of war (Pike intends to take Trikru land by murdering every man, woman, and child in the nearest village now that he’s slain all the warriors) on the chin without responding is just beyond the pale.
Lexa is being loyal and keeping her word (again, if they don’t decide to pull something random out of a hat, which they might), but it actually made me really sad and made me think that Lexa’s advisors are going to end up being right: falling in love will destroy you.
At least it will if, as part of falling in love, you swear fealty to someone whose people are total warmongering, atrocity committing assholes lol
I found Lexa’s keeping of her oath once it’s pushed to this degree of horror (and the fact that Clarke held her to it basically even though the majority of her people have voted for a regime of mass murder) saddening more than encouraging.
I didn’t think of her capitulation as keeping her oath of fealty, since the punishment wasn’t really because the Arkadians acted as outsiders. Just…murderers. Of allies–but more about that later. I think Lexa was agreeing to a complete overhaul of the system. But yeah, it makes no sense to do it now, for these people for this action. When I originally watched the ep and posted the gifset, I’d been happy with the Clexa bits at the beginning, and Clarke throwing in the “Lexa and I”, and you could even think of the final scene as another callback to that, “we bring them peace”, every word crucial, even if it’s suddenly so much harder than it was.
I think the writers definitely did mess up in that final scene in two ways. It came off as if Lexa only came to that decision because of her feelings for Clarke, and that Clarke unfairly used those feelings on her. I think they attempted to bring up how going to war with Arkadia could prove very violent when they had Indra talking about guns earlier, but that didn’t all come together very well. I don’t know, I keep hearing manipulation, but Clarke was up front and she wasn’t wrong, was she, that Lexa wants peace, that a system based on revenge will never end? Clarke will always go to bat for her people first, and I don’t know if she even thought Lexa’d go for it, but she has to know that if she does, it has to be all the way. Lexa dying would be the worst for all Arkers, including herself, aside from any personal connection she has with her.
But the second way it messed up was…having it at all? I can’t actually tell if they mean to do nothing at all at this point or simply go after the main perpetrators/decision-makers. If it’s the latter, then it’s inaccurate and unfair, since Lexa and the other Grounders have been more than merciful to the Arkers for how many they’ve killed. Lexa didn’t demand equal retribution from the Ice Nation either. So why frame it as if Lexa is out there killing all the time when maybe Clarke ought to look to her own people first? I really really hope it’s not the former, because it just doesn’t make sense to me. I’m so afraid it must be, though, because of them emphasizing how it’s different than anything done before, as well as Indra’s anger. Indra wouldn’t have been angry at a solution that saved some Arkers, she still has a soft spot for Octavia, even Kane and *gag* Bellamy. And the writers have referred to Lexa as Gandhi and mentioned turning the cheek, which have very specific connotations, so…inaction? But I don’t get that at all! Responding to this has nothing to do with a blood for blood system, it’s what should be done for justice for the victims, and to stop creating future victims. Literally what part of that massacre looked like they were going to stop after??
I hate that inaction (if indeed that’s what’s going to happen) is being presented as some genius visionary idea. I’m hoping I’m in for a huge surprise, because at the moment, the narrative has been completely set against the Arkadians, and yet presumably some ending in which the perpetrators live and perhaps even get redeemed will happen? The writers seem like they want to go in interesting places, but they don’t know enough about them? Taking the example of Gandhi, nonviolence only worked in certain conditions. When the colonizers had control and power over the whole place already. When fighting back was a matter of many more losses for not much gain. And, well, nonviolence requires the opponent to have a conscience and Arkadia has none, has none. WHICH. Paralleling this to real world cases is pretty insulting, considering how awful and hamfisted the execution’s been, but most particularly in using a oppression narrative with PoC leading it and the biggest faces against it are white. Yeah, Lincoln, Indra, and Miller are there, but they’re not in charge or formulating plans and in fact, Indra, while one of the biggest victims here, will possibly be treated as not visionary enough to see Lexa’s big plan. And did not the writer compare this all to 9/11, how what happened at Farm Station created a lot of the bloodthirstiness he saw after 9/11, so at the moment this is the equivalent of a bunch of Americans going out and killing local Muslims?? Again, the narrative has been very anti-Pike (although, I’m not surprised there are people who’re like, I understand why he did what he did), but I’m just very nervous about how they’re going to resolve this, considering one of the central perpetrators has main character plot armor.
I don’t think of this as foreshadowing Lexa’s death, actually. It’s too soon for that? She’ll definitely face a major setback, but it seems more like it’ll be a difficult near impossible task and the focus is more on how she (and Clarke) will overcome it, than in an inevitable death. Love being her weakness would be such a pointless story, especially when compared to what else is succeeding. And especially when it’s for such an illogical nonsensical decision.