DramaAjumma

It's one of the best. Everybody was great in it.

Nice to see that good sense and proportionality prevailed.

Also... we should add... there are plenty of SK crime shows that revolve around serial killers. Should we then assume that there are serial killers running amok in SK?

I suspect the professor wants to have a bet each way lest he offends someone since he knows that he's stepping on to landmine territory. I think he's doing a bit of political maneuvering. With one side of his mouth he's saying that Soo-ho is too young to be a spy and then with the other expressing concern that the historical context will be misunderstood. All of this stuff is just theatre. In light of what you've written too, it reminds me of this niggly feeling that I've been having that someone could have it in for the show or the showrunners. As someone who has been watching K dramas for over a decade now the controversy feels strange. The nitpicking about the portrayal of criminals/villains in particular. There are countless K dramas especially those weekend makjang where people do horrible things to each other and get let off the hook easily at the end. Few people would think those are commonplace, routine events in SK society. It's a beloved genre and most get it.

I was an avid fan of the Inspector Morse series but I never thought that Oxford was full of murders or murderers. Same thing with Midsomer Murders. It's a running joke. For most people is a piece of escapism.

As for Soo-ho being too young to be a field agent. That's an eye-rolling moment for me. During WW1 hundreds of young men in the UK and Australia lied about their age to join the war effort. Recruitment often starts young for all kinds of reasons. No one's too young if they're sufficiently brainwashed, willing and capable.

I didn't like these those two romance dramas he did with that director at all.

Have you seen him in Prison Playbook? He shows multiple sides in that drama.

It's a good point. But that's what happens when emotions rule the discourse.

Frankly speaking, no one had to die. Except I suppose they wanted to do the karma thing and punish the brother in the most terrible way possible by taking away the sister at the very moment when his long-awaited triumph was snatched from him. It must have worked because he went completely nuts apparently.

The final episode seemed a bit rushed with a lot more tell than show. It took away from what could have been a far more intense, exciting finale.

Overall I had a ball with this show. I'd say that this was probably one of the better things I've seen this year. Certainly the best C drama I'ves seen in yonks. It wasn't without issues. For me the pacing was sometimes sacrificed for a bit of angst. No doubt it's a difficult balancing act but I forgive those flaws because ultimately this is about individuals and less about the mystery of the conspiracy. I always enjoy shows that are about people playing the long game rather than just mere opportunism.

The best part for me in all this has to be the script and how it played with the theme of trust right through the storyline.

Thanks for responding. I finished watching the last 3 episodes half an hour ago. I can see what you're saying.
If they ever think of making a sequel, I hope he's in it with an expanded role.

I think there's enough ambiguity there for people to take whatever they want to from their scenes together. As to what he said earlier, it is possible for him to change his mind.

I don't think it matters much either way. He's committed to the marriage and can always learn to love her.

Is that unrealistic when she's gone through that life and death situation? It's clear that she had abandonment issues and was feeling insecure. But once she realised that he wasn't going to leave her behind like her father did, she calmed down. That's the reassurance she needed all along.

Not bad. Episodes 3 and 4 were a step up from 2.
I do like the way scenes are shot and edited like graphic novel frames but it does slow things down a tad.

I have to say that I'm equally surprised to see all the harsh comments about Liu Ran. I've finally caught up with all the existing episodes and I'm impressed with her growth arc. It's not just her as well. Hong-yi has made strides too. I like the fact that they both took responsibility for their mistakes in their marriage and learn how to communicate much better. Now that she's feeling much more secure in their relationship, she's a lot quieter and patient. Now that his world's coming crashing down, she's become the wife he didn't know he needed.

I wondered if Prince/Lord Chu would become the future Xuanzong and it seems that he does.

I am so impressed with the character and the actor is terrific. Wish his role was a bigger one.

Not all. Thank you.

Before I go away and shut up about the controversy I want to address the comment that only Koreans have the right to talk about their history.

There are hundreds and thousands of history books (probably much more than that) written in English and I would venture to say that the vast majority of them are written by "foreigners" about a period of history of another country. Should we then say that these have no value or validity because they were not written by native writers? Television stations often have correspondents in overseas locations to report on news in other countries and comment on what's going on. Should we not take seriously anything that's said because many of these correspondents are not locals?

During the US elections (I'm not American), every man, woman and dog in my neck of the woods was talking about it as if they knew what was going on despite the fact that words like "fake news" and "misinformation" were thrown around.

For instance, one of the most renowned historians of Soviet Russia is an American who has written a three volume biography of Joseph Stalin. These are tomes the size of bricks. Do we then say that his work has no weight in the public discourse because he's not Russian? When I was an undergrad, I was taught by local historians, philosophers and cultural theorists, all of whom were considered experts in field of European literary history and philosophy and published internationally.

To say that someone can't comment on another country's history is a tactic to shut down debate (not a really good one either), it's not an argument. There are also benefits to being an outsider with no axe to grind -- you can be far more objective about a subject and not coloured by personal experiences. Personal experiences have their place but for historical purposes they are a narrow perspective and not a complete picture of what goes on. This is not deny that certain things went on but it doesn't consider what else was going on that those personal experiences don't take into account.

I didn't want to weigh into this initially but I finally did so because I think we've been lacking an adult conversation about the complexity of history as a subject. We've been talking about the writing and recording of history as if it's a simplistic undertaking or that having the "right" emotions or moral stance is enough to justify certain actions.

As I've said in another comment -- there is a price to freedom. The pro-democracy movement knew that and still paid the price for it. There are inherent dangers as a result of having more freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It's true that bad ideas will have their day in the sun but if there's genuine freedom of expression, good ideas can come to light and counter them. We can't control how people will receive ideas but we should take responsibility for what we personally do with those ideas.

I go back to the point I made before: the drama is a work of fiction. It doesn't claim to be a work of history. It is the work of someone's imagination and it follows certain storytelling rules and tropes. It isn't meant to be a record of history. Of course there will different perspectives on it just as there will be different perspectives of any drama. I can't be that concerned about something I have no control over. Yes, there's always a danger that people take away wrong ideas from any kind of text. That's been happening since Year Dot. I don't think Snowdrop is an exception to the rule.

Nietzsche has been one of the most influential philosophers of the last hundred plus years. Some see him as one of the great influencers of postmodern thought. The Nazis used his ideas to build and promote their ideology. Was Nietzsche a proto Nazi? I don't think any thoughtful person would necessarily think that. People will use whatever texts to justify whatever agenda they have. The Bible has been used to justify slavery (which is to my mind the wrong interpretation) and it has also been used to bring about its abolishment. This is what humans do with ideas.

This is the world we live in. That is the price we pay for the free exchange of information. Of course it's dangerous. Democracy has inherent dangers but frankly I'd prefer that than a technocratic society where a few people tell us what to do and what to think.

I enjoyed Sweet Home (apocalyptic scifi fantasy) and The Uncanny Counter (supernatural fantasy). You may too.

There are a number of issues that you're highlighting here. One is essentially about censorship and the other is who has the right to speak. I agree that there's a limit to free speech because there are libel laws in most liberal democracies. No one can just say anything untrue about anyone and slander their reputation. But I'm also concerned about how the term "misinformation" has been thrown around as a way to prevent rigorous debate and discussion. I certainly don't want Big Tech to tell me what I can't read or say.

My view is that if there are historical inaccuracies in the drama, let's talk about them. Debate them. Debunk them. After it has been shown. I don't agree with censorship in these sorts of situations because it sets a precedent. It can potentially be used as a weapon against all kinds of other attempts at censorship genuinely important issues. Who decides what should or shouldn't be censored? Do we really want governments to get involved in this? Because they could use this for their own propaganda and sway public opinion in a particular direction... and they do in many instances.

For instance, I thought the Da Vinci Code was rubbish. Moreover, it was a poor representation of church history and took a particularly heterodox view of Christianity not held to by the vast majority in the faith. Some would even say it was offensive to some Christians. But what Christians did as a whole was not to call for a boycott but use it as a teaching moment to clarify matters and point out the errors. Many churches formed study groups and workshops to explain to their members what the problems in the Da Vinci Code were.

You mention the word "Korean" several times. Who are these Koreans? How representative are the critics of Snowdrop of the larger population are they? I can imagine like everywhere else that Koreans aren't some kind of monolithic block with everyone sharing the same perspective. Snowdrop is a piece of historical fiction that doesn't purport to be an accurate account of a period. In fact, it is so obviously satirical. It's a work of art that is subject to interpretation. No doubt people will look at it and have different interpretations of it. Some people won't even care about the history and some will only care about the romance. I don't pretend to know what Koreans think as a nation but I know individual Koreans depending on their background, faith obligations etc have very different ideas about all kinds of things. Frankly I doubt there is one Korean voice on this issue.

I said earlier on that this negative publicity will be counterproductive and it's proven to be the case. More people are watching if for no other reason than the curiosity factor. Maybe that will be a good thing. More people will hear about it and will want to know about what really happened. This could be an opportunity for the younger generation to revisit their country's history.

I'm not defending Snowdrop because I think it is some kind of masterpiece. My fear with calls for its cancellation is that it sets a kind of precedent for other groups doing the same thing for lesser reasons. There are risks to everything in life and we have to find some way to live with them. We can't protect everyone from everything particularly upset feelings.

I have seen the first 5 episodes of Snowdrop and I can say with clear conscience that there's nothing there that "glorifies" or "glamorizes" the regime or the ANSP. But then goal posts keep shifting. Now the complaint is that it doesn't go far enough in enunciating the human rights abuses committed by the ANSP. Or by creating a multifaceted maverick character who is part of the ANSP, the show diminishes the suffering of those who fell prey to the ANSP. Now as you've mentioned, we're worried about what the young people think about certain characters in the show. Why don't we talk about all the other types of reckless behaviour by cops in other dramas? Or the male lead who is the jerk? There are kinds of unhealthy relationship dynamics in K dramas but no one is talking about cancelling those.

The problem too is that people have been prejudiced from the start. It's hard for anyone now to be completely objective. From what I've heard, the cherry picking has already started.

This is important because this speaks to the kind of society or communities we are wanting to build. This current impulse to cancel people because they say something "inappropriate" is about power plays and it's regressive. I've read 1984 but I don't want to live there.

The ultimate fantasy.