batatatamusic

Looking at grandmother, the question involuntarily comes to mind: suppose you have the most successful business in the world, you are rich, recognized… and then what? What remains if you dedicate the essence of your life to ambition, knowing that time is limited? 70–80 years… What does it really give you, internally? And most importantly—what does it give to those you love? If, at the end of the path, these ambitions make them unhappy, then their value is worth questioning. This question concerns not only this story—it also runs through our own reality.

And my answer…

Ambitions have value only when they do not destroy our ability to live fully and love.

Wealth or power do not replace meaning, joy, and connection with other people.

If the pursuit of ambitions makes those we love unhappy, then these ambitions lose their moral and existential value.

You can “live successfully” in the world, but if we fail in the hearts and lives of others, what have we really achieved?

You analyzed very well too, and I thank you. It's good to have multiple points of view, and I can say that the ending of episode 22 answered all my questions, because ChanBao really reacted so well morally—both in her speech to her grandmother and in what she did

Oh, I really loved ChanBao’s resolutions and the speeches at the end of episode 22 — finally!!

All the arguments are valid. Yet, for me, the problem is that the perspective is always unilateral: it is always the same girl who is right, always the one portrayed as the victim. So do you really believe she bears no responsibility whatsoever in their relationship? She has obligations, and everything she does is automatically justified—simply because she has obligations... If that is the case, then he has obligations as well—perhaps even more morally compelling ones, since fulfilling them would resolve a fundamental issue and ultimately benefit their “business” as well.

Yes, he betrayed that. But how many times did he also save her, risking his life against that very same family?
At exactly 21:00 of episode 22, my verdict is official: still 1–1. No 1–0 yet 😆

It is true that sheltering a criminal could harm one’s family.
But there are two possible scenarios:

1.If you knowingly shelter a criminal and hide them, then you are the one in the wrong.
In that case, when facing a man of justice, you are the one who should apologize.

2.If you shelter someone who is not a criminal, and the man of justice standing before you — who also happens to love you — does everything in his power to prove your protégé’s innocence, then why not go in his direction?
Why not even thank him for relieving you of that burden?

He returned all the credit to her family, at the cost of putting his own life in danger.
He almost died for this, and he had nothing to gain from it — except his pursuit of justice.

1.Why didn’t the Rong family want to reveal the truth about Lady Yang’s identity at that time?
After all, in the end they actually did a good thing by sheltering her, didn’t they?
2.Moreover, the Rong family’s reputation clearly improved in the city, and Lu Jiang Lai contributed to that as well.
(Even though I personally think the Rong family may have made enemies in the long run, possibly even with the Governor…)

3.In episode 22, when she slaps him and holds resentment against him — aren’t they actually on equal footing?
After all, he could just as well ask her: why did you choose to hide the truth? Why weren’t you honest with me, at least?
She is still the one who chose to bypass the law.

Yes, it’s true that the male lead could have chosen the path of “protection” — keeping the secret instead of treating her like everyone else and potentially letting her go to prison.
But she wasn’t fully honest with him either regarding this woman.

So isn’t it actually 1–1, equal responsibility?
Why should only he be the one who has to prove himself?

Who would like to analyze a few points with me about the following: ep22.
I have several interpretations in mind, and I’m really looking forward to reading your analyses on this.

Exactly, I really liked those episodes a lot ;)

Oh la la, we think exactly the same way. I 1000% agree with what you’re saying. Whether it’s the so-called “cinematic” sex industry, which many people are addicted to and where constant need for adrenaline being pushed so far (the same goes for cruelty) that, to feel excitement, we always need more and more—just like a drug.

When it comes to current Western TV shows and movies, that’s exactly what’s happening. I can’t watch them ((for most of the ones being released currently)) anymore either, for the same reasons: it’s either wokism, or cruelty for the sake of cruelty, or sex. Crudeness and sex are mainly what make people laugh now, and everything is portrayed the way you described, with no values at all.

That’s why I watch Asian content: precisely for the VALUES that still exist in some of them—for now at least such as friendship, family, love, a bit of modesty, and the absence of vulgarity, etc.

Of course, I’m not generalizing—there are beautiful works everywhere. But, in general, the content produced massively today is generative rather than crafted with the approach of a true work of art. It has become difficult for an artist to remain neutral and focus on what they can truly offer that is original and new. On one hand, there’s enormous economic pressure because production costs are huge; on the other—and most importantly—creators are flooded with “parasitic” information about audience behavior. They know absolutely everything: what people watch, how they watch it, at what speed, which moments they enjoy or reject, which colors and styles appeal to them… (it’s not just us reading the comments). In short, there’s almost no mystery left before release if you follow the formulas. Add to that the multiple tools of assistance—ChatGPT, AI in creation and editing—and the space for truly daring work becomes minimal.

These statistics—even those provided by YouTube and others—kill art, because an artist shouldn’t create on demand (that’s craftsmanship), but rather challenge, innovate, and offer what comes from within. Take Van Gogh as an example: imagine if he had created only what the public wanted in his time? That’s the difference. It’s not really the artist’s fault, as I said—it’s the system in general. There’s also overconsumption: imagine I want to make a great film, which requires much more time, but I would be overlooked and forgotten next to others who produce a 40-episode series every single day.

You articulated the counterbalance very well, in detail and from the narrator’s perspective. For the reasons you mentioned in your comment, I’ve continued watching, and as I said, despite all my analyses of the recurring relationship dynamics in C-dramas, I’m still following this series precisely to see how their relationship evolves ;)

me too

lol ! excellent

Your comment reflects word for word what I think and what I have observed. On one hand, I feel reassured that I’m not the only one who thinks this way, in a world where, as soon as you look at things a little differently from the majority, you are immediately seen as the one who is wrong.

Of course, the woman in me wants us to live in an era where women can finally find their rightful place. But this is not a men-versus-women issue; it’s simply that the dynamics have changed — as you said, it’s almost the complete opposite now. Historically, we know that when humans try to create a “revolution,” they never manage to do it in a balanced way. They always swing to the other extreme for a long period before eventually coming back to the middle, to something more balanced. I think we are currently in that phase when it comes to mentalities and attitudes.

I also made exactly the same observation about cooking: if a woman cooks, it means she is she’s a professional in the food service industry. ; if a man cooks, then suddenly it’s something admirable. Fine — I love it when men cook. But constantly showcasing it in a systematic way is exhausting. Why can’t a woman also be allowed to have talents (other than work)? Why must a heroine not be able to cook well, sew well, be kind, empathetic, and have multiple talents — and be loved for those qualities too? Why must she only be admired because she is rebellious or because she dares to dominate a general? (Especially since the qualities mentioned above do not prevent her from also having those latter traits.) I’m just saying: for a change, why not give us something different, instead of always serving us the same nauseating dish. In this way, I actually think we are also highlighting feminine qualities (not just portraying the man as perfect). Isn’t that feminist too — for a woman to be perfect as well? No, because commercially it works less: they’re afraid that women won’t be able to identify with the female character and project themselves through her in order to dream.

Another topic concerns men, their expectations, and those of women. For a very long time, men have fantasized about women as sexual objects. Even great Hollywood directors — take Scorsese, whom I love — portray women this way. Male fantasy is very raw; it goes hand in hand with desire and sexual, visual needs. Women, on the other hand, generally have far more criteria and expectations when it comes to visual and emotional substance (I am, of course, generalizing). This leads to dissonance and disappointment on both sides, because our “literary or visual material” for dreaming and fantasizing has never been the same.

lol

And welcome to this little corner of discussion! With your interesting point of view

Every sentence leads us to another philosophical reflection ahah ! And that’s how we can approach a C-Drama that seems purely commercial at first, by peeling back all the layers and still discovering another one. It’s like a kaleidoscope—depending on how we turn it and how we look

Thank you too. It’s really rejuvenating to analyze and point things out in a constructive and unbiased way.. People often say, 'Turn off your brain" or " if you don’t like it, just change it.' But I say, I can watch, and i can I like it, but also analyze and point out things I don’t. Art is also about that. And i love reading and sharing ideas—we learn and reflect from different perspectives too.

Well said! What I also mean is that anything can be shown, nothing is inherently disturbing, but it all depends on how it is shown and justified—whether a flaw is highlighted or presented as something positive.

Ok, let’s admit that everyone has the right to have lovers, whether in dynasty X or Y — I’m not judging this choice, it’s personal, and everyone lives their life as they see fit. However, having lovers does not guarantee mutual respect or equality in how one treats the other. True equality doesn’t lie in what we do in our private lives, but in how we consider, listen to, and treat each other, without domination or hierarchy between partners. Here, there is clearly a hierarchy, yet we are talking about equality.

I agree with you 100%. And I can add this: I’ve read hundreds of Western female literature works, and watched hundreds of Chinese and Korean series—always the same thing. So here, it’s not a cultural question; it’s a global question: what do we, as women, dream of in our time? What are our expectations?

Only, it’s utopian, even dangerous, to just watch and believe in these stories, because real life is so different, and relationships are not the same. In the end, it could even work against us, because I don’t think a man who is fundamentally different from what’s shown will watch this and say, “Oh, they’re right, from tomorrow I’ll become like this hero.”

So instead of only showing THAT, it would be useful to dig deeper into the subjects, to show more depth, different cases, various possibilities—weaknesses, strengths. To find that, maybe you need to read the classics. But the fact is, we spend more than 20 hours a week watching things that distract us from real issues, real historical context, etc. … What impact is that going to have on us in the long term? lol