Okay bUT WHY IS HE ON THE COVER??? DONT TELL ME HE'S THE MALE LEAD. IF HE IS, UNLESS THERE IS A REALLY GOOD REASON AND THE STORY IS REALLY FKING GOOD, I'M DROPPING IT
~I absorb one fictional work after another to escape reality~
Comment by Mochi on Are We Still in Love? - Chapter 2
14 Replies
@Mochi me too 
@Mochi I am so confused if we are reading the same thing because it's been two chapters and there has been no evidence to indicate that ml is: evil, toxic, villainess, etc. Instead, from the very little that has been shown, it can be said that the fl lead, aka the narrator, is both ignorant and unreliable as sh!+. She has no understanding of anything that goes around her but instead is content in living in her blissful ignorance.
Spoiler!
Which I was curious so I read ahead and read some spoilers and found out that her narrations are not credible. Also "shocker", her father is one of the villain's in the story.
@BlushinBlaqBunny I don't get how you got her as unreliable, mate just killed herself and watched her loved ones die, got bullied and was treated coldly by her husband. Not saying that her husbands bad though cause I've read enough of these manhwas to know he had a 'good reason
@BlushinBlaqBunny
Spoiler!
Sorry, then ml is the misunderstood one and they get together anyways? Also, okay, I now get that the story wasn't written in the third person point of view and it was written is first, "our fl". So now I can't trust what the story is saying cus it could be just something she thought was happening, right? Ahhh idk what to feel about this. Is it worth it to continue?
@Mix are you sure these things happened as you think they did, or are they happening based on what the fl is perceiving as to be.
Let's take a step back and look at everything in this chapter from an objective lens, just the facts. First let's look at the whole father's things. The father is charged of a crime in which he goes and tells his daughter that he is innocent and she should tell the emperor, which is different from the father telling her to tell the ml that he is innocent or being and he can prove it. What the father is doing is asking for a character witness to help verify that he is in fact innocent and could never commit such a crime.This shows that the father may not be innocent but is viewed as being innocent by the narrator, this is a sign of a unreliable narrator.
This can be argued even further when the fl finally confronts the emperor and tries to profess her innocence the emperor asks her why he ran, which she replies by saying it was because he was running from execution and that is when the emperor refutes her claims by reminder her that her father was already on the run prior to his execution order being given (most likely hinting at the act being seen as presumed guilt of the consequences of the father's wrong doings).
Let's take a step back and look at everything in this chapter from an objective lens, just the facts. First let's look at the whole father's things. The father is charged of a crime in which he goes and tells his daughter that he is innocent and she should tell the emperor, which is different from the father telling her to tell the ml that he is innocent or being and he can prove it. What the father is doing is asking for a character witness to help verify that he is in fact innocent and could never commit such a crime.This shows that the father may not be innocent but is viewed as being innocent by the narrator, this is a sign of a unreliable narrator.
This can be argued even further when the fl finally confronts the emperor and tries to profess her innocence the emperor asks her why he ran, which she replies by saying it was because he was running from execution and that is when the emperor refutes her claims by reminder her that her father was already on the run prior to his execution order being given (most likely hinting at the act being seen as presumed guilt of the consequences of the father's wrong doings).
Pt2.
But if that wasn't all, the fl then uses a (can't remember the name of this fallacy but it is defined as when an individual in an argument/debate can not respond to their opponent logically so instead they change and alter the topic with something else that they can then either argue with or have a better chance of winning, example: you are having an argument with someone over them not cleaning the mess that they made and out of no where they bring up the fact that a couple weeks after dinner you didn't do the dishes but they did) fallacy tactic by bringing up how she is her father's daughter and therefore should be killed as well; thinking that would result in a win for the argument.
This doesn't go well for the fl as the ml admits that she should've been executed alongside her father. Which is true if we are looking at this with common sense and are comparing the story to what would have happened in relation to the setting of the novel. Thus leading to the fact that the fl as a narrator is unreliable and is equating her admiration for her father as proof of innocence when in fact it's just simply that, admiration for a role model.
Last but not least, the ml being referred to as bad is also a figment of the narrators imagination/perspective because once again let's look at it subjectively the ml was never a "bad person" until he did something the fl didn't like which was disagree with her; she even says it herself that he changed all of a sudden, but the only change she points to is the ml holding her father accountable.
But if that wasn't all, the fl then uses a (can't remember the name of this fallacy but it is defined as when an individual in an argument/debate can not respond to their opponent logically so instead they change and alter the topic with something else that they can then either argue with or have a better chance of winning, example: you are having an argument with someone over them not cleaning the mess that they made and out of no where they bring up the fact that a couple weeks after dinner you didn't do the dishes but they did) fallacy tactic by bringing up how she is her father's daughter and therefore should be killed as well; thinking that would result in a win for the argument.
This doesn't go well for the fl as the ml admits that she should've been executed alongside her father. Which is true if we are looking at this with common sense and are comparing the story to what would have happened in relation to the setting of the novel. Thus leading to the fact that the fl as a narrator is unreliable and is equating her admiration for her father as proof of innocence when in fact it's just simply that, admiration for a role model.
Last but not least, the ml being referred to as bad is also a figment of the narrators imagination/perspective because once again let's look at it subjectively the ml was never a "bad person" until he did something the fl didn't like which was disagree with her; she even says it herself that he changed all of a sudden, but the only change she points to is the ml holding her father accountable.
Pt3:
She says that he portrays as if he is a kind person but he is not, and then proceeds to not mention any of his "not kind" actions instead pointing only towards that one incident. Also going back to what you mentioned about being abandoned, the fl was never abandoned the only alliances that she had were from her father, once her father was charged he lost his title therefore losing all his connection, which should have resulted in her being stripped of her title and also charged and maybe executed with her father as an accomplice. But, the only reason why that didn't happen is because someone with great political, social, and decision making power intervened and helped her, aka the ml (emperor). How do we know this because he says to her that should have been executed with her father but wasn't. So in reality the only person fighting for the fl is the ml but she keeps creating more problems by going around still defending her father with no evidence not realizing that the ml has stuck his neck out for her because he cares about her. Eventually he gets tired of constantly having to clean all this mess and deal with situation after situation especially when the person you have been protecting ends up coming back and pretty much threatening you with their own life (which is absolutely toxic and abusive behaviour), you would snap too.
She says that he portrays as if he is a kind person but he is not, and then proceeds to not mention any of his "not kind" actions instead pointing only towards that one incident. Also going back to what you mentioned about being abandoned, the fl was never abandoned the only alliances that she had were from her father, once her father was charged he lost his title therefore losing all his connection, which should have resulted in her being stripped of her title and also charged and maybe executed with her father as an accomplice. But, the only reason why that didn't happen is because someone with great political, social, and decision making power intervened and helped her, aka the ml (emperor). How do we know this because he says to her that should have been executed with her father but wasn't. So in reality the only person fighting for the fl is the ml but she keeps creating more problems by going around still defending her father with no evidence not realizing that the ml has stuck his neck out for her because he cares about her. Eventually he gets tired of constantly having to clean all this mess and deal with situation after situation especially when the person you have been protecting ends up coming back and pretty much threatening you with their own life (which is absolutely toxic and abusive behaviour), you would snap too.
Pt4:
So what I am trying to say with everything that I have quickly pointed based off the key details that I have noticed is that the narrator is not reliable because they live by the saying, "ignorance is bliss". This manhwa is pretty obvious with its routing and writing but there are other manhwas like please don't kill me your Highness, that are a lot more suttle with this type of story telling. The commonality between these types is that the information that narrator thinks they know isn't actually thr correct information because the narrator did not and does not know $h!t, and that simply means they are an unreliable narrator.
So what I am trying to say with everything that I have quickly pointed based off the key details that I have noticed is that the narrator is not reliable because they live by the saying, "ignorance is bliss". This manhwa is pretty obvious with its routing and writing but there are other manhwas like please don't kill me your Highness, that are a lot more suttle with this type of story telling. The commonality between these types is that the information that narrator thinks they know isn't actually thr correct information because the narrator did not and does not know $h!t, and that simply means they are an unreliable narrator.
@BlushinBlaqBunny
Spoiler!
That isn't the case at all though. There's a difference between being willingly ignorant and being deliberately kept in the dark, which is what Ethan did to her. He gave her the bare minimum information, which made it seem like he was either framing her dad or simply executing him on a whim, and was hardly ever clear in terms of communication.
You're calling her stupid, but it's hard to be intelligent when you're deliberately kept from the full picture. It's like forcing a fish to climb a tree and then calling it stupid when it cant.
You're calling her stupid, but it's hard to be intelligent when you're deliberately kept from the full picture. It's like forcing a fish to climb a tree and then calling it stupid when it cant.
@BlueBay congratulations... you played yourself. WHEN. DID. I. SAY. SHE. WAS. STUPID!!! I said she was ignorant which is defined as "someone who lacks knowledge in general or knowledge of a topic" (aka fl), compared to the definition of stupid which is, "the lack of an ordinary level of intelligence (I am hoping you know what the difference between intelligence and knowledge)". Therefore, like I said, if a person does not know $h!t they are ignorant not stupid, ignorant...okay. Which means if the narrator is ignorant and supposed to be telling us what is happening but can't they are now unreliable... okay.
Spoiler!
Also there is no such thing as willingly ignorant, there is only willfully ignorant which just means you have the knowledge but just REFUSE to acknowledge it, that's just an @$$h0le. But back to my point, thank you for proving my point for me with your spoiler; she was kept in the dark, not allowed to know the whole truth, wouldn't you say that is the definition of ignorance and therefore she can't be a reliable source🤔.