Tuesday, March 18, 2014

An open letter to the creators of Secret Love Affair



Dear creators of Secret Love Affair:

How dare you?

As of this writing on Saturday morning, your show is more than 48 hours from premiering in Korea, and subtitles probably won't be available for more like 72 hours. And yet, you’ve already driven me to the brink of obsession.

First there were the posters, which were burnished and glorious. Then there was the 30-second teaser, which was dramatic and sexy. And then you killed me dead with the 22-minute preview. At first I swore I wouldn’t watch it, not wanting to spoil the Christmas-morning experience of seeing the drama’s first episode. But of course I gave in, and of course now I can’t keep myself from hitting play again and again. 

The preview is intense and sexy, piano porn complete with a healthy dose of human erotica. Everything about it is perfect—from Yoo In Ah’s awkwardness to the way the leads’ faces reflect in the piano’s polished surface to the intimate, bedside glow of the lighting.


Having watched the two recent dramas you collaborated on, I expect great things of you. A Wife’s Credentials was a moving look at the end of a marriage and the beginning of a woman, while The End of the World was a terrifying thriller about our never-ending battle against mother nature and human nature. Your work has an indie-movie verisimilitude, and your lead characters feel like fully fleshed people, not Kdrama archetypes. They’re textured and deep, always in possession of both flaws and graces.

So when I heard about Secret Love Affair, I was excited. But that’s nothing compared to sheer elation I experienced when I realized what the drama would be about—a forbidden love between a middle-aged woman and a much younger man. New revelations have hinted that his character will be a Good Will Hunting-style working-class prodigy, and that she’ll help him uncover his genius for music. As they say on Tumblr, my body is ready.

 
(A website called their expressions in these pictures “sad.” I guess that’s one direction you could go, but I’d say “hungry” is much more appropriate.)


My response is pretty unusual, though. SLA’s subject matter has made it controversial on the dramaweb. Lots of people are put off by the lead couple’s twenty-year age difference, and the fact that she’s married makes it even worse. But it’s easy enough for me to see why you made both of these narrative decisions: Kdrama romances have such a long history of breaking taboos that doing so has become a stereotype. Fauxcest, rich boys and poor girls, noona love stories, and even extramarital affairs are a dime a dozen. The familiarity of all these plot points has robbed them of any true shock value, making them seem about as dangerous as a pair of pink-nosed bunny slippers.

But a married woman who’s old enough to be the mother of the boy she’s in love with? That’s something different, something startling, something dangerous. It’s sensationalism, which is a great tactic for motivating people to watch television shows. That’s fine with me, especially because I know that in spite of what might be a tawdry premise you can be trusted to respect your characters and your audience.

And I don’t believe for a minute that this show is going to be a gross, skin-crawling take on Lolita. Although he was incredibly convincing as an unsure and gawky young man in the preview, Yoo In Ah is in fact a man. He’s playing a nineteen-year-old college student who’s led a tough life, not a pampered high schooler who has yet to reach the age of consent. If a delicate little flower boy like Lee Hyun Woo or Lee Jong Suk were to play this role, even I would be weirded out. But Yoo In Ah is big and bulky and strong in spite of his boyish face. On screen, he reads as an adult, not a child.

(I usually prefer Kdrama couples that spend a lot of time looking at each other. Secret Love Affair seems to be an exception to this rule: The leads barely made eye contact, but their positioning always allowed for hidden, lingering glances. They kept a conspicuous amount of space between them, as if they’re afraid what might happen if they get too close.)


About that older woman. As someone who might even fit into that category myself, I can appreciate that life doesn’t stop at thirty. We live on, human beings with the full complement of emotions and needs enjoyed by the young whippersnappers of the world. Just because someone is younger than you doesn’t mean you can’t be attracted to them, or that they can’t be attracted to you in return. Kim Hee Ae is so beautiful, how could you blame Yoo Ah In’s character for wanting to be with  her? The reverse is clearly true, too. (I would also like to point out that in real life The Prime Minister’s leads are exactly 20 years apart, yet we didn’t hear much of this age-gape griping when people were talking about that show. I don’t think the drama itself even acknowledged that there was an age difference. Why is it okay for an older man to be with a younger woman, but not for an older woman to be with a younger man?)

I am worried about this couple, but for different reasons. As I’ve written in the past, the Japanese movie and novel Tokyo Tower is apparently the inspiration for your drama. The Kdrama version seems to have addressed most of the things that concerned me about the source material—it’s starting with the beginning of their affair, rather than jumping into their love story years later. And it doesn’t look like it will be a man’s story of the remote woman he loves. In the extended preview, Kim Hee Ae shows more emotion than the female lead did in the entirety of Tokyo Tower. But there’s still room for the movie’s big flaw to intrude here: in TT, the love almost always felt one-sided. The female lead seemed to be using her paramour for his body, youth, and tireless devotion to her. I really, really don’t want Kim Hee Ae’s character to be similarly unaffected by her student’s passion. That’s the real peril of a grown-up relationship this unequal—not that they might love one another, but that the person holding all the cards might take advantage of their younger, less experienced partner.

I don’t even mind the infidelity aspect of the story, and I think you can convince the doubters to give your female lead a chance in spite of her actions. You certainly managed it in A Wife’s Credentials, which revolved around a woman leaving a deeply unhappy marriage. Her husband treated her like the hired help, and his ever-present family was actually nasty whenever she was around. I don’t think anybody could have genuinely wanted her to continue a relationship that served her so very badly. Marriage is a wonderful thing. But sometimes marriages end, and infidelity can be a symptom of that end, not its cause. Anyway, who says that your leads need to be pure and blameless to be worthy of our attention? 

(Good luck making any kissing in this drama as hot as this duet. I’m not convinced the censors would allow it on TV.)


In honor of our new-found friendship, I thought I’d share my wish list for this show.

Piano sex. Not to sound like a disgusting horndog or anything, but please don’t leave us hanging with this incredibly potent duet scene. Your recent dramas haven’t really involved much skinship, but I think we can all agree that a good shag on the piano bench is in order here.

But don’t let it be all about sex. I’m a little conflicted about how I want this drama to end. On the one hand, I’m always a proponent of happily ever after. On the other hand, this is a serious age difference. Being together now is one thing, but what happens when she’s eighty and he’s sixty? That’s the difference between being elderly and being middle aged. To believe that they have even a tiny chance of lasting happiness together, I’m going to need them to have more in common than just lust. We all know that has an incredibly short shelf life. The piano is a good place to start building them a relationship, but it should only be the beginning.

Please don’t hurt his hands. I know you’re made of finer stuff than more other drama production teams, but I’m sure this trope will still be tempting. Don’t succumb. For once, I want to see something about a genius pianist that doesn’t include mangled hands that cause his career to come to a tragic end. It was a joy to watch Yoo Ah In playing in the preview, and I want to see more of it throughout the rest of the drama.

How about making them compose together? Because if there’s anything hotter than a good duet, it’s the giddy high of a successful creative collaboration.

Make everyone as nuanced as your leads. While you tend to do great work bringing your lead characters to life, your secondary figures can veer toward the cartoony. It’s time to prove to the world that you’re better than the utterly irredeemable marital family in A Wife’s Credentials and the mustache-twirling bad guys in The End of the World. Making the female lead’s husband a dick doesn’t really absolve her of the responsibility from walking away from him, so don’t even try.

Be selective about what you include from Tokyo Tower. Things to keep: The trip out of town (and its associated bathroom scene, the most heart-wrenching moment in the whole movie), the pool, the party, and the rooftop. Things to ditch: The crazy-town secondary couple, the male gaze, and the disjointed editing.

Thanks to you, I can’t wait for my weekend to be over, because it will mean that I’m that much closer to embarking on the journey of Secret Love Affair. 

Please, please, pretty please don’t let me down.  

Sincerely, 
Amanda

P.S.: I couldn’t wait—I watched the first episode yesterday without subs. Naturally, I had things to say.

122 comments:

  1. " Please don’t hurt his hands." I didn't even consider this.. but now it's kind of all I can think about.. hah.

    I skipped the long preview, because I want to go into this sorta blankly. Honestly, even I can't because I keep reading what everyone else has be saying about it. I might as well have watched the trailer. :P I suppose I'll be watching this show very soon. I don't really have the strength to resist it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You're so excited about this that I hope it's as good as you are hoping it will be!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I just watched the first subbed ep (no preview for me, I hate spoilers) and I fell hard, like never before. This show is gonna be good. I'm stunned how much I love it already. Wow.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm not excited about this drama, but I am intrigued. If the characters are written well and I can understand them, then I might even get over the cheating part.

    The age difference doesn't bother me in this case. I mean sometimes it can and it can get in the way of enjoying a series/movie. But if the chemistry is there and their romance seems believable then I should be okay. But I guess it also helps that Yoo Ah In is in his late twenties and not actually 19. Like you said, if it were "a delicate little flower boy like Lee Hyun Woo or Lee Jong Suk" it would make it a lot weirder.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The producer(s) was clever to cast Kim Hee Ae as the heroine because she's so elegant and looks so young for her age. I watched the first 2 eps and had no problems imagining the two leads together - age wasn't even an issue in my mind.

    Do you know if anyone is recapping this drama? There were parts that I needed clarifications on. I'm so glad Viki is subbing this; they're so fast.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello, I've found one blog that does called noises from the closet.WordPress.com but it seems to be the first or even only one so far. I love the tone of it.

      Delete
  6. Just watched the first two episodes last night.The first one is setting the stage for what is to come.
    The duet is absolutely riveting! The tension mounting and mounting! I love the piano ,but that it could be so sexy....hmm...that is a whole other side I never considered.Emotional yes,but hot steamy sexy,no....
    I think I will just wait until the next 5 episodes are out before watching again...One episode just will not do...

    ReplyDelete
  7. I just hope that none of them die (like in the latest dramas Yoo Ah In made) hate those endings!

    ReplyDelete
  8. 2nd-ind your request!! sex on the piano pretty please

    ReplyDelete
  9. hahahahahaha.. yes I agree with that picture they said "sad", it should be "hungry". :D
    (I've bookmarked your blog on my tab, it's so fun to read. thanks) ^^

    regards, Indi from Indonesia

    ReplyDelete
  10. On the cheating aspect, it's not a "symptom", it's a deliberate decision an adult with agency makes, and yes, there is a very big difference between deciding to leave a relationship and being completely untrustworthy, disloyal and dishonest towards your partner: it says nothing about your issue, and everything about the person you are, namely one that is all the aforementioned things. The same way having an argument and choosing to punch someone you cannot persuade in the face cannot be explained away by reference to the argument, and says everything about the person you are (zero impulse control, or a psycho that they think it's okay).

    There are of course other aspects to consider, such as whether the victim deserves it (i.e. a philanderer does not deserve any loyalty he is not willing to give) or whether there are external circumstances, such as the arranged marriage in Hymn of Death. I would say that Secret Love Affair chose the former (i.e. making the husband a criminal scumbag that deserves that you don't empathise with, so that you feel he didn't deserve any loyalty and he got what he deserved). So one could very well imagine one enjoying A Wife's credentials but being bothered by this kdrama. They are two completely different things.

    Frankly, personally, I was much more bothered by this on the ML side rather than on FL side: after all, her husband is acting as his music teacher; there is also the question of whether he is in a relationship with his female friends... iirc he tells FL that he is not, and therefore, coupled with her husband being a criminal scumbag that deserved it, I am not really bothered by her actions, in that she is not betraying the trust of anyone that didn't deserve to be betrayed (the same could not be said of ML if he was in a relationship with his friend and lied to FL about it).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quite frankly, in the general case, when starting a relationship from an affair one could imagine being be rather concerned about the other person, given that they had already demonstrated the fact that they would be willing to show their partner no honesty, loyalty: what's to say that if they'll have issues in the future they betray them, rather than discuss the issue or even break things off? Because yes, couples have problems, but people can split up amicably, or at least while treating themselves and the other person with basic honesty and respect (which is what happens most of the time and is kind of a minimum stanandard of human decency). Maybe given that they made the FL's husband into a scumbag, that was not an option, but I would not have been against them showing tham having doubts about the other person doing the same thing they did their partner to them.

      Regarding the age gap, I was personally completely fine with it, however, despite the example made in the drama: hopefully what was meant was that they *shouldn't* have objected to it in *The Prime Minister*, and thankfully didn't, because otherwise obviously one would be treating the situation with the same blatant hypocrisy of which they are accusing the other side... In my case, for example, I was okay with them addressing the age gap, but would have been equally fine with them ignoring it completely like apparently other dramas did in the old days, because fundamentally as long as we are talking about consenting adults, for me there will never be any problem, whether she is 20, 40 or 60 years her senior.

      That said, I don't really think that this is a fair assessemnt of the public sentiment about the situation: from Backstreet Rookie or Goblin (in my country 19 is past the age of majority, which is 18, so technically we are talking about consenting adults even in that case... but one gets the feeling people would have objected even just on the basis of the irl age gap between FL and ML, and FL/ML were even in a relationship irl, shows you how delusional people can get) to My Mister (same age gap, not even romance, couldn't stop people from complaining about the mere possibility despite this being the exact same situation) to Mr. Sunshine, one finds uncountable examples of the double standard in the other direction, while very little ot this for Secret Love Affair. My own position on this is that I love Noona romances, they are consenting adults, and to act as if this was grooming would be a disservice to ML, denying his agency, and frankly would be patronising.

      Now, one aspect that one shouldn't be disingenuous or delusional about is the matter of power imbalance. We are talking about a young and passionate pianist that falls in love with one of the directors at an arts foundation that is cultivating him into a leading young musician. There is a definite power imbalance, and his future relies on her decisions. That said, I was personally not really bothered by this: my own take is that no relationship is really balanced in that manner, and that in Kdrama we regularly see the scenario of the handsome CEO ML having a story with the secretary FL without this being perceived as an issue and it would be hypocritical to bring this up as an element only because of the age gap when it's routinely ignored in other dramas... One might argue that this is a more realistic drama, on the other hand, we are at most talking about something inappropriate, not something illegal, and in terms of inappropriateness or even illegality, FL does much worse stuff in the drama. And okay, I might be selectively ignoring something that might have bothered me in other circumstances because of the chemistry between the leads.

      Overall, this is a very intense romance and while it’s stressful, the drama is super good.

      Delete
    2. In other words, we are made to feel that her husband is evil human scum, if he was someone that we could empathize with or care about on any level, it would be rather sociopathic to be unbothered by the the cheating aspect -the deception, breach of trust, the emotional and psychological abuse inflicted on the victim of the betrayal-

      Delete
    3. Certainly one has to admit that it was pretty irksome to see people criticize something like Thirty Nine for "condoning cheating" (when FL and the love of her life never did anything physical when he was married), considering that Secret Love Affair was shown in 2014 (and Thirty Nine in 2022): talk about the public's massive hypocrisy.

      Delete
    4. I guess that Thirty Nine also made the wife in a rather unlikable character in the beginning, despite improving her character in the end, a courtesy that was not shown to the FL's husband in Secret Love Affair... regarding the latter, in terms of her husband, one wonders about their love life or lack thereof, despite knowing that it's a transactional relationship.

      Delete
    5. > So one could very well imagine one enjoying A Wife's credentials but being bothered by this kdrama. They are two completely different things.

      Okay, I was greatly mistaken. In A Wife's Credentials (which I didn't see before) apparently the FL has an affair as well, so I would say that I agree with the assessment that one that enjoyed it wouldn't have an issue with this one.

      > Making the female lead’s husband a dick doesn’t really absolve her of the responsibility from walking away from him, so don’t even try.

      And this is what confused me in the phrasing: the article made one think that she had just chosen to divorce (which confused me, because that's a perfectly legitimate thing to do and therefore one doesn't understand why she would need to be "absolved" from any responsibility).

      I agree that every character should be nuanced, I will chose to interpret this as "don't go over the top to make them unrealistically bad". But, fundamentally, if one is to get behind the FL's adultery, given that anyone that is not a sociopath is not too keen to condone cheating, if nothing else out of the simple golden rule, "don't do to others what you wouldn't want the to do to you", then the victim that is being subjected to the deception and emotional and psychological abuse by her actions ought to be made into someone that "deserves it", which is what this drama does. In other words, if they are not going to be treated with a shred of loyalty, honesty and respect, and we need to stand on the side of the one treating them that way, obviously they should be made into someone that we feel deserve to be treated that way, otherwise we would take the part of the victim -again, unless one is a psycho that enjoys inflicting pain on people that do not deserve it, one tends to side with the person being mistreated-. I don't think that making a nuanced character and *also* making them someone that deserved such treatment is in opposition: for example, in the book The Magicians the ML sleeps with his girlfriend's friend, and she has an affair in retaliation: I was fully on his girlfriend's side, because I felt that she had no obligation to show him any loyalty he is not willing to give her.


      Delete
    6. Related to the usage of the term "walking away" to describe the actions of the wife in a Wife's Credentials, and the bit about marriage ending, and cheating being a symptom and not the cause, I found them both ways of obscuring and dodging the question, as they were very much not the point, and, in the second case, also a non sequitur. The bit about marriages ending is a truism, but smuggling in the betrayal in this argument is a sleight of hand, and the phrase about "symptom and not cause" is factually untrue and logically indefensible.

      You might have had problems that might or might not have been resolved, but it's not about whether or not the relationship would have ended anyway. Can one really make this claim for certain? Or is this a self serving ad-hoc rationalization? One can make guesses, but this is unverifiable, humans are not good at predicting the future, particularly about something as messy as relationship, as evidenced by the fact that they chose to marry not predicting that it would end in disaster... of course, one might decide they don't want to try to tackle the problems and go through counseling, because they don't think that the relationship is worth saving.

      You might have had problems that might or might not have been resolved, but and the relationship might or might not have ended anyway, but by choosing to have an affair, you are the one killing it: it's not about what might or might not have happened, it's about what did happen, and your part in it. This line of reasoning reminds me of someone complaining about corruption while taking bribes, and saying that it's all the same because if they didn't someone else would... okay, but it's you who did, not someone else, it's still something that as an adult with agency you are morally responsible for, again, it's not about what might or might not have happened, it's about what did happen, and your part in it.

      To make an analogy, if we were talking about a very sick patient, and someone decided to kill them, it would still be murder, and the cause of death would still be homicide (obviously in this parallel we are not talking about euthanasia since there is no consent of the victim). One can make the sick patient into a terminal one, and still, if they were killed without their consent it would be murder, and the cause of death would still be homicide, not the illness. Of course, the case of the "terminal patient" is not really "mappable", because with relationships people don't know what the future will hold and how people will change, and there is always the chance to tackle one's problems and seek counseling, whereas with terminal illnesses, barring the illness going into remission spontaneously or a new cure being discovered the conclusion is pretty much foregone.

      Delete
    7. That said, obviously there are relationships that cannot (or shouldn't) be saved due to people having different values and wanting different things, and not being willing to meet in the middle, or there could simply be the case where the relationship is not worth saving (personally, I am very much in favor of divorce and don't see the point of keeping up a relationship where you are going to suffer for the sake of it, i.e. I don't see the maintaining the relationship at all costs, simply for the sake of mantainig the relationship, as and end in itself).

      I see this as an example of "cope", of euphemistic minimization and excuses that don't tackle the central issues honesty and instead chose to attack a straw man. Maybe not done deliberately or even insincerely: people are very good both at ignoring third options that would throw a wrench in the conclusion they want to reach (for example, in this case that one might chose to tackle their problems, go to a counselor, even split amicably).

      They migth oversimplify the issue, or throwing in non sequiturs and elements that might even be true, but don't have anything to do with the point of contention and are just used to muddle the water.

      They might overcomplicate the issue, i.e. by throwing in grievances that are not sufficient to justify treating their partner without basic honesty and respect, or differences in values that might make it sensible to interrupt the relationship, but that, again, wouldn't warrant deceiving one's partner... this is in contrast to throwing in grievances or reasons that would make it warranted to treat the partner in such a manner, which is what this drama does... in other words, the situation is not as complicated as it appears after the waters had been muddled, and boils down to whether the viewer of the betrayal deserved it or not, which in turn translates into whether the viewer is made to empathize with the victim and take their side, or not -the latter being the true measure of being able to pull this off: to bring the viewer to a point where they don't care about the character being deceived, something difficult to do without turning them into someone the viewer thinks didn't deserve to be treated with basic honesty and respect-.

      Delete
    8. Obviously, however, all these discussions about saving a relationship, etc. are not applicable to this drama, because it's not that the relationship was unhealthy due to things having changed, etc., it was an arrangement she accepted voluntarily, choosing to marry someone she didn't love or respect for money and power... it's not a relationship that grew sick and is now waiting to die, it's an arrangement of convenience they entered into for their mutual benefit.

      Delete
    9. I think that making the villain into a scumbag was pretty much a requirement to get people to back the female lead. It's not about not being nuanced, or even about the fact that you have to have FL be perfect, it's about the fact that unless one is a complete sociopath, if they feel that someone is being wronged unjustly and that, while they are not perfect, they didn't really do anything that rose to the level of them to be treated in that manner, they would tend to side with that person. Vice versa, if one feels that someone is callously mistreating someone that, while flawed, did not really do anything so terrible as to earn/deserve such treatment, one would be hardly inclined to be on their side. Again, speaking in generalities here, but the bottom line is that if you want to bring the viewer to a point where they get behind FL's actions and are not disgusted/repulsed by the evil of hurting a person that didn't deserve it, they need to be brought to the point that they don't care about the victim of her actions, and that's hard to do unless you make them into someone that deserved to be treated that way. Which is not to say that they need to be one dimensional. It can just be as simple as, if they don't show her any loyalty, then they don't deserve any in return -proportionality and reciprocity-. Or it could be making the victim into a repulsive criminal, such as in this drama.

      Delete
    10. > You might have had problems that might or might not have been resolved, but and the relationship might or might not have ended anyway, but by choosing to have an affair, you are the one killing it

      In this analogy, if one's partner had already had an affair, then one wouldn't be "killing it" because "it" would already be dead. No need to abide to a promise that had already been broken -it's null and void-, or to show loyalty to someone unwilling to give it to you in return.

      Delete
    11. Re: symptom vs dying anyway

      It's not that just because the end result is the same (the relationship ends) then the two situations are equivalent. One might get out of a job by resigning, or by punching their boss in the face and getting fired. Not really comparable situations simply because at the end of it you have someone that was not enjoying their job that is now out of it.

      In this case, one might want to not be in a relationship anymore and also not betray and humiliate their partner, unless of course they deserve such treatment (because, for example, they had been philandering scum such as in A Good Lawyer's Wife -it goes without saying that if you are willing to dish it out you also need to be willing to take it-).

      Delete
    12. Of course, there is nuance and "nuance", where one bring up irrelevant facts that have nothing to do with the matter at hand.

      Delete
    13. Again, between A Wife's Credentials and this one, I don't know what to make of the pubilc's hypocrisy when dealing with cases such as Thirty Nine where you've got a FL that never had anything physical with OTL after he got married, but the drama gets accused of normalizing cheating.

      Delete
    14. I suppose the mental contortions people make to reach a conclusions they are determined to reach will never stop to amaze me.

      Delete
    15. > Okay, I was greatly mistaken. In A Wife's Credentials (which I didn't see before) apparently the FL has an affair as well, so I would say that I agree with the assessment that one that enjoyed it wouldn't have an issue with this one.

      > Quoting from review: "Making the female lead’s husband a dick doesn’t really absolve her of the responsibility from walking away from him, so don’t even try.": And this is what confused me in the phrasing: the article made one think that she had just chosen to divorce (which confused me, because that's a perfectly legitimate thing to do and therefore one doesn't understand why she would need to be "absolved" from any responsibility).

      >Related to the usage of the term "walking away" to describe the actions of the wife in a Wife's Credentials

      Okay, to be honest, it's impossible to understand only from reviews of A Wife's Credentials whether the two of them had an actual physical affair before they chose to divorce, or if they simply fell in love with each other and divorced their respective spouses before starting their relationship. Obviously, she has every right to leave her husband (and her lover his wife) if she is no longer in love with him and/or she fell in love with someone else, that's very different from, and does not require, deceiving them and sleeping with a married man (woman) behind both their spouses' back, with no care about not treating their spouses with basic honesty, or the emotional and psychological damage, risking to and ultimately wrecking their spouses' and kids' lives.

      One's opinion regarding all the above is clearly contingent on whether they honestly divorced when they understood they were in love, or deceived their spouses, which would be needlessly cruel and hurtful (to them and their children)a when they could have simply left them (which they ended up doing anyway). Again, one caannot simply decide whether to fall or not to fall in love, but one can control one's actions.

      That said, if it was a betrayal, I cannot really fault them for, as I read in various reviews, making their spouses into scumbags -I mean, they already have enough issues handwaving away the effect on their children of subjecting their parents to such emotional and psychological abuse and betrayal, and essentially wrecking their spouses and children's lives, at least the victims of the betrayal, if indeed it did occur, shouldn't be sympathetic figures, otherwise betraying and humiliating them rather than amicably separating would seem pointlessly cruel: they could have just separated like they ended up doing anyway... it's the pointlessness of basically being willing to hurt their spouses (and children), prioritising their convenience over showing their spouses basic honesty and respect-.

      It's not about whether they should stay married to their current partners or not, it's about treating them with basic respect: if they are not "demonized" it's kind of hard not to make the viewer feel as if they are sort of rooting for someone that is self serving and needlessly cruel.

      Delete
    16. Personally, despite not having seen the drama, I hope that they made them walk away before entering a relationship, because otherwise I would have some issues taking their concern for their children seriously -the same way a wife beating drunk couldn't claim to be a good parent because they never touched the kid and the battered housewife was good at covering up her bruises, it's hard to consider them good parents no matter how well they might otherwise perform in the role, if they were willing to risk wrecking their spouses' and children's lives and heap such emotional and psychological abuse on their spouses, the kids' father/mother, respectively-.

      In order for people not to get that feeling of them as spouses, parents and people, they needed to make their partners into scumbags to make people feel they deserved the treatment, the alternative being to somehow make said spouses into people the viewer was simply indifferet to (difficult, since people tend to root for the victim, not the one mistreating them), or engineer some contirved circumstance (like the arranged marriage in Hymn of Death, where however there were no children in the picture).

      Delete
    17. In Secret Love Affair there were no children in the picture, and this already removes a huge roadblock for the non sociopathic viewer, meaning that they just have to worry about the treatment of the spouse (who can be demonised) and not about the effect of the self serving and self absorbed actions on said children (who are harder to demonise).

      Delete
    18. Anyway, my point regarding A Wife's Credentials and the possibility of people being able to tolerate the cheating aspect, if in A Wife's Credentials they didn't, i.e., sleep together and had an affair before the breakup with their spouses, but simply fell in love and realised they didn't love their partners anymore, and divorced them and decided to be together, are still valid. With the caveat that Secret Love Affair deals with a relationship that started out as a marriage of convenience in exchange for money and power she voluntarily accepted, which was not the case in A Wife's Credentials, the consideration about difference between resigning vs punching your boss in the face and being fired not being equivalent even if they both get you out of a job you don't want remains, with resigning being an amicable split, or at least one that treats the other party with basic respect and honesty (particularly in case of children, both for the effect that the alternative would have on them, and because you won't be able to cut your ex partner completely out of your life, as you will need to see, if they will be involved in any way in the kids' lives).

      Delete
    19. This would be different, of course, if the victim was demonised, i.e. the kid would hardly care for the wife beating drunk being cheated on, or if we were talking about a philandering scumbag that routinely betrayed, hurt and humiliated their mother it's hard to say that they would be all too keep on making her put up with it while he continued destroying her family -here I am thinking something like what was depicted in The Good Wife, for example, where in the kids' place I would be positively pushing my mother to divorce the manipulative scum asap and possibly have an affair on the way out, just to give him a taste of his own medicine ;) Jokes aside, I cannot really fault them for demonising characters they want to see go through terrible betrayal, particularly when it turns out to be useless and easily avoidable, i.e. just divorce -bottom line, if you are willing to have an affair, you are probably at a point where you should divorce -in and of itself it's not a solution to anything-, and besides the fact that it's the 21st century, obviously whatever stigma and mess a divorce might cause it will always be far less than the stigma on an affair and the effect on one's spouse and children of such a betrayal-... it's awfully convenient.-.

      Delete
    20. Overall, Secret Love Affair was not too bad: hubby was criminal scum, there were no children she could hurt with her actions, in other words the only one that could have been hurt would have been a scum that deserved it.

      Delete
    21. The above also applies to

      > Again, between A Wife's Credentials and this one, I don't know what to make of the pubilc's hypocrisy when dealing with cases such as Thirty Nine where you've got a FL that never had anything physical with OTL after he got married, but the drama gets accused of normalizing cheating.

      Meaning that if in A Wife's Credentials she didn't have a physical affair, i.e. sleep with her lover, prior to breaking up with her spouse, but simply learned she loved him and didn't love her husband anymore, and chose to be honest and have a respectful break up, it would be a very different matter than having an affair, the same way being if you want out of a job, resigning and punching the boss in the face and getting fired are two very different routes to take -the side effects of the boss' broken nose being the wrecked lives of one's spouse and children, versus being respectful and honest with one's current spouse, keeping a civil relationship them, and thereby showing the kids that the parents are still civil and honest with each other, and making things easier given that the ex-spouse will be involved in the kids' lives in the future-.

      Delete
    22. None of that, of course, being relevant to Secret Love Affair, since they don't have kids and the husband is a criminal scumbag.

      Delete
  11. On a related note, I found the bit about his developed physique an unnecessary cope. Obviously whether he looks older or has muscles, or appears more young and ephebic, has zero relevance for the question at hand: whether he can be overpowered or not is not relevant, given that the premise is that of a relationship between *consenting* adults. Otherwise we would be talking about lack of consent that has nothing to do with the age gap between consenting adults. Conversely, if we were talking about someone physically precociously developed, but a minor, would their more mature physical appearance have made a difference? Obviously not. The basic assumption is that they are both *consenting adults*, so consent/coercion is off the table.

    Also, obviously there are ways to coerce someone without physically overpowering them, for example with threats (not something that happened in this drama, where he was more than willing). She is rich, he is impoverished, and depends on her for getting out of poverty: he is dependent on her for that, he could lose it all if she decides to tell her husband of the affair or if he discovers it. Is she playing with his future? Obviously she is not stopping this because he might risk ruining his life, on the other hand he is an adult capable of making his own decisions, and he is willing to jeopardize his future by sleeping with his piano teacher's wife, so is it even her place to make this decision for him?

    Then there is the question of emotional maturity. Here I found the fact that he is "street smart" to be partially relevant: life experience and physical age are not always in line. Does that translate into emotional maturity/relationship experience? I would say not necessarily, but I would also question whether it's really a requirement that they would be on the same page there. Sure, one might bring up issues such as whether he has thought if he wants children, etc., or whether he is simply horny and not thinking straight about the long term implications of their relationship versus the risks. Is this serious? How serious? On the other hand, again, are those decisions that she make for him? Is there an age where one has it all figured out? I would say that if so, she certainly hasn't reached it, given that she just learned in the course of this relationship that in her marriage she had made exactly the wrong trade-offs (to recap, they are not having a coniugal crysis, she never loved her husband in the first place and merely married him for money/power).

    Overall, I would say that she learns from him about life just about as much as he learns from her. And, in any case, to me personally this comes down to the fact that the are *consenting adults*. So, on one hand this is merely about the mental side of things, not the physical: if he was buff but below the age of consent, it wouldn't be okay. On the other hand, the basic assumption is that once one is an adult, they are by definition deemed by society to be at an age where they are emotionally mature enough to give consent. And emotionally mature *enough* is really the important element here. It doesn't mean that they should be on the same page and perfectly equal: they might have different concerns, she might be thinking about kids and he might not even know what he wants in that regard, but it's not required that he has it all figured out from the get go and they all have all the answers: indeed, she very clearly hasn't figured out what she wants from her life and marriage herself at the beginning of the drama! In the end, life experience does not always go hand to hand with age, and as you point out, he has gone through some tough experiences and has things to teach her (as well as to learn from here), so this is not an unbalanced relationship in that respect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again, this is not about not having any disparity in the in their life experiences and emotional maturity, and certainly it's not about his muscles (there are other ways to coerce someone than by physically overpowering them, and the assumption is that their encounter is consensual anyway, if it was not then it would be a problem even if they were the same age, conversely, if he was a minor him being precociously physically developed wouldn't matter... by contrast, if he had more of a younger/slender look, would it mean that he could never be in a relationship? I would be obviously unjust and unfair: the point being that he is an adult, not a child, and shouldn't be treated as such) it's about him being old enough that in the eyes of society he is sufficiently emotionally mature to give consent, which, by definition, being past the age of consent, he is. So, this was all a long winded way to say that all that matters is that they are *consenting adults*. Treating them as anything less than that would be awfully patronising.

      Delete
    2. In short, I was okay with them dwelling on the age gap bit, and there are certainly practical considerations to take into account, but as for the societal judgment (in reference to the age gap specifically, not to the affair), I would have been equally as content to see them just ignore them and treat the close minded, ageist pear clutchers with the indifference they deserved.

      Delete
    3. > I would have been equally as content to see them just ignore them and treat the close minded, ageist pear clutchers with the indifference they deserved.

      By this I mean not addressing the age gap at all and treating it as perfectly normal, as in the other drama that was mentioned, where the genders were reversed... actually, this would have been a nice artistic experiment (meta-cinematographic?).

      Delete
    4. One thing that A Good Lawyer's Wife, which had a similar theme of an older married woman cheating with a young man, did that I found particularly realistic, was make the performance of her younger lover rather underwhelming.

      Delete
  12. > She is rich, he is impoverished, and depends on her for getting out of poverty
    An example of economic disparity and also power imbalance (neither of which bothers me, to be honest: again, I like the drama, and most of kdrama out there has the poor girl falling for the rich CEO, that they often time work for).

    > Sure, one might bring up issues such as whether he has thought if he wants children, etc., or whether he is simply horny and not thinking straight about the long term implications of their relationship versus the risks. Is this serious? How serious? On the other hand, again, are those decisions that she make for him?

    "are those decisions that she should make for him?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On first point, to be honest my feelings are highly dependent on whether I like the drama. Let's say that if I think that the relationship is fundamentally healthy/good I am intellectually honest enough not criticize the trope in other dramas, but if I think that the relationship is messed up, the dynamic tends to become relevant and only exacerbates my dislike.

      Delete
    2. On the second point, obviously between the two she is the one that needed to massively reevaluate her life decisions, the point was that she wouldn't have had the right to make silly choices for him either way (I am thinking of silly self sacrificial hogwash such as "sacrificing" her happiness to let him be with his female friend his age because she is "more suitable", which thankfully the drama didn't end up resorting to).

      Delete
    3. Actually, if we exclude the glaring elephant of the room of the cheating, which admittedly invalidates this whole point, in terms of life direction paradoxically he always seemed to "have it together" much more so than she did.

      Delete
    4. Of course, there is the whole matter of whether he would wait for her, but I liked that she didn't pull some self sacrificing hogwash like attempting+managing to push him into the embrace of her young female friend, on account of something absurd like her being "more suitable".

      Delete
  13. Re: infidelity, objectively speaking there is a world of difference between choosing to end a relationship, which is absolutely legitimate, and cheating. Subjectively speaking, for the one being betrayed they are most certainly not the "same thing", but more importantly, objectively and factually speaking they are very different things and it's a non sequitur to simply shrug and say "the relationship had issues". If a relationship was broken and arguments escalated to domestic violence, one would never call it a "symptom, rather than a cause" of the end of the relationship, even if technically speaking the relationship would have ended anyway. Logically speaking the same reasoning holds for the emotional and psychological damage inflicted on the victim of deception and betrayal: both are non sequiturs (of course with the obvious observation that, domestic abuse is criminally relevant and rightly so, and while cheating was unfortunately illegal in the context of this drama, it clearly shouldn't be, and nowadays thankfully isn't).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That say, I really look forward to looking into Tokyo Tower, now that I know of its existence.

      > But there’s still room for the movie’s big flaw to intrude here: in TT, the love almost always felt one-sided. The female lead seemed to be using her paramour for his body, youth, and tireless devotion to her. I really, really don’t want Kim Hee Ae’s character to be similarly unaffected by her student’s passion. That’s the real peril of a grown-up relationship this unequal—not that they might love one another, but that the person holding all the cards might take advantage of their younger, less experienced partner.

      To be honest, this plot line seems even more interesting to me. I don't really think it's fair or logical to impute this to an "unequal grown-up relationship" where she is "holding all the cards, and taking advantage of her younger, less experienced partner"... this has really nothing to do with the age gap: either their expectations are misaligned (i.e. because they didn't communicate or made assumptions without checking with the other person, or read too much into it), in which case she really doesn't owe him some eternal commitment she never promised him simply because they had a physical relationship -it's simply something that he is not entitled to simply by virtue of them having slept together, or she is intentionally deceiving him and leading him on, and that really has nothing to do with the age gap: it could just as well occur between two people of the same age, or it could be him, the younger partner, who was simply interested in sex and chose to lead on the older woman (in the drama, she seemed to be the more insecure one, around the nature of his relationship with his young female friend, for example)... it's simply something wrong in and of itself, irrespective of their ages.

      Again, there is really no reason to suppose that simply by virtue of being older she would be "holding the cards" and be in a superior position or be exploitative, indeed the same thing could occur if they are the same age, or it could be the junior partner that exploits the older one (and if I were to base my opinion on the drama, she was one more insecure in the relationship, between the two, while him, being younger, held power in the relationship, while she worried about not being attractive enough and was concerned about his young female friend)-.

      With reference to Tokyo Tower, if this was simply a matter of them wanting different things, I would be completely okay with the situation, on the basis of her not owing him any sort of long term commitment if she doesn't want to, and him having the chance to back off: it's simply not the case that simply because he is more emotionally invested in the relationship, she should then want the same thing out of the relationship. One is entitled to basic honesty and respect, in other words not to be deceived (if they deserve it, in other words if they reciprocate). One is not entitled to never suffer in a relationship due to miscommunication and their expectations differing from their partners. It's the difference between her cheating on him, or intentionally deceiving him (which would be wrong), and her simply wanting different things (perfectly legitimate).

      Delete
    2. Would be cool also to see if Tokyo Tower the book was translated into english

      Delete
    3. Again, pretty irritating to see people dismiss Thirty Nine for condoning cheating (when FL and her OTL don't do anything physical while he is married to his wife), in light of the fact that something like Secret Love Affair had been around since 2014... shows netizens' massive hypocrisy as well as the reason that should never be consulted or taken into account in terms of deciding what the plot ought to be: these are people that will dismiss an idea based on the cast's visuals (physical appearance) with utter superficiality, before even viewing the drama.

      Delete
    4. > These are people that will dismiss an idea based on the cast's visuals (physical appearance) with utter superficiality, before even viewing the drama.

      Kind of surprised that Secret Love Affair didn't get more negative comment in that regard -I don't mean the cheating aspect, but the age gap one-, one would have expected the always prissy kdrama public, usually willing to discriminate based on age (and generally to obsess about age gaps in any circumstance, the more irrelevant, unimportant and besides the point, the better) without a shred of self awareness of how ridiculous they seem to the outside world, to start concern trolling in earnest.

      Delete
  14. > in other words not to be deceived (if they deserve it, in other words if they reciprocate)

    I guess that I would also count them having cheated on someone else that didn't deserve it (not on each other) as "deserving it" in this context, after all what goes around comes around, karma and all that. Transitive property. Kinda of a circular definition?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A Good Lawyer's Wife korean movie had kind of this plot, older married woman having an affair with a young man: in that case, her husband was routinely cheating on her, therefore I was fully in favor of her giving him a taste of his own medicine, and actually don't even know if I would consider this "cheating" or a "betrayal", since technically speaking, by breaking their commitment, their promise was in my eyes null and void, and she didn't owe him any loyalty he was not willing to reciprocate.

      Delete
    2. > A Good Lawyer's Wife korean movie had kind of this plot, older married woman having an affair with a young man

      I mean an affair where it's not clear that she is invested emotionally (nor him, for that matter, he seemed to me to be mostly just horny, which is probably a more realistic scenario... he was also kind of a disappointment in bed due to his inexperience, which, again, was realistic).

      Delete
    3. I guess that it is also similar in the sense that neither FLs return with their husbands (and that they both feel repulsed by them).

      Delete
    4. Also, in the ending it's hard to say whether her husband is more upset or relieved of seeing her go (in Secret Love Affair, by contrast, there is little doubt).

      Delete
  15. Re: symptom vs dying anyway

    It's not that just because the end result is the same (the relationship ends) then the two situations are equivalent. One might get out of a job by resigning, or by punching their boss in the face and getting fired. Not really comparable situations simply because at the end of it you have someone that was not enjoying their job that is now out of it.

    In this case, one might want to not be in a relationship anymore and also not betray and humiliate their partner, unless of course they deserve such treatment (because, for example, they had been philandering scum such as in A Good Lawyer's Wife -it goes without saying that if you are willing to dish it out you also need to be willing to take it-).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that every character should be nuanced, I will chose to interpret this as "don't go over the top to make them unrealistically bad". But, fundamentally, if one is to get behind the FL's adultery, given that anyone that is not a sociopath is not too keen to condone cheating, if nothing else out of the simple golden rule, "don't do to others what you wouldn't want the to do to you", then the victim that is being subjected to the deception and emotional and psychological abuse by her actions ought to be made into someone that "deserves it", which is what this drama does. In other words, if they are not going to be treated with a shred of loyalty, honesty and respect, and we need to stand on the side of the one treating them that way, obviously they should be made into someone that we feel deserve to be treated that way, otherwise we would take the part of the victim -again, unless one is a psycho that enjoys inflicting pain on people that do not deserve it, one tends to side with the person being mistreated-. I don't think that making a nuanced character and *also* making them someone that deserved such treatment is in opposition: for example, in the book The Magicians the ML sleeps with his girlfriend's friend, and she has an affair in retaliation: I was fully on his girlfriend's side, because I felt that she had no obligation to show him any loyalty he is not willing to give her.

      Delete
    2. You might have had problems that might or might not have been resolved, but it's not about whether or not the relationship would have ended anyway. Can one really make this claim for certain? Or is this a self serving ad-hoc rationalization? One can make guesses, but this is unverifiable, humans are not good at predicting the future, particularly about something as messy as relationship, as evidenced by the fact that they chose to marry not predicting that it would end in disaster... of course, one might decide they don't want to try to tackle the problems and go through counseling, because they don't think that the relationship is worth saving.

      Delete
    3. That said, obviously there are relationships that cannot (or shouldn't) be saved due to people having different values and wanting different things, and not being willing to meet in the middle, or there could simply be the case where the relationship is not worth saving (personally, I am very much in favor of divorce and don't see the point of keeping up a relationship where you are going to suffer for the sake of it, i.e. I don't see the maintaining the relationship at all costs, simply for the sake of mantainig the relationship, as and end in itself).

      Delete
    4. You might have had problems that might or might not have been resolved, but and the relationship might or might not have ended anyway, but by choosing to have an affair, you are the one killing it: it's not about what might or might not have happened, it's about what did happen, and your part in it. This line of reasoning reminds me of someone complaining about corruption while taking bribes, and saying that it's all the same because if they didn't someone else would... okay, but it's you who did, not someone else, it's still something that as an adult with agency you are morally responsible for, again, it's not about what might or might not have happened, it's about what did happen, and your part in it.

      To make an analogy, if we were talking about a very sick patient, and someone decided to kill them, it would still be murder, and the cause of death would still be homicide (obviously in this parallel we are not talking about euthanasia since there is no consent of the victim). One can make the sick patient into a terminal one, and still, if they were killed without their consent it would be murder, and the cause of death would still be homicide, not the illness. Of course, the case of the "terminal patient" is not really "mappable", because with relationships people don't know what the future will hold and how people will change, and there is always the chance to tackle one's problems and seek counseling, whereas with terminal illnesses, barring the illness going into remission spontaneously or a new cure being discovered the conclusion is pretty much foregone.

      In this analogy, if one's partner had already had an affair, then one wouldn't be "killing it" because "it" would already be dead. No need to abide to a promise that had already been broken -it's null and void-, or to show loyalty to someone unwilling to give it to you in return.

      This does not mean having to go over the top with the characterization of said partner, one could make them nuanced but still deserving of such treatment -if one wants to dish it out, they have to be prepared to take it-: for example, in the book The Magicians the ML sleeps with his girlfriend's friend, and she has an affair in retaliation: I was fully on his girlfriend's side, because I felt that she had no obligation to show him any loyalty he is not willing to give her. Then again, there is nuance and there is "nuance", where people overcomplicate the situation and muddy the waters to obfuscate the key points by bringing up possibly true but irrelevant facts.

      Delete
  16. I think that making the villain into a scumbag was pretty much a requirement to get people to back the female lead. It's not about not being nuanced, or even about the fact that you have to have FL be perfect, it's about the fact that unless one is a complete sociopath, if they feel that someone is being wronged unjustly and that, while they are not perfect, they didn't really do anything that rose to the level of them to be treated in that manner, they would tend to side with that person. Vice versa, if one feels that someone is callously mistreating someone that, while flawed, did not really do anything so terrible as to earn/deserve such treatment, one would be hardly inclined to be on their side. Again, speaking in generalities here, but the bottom line is that if you want to bring the viewer to a point where they get behind FL's actions and are not disgusted/repulsed by the evil of hurting a person that didn't deserve it, they need to be brought to the point that they don't care about the victim of her actions, and that's hard to do unless you make them into someone that deserved to be treated that way. Which is not to say that they need to be one dimensional. It can just be as simple as, if they don't show her any loyalty, then they don't deserve any in return -proportionality and reciprocity-. Or it could be making the victim into a repulsive criminal, such as in this drama.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I mean, maybe not a "requirement", but it certainly makes things easier. Fundamentally, people have not to care that much about the character being victimized, so that they will not side with them over the main character, otherwise they will feel experience cognitive dissonance and feel emotionally conflicted about the show making them support the action of someone callously deceiving, emotionally and psychologically abusing someone that does not deserve it and that the viewer empathizes with, which would be counterproductive. So, the viewer needs to either think they deserve it and kind of enjoy the come-uppance, or be indifferent to/not care about the fate of the victim. The former is obviously easier to accomplish since people naturally side with people being treated unfairly (such as being mistreated if they feel they didn't do anything bad enough to warrant/deserve it, particularly if it was not necessary, i.e. if the situation could have been resolved in another way... this, again, does not require a monster, for example in the book The Magicians the ML sleeps with his girlfriend's friend, and she has an affair in retaliation: I was fully on his girlfriend's side, because I felt that she had no obligation to show him any loyalty he is not willing to give her).

      Delete
    2. In the end, I guess it's about striking a fine balance, given people's natural tendencies to side with the victim rather than with the one mistreating them -unless they are psychopaths that think the weak deserve to be hurt because of their weakness-. This is the reason one must remove empathy for the victim, in the sense of not making people side with them or put themselves in their place, if they want people to "root" for the main character mistreating them.

      Delete
    3. I also very much prefer this not being done in a cynical manner, for example by pretending that this behavior is "normal" in the sense that one doesn't have the right to expect any better. Clearly, if that was the case, nobody would have a relationship with anyone -nobody enters a relationship expecting betrayal, basic honesty is really a fundamental assumption and a non negotiable-. That really *is* a form of normalization of cheating, but thankfully it's not what this fic goes for: the fic, for all the issues that it deals with, is not cynical, and FL, just as much as she acknowledges her husband to be criminal scum, also acknowledges she is as well and ends up dealing with the consequences of her crimes and becoming a better person.

      Delete
    4. Sure, one could say she was fully aware of the tradeoff and she is spitting in the plate where she is eating, but the point is that by the end of the drama, she is no longer doing that, she understands that she cannot have it both ways, and that her relationship with ML is incompatible with her metaphorically continuing to eat at the plate and reaping the benefits -keeping the foot on both sides, wanting to have the cake and eat it too-. Not sure if "better person" quite captures what I am getting at, maybe it's better to say "more aligned with her values", or better yet, she discovers that what she thought was a value, money and power, was really not as much of a value to her anymore.

      Delete
  17. Re: symptom vs dying anyway

    It's not that just because the end result is the same (the relationship ends) then the two situations are equivalent. One might get out of a job by resigning, or by punching their boss in the face and getting fired. Not really comparable situations simply because at the end of it you have someone that was not enjoying their job that is now out of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In this case, one might want to not be in a relationship anymore and also not betray and humiliate their partner, unless of course they deserve such treatment (because, for example, they had been philandering scum such as in A Good Lawyer's Wife -it goes without saying that if you are willing to dish it out you also need to be willing to take it-).

      Delete
    2. Of course, it's nice to see characters own up to their actions and admit that they were self serving in putting their wishes above showing their partner basic honesty, loyalty and respect -in other words, treating them with basic human decency-. In the case of this drama, specifically, it was because she didn't think her husband deserved any, being a criminal scumbag she had married for money and power.

      Delete
    3. I also liked the fact that she acknowledged she was someone that entered such a relationship willingly and essentially also a scumbag criminal, and made amend with it in the end by coming clean.

      Delete
    4. One thing I also appreciate is coherence, i.e. a character being consistent in their treatment, not jumping from zero guilt, not caring about their actions, to suddenly being very caring/concerned and scared about the future of the relationship/guilty/apologetic when they are exposed (not that the apology wouldn't be warranted, in case they realized they didn't deserve to be treated that way, but I need to have a reason why there wasn't any of that before, which could be just as simple as "I took them for granted" or "I didn't realize they didn't deserve this", but if they think they are deceiving and hurting good people, it's hard to believe that they have a conscience -a measure of which is the way one behaves when people are not looking- if they only changed tune when discovered and were completely unbothered beforehand -or not bothered enough not to deceived and humiliate their partners-. In the case of this drama, there is none of that: FL thinks of her husband as scum and being discovered does not alter that fact.

      Delete
    5. If other words, if a scum is scum, at least I appreciate them admitting to being scum (though it does not make them any less scummy).

      Delete
    6. Certainly preferable than giving everyone sob stories. Note that this is not the case as giving people a motive for their actions, which is a fundamental part of having a coherent plot and coherent characters. In this drama, I didn't think that the FL had a sob story, there was no self pithy and self indulgence, there was someone that admits to having made certain choices voluntarily and does not try to whitewash them.

      Delete
    7. A big part of this is her husband being criminal scum unworthy of consideration, otherwise her going through all this affair before getting a divorce would be a much worse look -like wanting to have her foot in both shoes at the same time, having her lover and having the benefits of money and power from her marriage, which she ultimately gives up, realizing they are not worth it-.

      Delete
    8. You feel okay with her husband being deceived, betrayed and used in such a manner because it's essentially "scamming a scammer", a sort of Dexter rule where he was criminal scum and doing it to him sort of doesn't count -even if the one doing it to him is criminal scum as well (albeit apparently redeemable criminal scum)-. It does not mean making him one dimensional, but it's obviously impossible to have the viewer side with the victim and the one mistreating them at the same time, you have to kind of chose one, and if it's not the victim, then probably it's easier to make people indifferent to what happens to them (or even gleeful, depending on how far you take things) if they are depicted as being bad enough to deserve it (or at least at having treated the one doing it to them in a similar manner, making turnabout fair play), after all most people naturally tend to side with the undeserving victim (meaning by this not that they are perfect, but that they are not bad enough to warrant such treatment) rather than the one unfairly (i.e. because they didn't do anything bad enough to deserve such treatment) mistreating them. Bottom line is, it's necessary for the viewer to be indifferent to the victim or even rejoicing at their fate, if the premise is that they are being made to support those doing it to them.

      Delete
    9. Again, "deserving it" might not mean making them into a monster, but it could also mean a situation where they are not obliged to show any honesty, loyalty and consideration to people that didn't give it to them, such as cheating on a philandering husband as in the Korean movie A Good Lawyer's Wife -turnabout is fair play-.

      Delete
    10. I guess that there is one caveat to this rule of having to make the viewer indifferent (or gleeful) to the victim's fate, and making them someone that deserved to be treated that way is a quick way to achieve "not putting themselves in the victim's shoes", which is situations where there is no alternative, such as the arranged marriage in Hymn of Death. There, it's not as if you don't have compassion for the wife.

      Delete
  18. Fundamentally, people have not to care that much about the character being victimized, so that they will not side with them over the main character, otherwise they will feel experience cognitive dissonance and feel emotionally conflicted about the show making them support the action of someone callously deceiving, emotionally and psychologically abusing someone that does not deserve it and that the viewer empathizes with, which would be counterproductive. So, the viewer needs to either think they deserve it and kind of enjoy the come-uppance, or be indifferent to/not care about the fate of the victim. The former is obviously easier to accomplish since people naturally side with people being treated unfairly (such as being mistreated if they feel they didn't do anything bad enough to warrant/deserve it, particularly if it was not necessary, i.e. if the situation could have been resolved in another way... this, again, does not require a monster, for example in the book The Magicians the ML sleeps with his girlfriend's friend, and she has an affair in retaliation: I was fully on his girlfriend's side, because I felt that she had no obligation to show him any loyalty he is not willing to give her).

    I guess that there is one caveat to this rule of having to make the viewer indifferent (or gleeful) to the victim's fate, and making them someone that deserved to be treated that way is a quick way to achieve "not putting themselves in the victim's shoes", which is situations where there is no alternative, such as the arranged marriage in Hymn of Death. There, it's not as if you don't have compassion for the wife.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By this I mean that in Hymn of Death divorce was not an option (whereas in Secret Love Affair it is, and therefore the FL's husband needs to be a scumbag to make the viewer side with her despite her choosing to deceive, betray and humiliate him instead of having of respectfully, if not amicabli, split up.

      Delete
    2. Bottom line, the issue is that simply being unhappy does not have anything to do with it and is not an excuse, if the option of being honest with your current partner exist and you could simply part amicably, or at least respectfully, and you chose instead to betray and humiliate them (and maybe splitting not so amicably anyway).

      If this is not the case, the one doing the cheating ends up looking self absorbed, self serving, cruel and nasty and unless one chooses to selectively ignore stuff, engage in copious amounts of excuse making to sweep things under the rug, and is either delusional or a sociopath (or both), it's not really possible to side with them.

      Delete
    3. Where "heel" maybe it's the wrong term (antagonist/rulebreaker in wrestling). What I mean is someone that deserves what they got, which does not necessarily mean someone one dimensional or a caricature: the cheating guy in Fight For My Way is someone that I would have very much liked see get cheated on by his girlfriend before she broke up with him and never got back with him again (which is unfortunately not what happened). Doesn't have to be a monster, just someone that you think deserves it, an a*****e where and when it counts.

      Delete
    4. > an a*****e where and when it counts.
      Meaning, not merely someone flawed, but someone that you think deserves it (to me FFMW cheater guy was one such person) or wouldn't mind seeing it happen to... the question is "does he deserve to be treated in this way" (more rarely, the question is "do you care about seeing them treated this way", it's harder to answer "no" because usually people side with the person being mistreated, so the character really ought to be as interesting as dry paint for one not to care about what happens to them).

      Delete
    5. Basically, there either needs to be a reason the two lovers have to be together and they cannot split up, or the viewer needs to be made not to care that they are needlessly hurting their partners because of their convenience, when they had the option to treat them honestly and part ways respectfully before pursuing the new relationship: given that choosing to have an affair and lie to your partner's face every day is very deliberate and impactful decision, by the same token they could have just chosen to leave their current partner.

      Delete
    6. To do it in any other way would mean to rely on the portion of viewer that is either delusional or sociopathic (or both) to support the show. Understandable why they wouldn't do it.

      Delete
    7. I mean, there are issues where it's difficult to determine right or wrong, and then there is choosing to deceive and humiliate your partner when you have the option to simply break up with them and part amicably, or at least respectfully. It's not rocket science, it's basic golden rule stuff: don't do to other people what you wouldn't want them to do to you. Anyone, including the ones doing the cheating, know this perfectly well. So for the viewer not to care, it's down to either not caring about their victim's plight, or positively enjoying it. And barring "turnabout is fair play", making them into a scumbag is an easy option.

      Delete
    8. > And barring "turnabout is fair play", making them into a scumbag is an easy option.

      Well, I guess that to be precise, the first group goes into the second one: if he cheated on you he is a scumbag in the exact same manner that would warrant not giving betraying them any consideration: after all, they were unwilling to extend you the same courtesy, so there is no reason they should be entitled to have you hold up your part of a deal they have already broken.

      Delete
    9. Bottom line, the default position of the non sociopath portion of the population is that they don't condone cheating because they wouldn't like being betrayed themselves, and they can extend to others the same consideration in what is essentially basic golden rule, morality 101. So getting them to a place where they do not care, and the cheater simply being unhappy in general or in the relationship in particular is simply not enough if there is the possibility of breaking things off with their current partner, because then it's not about their unhappiness, but about them about deciding that honesty in the relationship is secondary to their convenience: they could be honest and split amicably, or they could do whatever they want because they don't care enough about not betraying, hurting and humiliating their partner to avoid doing it.

      Delete
    10. This is of course not an issue in this drama, because it's established from the beginning that FL considers her husband a repulsive scumbag that doesn't deserve any consideration, and that she married only for money and power.

      Delete
    11. She is of course hardly any better in the beginning, but arguably she is by the end.

      Delete
    12. Referring here to her going to jail for the criminal activity she was involved in, if I recall correctly (otherwise, of course, the comment can be dismissed).

      Delete
    13. All in all, I must say that the absence of children, *if* there had been cheating in A Wife's Credentials, and depending on how bad they made her and her lover's partners (were their partners philanderers, etc.?), might actually make this easier to deal with in Secret Love Affair than in A Wife's credentials, because that's a big concern in considering how one's self serving actions might impact other people. Of course, if their partner had been scum (i.e. they had cheated on them like in A Good Lawyer's Wife or The Good Wife), as the kid I would want to be the first to know and would be the first one to suggest they divorce them and had an affair on their way out to repay them with the same coin -if you are willing to dish it out, you need to be willing to take it, and what goes around comes around-.

      Delete
  19. > Okay, I was greatly mistaken. In A Wife's Credentials (which I didn't see before) apparently the FL has an affair as well, so I would say that I agree with the assessment that one that enjoyed it wouldn't have an issue with this one.

    > Quoting from review: "Making the female lead’s husband a dick doesn’t really absolve her of the responsibility from walking away from him, so don’t even try.": And this is what confused me in the phrasing: the article made one think that she had just chosen to divorce (which confused me, because that's a perfectly legitimate thing to do and therefore one doesn't understand why she would need to be "absolved" from any responsibility).

    >Related to the usage of the term "walking away" to describe the actions of the wife in a Wife's Credentials

    Okay, to be honest, it's impossible to understand only from reviews of A Wife's Credentials whether the two of them had an actual physical affair before they chose to divorce, or if they simply fell in love with each other and divorced their respective spouses before starting their relationship. Obviously, she has every right to leave her husband (and her lover his wife) if she is no longer in love with him and/or she fell in love with someone else, that's very different from, and does not require, deceiving them and sleeping with a married man (woman) behind both their spouses' back, with no care about not treating their spouses with basic honesty, or the emotional and psychological damage, risking to and ultimately wrecking their spouses' and kids' lives.

    One's opinion regarding all the above is clearly contingent on whether they honestly divorced when they understood they were in love, or deceived their spouses, which would be needlessly cruel and hurtful (to them and their children)a when they could have simply left them (which they ended up doing anyway). Again, one caannot simply decide whether to fall or not to fall in love, but one can control one's actions.

    That said, if it was a betrayal, I cannot really fault them for, as I read in various reviews, making their spouses into scumbags -I mean, they already have enough issues handwaving away the effect on their children of subjecting their parents to such emotional and psychological abuse and betrayal, and essentially wrecking their spouses and children's lives, at least the victims of the betrayal, if indeed it did occur, shouldn't be sympathetic figures, otherwise betraying and humiliating them rather than amicably separating would seem pointlessly cruel: they could have just separated like they ended up doing anyway... it's the pointlessness of basically being willing to hurt their spouses (and children), prioritising their convenience over showing their spouses basic honesty and respect-.

    It's not about whether they should stay married to their current partners or not, it's about treating them with basic respect: if they are not "demonized" it's kind of hard not to make the viewer feel as if they are sort of rooting for someone that is self serving and needlessly cruel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Personally, despite not having seen the drama, I hope that they made them walk away before entering a relationship, because otherwise I would have some issues taking their concern for their children seriously -the same way a wife beating drunk couldn't claim to be a good parent because they never touched the kid and the battered housewife was good at covering up her bruises, it's hard to consider them good parents no matter how well they might otherwise perform in the role, if they were willing to risk wrecking their spouses' and children's lives and heap such emotional and psychological abuse on their spouses, the kids' father/mother, respectively-.

      In order for people not to get that feeling of them as spouses, parents and people, they needed to make their partners into scumbags to make people feel they deserved the treatment, the alternative being to somehow make said spouses into people the viewer was simply indifferent to (difficult, since people tend to root for the victim, not the one mistreating them), or engineer some contrived circumstance (like the arranged marriage in Hymn of Death, where however there were no children in the picture).

      Delete
    2. In Secret Love Affair there were no children in the picture, and this already removes a huge roadblock for the non sociopathic viewer, meaning that they just have to worry about the treatment of the spouse (who can be demonised) and not about the effect of the self serving and self absorbed actions on said children (who are harder to demonise).

      Delete
    3. Anyway, my point regarding A Wife's Credentials and the possibility of people being able to tolerate the cheating aspect, if in A Wife's Credentials they didn't, i.e., sleep together and had an affair before the breakup with their spouses, but simply fell in love and realised they didn't love their partners anymore, and divorced them and decided to be together, are still valid. With the caveat that Secret Love Affair deals with a relationship that started out as a marriage of convenience in exchange for money and power she voluntarily accepted, which was not the case in A Wife's Credentials, the consideration about difference between resigning vs punching your boss in the face and being fired not being equivalent even if they both get you out of a job you don't want remains, with resigning being an amicable split, or at least one that treats the other party with basic respect and honesty (particularly in case of children, both for the effect that the alternative would have on them, and because you won't be able to cut your ex partner completely out of your life, as you will need to see, if they will be involved in any way in the kids' lives).

      Delete
    4. This would be different, of course, if the victim was demonised, i.e. the kid would hardly care for the wife beating drunk being cheated on, or if we were talking about a philandering scumbag that routinely betrayed, hurt and humiliated their mother it's hard to say that they would be all too keep on making her put up with it while he continued destroying her family -here I am thinking something like what was depicted in The Good Wife, for example, where in the kids' place I would be positively pushing my mother to divorce the manipulative scum asap and possibly have an affair on the way out, just to give him a taste of his own medicine ;) Jokes aside, I cannot really fault them for demonising characters they want to see go through terrible betrayal, particularly when it turns out to be useless and easily avoidable, i.e. just divorce -bottom line, if you are willing to have an affair, you are probably at a point where you should divorce -in and of itself it's not a solution to anything-, and besides the fact that it's the 21st century, obviously whatever stigma and mess a divorce might cause it will always be far less than the stigma on an affair and the effect on one's spouse and children of such a betrayal-... it's awfully convenient.-.

      Delete
    5. The above also applies to

      > Again, between A Wife's Credentials and this one, I don't know what to make of the pubilc's hypocrisy when dealing with cases such as Thirty Nine where you've got a FL that never had anything physical with OTL after he got married, but the drama gets accused of normalizing cheating.

      Meaning that if in A Wife's Credentials she didn't have a physical affair, i.e. sleep with her lover, prior to breaking up with her spouse, but simply learned she loved him and didn't love her husband anymore, and chose to be honest and have a respectful break up, it would be a very different matter than having an affair, the same way being if you want out of a job, resigning and punching the boss in the face and getting fired are two very different routes to take -the side effects of the boss' broken nose being the wrecked lives of one's spouse and children, versus being respectful and honest with one's current spouse, keeping a civil relationship them, and thereby showing the kids that the parents are still civil and honest with each other, and making things easier given that the ex-spouse will be involved in the kids' lives in the future-.

      Delete
    6. One aspect I really liked was the music... there are awfully few music based dramas, I can thing of Do You Like Brahams as the other example of a truly good kdrama.

      Delete
    7. In terms of demonizing the spouse, one thing that went counter that was the kid wanting to stay with his father in A Wife's Credentials. He is made out to be a complete scumbag, but the kid stays with him. Pick one.

      Delete
    8. I mean, not that I am complaining about demonizing him, if the FL cheated (which I don't know if she did): the alternative would be to have a FL causing such emotional and psychological abuse, wrecking not only her family but her lover's family's lives, meaning by this their respective partners', but also their children' lives, because of her convenience, in an entirely self serving decision, and the only way to square such self cenderedness with her supposed care for her child is to make her husband a scumbag that deserved such treatment (again, assuming that she had a physical affair before breaking up with him), otherwise, if it was just a relationship she didn't want to be in anymore and didn't want to try to solve the problems they had, she could have chosen to part amicably... sure, she could have done this even if her husband was a scumbag, if if she did not, then the viewer needs to feel indifference (if not glee) at his fate, and for that making him a scumbag is a no brainer (again, this does not mean making them one dimensional... I would have been very happy to see the cheater in Fight For My Way take a lover in response to her boyfriend's betrayal).

      Delete
    9. All in all, nothing of the above is relevant to Secret Love Affair, since there are no children, but just a scumbag of a husband.

      Delete
    10. Again, there are exceptions such as Hymn of Death, where the betrayed wife was not demonized and it works okay due to the arranged marriage and lack of alternatives such as a divorce. In Secret Love Affair this is not really the case, since she enters the relationship voluntarily and evidently getting a divorce is possible: to "sell" her not doing it and choosing to have an affair instead necessarily requires making her husband a scumbag we don't feel sympathy for.

      Delete
    11. Bottom line, with scummy husband there is less inner conflict about siding/rooting for the wife here.

      Delete
    12. It's a bit like the Dexter rule.

      Delete
    13. Meaning that as long as bad things happen to someone you think of as a criminal scumbag, you don't mind it or even enjoy it.

      Delete
    14. Basically, it gives one moral, or maybe more accurately emotional, license to enjoy the mistreatment without compromising one's self image, when one would otherwise object to it, particularly if they were on the receiving end, which is the very reason they cannot be made to empathize with the victim, as it would obviously be incompatible with siding with the one mistreating them. Now, if the victim is identified as scum deserving it, it's a different situation, because people understand the concept of "what goes around turns around", and unless they were cheating on their partner in real life and therefore didn't have any underlying issue around being dishonest and disloyal to one's partner, they would not feel threatened about cheating being normalized if they saw it happen to someone that had cheated themselves, or to a scumbag who they cannot empathize with at all (harder to do it with a character that they are completely indifferent to, but that objectively they cannot consider a scumbag, since the default is to side with the victim and not the one mistreating them).

      Delete
    15. Now, let's be honest, however: if I think that two characters are hot together AND I don't really care for the one that gets cheated on, I wouldn't feel repulsed. But I am unlikely to try to bs my way around this by pretending that everything is fine and peachy and lying to myself about the nature of what is going or, or what it says about the people involved.

      Delete
    16. I guess that the technical term for this would be "guilty pleasure".

      Delete
    17. The point being that as soon as one can sympathize with the victim it doesn't really work. And in that respect, I am pretty fair, and "they had cheated on them first" is more than sufficient to make them deserving of the treatment: if you break the promise, what the other party does is fair game.

      Delete
    18. Actually, probably in the case of doing this to a cheater, I wouldn't even consider it a betrayal or cheating, as I would assume that one has no obligation to abide by a vow that the other party had already broken. There I don't feel there is any moral conflict at all: I think that it becomes fair game.

      Delete
  20. Overall, Secret Love Affair was not too bad: hubby was criminal scum, there were no children she could hurt with her actions, in other words the only one that could have been hurt would have been a scum that deserved it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quite frankly, unless divorce is impossible, such as in Hymn of Death, this is kind of inescapable, given that otherwise one would have to cope with the fact that the cheating partner deliberately chose to cruelly deceive and humiliate their partner rather than respectfully, if not amicably, break tihngs off.

      Delete
    2. break things off -> I meant break up, divorce

      Delete
    3. Bottom line, the issue is that simply being unhappy does not have anything to do with it and is not an excuse, if the option of being honest with your current partner exist and you could simply part amicably, or at least respectfully, and you chose instead to betray and humiliate them (and maybe splitting not so amicably anyway).

      Delete
    4. If this is not the case, the one doing the cheating ends up looking self absorbed, self serving, cruel and nasty and unless one chooses to selectively ignore stuff, engage in copious amounts of excuse making to sweep things under the rug, and is either delusional or a sociopath (or both), it's not really possible to side with them.

      Delete
  21. Now, let's be honest, however: if I think that two characters are hot together AND I don't really care for the one that gets cheated on, I wouldn't feel repulsed. But I am unlikely to try to bs my way around this by pretending that everything is fine and peachy and lying to myself about the nature of what is going or, or what it says about the people involved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A "guilty pleasure", so to say. But I don't pretend that it's rational.

      Delete
    2. Does't really work if I care about the character being unfairly mistreated, however.

      Delete
    3. I guess that this could be one of those things that turns out to be pretty polarizing, because which character clicks is a bit up in the air and depends on the person.

      Delete
    4. Secret Love Affair doesn't have that problem because husband is criminal scum that one naturally dislikes.

      Delete
  22. I liked the show, myself.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Didn't really feel the need to belabor the point with the age gap. Two adults means "age appropriate" to me, she could be sixty years his senior for all I care, and for all anyone with half a brain cell should care.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Honestly, one of the most idiotic things to be prissy or sanctimonious about, when it literally doesn't hurt anyone. The age gap, I mean, now the infidelity is another matter.

      I also don't buy her being more experienced, etc. People get hurt in relationship regardless of age. People can be manipulative, but usually are not, and, again, it doesn't have to do with one's age, but with one's personality, and then the issue is the manipulation, not the age difference.

      Delete
  24. Glad I found this pearl.

    ReplyDelete