DramaAjumma

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.

If this was some kind of superhero show, the good and evil dichotomy would work to some degree although I think audiences do like their heroes a little flawed. There's a clarity about the heroes and the villains. But this show is political satire with multiple agendas and it's like trying to navigate the Spanish civil war. Soo-ho doesn't even know why he's really in South Korea, what the true purpose of his mission and he certainly doesn't know that his colleague is keeping tabs on him under orders to kill him if he doesn't follow the script. What's even more laughable is that after all the trouble he's taken, the professor has now been taken out. Gang-mu is none the wiser and while he's trying to do his thing, his bosses are hamstringing him.
The show lampoons everyone and everything.

It was the dilemma in Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one." I don't think there are any easy answers.

Often times the question "who are the good guys" is a hard one to answer and a good one to explore in a drama like this. Especially in times of war or social turmoil. As far as this show is concerned, there are sides and people who take orders from other people not knowing exactly why they're doing what they're doing.

"There is an argument that the people who actually experienced these injustice may be the worst POV to measure the evil of ANSP or not."

A case in point:
When I was an undergraduate studying Nazism and fascism, I remember one of my lecturers saying that we had to be careful when reading accounts of Germany and the holocaust by Jewish historians after the fact. It's not that they would deliberately distort or exaggerate information but the reality is that they would be bringing their biases to the table. That was an important lesson in historiography. That's why there are hundreds of books about events leading to WW2 and there will continue to be different accounts written. Every writer is trying to make sense of events and they construct a narrative around them holding to a particular perspective.

I don't think anyone (including the drama) is saying that the ANSP weren't responsible for human rights abuses in their day (the record stands) but there's also the danger of people in the 21st century reading back and judging people in those days without consideration of what kinds of pressures individuals were under or what kind of beliefs were driving the actions of people committing atrocities. The implication is that we wouldn't do the same thing if we had been in that position. Well, I don't agree with that. Human beings don't always do evil things just because they are psychopaths or sociopaths. Money is a big driver. So is ambition. Job security. Ideology. Sometimes even in the name of protecting others and ourselves. If we demonize perpetrators we will delude ourselves into thinking that we are incapable of evil ourselves given the right triggers and circumstances.

We definitely need to have a much more sophisticated view of history not to justify atrocities committed but so that we don't make the same kind of mistakes by thinking we are much more enlightened than people in the past. The only reason why we believe that ANSP perpetrated human rights abuses is because we hold to certain universal ethical and moral standards. If we don't have those anything goes. Where do these values of right and wrong even come from? Because I am sure that there are people in ANSP who thought they were doing their patriotic duty.

In Snowdrop, the girls in the dormitory represent a kind of innocence that's lost as a result of the machinations of political leaders. That's the state many would like to be in perpetuity but that's unlikely to ever happen. I am like everyone else and want to root for the "good guys" but sometimes it's hard to tell stories where "good" and "evil" are so clearly delineated.

Up to Episode 32
I like practically everything about this show (yes, even the romances) although sometimes the pacing does come to a screeching halt for a bit of untimely angst. While I appreciate how the complex procedural elements unfold and play out, the real genius of the script is how the conspiracy becomes an instrument of distrust and suspicion. The conspiracy itself isn't that difficult to work out but what the conspiracy does to relationships is what makes this show much more sophisticated than most. It pits friends against friends although it also turns strangers into friends/lovers as well. The mole hunts and the subsequent revelations as to who the members of the Chunqiu Sect are is what really drives character development. It isn't just the fact that you can't trust anyone that puts you on edge but finding out that the person close to you isn't exactly what you thought is utterly devastating with far-reaching consequences. To come to the realisation that your relationship is based on lies that will be used against you and everything you believe to be right. This is what I believe makes this show better than your average crime drama.

Human beings are complex creatures and the motivations from which they do things cover a whole gamut. People make calculations, weigh up risks and benefits or allow their emotions to win the day. To say that history is being distorted because they depict individuals as multifaceted shows not only a lack of understanding of human behaviour but an ignorance of how history is examined. I think that comes from our impulse to attribute blame and "other" people when we try and make sense of the senselessness of evil.
War and social unrest are very complex phenomenon as well. People get dragged into making all kinds of decisions that they wouldn't ordinarily make under very oppressive circumstances. That's why very few people do the right thing under pressure. People like Bonhoeffer, Niemoller and Franz Jagerstatter are the exception not the rule.

For me (as someone who has an education background) the lack of critical thinking in this entire situation has been lamentable. The entire debate has almost been entirely driven by emotions and trying to guilt others into making a particular choice because a group of people with a paucity of evidence say we have to. But this is a sign of the times that we're living in. There have been far too many instances of this in recent days and this kind of trial by social media is gradually becoming accepted practice. It's dangerous. As a rule I stay away from social media because of the tendency for things to degenerate on those platforms.

While the ANSP as an organization was guilty of gross human rights abuses, it is also made up of individuals who were also members of someone's family. During the day they would torture people to confess and when they left the office they went home and had dinner with family. This is also the case with gangsters and any kind of show depicting them. These were violent people who were engaged in criminal activities but they have people they love and care about. All the good gangster movies highlight these contradictions. Even Hitler's inner circle consisted of men who loved their families. The most interesting villains in any drama are the ones who are multidimensional. This is what Hannah Arendt called the "banality of evil".

Just think of Ha-na, who is a complete nutjob as far as I'm concerned and has been from the beginning. But there's no doubting that she is in love with Gang-mu. I'm sure he loves her too but he probably put the job ahead of her. He scoured Europe to find Taedong River 1. He prioritized his obsession over the woman he supposedly loved and it looked like it almost destroyed him.

This is what good storytelling does -- offer a kind of balanced perspective. I am critical of aspects of Snowdrop but this writer knows that caricatures don't make for compelling storytelling even in satire.

From my experience of K dramas, Koreans are fairly honest about their history -- probably more so than most Asian countries. They don't often back down in highlighting the corruption among the political class or law enforcement or aspects of their checkered history.

The trouble with the whole controversy from my perspective is that those who started it don't believe that people can think for themselves even on the level that you're talking about. I certainly haven't come away from the show thinking that the ANSP or the regime were upstanding individuals who put the welfare of the citizenry first. No one not even Blind Freddy would think that. The show doesn't make any claim to being a work of history or even being remotely serious about history by the look of things in Episode 5. The show is a farce in the original sense of the word. Nobody needs to be Korean to know this. The tone is obvious.

I don't think this is about people on the internet thinking that they're caretakers of history. Whatever the original intent was, it's evolved (or devolved) into something like a political agenda or virtue signalling.

As long as he doesn't kill any of her friends, she'll eventually remember why she fell for him in the first place.

Non-canonical shipping has been going on since fiction was invented.
Logic and evidence don't apply.

It feels to me that Young-ro is someone that craves drama in her life and she'll forgive Soo-ho soon enough.

Is anything about this show realistic? :P

Doing a bit of catch up. Quite a lot of catching up to do actually. Huang Xuan is really good here and I really like him in this. His scene with the casino owner was powerful stuff.
I generally like how the women are incorporated into the story. They perceive themselves as individuals with agency. Compared to the popular K historical dramas I've been watching, this one is sheer class.

Is all this taking place on social media?