The funny thing is people keep talking about “realism” in this drama, but where is that realism when it comes to HHJ’s storyline?
In Honours, they say the ending is realistic because not every criminal faces justice. Fine, that part can be realistic. But somehow that realism never applies to the female lead.
HHJ cheats on her husband, gets pregnant from the affair, hides the truth, steals evidence, manipulates a murder investigation, and treats her marriage like it’s some game she can step in and out of whenever she wants. On top of that she’s supposed to be a righteous lawyer defending victims, yet behaves in a completely unprofessional and unethical way.
But where are the consequences?
She doesn’t face legal consequences for evidence tampering. She doesn’t lose her career. She doesn’t even properly face the fallout in her marriage. Instead the story bends around her so everything somehow works out, including a husband who still wants to stay and raise a child that came from her affair.
People call that “realistic,” but honestly it just feels delusional. In real life, any person with even a little self-respect would walk away from a situation like that. The show wants to claim realism while protecting the character from every consequence. That’s not realism — that’s just the plot bending to protect her.
did you not watch the previous episode? he didn’t want a divorce. He wanted to stay and work on their marriage…
The funny thing is people keep talking about “realism” in this drama, but where is that realism when it comes to HHJ’s storyline?
In Honours, they say the ending is realistic because not every criminal faces justice. Fine, that part can be realistic. But somehow that realism never applies to the female lead.
HHJ cheats on her husband, gets pregnant from the affair, hides the truth, steals evidence, manipulates a murder investigation, and treats her marriage like it’s some game she can step in and out of whenever she wants. On top of that she’s supposed to be a righteous lawyer defending victims, yet behaves in a completely unprofessional and unethical way.
But where are the consequences?
She doesn’t face legal consequences for evidence tampering. She doesn’t lose her career. She doesn’t even properly face the fallout in her marriage. Instead the story bends around her so everything somehow works out, including a husband who still wants to stay and raise a child that came from her affair.
People call that “realistic,” but honestly it just feels delusional. In real life, any person with even a little self-respect would walk away from a situation like that. The show wants to claim realism while protecting the character from every consequence. That’s not realism — that’s just the plot bending to protect her.
did you not watch the previous episode? he didn’t want a divorce. He wanted to stay and work on their marriage…
If the story really wanted to show a complicated marriage, they could have written a proper confrontation and real consequences. Instead, in Honours, it feels like the narrative bends around her.
You’re basically left with a situation where the husband still wants to fix the marriage, while she’s the one saying it’s “unfair” to stay — yet she never fully confesses everything or shows the level of remorse you’d expect after what she did. On top of that, the show glosses over the fact that she manipulated evidence and interfered with a murder investigation, which for a lawyer should be career-ending.
So yeah, it ends up looking like husband plot armor rather than character writing. He’s written to absorb everything and still stay, which makes him feel less like a real person and more like a narrative device to protect her character.
If the writers wanted her to be morally gray, that could have worked. But when the story refuses to let her face legal or personal consequences, while still framing her as a heroic lawyer, it creates a huge contradiction in the character writing.
So in the end Justice wasn't served. Only Taeil got the beatings. Anyway this is the reality, Justice is so hard…
In real life, a situation like that would completely destroy trust in a marriage, and it would definitely destroy the professional credibility of a lawyer working on sensitive cases. But in Honours, the narrative just quietly moves past it and expects the audience to accept that everything somehow works out.
That’s why calling it “realistic” feels dishonest. Realistic writing doesn’t mean everyone gets a happy ending, but it does mean actions have logical consequences. When characters are protected by the plot instead of facing the fallout of their choices, that’s not realism — that’s just weak writing.
Holy shit they really went all the way with excusing women cheating on this one.What a ridiculous piece of writing.…
Honestly, I agree with most of what you’re saying. The problem isn’t that characters are “flawed.” Flawed characters can make a story interesting. The issue is when the writing bends the entire world to protect those flaws.
What bothered me too is how people keep calling it “realistic.” Realism would mean actions have believable consequences. Here it feels like the female lead gets massive plot armor. She cheats, lies, tampers with evidence, and even risks damaging serious cases she supposedly cares about — yet the story barely holds her accountable.
In real life, a situation like that would completely destroy trust in a marriage, and it would definitely destroy the professional credibility of a lawyer working on sensitive cases. But in Honours, the narrative just quietly moves past it and expects the audience to accept that everything somehow works out.
That’s why calling it “realistic” feels dishonest. Realistic writing doesn’t mean everyone gets a happy ending, but it does mean actions have logical consequences. When characters are protected by the plot instead of facing the fallout of their choices, that’s not realism — that’s just weak writing.
guess I should just stop reading comments. people who always want fairy tale endings, doesn't know how real world…
Calling something “realistic” doesn’t automatically make it good writing.
Realism isn’t the problem — incompetent writing and lazy character development is. When multiple storylines are built up for an entire season and then none of them get proper resolution, that’s not realism, that’s the writers not knowing how to land their own story.
You can absolutely make a realistic ending and still give characters proper closure. Many shows do that. Real life is messy, but storytelling still needs internal logic and payoff. If a character arc starts somewhere, it should lead somewhere. Otherwise it just feels unfinished.
Look at what happened with Game of Thrones. The ending was widely criticized not because it was “realistic,” but because years of character development were suddenly rushed or ignored. Calling a messy ending realistic doesn’t fix weak writing.
If that logic worked, then George R. R. Martin could just drop a terrible ending to A Song of Ice and Fire and say “well, it’s realistic.” That wouldn’t make it good storytelling either.
Realistic stories should actually feel realistically written, not like the writers ran out of time and labeled it “real life.”
So basically nothing was achieved for that female lead.
I was mostly paying attention to Lee Chung Ah’s storyline, and like you said, her husband is still sticking with her even after she cheated and ended up pregnant. That part honestly feels weird.
What actually happens in the end? Does she ever confess to him, or does the husband find out the truth himself? Or does the drama just move on and ignore it because she has plot armor?
Because from what it looks like in Honours, the whole situation just seems to pass without any real consequences for her.
Your explanation makes a lot of sense, and I get what the writer was trying to do with that ending. It’s clearly meant to show how rotten the system is and how even when someone comes close to breaking it, the world simply resets and the powerful walk away almost untouched.
But at the same time, I can’t help feeling the ending is still unsatisfying. After 12 episodes of building up this idea of fighting for the “greater good,” it ends with almost nothing truly changing. The FLs also committed their own questionable acts along the way, yet in the name of realism they face no real consequences either. In a way, that also feels like a kind of plot armor disguised as realism.
Your interpretation reminded me of a couplet by Mirza Ghalib that fits this situation perfectly:
Humko maloom hai jannat ki haqeeqat lekin, Dil ko khush rakhne ko ‘Ghalib’ ye khayal achha hai.
Which basically means: “I know the truth about paradise, but it’s a pleasant thought to keep the heart happy.”
That’s kind of how this drama feels. We understand the writer’s “truthful” approach and the message they wanted to deliver, but after investing 12 episodes in the story, a small sense of justice or closure wouldn’t have hurt either.
Nice review, you explained the strengths and flaws pretty clearly. I agree with your point about the characters feeling more like a “group unit” than fully independent individuals — that kind of writing usually weakens personal arcs.
Since you seem to understand the story better, would you mind explaining the ending a bit? Especially what it actually means for each of the characters individually. The open ending left me a little confused.
What exactly happened with their personal lives by the end, and what did they really accomplish through the victims’ cases they were working on?
Hello, I always enjoy your reviews whether I agree or not, because you put a lot of thought into analyzing plot,…
First of all, thank you for being so polite and for appreciating my reviews. It’s perfectly fine whether you agree or not—we all have different perspectives, principles, and ways of judging what we like or dislike. What matters most is being tolerant of different opinions and valuing them, even when they don’t match our own.
I really appreciate the information that she doesn’t reconcile with him. That makes me curious enough to maybe check out a few of the later episodes, since I do enjoy the FL’s acting, and the SFL has been one of my favorites ever since Attorney Woo Young Woo.
As for the ML, his wooden acting has always been a trait of this actor in the dramas I’ve seen. Sometimes it comes across as amusing, but other times it misses the mark by a wide margin. Honestly, he feels best suited for an “alien who doesn’t understand humans” type of role.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts—it’s always nice to exchange perspectives like this
People focusing just on the cheating arc are crazy here, there sexual trafficking going on and all they care about…
You’re acting like people are crazy just because they’re reacting to a different part of the story than you are. Not everyone consumes a show the same way. Some focus on the crime plot, some focus on the relationship dynamics. That doesn’t make them immoral, jobless, or “incels.” It just means they’re engaging with what stood out to them. You’re asking people to focus on what you think is more important, but then you insult and judge them for not doing so. That’s a bit ironic. Everyone has the right to like or dislike whatever aspect they want. If someone finds the cheating arc more disturbing or more relevant to them personally, that’s valid. Fiction hits people differently. Also, calling people “jobless” or saying they have “undeveloped frontal cortex” just weakens your argument. You don’t know who’s on the other side of the screen. For all you know, they could be working professionals, students, or just casual viewers sharing an opinion. Disagreeing with you doesn’t make them trolls. You’re absolutely right that serious crimes like trafficking and attempted murder are huge issues and deserve attention. But moral betrayal in relationships is also something people care about because it connects to real-life experiences. Both discussions can exist at the same time. If you want people to engage with your point, try debating it without attacking their character. Once you start insulting everyone who disagrees, it stops being a discussion and just becomes noise.
In Honours, they say the ending is realistic because not every criminal faces justice. Fine, that part can be realistic. But somehow that realism never applies to the female lead.
HHJ cheats on her husband, gets pregnant from the affair, hides the truth, steals evidence, manipulates a murder investigation, and treats her marriage like it’s some game she can step in and out of whenever she wants. On top of that she’s supposed to be a righteous lawyer defending victims, yet behaves in a completely unprofessional and unethical way.
But where are the consequences?
She doesn’t face legal consequences for evidence tampering. She doesn’t lose her career. She doesn’t even properly face the fallout in her marriage. Instead the story bends around her so everything somehow works out, including a husband who still wants to stay and raise a child that came from her affair.
People call that “realistic,” but honestly it just feels delusional. In real life, any person with even a little self-respect would walk away from a situation like that. The show wants to claim realism while protecting the character from every consequence. That’s not realism — that’s just the plot bending to protect her.
In Honours, they say the ending is realistic because not every criminal faces justice. Fine, that part can be realistic. But somehow that realism never applies to the female lead.
HHJ cheats on her husband, gets pregnant from the affair, hides the truth, steals evidence, manipulates a murder investigation, and treats her marriage like it’s some game she can step in and out of whenever she wants. On top of that she’s supposed to be a righteous lawyer defending victims, yet behaves in a completely unprofessional and unethical way.
But where are the consequences?
She doesn’t face legal consequences for evidence tampering. She doesn’t lose her career. She doesn’t even properly face the fallout in her marriage. Instead the story bends around her so everything somehow works out, including a husband who still wants to stay and raise a child that came from her affair.
People call that “realistic,” but honestly it just feels delusional. In real life, any person with even a little self-respect would walk away from a situation like that. The show wants to claim realism while protecting the character from every consequence. That’s not realism — that’s just the plot bending to protect her.
You’re basically left with a situation where the husband still wants to fix the marriage, while she’s the one saying it’s “unfair” to stay — yet she never fully confesses everything or shows the level of remorse you’d expect after what she did. On top of that, the show glosses over the fact that she manipulated evidence and interfered with a murder investigation, which for a lawyer should be career-ending.
So yeah, it ends up looking like husband plot armor rather than character writing. He’s written to absorb everything and still stay, which makes him feel less like a real person and more like a narrative device to protect her character.
If the writers wanted her to be morally gray, that could have worked. But when the story refuses to let her face legal or personal consequences, while still framing her as a heroic lawyer, it creates a huge contradiction in the character writing.
That’s why calling it “realistic” feels dishonest. Realistic writing doesn’t mean everyone gets a happy ending, but it does mean actions have logical consequences. When characters are protected by the plot instead of facing the fallout of their choices, that’s not realism — that’s just weak writing.
What bothered me too is how people keep calling it “realistic.” Realism would mean actions have believable consequences. Here it feels like the female lead gets massive plot armor. She cheats, lies, tampers with evidence, and even risks damaging serious cases she supposedly cares about — yet the story barely holds her accountable.
In real life, a situation like that would completely destroy trust in a marriage, and it would definitely destroy the professional credibility of a lawyer working on sensitive cases. But in Honours, the narrative just quietly moves past it and expects the audience to accept that everything somehow works out.
That’s why calling it “realistic” feels dishonest. Realistic writing doesn’t mean everyone gets a happy ending, but it does mean actions have logical consequences. When characters are protected by the plot instead of facing the fallout of their choices, that’s not realism — that’s just weak writing.
Realism isn’t the problem — incompetent writing and lazy character development is. When multiple storylines are built up for an entire season and then none of them get proper resolution, that’s not realism, that’s the writers not knowing how to land their own story.
You can absolutely make a realistic ending and still give characters proper closure. Many shows do that. Real life is messy, but storytelling still needs internal logic and payoff. If a character arc starts somewhere, it should lead somewhere. Otherwise it just feels unfinished.
Look at what happened with Game of Thrones. The ending was widely criticized not because it was “realistic,” but because years of character development were suddenly rushed or ignored. Calling a messy ending realistic doesn’t fix weak writing.
If that logic worked, then George R. R. Martin could just drop a terrible ending to A Song of Ice and Fire and say “well, it’s realistic.” That wouldn’t make it good storytelling either.
Realistic stories should actually feel realistically written, not like the writers ran out of time and labeled it “real life.”
I was mostly paying attention to Lee Chung Ah’s storyline, and like you said, her husband is still sticking with her even after she cheated and ended up pregnant. That part honestly feels weird.
What actually happens in the end? Does she ever confess to him, or does the husband find out the truth himself? Or does the drama just move on and ignore it because she has plot armor?
Because from what it looks like in Honours, the whole situation just seems to pass without any real consequences for her.
But at the same time, I can’t help feeling the ending is still unsatisfying. After 12 episodes of building up this idea of fighting for the “greater good,” it ends with almost nothing truly changing. The FLs also committed their own questionable acts along the way, yet in the name of realism they face no real consequences either. In a way, that also feels like a kind of plot armor disguised as realism.
Your interpretation reminded me of a couplet by Mirza Ghalib that fits this situation perfectly:
Humko maloom hai jannat ki haqeeqat lekin,
Dil ko khush rakhne ko ‘Ghalib’ ye khayal achha hai.
Which basically means: “I know the truth about paradise, but it’s a pleasant thought to keep the heart happy.”
That’s kind of how this drama feels. We understand the writer’s “truthful” approach and the message they wanted to deliver, but after investing 12 episodes in the story, a small sense of justice or closure wouldn’t have hurt either.
Since you seem to understand the story better, would you mind explaining the ending a bit? Especially what it actually means for each of the characters individually. The open ending left me a little confused.
What exactly happened with their personal lives by the end, and what did they really accomplish through the victims’ cases they were working on?
I completed last two episodes today and was satisfied with the ending.
I really appreciate the information that she doesn’t reconcile with him. That makes me curious enough to maybe check out a few of the later episodes, since I do enjoy the FL’s acting, and the SFL has been one of my favorites ever since Attorney Woo Young Woo.
As for the ML, his wooden acting has always been a trait of this actor in the dramas I’ve seen. Sometimes it comes across as amusing, but other times it misses the mark by a wide margin. Honestly, he feels best suited for an “alien who doesn’t understand humans” type of role.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts—it’s always nice to exchange perspectives like this
slaves cant love freely
MDL ?
You’re asking people to focus on what you think is more important, but then you insult and judge them for not doing so. That’s a bit ironic. Everyone has the right to like or dislike whatever aspect they want. If someone finds the cheating arc more disturbing or more relevant to them personally, that’s valid. Fiction hits people differently.
Also, calling people “jobless” or saying they have “undeveloped frontal cortex” just weakens your argument. You don’t know who’s on the other side of the screen. For all you know, they could be working professionals, students, or just casual viewers sharing an opinion. Disagreeing with you doesn’t make them trolls.
You’re absolutely right that serious crimes like trafficking and attempted murder are huge issues and deserve attention. But moral betrayal in relationships is also something people care about because it connects to real-life experiences. Both discussions can exist at the same time.
If you want people to engage with your point, try debating it without attacking their character. Once you start insulting everyone who disagrees, it stops being a discussion and just becomes noise.