News 
This review may contain spoilers
She Deserves Two Loves, He Doesn't Deserve One: The Hypocrisy of Navier"
Rating: 1/10
A review based on the first four episodes and the story description.
Before anyone gets annoyed by this review, let me point out something: I have written this after watching just four episodes. I have already seen several reviews posted here before the drama was even completed, with people happily giving it 10/10. If rating a drama 10/10 before watching the complete story is acceptable, then giving it 1/10 and expressing criticism after four episodes should be equally acceptable. You cannot demand that everyone wait until the end to praise a drama while refusing to let someone criticise it early.
My biggest problem with this story is its double standards and the way it presents relationships, loyalty and empowerment.
Let's start with Navier. According to the story, she never romantically loved Sovieshu. She considered him a childhood friend, family member and political partner. Their marriage was apparently peaceful because she was comfortable with the arrangement. But what about Sovieshu? Was he supposed to spend his entire life in a loveless marriage simply because Navier was comfortable being empress?
When he finds someone he genuinely loves, suddenly he becomes the villain. Yes, he broke a promise, and he should be criticised for how he handled the situation. But why is Navier's lack of romantic affection towards him treated as perfectly acceptable while his desire to find romantic happiness is portrayed as betrayal?
If Navier deserves to leave a loveless marriage and find someone she genuinely loves, why doesn't Sovieshu deserve the same opportunity?
The hypocrisy becomes even more noticeable when Navier develops a relationship with Heinrey, a prince from another kingdom, and eventually seeks permission to marry him. Apparently, a woman leaving a loveless marriage to marry someone she loves is empowerment, but a man finding love outside his loveless marriage is unforgivable betrayal.
Why should the moral standards change depending on whether the character is the protagonist or antagonist?
There is also an interesting double standard in the audience's criticism of Rashta. Many viewers call her greedy for wanting to have two men, but why is Navier's desire to retain her position as empress while also securing marriage to another kingdom's heir not questioned in the same way? Why is one woman's ambition automatically greed while the other woman's ambition is celebrated as empowerment?
Navier seems to have a convenient alternative waiting for her in Heinrey, someone with whom she has already developed a connection. Yet Sovieshu is expected to remain loyal to a woman who, by her own admission, never loved him romantically.
I am not saying Sovieshu is blameless, nor am I defending every decision he makes. But relationships should have consistent moral standards. If emotional affairs and infidelity are wrong, they should be wrong regardless of who commits them. If people deserve the freedom to leave loveless marriages, that freedom should apply to both men and women.
Another issue is the historical and cultural setting. The story uses European-style emperors, empresses, princes and kingdoms, but presents them through Korean characters and an apparently European-inspired imperial world. Fantasy is perfectly fine, but the political and cultural framework feels like an aesthetic combination without much consideration for historical consistency.
Historically, royal marriages involving mistresses, concubines and secondary wives existed in several Asian and European monarchies. That doesn't mean betrayal and broken promises should be excused, but the drama seems to simplify the entire institution of royal marriage whenever it suits its romantic narrative.
And Navier requesting permission to marry the heir apparent of another kingdom after her divorce raises even more political questions. This is not simply an ordinary romantic relationship; it potentially involves diplomatic alliances, succession and competing royal interests.
Ultimately, my biggest objection is that the story seems determined to make its female protagonist morally right regardless of her actions, while judging other characters by entirely different standards.
Navier deserves love and happiness. I have no objection to that. But Sovieshu deserves the opportunity to find love and happiness too. A woman should not be expected to remain in an unhappy marriage, but neither should a man be expected to remain romantically committed to someone who doesn't reciprocate his feelings.
My rating is 1/10 based on the first four episodes. Perhaps the remaining episodes will provide explanations that change my perspective, but I am reviewing what I have seen so far, not what I might see in the future.
And just as people are entitled to give a drama 10/10 before it finishes, I am equally entitled to give it 1/10 before it finishes. If you disagree with my criticism, that's perfectly fine. But don't confuse a different opinion with an invalid review.
A review based on the first four episodes and the story description.
Before anyone gets annoyed by this review, let me point out something: I have written this after watching just four episodes. I have already seen several reviews posted here before the drama was even completed, with people happily giving it 10/10. If rating a drama 10/10 before watching the complete story is acceptable, then giving it 1/10 and expressing criticism after four episodes should be equally acceptable. You cannot demand that everyone wait until the end to praise a drama while refusing to let someone criticise it early.
My biggest problem with this story is its double standards and the way it presents relationships, loyalty and empowerment.
Let's start with Navier. According to the story, she never romantically loved Sovieshu. She considered him a childhood friend, family member and political partner. Their marriage was apparently peaceful because she was comfortable with the arrangement. But what about Sovieshu? Was he supposed to spend his entire life in a loveless marriage simply because Navier was comfortable being empress?
When he finds someone he genuinely loves, suddenly he becomes the villain. Yes, he broke a promise, and he should be criticised for how he handled the situation. But why is Navier's lack of romantic affection towards him treated as perfectly acceptable while his desire to find romantic happiness is portrayed as betrayal?
If Navier deserves to leave a loveless marriage and find someone she genuinely loves, why doesn't Sovieshu deserve the same opportunity?
The hypocrisy becomes even more noticeable when Navier develops a relationship with Heinrey, a prince from another kingdom, and eventually seeks permission to marry him. Apparently, a woman leaving a loveless marriage to marry someone she loves is empowerment, but a man finding love outside his loveless marriage is unforgivable betrayal.
Why should the moral standards change depending on whether the character is the protagonist or antagonist?
There is also an interesting double standard in the audience's criticism of Rashta. Many viewers call her greedy for wanting to have two men, but why is Navier's desire to retain her position as empress while also securing marriage to another kingdom's heir not questioned in the same way? Why is one woman's ambition automatically greed while the other woman's ambition is celebrated as empowerment?
Navier seems to have a convenient alternative waiting for her in Heinrey, someone with whom she has already developed a connection. Yet Sovieshu is expected to remain loyal to a woman who, by her own admission, never loved him romantically.
I am not saying Sovieshu is blameless, nor am I defending every decision he makes. But relationships should have consistent moral standards. If emotional affairs and infidelity are wrong, they should be wrong regardless of who commits them. If people deserve the freedom to leave loveless marriages, that freedom should apply to both men and women.
Another issue is the historical and cultural setting. The story uses European-style emperors, empresses, princes and kingdoms, but presents them through Korean characters and an apparently European-inspired imperial world. Fantasy is perfectly fine, but the political and cultural framework feels like an aesthetic combination without much consideration for historical consistency.
Historically, royal marriages involving mistresses, concubines and secondary wives existed in several Asian and European monarchies. That doesn't mean betrayal and broken promises should be excused, but the drama seems to simplify the entire institution of royal marriage whenever it suits its romantic narrative.
And Navier requesting permission to marry the heir apparent of another kingdom after her divorce raises even more political questions. This is not simply an ordinary romantic relationship; it potentially involves diplomatic alliances, succession and competing royal interests.
Ultimately, my biggest objection is that the story seems determined to make its female protagonist morally right regardless of her actions, while judging other characters by entirely different standards.
Navier deserves love and happiness. I have no objection to that. But Sovieshu deserves the opportunity to find love and happiness too. A woman should not be expected to remain in an unhappy marriage, but neither should a man be expected to remain romantically committed to someone who doesn't reciprocate his feelings.
My rating is 1/10 based on the first four episodes. Perhaps the remaining episodes will provide explanations that change my perspective, but I am reviewing what I have seen so far, not what I might see in the future.
And just as people are entitled to give a drama 10/10 before it finishes, I am equally entitled to give it 1/10 before it finishes. If you disagree with my criticism, that's perfectly fine. But don't confuse a different opinion with an invalid review.
Was this review helpful to you?
