Summary
Now that I think about it, we don’t get much in terms of Arcadians being discriminated against, outside of the whole plague thing. Later we get one or two mentions of them and that’s it for book 1.
If the discrimination is so widespread why didn’t we see any of it until MC is sent to resolve the plague? In book 2 we get told many times how Arcadians are treated badly but the plague in book 1 is the first time we see any of it for ourselves. MC seemingly know nothing of the Arcadian’s situation at the time and needed Ilya to explain everything, which is doubly weird since they got a royal education at Duke’s mansion and should know history.
It’s hard to believe MC never had any contact with Arcadians until the plague and has not witnessed how they are treated considering how the plague segment presents their situation. No Arcadians are refused service or thrown out of inns and shops, and no beggars clearly of Arcadian descent. I guess that’s my criticism, that book 1 is segmented with barely any connective tissue between said segments. We do Leafs End stuff, ok that’s done go to white fang, ok that’s done, now a plague ok that’s done, next thing then next thing. All the arcs in book 1 seem separated and barely related to one another. Arcadians’ situation is such a big issue in book 2 and we are told many times it’s bad but we don’t witness enough of it to endear us to Arcadia’s goal at all.
We just have to believe retroactively that they were mistreated all this time and that MC, who can be an irrationally good person, didn’t care enough to notice it. It’s such an opportunity to show how Arcadians are treated in rural areas like aunt Bess’ town, where they could be barely any prejudice at all since peasants have only time for working the fields and not for racism, or it could be worse for Arcadians, who are the ones forced to work on unfair conditions. Then show how it differs in bigger towns, the capital, and in the King’s castle itself. But Arcadians have essentially no presence throughout both books really, and I mean the average Joe’s here not Team SnakeFace.
Considering book 2 plot focuses on Arcadians, their situation should be a steady throughline across the whole of book 1 to better connect the narrative together between them.
Now coming back for a moment to Tahlia being not sympathetic. The answer to that would be a good ol’ classic, a “tragic backstory”. That sounds simplistic I know but imagine for a moment that it’s F who rules arcadia. As I read somewhere here they were a slave until rescued by Sister. Such a backstory justifies their resentment toward other nations and that resentment would seep into their decision about the Arcadian way forward. Living in such bad conditions while dreaming of a better life, what would they do to attain that life? How would they treat people they perceive as abusers? How disjointed their moral values would be after a lifetime of abuse? In essence can you really blame a beaten and abused dog for biting everyone around? What informs the character’s actions in a big way are their past experiences and when it comes to Tahlia we still know precious little about her past only the messed up present.
Well, not clinically that’s for sure since psychopathy is not an illness, only a personality disorder
