EmiLayo

Interesting series so far... I'm liking it. It's pace is slow and easy, matching the atmosphere of small town in the north. The scenery is gorgeous and the actors are doing a wonderful job with their characters.

The actor, Hsia En, who portrays Victor, is a twin. The other twin, Hsia Te, is slated to also appear in this series as another character-- there's a very quick shot of him in the trailer for this series.

These twin brothers previously appeared briefly in History3: Make Our Days Count, as well as History4: Close to You, and a very beautiful special, My Broken Love Story. They have their own dedicated fan base; so, I'm assuming there are quite a few people currently watching who are waiting in anticipation for the second twin's appearance.

Why hello there!

"It's not often that I encounter a person interested in exploring the eccentricities of my thought processes. Most would've lost patience and disengaged well before this point[.]"

Sometimes, one must willingly wade through a minefield to unearth a treasure.
__
"I'll concede that my comments might've conveyed an air of aggression. The aggressive or confrontational tone is a reflection of my strong beliefs, and I'm resolute in the position that my comments on omegaverse's creative bankruptcy or obscenity are neither an insult nor an attack on the people finding enjoyment in the genre. They're an attack on the genre itself[.]"

I can see how strength of conviction can turn quickly into aggression, but I also see that strength can be like water, flowing peacefully while carving through stone. If one of our primary means of asserting ourself is to attack, then fighting becomes a habit which is difficult to break, even when what we find ourself fighting about is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.

I make an effort to hold my peace while also building and honing my strength, then when absolutely necessary, I gather all that strength and strike decisively, because I have no interest in wasting any time in returning back to my peace. If someone were to place enough pressure on me to ensure I struck at them, then the fault of disturbing my peace would be on them, so I don't quibble with myself over what needs to be done. Peace is my habit, but by no means does that make me unwilling or incapable of fighting. I simply don't waste my time fighting over that which doesn't enrich my life-- a life which will last the blink of an eye on a cosmic scale.
__
"The open, expansive architecture of online spaces creates an environment conducive to conversation among everyone, irrespective of their backgrounds or prior acquaintance. They're marketplaces of ideas, where we can respond to and challenge prevailing narratives. No one's walking up to anyone. The implicit understanding within online spaces is that one's opinions will be met with either reinforcement or resistance[.]"

I counter that the current nature of online spaces is to forget that we are speaking to other human beings despite not being in physical contact with them. Yes, online spaces are open forums, and yes, one's opinion can be met with either reinforcement or resistance, but whether reinforcing or resisting, when did it become acceptable to be discourteous? It's as though courtesy is no longer fashionable or even perceived as a sign of weakness.
__
"Admittedly, I'm of the belief that the people relishing problematic content, as per my judgment, possess less-than-refined tastes or preferences. There's a thrill in the back-and-forth exchanges that result from confronting them or the content in question[.]"

There's the rub, isn't it? Your preferences color the manner in which you view the preferences of others. Theirs are "less-than-refined"-- a more refined way of saying theirs are inferior to yours and they, in turn, inferior to you. This type of perspective would make it hard for you to engage with any of these people in a manner that's not tinged with cynicism and enmity. Not impossible, but incredibly difficult. A war of words that rapidly collapsed into personal attacks would likely be underway before you even hit "post" on the first reply.
__
"I do value the opportunity to participate in respectful conversations with others. The aforementioned behavior doesn't define me[.]"

I feel enriched from this respectful dialogue with you. I thank you for participating!

Firstly, thank you for responding and keeping it civil. I love this!

"Is civility so scarce that we should tiptoe around the feelings of others and abide by playground rules of engagement, only speaking when we're spoken to? "

Yes, civility IS now incredibly scarce, especially in online discourse. I believe it's become such a rare thing, that most discourse defaults into insults, as though we're primed to fight. When we engage with each other in person, very few of us would choose to speak with each other in the manner that's become the norm in online spaces. I don't believe that it's "playground rules of engagement" to choose to be courteous, as well-adjusted adults treat each other with respect everyday and those who choose not to do so end up having a difficult time at life, whether it be in professional or personal settings.
__
"My initial comments targeted a specific genre, rather than the character of the people I responded to. I criticized omegaverse as objectionable, offensive, and obscene."

I will confirm that the first reply of yours that I encountered was one made in reference to the specific genre, but as you posted your reply under someone's positive one, it's perfectly understandable that the person felt you were attacking them personally-- their preferences and their character.

If I were in a bookstore and browsing an omegaverse section and a stranger walked up to me and said, to my face, "Omegaverse is a fandom felony, and its fans trigger every alarm I have," and then followed up with, "Omegaverse is a cesspool of obscenity," I would be hard-pressed to respond politely. Considering the situation, would that person have been rational to hold the belief that a respectable and level-headed conversation would have followed from such an abrasive beginning?
__
"In circumstances where disagreement with a specific story or genre shakes the foundations of one's self-wroth and character, the root of the problem can be traced not to the critic, but to the person tying their identity to the story or genre and risking personal offense from the negativity directed towards it."

I don't believe anyone's foundations were shaken by your criticism. They disagreed with your criticism, yes, but I believe it's more fitting to say that many were annoyed by you, personally, than anything else. Your manner of writing was harsh, scornful and borderline dismissive -- not a true invitation to a dialogue about a genre you, personally, find offensive.
__
"They experience every attack on the story or genre in the same register they'd experience an attack on their own person."

I addressed this above.
__
"With a fondness for different genres, comedy, action, crime, psychological thriller, horror, historical, gay/lesbian romance (excluding omegaverse and futanari which I consider straight and inferior), musicals, medical, and more, my interests are wide-ranging."

Those are all marvelous genres! Personally, I've found having a wide range of tastes makes my life a lot more fun.

As humans, we're so very complex, and because of that complexity, options abound-- there's a plethora of distinctive creative voices crafting artistic works that allow their fellow humans to dive deeply into a wide assortment of worlds. There is always something available that's uniquely appealing for everyone. It's incredibly exciting!

One of the most interesting things I find about us humans is that one can never truly know what lives in the hearts of others; yet, a tendency that many of us share is that we believe our preferences are superior to others-- that our likes and dislikes, because they're correct for us they must, of course, be the same for others, and if they're not, then something must be wrong with those others. This tendency makes it easy for us to slide into a "mine" vs "theirs" mentality. I strongly dislike what they like and what I like is superior and, that thing over there... well, that's inferior.

I don't know if you're this way-- you're the only person who can answer this, definitively, but the manner in which you've chosen to engage with others on this thread-- those who unabashedly enjoy omegaverse stories-- leads me to believe you may have this tendency.
__
"If someone were to disagree with a favorite genre of mine, I'd discuss their reasoning and provide a new perspective to broaden their appreciation for the genre."

That's truly admirable. I can't say I'd do same, as my response would entirely depend on how that individual began the dialogue with me.

I rarely feel the need to defend any of my preferences, especially not to strangers and I'm not on a crusade to broaden anyone's perspective, especially if they didn't ask to do so. Now, if a friend, an acquaintance or even some colleague were to disagree with a favorite genre of mine? I may just wade into a discussion about it, even if there's a chance the discussion could grow into an argument, as arguments can sometimes be highly enjoyable, especially when there's respect on both sides and there's genuine interest in us learning something from each other or even if it's just us learning about each other's point-of-view. Arguments never need to lead to outright dissension nor disparagement.

My usual response to online strangers who want to let me know that they disagree with me is something along the line of, "That's an interesting opinion," or "Thanks for sharing. Have a good day." I can usually tell, quickly, based on how the individual follows up to my reply, if their real motivation is to have a stimulating discourse or if it's to convince me how wrong I am and how right they are (they're invested in winning a fight to prove something to themself). If it's the latter, my interest rapidly wanes and the dialogue with them terminates, on my end. They often continue by themself, long after I've gone on with my life, until they also lose interest and get on with theirs.
__
The comment to you from @Moonlight_Cloud was indeed juvenile. There was no need for petty name calling. @Moonlight_Cloud could simply have written, "Just ignore that person," and it would have achieved their objective, which was to encourage @red to move on. Instead they chose to insult and to personally attack you.
__
You may ask yourself why I decided to engagement in a dialogue with you, a stranger, if I normally don't wade into these types of online squabbles. The answer? I was genuinely curious about what was going on with you-- why this type of engagement, of all things? Why the tone of gleeful cynicism threaded throughout most of your responses? The more I read, the more I discerned that you were sufficiently self-aware to be making different choices. I'm not implying you SHOULD be making different choices, as your choices are yours to make, but my interest was peaked.

You've made it abundantly clear that you do not like nor respect omegaverse fiction. Your dislike of this genre has been well and truly established..

Now, you can decide to answer this or not, but I am curious and hope you do. What genres of fiction do you appreciate? What brings you joy?

It's a quirk of mine that I would much rather engage with others based on what fulfills them than what makes them miserable. If you decide that you'd rather not have a dialogue of this manner, I understand and will wish you farewell.

"You didn't ask for my opinion, and I didn't ask for yours. People don't fill out an official "permission to respond" form before sharing their opinions on the internet "

Point taken.
__
"The majority of my comments were in reaction to the personal attacks made against me."

That's disingenuous on your part. Most of the replies, that I encountered, which were made to you were not personal attacks toward you, by any stretch of the imagination. Many were baffled by your desire to attach to their ongoing dialogues and bringing your brand of "cynicism," as though it was something others wanted, much less needed. Primarily, your initial engagement were unprompted.
__
The comment about you being a jobless and miserable person did cross the line; but, are you going to pretend that you weren't needling others, which led to a negative response? Are you the bully who cries after the bullied finally slaps you back?

Do you perceive those who were sparring with you as "internet goblins"? Is this why you wade in, often, like a wrecking ball? How we view others is often how we view ourselves. You're responding to others how you expect others to respond to you, but is that truly what you want?
__
"Another commenter's use of the term "crackhead person" to describe me has been overlooked. "

I didn't overlook it, as I never encountered it. If that did happen, that's juvenile and ridiculous name calling, regardless of the back and forth that preceded it.
__
"You wasted your time writing a lengthy response to let me know you're not interested in wasting your time "

I was not fencing with you. I am communicating with you. Discourse never needs to devolve into a verbal fight. Is communicating for you only undertaken as a means of points?
__
"I'm content with my current pastimes, thank you[.]"

Serious question: Are you quite sure that what you're doing counts as a past time that leads to contentment?

Are you quite alright? Why would anyone happily boast about going out of their way to leave disparaging comments of a series on the positive comments of others?

I ended up encountered your unsolicited disparaging replies-- not merely stating your opinion, as you claimed, but you verbally ripping and ridiculing-- on multiple users' comment threads.

THESE ARE SOME OF YOUR "OPINIONS"-- ALL UNSOLICITED:
* "omegaverse is a fandom felony, and its fans trigger every alarm I have"
* "omegaverse is a cesspool of obscenity"
* "I’m the sunshine that melts your ice cream"
* "I work, relax, and spar with internet goblins for sport."
* In response to the query from another user as to why you're here, you wrote, "To balance out the positivity with a healthy dose of cynicism." I could almost taste your glee in your reply. It was disturbing.

AS FOR THIS REPLY:
* "Do you apply this "pissing" metaphor to all opinions, negative and positive, or just the ones that differ from your own?"

You traveled well and truly beyond the line of leaving an opinion. You crossed into badgering and harassment. If you wanted to share your opinion, whether negative or positive, you could easily have posted multiple comments of your own, instead of unloading them on the replies of others.

I'm not a big fan of omegaverse stories, but I can't imagine wasting my time verbally fencing with strangers to let them know this. Doing so reeks of such a desperate need for attention that even negative causes for it alleviate the need.

May I make a suggestion? You can take it or leave it. Get some good friends-- or even one-- who you can talk to, and share with them, from your heart, about what's going on with you. Go outside and take long walks, preferably out in the peace and quiet of nature. Find positive reasons to laugh and love. What you're currently doing with your time is incredibly unhealthy and a glaring neon sign that you're struggling mentally.

Someone politely writing that they're bored with a show and that the acting isn't for them isn't insulting. It's honest. If only the people who like something are allowed to share their opinions, then that's promoting a false narrative.

The show has an 8.7 overall rating. That's great! But, that also means there exists a small group of viewers who do not resonate with this type of work and guess what? That's fine.

You get to share your unsolicited opinion, not just about the show, but you're doing so under E_Maya's comment. In this instance, do you consider yourself more special and acceptable than them?

Yes! Lee Jae-wook also keeps being paired with older actresses. He also possesses a steady and mature presence.

ONE QUESTION: How does Wang Xing Yue project such maturity and emotional composure at his young age? He's currently 23, which means he was 21 while filming this series. Every series I've watched him in, he's been paired up with a female lead who is older than him, either by a little or a lot, yet he's never seemed overshadowed by them. Either he's a very gifted actor who's able to truly embody his characters-- regardless of their age-- or the female leads are very good at matching his energy, so the characters appear to be well-suited. Either way, I'm still left a bit baffled as to how he does it, as he usually feels like the most emotionally mature character in any room.

Reading your article made me want to wretch in my mouth. This was offensive.

Lashing out at others is the a clear sign of emotional instability. It's OK to admit you're sad and filled with fear.

Reading your comments grew increasingly disturbing. Yikes!

Did you miss the implication that the king is impotent? Yes, he prefers males, but he also CAN'T have intercourse with his wife.

There is rarely true love present when one person has all the power and another is bound by duty to never say no. In that instance, it's irrelevant that they're both men. Hong Rim happened to be a heterosexual who was given to another before he ever had a chance to learn what his preferences were. He was essentially forced to fulfill the needs of another physically and emotionally and when he was presented with a taste of what his body-- not necessarily his heart-- craved, he was like a randy teenager acting on hormonal imperatives instead of good sense.

Sexuality is used as a means to tell the story, but it's basically irrelevant, just as it was in the story of King Arthur, Guinevere and Lancelot's love triangle that led to disaster for all 3, as well as the downfall of King Arthur's court.

By the bye, my take away from the movie is that while Hong Rim was strongly physically attracted to the Queen No Guk, he was also deeply in love with King Gong Min . That love, though, was problematic. due to their being an ever-present lopsided power dynamic. Hong Rim had never been allowed a real choice in the relationship. Yes, he did choose to join the king as a companion, but that occurred while he was a little boy and the king was a teenager. There's no way Hong Rim would have been cognizant of what that meant and by the time the relationship had shifted to something sexual, he would have been the king's companion for years and lacked an opportunity to learn what he real sexual preferences were. Despite how much he loved the King, it turned out his body preferred that of a woman's. This isn't an unusual dynamic, in any type of relationship. Husbands and wives cheat on each other all the time. Even as they genuinely love their partners, they can be drawn to others purely on an animalistic level and end up ruining their lives because they mistake strong sexual attraction for emotional and personality compatibility. The person they often destroy their happy marriages for rarely end up being good life partners for them.

For Hong Rim and King Gong Min, things spiraled WAY out of control. The King was heartbroken, as a man, and enraged as a king, so he went cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs, punishing them all, lying about the Queen's death and eventually participating in what was essentially a double murder-suicide. Hong Rim was also heartbroken and lied to the King that he'd never loved him, because that's the only thing he had left that would devastate the king. At the end, though, when the Queen was dragged away and Hong Rim laid there dying, notice that Hong Rim turns away from watching the Queen being taken away and he turned his eyes, lovingly, toward the King. Why was that? It's because the king was always his true love and once he learned that the Queen and the child she carried for him were still alive, he was finally able to let go of his anger and the last thing he wanted to see was the person he loved.

You watched the movie, yet missed very key details. Maybe your need to judge outweighs your willingness to empathize, learn and discern?

Ah! I wonder how many viewers had the same confusion I did. The first seconds of the video has a character speaking, but no English subs.

Filmed in Hong Kong. I'm guessing different censorship rules apply.

Filmed in Hong Kong. I'm guessing different censorship rules apply.

No subtitles available on the videos, though.

Ah. I see that you have been pestering others, though you're not necessarily being rude, you are being unnecessarily badgering with your overzealous need to put down the work of Boss and Noeul. The young men are doing good work. Instead of popping onto others' comments that enjoy their work, can you not just let others have their opinions? Every comment doesn't require your negating response. Just move along and allow others to express their joy, yes?

"If you are in support of all these, and choose to make me the bad guy, thenbyou fall under the toxic stan category I commented about in my first comment,"

You're looking for fights where there are none. Nowhere in my comments to you would you have been provided valid reason to believe this of me, yet here you are making accusations. This is a sign of something not being quite well with you, but I do hope you're well, otherwise,

Good day, child.