I respectfully submit to you that at this stage of the drama, 2 episodes out, for better dialogue with other viewers…
It’s honestly impressive how you start with “I’m never against criticism” and then spend the entire comment dismissing criticism you don’t agree with. That’s not being open-minded—that’s just being selective.
And this whole “you must finish a drama before judging it” argument doesn’t really hold up. Not all criticism requires consuming every single episode. If the core concept of a story is flawed, people can absolutely critique that without sitting through the entire thing. You don’t need to watch 16 hours of something to recognize issues in its foundation.
Also, quoting your logic back at you—if people aren’t allowed to rate early because it’s “unfair,” then how is it fair for you to question their judgment just because they rated it low? That’s a double standard.
Reminds me of what Ned Stark said in Game of Thrones—anything said before “but” doesn’t really matter. Saying “I’m not against criticism, but…” and then trying to police how others critique is exactly that.
And for the record, not every review is about acting, pacing, or plot twists. Some of us are critiquing the idea itself—the premise, the themes, the message. That doesn’t require finishing the drama. It requires thinking about what the story is trying to say.
If you disagree with the critique, that’s completely fine. But calling people unreasonable just because they’re engaging with the concept differently? That’s far more condescending than any low rating.
I’m never against criticism, and I never will be. But this drama is definitely not a one, two or even three-star…
It’s honestly impressive how you start with “I’m never against criticism” and then spend the entire comment dismissing criticism you don’t agree with. That’s not being open-minded—that’s just being selective.
And this whole “you must finish a drama before judging it” argument doesn’t really hold up. Not all criticism requires consuming every single episode. If the core concept of a story is flawed, people can absolutely critique that without sitting through the entire thing. You don’t need to watch 16 hours of something to recognize issues in its foundation.
Also, quoting your logic back at you—if people aren’t allowed to rate early because it’s “unfair,” then how is it fair for you to question their judgment just because they rated it low? That’s a double standard.
Reminds me of what Ned Stark said in Game of Thrones—anything said before “but” doesn’t really matter. Saying “I’m not against criticism, but…” and then trying to police how others critique is exactly that.
And for the record, not every review is about acting, pacing, or plot twists. Some of us are critiquing the idea itself—the premise, the themes, the message. That doesn’t require finishing the drama. It requires thinking about what the story is trying to say.
If you disagree with the critique, that’s completely fine. But calling people unreasonable just because they’re engaging with the concept differently? That’s far more condescending than any low rating.
Wait hold on. She didn't officially report her. She was upset about the guy she liked liking her. Was drinking…
it was first established as it all happen because she reported her then later it shows a twist , DOOM she doesn't do anything let say i was annoyed by that story to deduct some points she was like first stole the drink then drunk it then saying sorry will solve everything she took her man , married him, stay with him until he died then somehow now she want to show regret and guilt. i don't agree with Male lead to feel bad for all three i can feel bad for both lovers who could never be together because of evil wife.
I get what you’re saying—and yeah, I’m open to changing my view depending on how the story actually unfolds.If,…
I get what you’re saying—and yeah, if the story actually evolves in that direction, I’d gladly acknowledge it as solid character development. But my issue isn’t just about “waiting for progression,” it’s about what the show chooses to establish first. When a character starts off actively admiring and chasing a system built on hierarchy and exclusion, that framing matters. It shapes how the audience emotionally connects to the world. If later the story critiques it, great—but early romanticization still leaves an impression. I was personally hoping the FL would begin from a place of resistance—someone already critical of a system that sidelines her despite her abilities. That kind of perspective immediately challenges the world-building instead of reinforcing it, even temporarily. And this isn’t something that exists purely in fiction. Systems tied to royalty and inherited privilege still exist in different forms. Countries like Japan and Thailand still maintain royal structures, and while they function differently today, the idea of status tied to birth hasn’t completely disappeared. Even the British Royal Family is often presented as a modern symbol, but it still represents inherited status at its core. So yeah, if the show ends up deconstructing all this, I’ll give it credit. I’m just saying that judging the direction based on what we’ve seen so far isn’t unfair—it’s reacting to the foundation the story is building on.
Wanna know the best thing about fiction,it stays fiction.If your brain power is too small to comprehend such simple…
I get your point about fiction, but I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss the criticism just by saying “it’s fictional.”
Even in fiction, stories don’t exist in a vacuum—they draw from real-world ideas, histories, and possibilities. And honestly, it’s not like authoritarian systems are some impossible fantasy. Right next to South Korea, you have North Korea—a real-world example of a rigid, top-down system that still exists today. So the idea that a modern society could slide toward something similar isn’t as far-fetched as it sounds.
And if we look at recent events, even stable democracies can face moments of instability. The situation involving Yoon Suk Yeol and the declaration of martial law in 2024 shows that power can be pushed in more authoritarian directions, even if only briefly and ultimately resisted. That alone proves these themes aren’t purely hypothetical—they’re grounded in reality.
So the issue isn’t that the show is fictional. It’s what kind of ideas that fiction chooses to explore or normalize. Fiction can absolutely imagine alternate systems—but it can also romanticize or critique them. That’s where the debate comes from.
I’m not saying the show definitely supports those ideas—but calling out the possibility isn’t a “failure to separate fiction from reality.” It’s just engaging with what the story might be implying beneath the surface.
"In the end, this isn’t clever world-building—it’s regression with better lighting. It takes a society…
I get your point about fiction, but I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss the criticism just by saying “it’s fictional.”
Even in fiction, stories don’t exist in a vacuum—they draw from real-world ideas, histories, and possibilities. And honestly, it’s not like authoritarian systems are some impossible fantasy. Right next to South Korea, you have North Korea—a real-world example of a rigid, top-down system that still exists today. So the idea that a modern society could slide toward something similar isn’t as far-fetched as it sounds.
And if we look at recent events, even stable democracies can face moments of instability. The situation involving Yoon Suk Yeol and the declaration of martial law in 2024 shows that power can be pushed in more authoritarian directions, even if only briefly and ultimately resisted. That alone proves these themes aren’t purely hypothetical—they’re grounded in reality.
So the issue isn’t that the show is fictional. It’s what kind of ideas that fiction chooses to explore or normalize. Fiction can absolutely imagine alternate systems—but it can also romanticize or critique them. That’s where the debate comes from.
I’m not saying the show definitely supports those ideas—but calling out the possibility isn’t a “failure to separate fiction from reality.” It’s just engaging with what the story might be implying beneath the surface.
I will update this review after the drama end....
If it doesn't advertise north koran propoganda, I might increase rating
And this whole “you must finish a drama before judging it” argument doesn’t really hold up. Not all criticism requires consuming every single episode. If the core concept of a story is flawed, people can absolutely critique that without sitting through the entire thing. You don’t need to watch 16 hours of something to recognize issues in its foundation.
Also, quoting your logic back at you—if people aren’t allowed to rate early because it’s “unfair,” then how is it fair for you to question their judgment just because they rated it low? That’s a double standard.
Reminds me of what Ned Stark said in Game of Thrones—anything said before “but” doesn’t really matter. Saying “I’m not against criticism, but…” and then trying to police how others critique is exactly that.
And for the record, not every review is about acting, pacing, or plot twists. Some of us are critiquing the idea itself—the premise, the themes, the message. That doesn’t require finishing the drama. It requires thinking about what the story is trying to say.
If you disagree with the critique, that’s completely fine. But calling people unreasonable just because they’re engaging with the concept differently? That’s far more condescending than any low rating.
And this whole “you must finish a drama before judging it” argument doesn’t really hold up. Not all criticism requires consuming every single episode. If the core concept of a story is flawed, people can absolutely critique that without sitting through the entire thing. You don’t need to watch 16 hours of something to recognize issues in its foundation.
Also, quoting your logic back at you—if people aren’t allowed to rate early because it’s “unfair,” then how is it fair for you to question their judgment just because they rated it low? That’s a double standard.
Reminds me of what Ned Stark said in Game of Thrones—anything said before “but” doesn’t really matter. Saying “I’m not against criticism, but…” and then trying to police how others critique is exactly that.
And for the record, not every review is about acting, pacing, or plot twists. Some of us are critiquing the idea itself—the premise, the themes, the message. That doesn’t require finishing the drama. It requires thinking about what the story is trying to say.
If you disagree with the critique, that’s completely fine. But calling people unreasonable just because they’re engaging with the concept differently? That’s far more condescending than any low rating.
then later it shows a twist , DOOM she doesn't do anything
let say i was annoyed by that story to deduct some points
she was like first stole the drink then drunk it
then saying sorry will solve everything
she took her man ,
married him, stay with him until he died
then somehow now she want to show regret and guilt.
i don't agree with Male lead to feel bad for all three i can feel bad for both lovers who could never be together because of evil wife.
with old shows name.
like he can forget his wife, but his daughter is gone too ?
Thanks for this information
But my issue isn’t just about “waiting for progression,” it’s about what the show chooses to establish first. When a character starts off actively admiring and chasing a system built on hierarchy and exclusion, that framing matters. It shapes how the audience emotionally connects to the world. If later the story critiques it, great—but early romanticization still leaves an impression.
I was personally hoping the FL would begin from a place of resistance—someone already critical of a system that sidelines her despite her abilities. That kind of perspective immediately challenges the world-building instead of reinforcing it, even temporarily.
And this isn’t something that exists purely in fiction. Systems tied to royalty and inherited privilege still exist in different forms. Countries like Japan and Thailand still maintain royal structures, and while they function differently today, the idea of status tied to birth hasn’t completely disappeared. Even the British Royal Family is often presented as a modern symbol, but it still represents inherited status at its core.
So yeah, if the show ends up deconstructing all this, I’ll give it credit. I’m just saying that judging the direction based on what we’ve seen so far isn’t unfair—it’s reacting to the foundation the story is building on.
Even in fiction, stories don’t exist in a vacuum—they draw from real-world ideas, histories, and possibilities. And honestly, it’s not like authoritarian systems are some impossible fantasy. Right next to South Korea, you have North Korea—a real-world example of a rigid, top-down system that still exists today. So the idea that a modern society could slide toward something similar isn’t as far-fetched as it sounds.
And if we look at recent events, even stable democracies can face moments of instability. The situation involving Yoon Suk Yeol and the declaration of martial law in 2024 shows that power can be pushed in more authoritarian directions, even if only briefly and ultimately resisted. That alone proves these themes aren’t purely hypothetical—they’re grounded in reality.
So the issue isn’t that the show is fictional. It’s what kind of ideas that fiction chooses to explore or normalize. Fiction can absolutely imagine alternate systems—but it can also romanticize or critique them. That’s where the debate comes from.
I’m not saying the show definitely supports those ideas—but calling out the possibility isn’t a “failure to separate fiction from reality.” It’s just engaging with what the story might be implying beneath the surface.
Even in fiction, stories don’t exist in a vacuum—they draw from real-world ideas, histories, and possibilities. And honestly, it’s not like authoritarian systems are some impossible fantasy. Right next to South Korea, you have North Korea—a real-world example of a rigid, top-down system that still exists today. So the idea that a modern society could slide toward something similar isn’t as far-fetched as it sounds.
And if we look at recent events, even stable democracies can face moments of instability. The situation involving Yoon Suk Yeol and the declaration of martial law in 2024 shows that power can be pushed in more authoritarian directions, even if only briefly and ultimately resisted. That alone proves these themes aren’t purely hypothetical—they’re grounded in reality.
So the issue isn’t that the show is fictional. It’s what kind of ideas that fiction chooses to explore or normalize. Fiction can absolutely imagine alternate systems—but it can also romanticize or critique them. That’s where the debate comes from.
I’m not saying the show definitely supports those ideas—but calling out the possibility isn’t a “failure to separate fiction from reality.” It’s just engaging with what the story might be implying beneath the surface.
I only use AI to restructure my writing into grammatically correct and more easily understandable English, so it’s clearer for all readers. That’s it.