I've made a discussion post recently but thought it might be worth sharing here since I think the Mr. Plankton page may deserve more varied perspectives regarding the issue of Stockholm Syndrome or maladaptive behaviours in general.
Over the past year or so, I've seen a real shift in how we critique shows. Notably, "Bad" Character = Bad Show, "Good" Character = Good Show. I was wondering, when did how morally upstanding a character is become the barometer for good storytelling/writing in kdramas?
I’ve seen this critique several times and find it kinda simplistic, as it doesn't leave room for complex or flawed characters. The critiques in question aren’t necessarily that the characters are written poorly/badly, it’s that the characters by nature are not “good”. What particular bearing does a character’s "good" or "bad" nature have on the quality and execution of a show?
I think part of the issue lies in conflating the depiction of certain behaviours or dynamics with the endorsement of them. Showing complex or controversial dynamics in a drama (like what some interpret as Stockholm Syndrome—whether an accurate or inaccurate assertion), doesn’t equate to the creator endorsing or romanticising it. Fiction often explores uncomfortable realities to provoke thought or highlight certain issues. The mere depiction of toxic or maladaptive behaviour in a drama is not an immediate endorsement or encouragement. It’s just that... a depiction. These shows act like a looking glass into real life.
Nuanced storytelling often portrays flawed and complicated relationships and characters. I personally love fluffy and swoon-worthy kdramas. That's what initially drew me into these shows. However, I can understand that not every fictional relationship is meant to serve as a healthy model. Sometimes, they simply reflect the messiness of life. I guess the challenge is then for us as viewers to critically engage. If your takeaway is that there was an element of Stockholm Syndrome, then it may be worth asking if there is a wider social commentary here? what's the broader context? There were many beautiful and somewhat sobering messages in Mr. Plankton to be simply dismissed.
This trend toward a binary view of storytelling—where these poor behaviours automatically condemn the work itself—snuffs out any sort of nuance and artistic expression. This is more of a personal opinion, but I believe storytelling actually thrives in the grey areas of human behaviour, as opposed to predictability.
A few weeks ago, I finished Gangnam B-side (2024). It depicted a lot of violence and even sex trafficking, but my takeaway wasn't the promotion of violence. Rather, I reflected on the industry they were trying to shed a light on and thought about what they may want me to take away. Similarly, I didn’t finish Vincenzo thinking I should join the mafia or Squid Game believing it was advocating for death games.
That said, I can acknowledge that some watchers may find the depiction of such behaviour uncomfortable, which is valid. However, that discomfort can coexist with the value of exploring difficult themes in fiction, when it's done thoughtfully and responsibly, not just for the sake of a shock factor. To those who made it to the end, I hope that was somewhat coherent and helped provide more balance to the discussions I've seen on this page. Visual media can be so fun when we open our minds and look beyond the surface.
