i thought i was the only as i’m watching right now first 3 eps were really nice but now im starting to get bored and im just like how when there is so much to happen
I found the prosecutor frustrating to watch and wanted to know if I was the only one feeling that way. While looking for other reactions, I came across this review. What surprised me wasn’t disagreement, but how a straightforward audience reaction was reframed into misogyny, as if disliking her character could only be explained through gender bias. I couldn’t help but respond to this nonsense.
The issue is not that she’s a WOMAN. The issue is how the character is written and positioned within the narrative. Viewers are clearly given access to the male lead’s point of view: his conviction, his confidence, and his belief that he has done something extraordinary. The male lead is undeniably arrogant and morally extreme, but his behavior is contextualized. The people he killed were criminals responsible for severe harm, and his goal was to test a cure for otherwise incurable diseases. From his perspective, he hasn’t committed a moral wrong and he believes he discovered a cure capable of saving countless lives. The narrative consistently allows viewers access to his mindset; his confidence, his disbelief at being questioned, and his reaction to having his capabilities doubted. Imagine being in his shoes: being dragged into court over something you genuinely believe could save the world. Naturally, you would react with arrogance and defiance. The show invites the audience to understand him, even if they do not fully agree with him.
By contrast, the prosecutor is written as immovable to the point of tunnel vision. Even when it becomes apparent that what he’s claiming could be real, her focus remains solely on prosecution and punishment rather than engaging with the implications of the cure itself. She herself is arrogant in court, pushing relentlessly for the death penalty despite the stakes. Viewers aren’t reacting to her enforcing the law but reacting to her refusal to intellectually or ethically engage with what’s unfolding before her. That makes her frustrating.. not because she’s morally right , but because her rigidity prevent audience alignment. People are naturally going to be frustrated when a character is relentlessly pushing for the death penalty against the only person capable of curing incurable diseases. That reaction is not irrational, emotional, or sexist but a logical response to the stakes the story itself establishes.
Almost every MALE major character in this drama exhibits arrogance or frustration in some form. Yet this review singles out the prosecutor and immediately frames criticism as a gender issue, while ignoring the fact that most of the male characters are also widely considered annoying or insufferable. Their flaws are obvious and self-evident; the prosecutor stands out not because she’s a woman, but because the narrative positions her as the primary obstacle to something the audience is conditioned to hope for.
This isn’t new or unique to female characters. A similar response occurred in Taxi Driver (Season 1), where prosecutor Kang Hana investigating Kim Do-gi and the taxi operation frustrated viewers despite being legally correct. The backlash wasn’t treated as misogyny though. It was understood as a result of narrative alignment. The audience sympathized with the characters because they were delivering justice where the system failed, and she was framed as an obstruction. The same storytelling dynamic applies here.
If anyone deserves criticism, it’s not the audience but the writers and directors. Korean dramas repeatedly assign these rigid, obstructive authority roles to women, fully aware that the characters will be perceived as frustrating, and then deflect viewer backlash by accusing audiences of bias. That role could just as easily have been written as male. Choosing to cast a woman in it and then blaming viewers for responding exactly as the narrative encourages is misplaced responsibility at best and intellectual dishonesty at worst. Disliking a character does not mean rejecting justice, accountability, or professionalism. It means reacting to how a story is told. A character can be legally correct and still be deeply irritating to watch. 😂
The issue is not that she’s a WOMAN. The issue is how the character is written and positioned within the narrative. Viewers are clearly given access to the male lead’s point of view: his conviction, his confidence, and his belief that he has done something extraordinary. The male lead is undeniably arrogant and morally extreme, but his behavior is contextualized. The people he killed were criminals responsible for severe harm, and his goal was to test a cure for otherwise incurable diseases. From his perspective, he hasn’t committed a moral wrong and he believes he discovered a cure capable of saving countless lives. The narrative consistently allows viewers access to his mindset; his confidence, his disbelief at being questioned, and his reaction to having his capabilities doubted. Imagine being in his shoes: being dragged into court over something you genuinely believe could save the world. Naturally, you would react with arrogance and defiance. The show invites the audience to understand him, even if they do not fully agree with him.
By contrast, the prosecutor is written as immovable to the point of tunnel vision. Even when it becomes apparent that what he’s claiming could be real, her focus remains solely on prosecution and punishment rather than engaging with the implications of the cure itself. She herself is arrogant in court, pushing relentlessly for the death penalty despite the stakes. Viewers aren’t reacting to her enforcing the law but reacting to her refusal to intellectually or ethically engage with what’s unfolding before her. That makes her frustrating.. not because she’s morally right , but because her rigidity prevent audience alignment. People are naturally going to be frustrated when a character is relentlessly pushing for the death penalty against the only person capable of curing incurable diseases. That reaction is not irrational, emotional, or sexist but a logical response to the stakes the story itself establishes.
Almost every MALE major character in this drama exhibits arrogance or frustration in some form. Yet this review singles out the prosecutor and immediately frames criticism as a gender issue, while ignoring the fact that most of the male characters are also widely considered annoying or insufferable. Their flaws are obvious and self-evident; the prosecutor stands out not because she’s a woman, but because the narrative positions her as the primary obstacle to something the audience is conditioned to hope for.
This isn’t new or unique to female characters. A similar response occurred in Taxi Driver (Season 1), where prosecutor Kang Hana investigating Kim Do-gi and the
taxi operation frustrated viewers despite being legally correct. The backlash wasn’t treated as misogyny though. It was understood as a result of narrative alignment. The audience sympathized with the characters because they were delivering justice where the system failed, and she was framed as an obstruction. The same storytelling dynamic applies here.
If anyone deserves criticism, it’s not the audience but the writers and directors. Korean dramas repeatedly assign these rigid, obstructive authority roles to women, fully aware that the characters will be perceived as frustrating, and then deflect viewer backlash by accusing audiences of bias. That role could just as easily have been written as male. Choosing to cast a woman in it and then blaming viewers for responding exactly as the narrative encourages is misplaced responsibility at best and intellectual dishonesty at worst. Disliking a character does not mean rejecting justice, accountability, or professionalism. It means reacting to how a story is told. A character can be legally correct and still be deeply irritating to watch. 😂