Comics Collection Melissa N. Collection [2025-02-19] [Melissa N.]

[Thalantyr]

Lying to Nikos and throwing Marina under the bus. Even believing their lives are in danger, this is cruel and the fact that Andrew's instinct is to go down this kind of lie doesn't give me positive impressions of the guy.

According to Aphrodite (who I still believe is just Andrew's subconscious), what Andrew told Nikos wasn't a lie. It's what he really believes, deep down:


She's clearly not talking about the method character here, because "Elena" was never married to Marina, and thus could not have been forced into an unhappy marriage with her. Aphrodite (Andrew's subconscious) believes that he was never happy with Marina and has now found true love with Nikos.

I'm not sure if this supports the "Andrew is an asshole" argument or not... but I'm leaning toward yes. Or at the very least, it makes me feel even more sorry for Marina, who, according to the evidence we've been shown thus far, seemed to really love Andrew.

 

[rebirth095]

According to Aphrodite (who I still believe is just Andrew's subconscious), what Andrew told Nikos wasn't a lie. It's what he really believes, deep down:
View attachment 4565778

She's clearly not talking about the method character here, because "Elena" was never married to Marina, and thus could not have been forced into an unhappy marriage with Marina. Aphrodite (Andrew's subconscious) believes that he was never happy with Marina and has now found true love with Nikos.

I'm not sure if this supports the "Andrew is an asshole" argument or not... but I'm leaning toward yes. Or at the very least, it makes me feel even more sorry for Marina, who, according to the evidence we've been shown thus far, seemed to really love Andrew.

I think I've talked about this before, but I think both "dream sequences" need to be taken together. I don't think Aphrodite is necessarily his subconscious/"true thoughts". Because in the next sequence, Elena embraces being with Nikos and ends up being chastised and punished for it by Aphrodite. As such, I think of Aphrodite as more of the sounding board. Or the mirror that Andrew is examining trying to make sense of the reflection. Because of his broken mind, the mirror is cracked, so the image is unclear and has poor continuity. Trying to mend those cracks gives us a clearer image. As such, I don't necessarily take what Aphrodite says as gospel, but rather disjointed pieces trying to fit back together.

I do think what's true is that Andrew felt trapped into the marriage. At best, my guess is that it's due to feeling guilt and not wanting to break up with Marina after screwing her over like this. That said, a less positive interpretation could be that he's trapped in this marriage because he's broke, but Marina has family money. Clearly, Nikos is rich. So he married Marina for her money and feels trapped because of it.

I'll also note, this dream sequence is AFTER Andrew lies:



Now, maybe he's already developed feelings for Nikos by this point, but we basically have no scenes that really show that. Really, Nikos just seems to crush on Elena immediately, Andrew sighs, lies, and then loses his memory and gets "method locked". Generally, I'm not convinced Andrew fell in love with Nikos. The relationship just hasn't been convincing. Or more disconcertingly, if Andrew really did fall in love with Nikos this quickly, it feels like falling in love with Nikos' fortune, rather than the man.

 

[LadyBoyJay]

I get both pints of view regarding Marina and Elena. If what Marina is saying is true, then she is justified. Andrew never really disputes much of what she says, but we never really get a taste of his bad behavior that gets us to say, "Andrew you're a turd". Maybe those dream sequences were supposed to help us understand him, but they just seemed confused to me.

The conflicting viewpoints are either a good thing or a bad thing. It depends on what Melissa's intent is. If she wants us to have an emotional disconnect between what we see and what we are told, then she is doing a great job of keeping us suspicious of everything. If she did intend for us to be taking in everything Marina says as narrative truth, then I think too much of the story has been taking place offscreen. We were just told via Marina that Andrew/Elena is a selfish liar who can't maintain relationships with others. Visually, I don't think we've seen any of that behavior. Everything said by Marina, might be true, but it's hard to feel like it is without seeing any of it. It's also hard to accept that Marina is considerate, forgiving, honest, selfless, and maintains great relationships with others, because that's not how her character feels based on what we've seen visually, not counting the offscreen writing. In summary, I'm less worried about whether Marina is good or bad, and I'm more worried about whether Melissa meant for her character to be ambiguous or not, because that has affected my perception of the offscreen revelations.

 

[LadyBoyJay]

We've been shown it though?

Not onscreen while in the present. The Andrew/Elena that we've been with from the start of the story, has seemed like a decent person. Foolish, but not terrible. Now, we've been told otherwise, but those new details have came a bit too late in the story, in my opinion. It's hard not to feel like Andrew is being retconned to make Marina and Nikos seem more justified in their behaviors.

This is why I say "narcissistic". Andrew doesn't understand that it's not about the money. He doesn't connect the dots at all that when Marina brings up this incident, she's not shaming him about the money. She's talking about trust.

Yet the money is an issue, or else she wouldn't keep bringing it up, and it wouldn't have been part of the plot device to get him to agree to posing as the wife of Nikos for the money being offered. As far as trust goes, she comes across to me as a hypocrite because we've seen her be deceitful and dishonest with Andrew/Elena.

His defense for himself is "I had no way of knowing he intended to scam me."

I still have sympathy for Andrew because he was scammed. He trusted his mentor and was victimized. That doesn't excuse what he did with Marina's money, but combined with the scenes that have shown Andrew's internal guilt, I think he is genuinely remorseful. He seems like he feels genuine remorse about many things, and the symbolism of him being punished in his dreams because he thinks he deserves it, just doesn't feel like a narcissist to me.

Lying to Nikos and throwing Marina under the bus.

I believe this happened, but since I was told and not shown, I don't really know how to feel about it. I wasn't able to see what Andrew/Elena actually said, how it was said, and what was the thought process.

 

[rebirth095]

Now, we've been told otherwise, but those new details have came a bit too late in the story, in my opinion. It's hard not to feel like Andrew is being retconned to make Marina and Nikos seem more justified in their behaviors.

While pacing is a valid criticism, we've had the setup that Andrew betrayed Marina's trust much earlier:



Is it awkwardly written? Absolutely. But even back then, we were speculating and wondering what Andrew did that betrayed Marina's trust. And it ended up being worse than what most of us speculated.

The Andrew/Elena that we've been with from the start of the story, has seemed like a decent person.

Genuinely, I didn't get this reading at all. I'll also say, up until the above page, I also didn't think Andrew as a bad person either. As I often say, like many of the characters, he was a plank of wood, neither good or bad. The more we found out, the more he seemed indecent. From cheating on Marina, the backstory that we now know, etc.

Yet the money is an issue, or else she wouldn't keep bringing it up, and it wouldn't have been part of the plot device to get him to agree to posing as the wife of Nikos for the money being offered. As far as trust goes, she comes across to me as a hypocrite because we've seen her be deceitful and dishonest with Andrew/Elena.

I can only think of one time she's been actively dishonest, and that's:



And that's even later into the story and I would argue even more of a "retcon".

But that's the thing: she's not bringing up the money because she's greedy. She brings up the incident because she's saying that Andrew is acting in a way that makes it hard to trust him. Which from her perspective is true. Unless I'm mistaken, she's brought up the incident only twice. And both times are in the context of Andrew spinning a story where he's absolving himself of culpability in what is happening.

She doesn't force Andrew or guilt him into this to earn back the money. Nikos offers the money unprompted:



Marina doesn't even bring up the money:



From here through to the next scene where she's alone with Elena, she's just having fun. No mention at all about that reward.



The deal with Nikos kicks off the plot, but in no way has it really been central to the current situation. Toska is what's been keeping this feminization plot going.

I still have sympathy for Andrew because he was scammed. He trusted his mentor and was victimized. That doesn't excuse what he did with Marina's money, but combined with the scenes that have shown Andrew's internal guilt, I think he is genuinely remorseful. He seems like he feels genuine remorse about many things, and the symbolism of him being punished in his dreams because he thinks he deserves it, just doesn't feel like a narcissist to me.

If he were genuine remorseful, he'd stop saying things like "apologizing a thousand times" and "you already forgave me". If he were genuinely remorseful, he'd understand why she's suspicious and acknowledge that fully, instead of whining about how "that's not fair". His actual actions, thoughts, and things he says to Marina are all very narcissistic to me. The dream sequences is the most empathy Andrew ever shows, and we aren't even sure what they mean. Plus, stuff like:



That might be guilt, but that's not remorse. That's a person that wants to pretend the things they did wrong didn't happen and they can forget about it, not that they actually feel bad about it and crucially, want to change for the better.

Narcissists can be scammed. Really, he got scammed twice. His mentor first made him almost lose everyone close to him. And even after that, he went BACK to the same man and then lost all his money. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...?

The only thing I was sympathetic towards Andrew for was him being feminized and initially stuck in that situation. The Toska threat seemed real, and the "series of unfortunate events" made him seem like the underdog. But then, the underdog did nothing to better his situation, and then cheated on his wife with her uncle through essentially self-mindcontrol. Sort of not his fault, but also sort of his fault. But especially since we still haven't gotten any positive traits, I find it hard to root for Elena becoming the loving mother of Sofia and Eva, because there's nothing here that makes me buy that Elena has been good in that role. The only thing we've gotten at all, is that apparently Elena is decent in bed.

I believe this happened, but since I was told and not shown, I don't really know how to feel about it. I wasn't able to see what Andrew/Elena actually said, how it was said, and what was the thought process.

I understand that perspective. I would offer though that I think that the words themselves don't matter nearly as much as the effects of those words. Whatever Elena says to Nikos, the effects are:

1) Nikos is insanely smitten with Elena, wanting to fuck her constantly and marry her "for real".
2) Nikos actively flaunts this new relationship in front of Marina.

Whatever the details/motivations of this story, Andrew really convinced Nikos that Marina and him weren't in love and that he really did love Nikos. That's a level of emotional manipulation that's cruel. I think Nikos is a creep, but the story seems to think that he's an OK guy. Playing with a person's emotions like that is cruel. After hearing Nikos pour his heart out, the empathetic response is to think of a new plan. Not go for an emotional manipulation strategy.

Now, all of that being said: I have stated on multiple times that I believe this story has a lot of inconsistancies just due to its length and format. This isn't a jab at Melissa as an author, but just one of the things that can happen when you don't have the luxury to edit the whole thing when finished for consistency.

As such, it's hard to say if any of the evidence we're pulling from is meant to have been proof or was an error that needed recontexualization. I've described it before as a sliding scale, with the most recent stuff being "most" reliable, and earlier stuff being more questionable. So it's entirely possible we'll get a reveal that Marina was the orchestrator of this the whole time and all the earlier things that contradicted that were "growing pains". After all, I've written at length about everything that makes Nikos sus as hell. And it's likely I'm wrong about that, as the story keeps trying to paint him as a "good" guy.

And it doesn't help that the story is meant to be a mystery. All this nonsense with hiding a character's identity has been part of this. Using vague language, or cutting of flashbacks at crucial bits of information. It does make it very hard to tell if something is meaninigful.

 

[Alicia Mae]

The hair is not even close to a match for Joel, who looked like this 1 day prior to the scene in the bar:
View attachment 4565231

Oh wow, yeah. I totally forgot just how bimbolicious they made her lol. Definitely not her!

 

[LadyBoyJay]

While pacing is a valid criticism, we've had the setup that Andrew betrayed Marina's trust much earlier:

Is it awkwardly written? Absolutely. But even back then, we were speculating and wondering what Andrew did that betrayed Marina's trust. And it ended up being worse than what most of us speculated.

I think part of the reason why we were being so speculative was because it felt like a shock to be told that Andrew had done something bad. By the time we got to page #433, an emotional bond between the audience and the main character had already been formed. In my personal opinion, the actions that I've seen onscreen from Andrew/Elena, have seemed well-intentioned. I've seen a character who got into this mess as a favor for his wife's uncle. I feel like Andrew wanted to earn the money to help repay his wife. When things started spiraling out of control, Andrew didn't selfishly run away from his problems and risk putting others in danger. Onscreen, it looks like Andrew's biggest character flaw has been his willingness to trust others.

Looking back at page #433, Marina isn't willing to trust Andrew, even when he is telling the truth. If she truly felt like she could never trust him again, then she lied when she said she forgave him. Maybe I'm unique, but I either give someone my full forgiveness or I don't. If I forgive them, I do let go of the past and basically pretend like whatever the problem was, never happened. I think that's what is best to move forward for both parties. If a person did something unforgivable, I simply will not forgive them. It's very cut and dry from my point of view.

I can only think of one time she's been actively dishonest, and that's:

Marina has apparently been dishonest from before page #1, about truly forgiving Andrew. She's been deceitful by withholding information from Andrew. For someone like Marina who is supposed to really value honesty, look at the examples of when she has or has tried to withhold information from Andrew/Elena.




Hiding the truth from someone isn't exactly the same as lying, but when a character like Marina, has valuing honesty as one of her defining character traits, it makes her come across as a hypocrite.

Whether Marina is good or evil, isn't really what I'm concerned about. I'm just concerned about whether Melissa intended for us to accept her character as a reliable narrator in place of our main character. For some of us, Marina's onscreen behavior doesn't really match the written description of her character. Marina's character is written as valuing trust, honesty, family, and keeping promises. Yet, her own actions are basically "rules for thee but not for me".

She doesn't force Andrew or guilt him into this to earn back the money. Nikos offers the money unprompted:

I feel like Andrew was motivated by the opportunity to help pay Marina back. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's just how I feel from what I've seen onscreen of his character.

That might be guilt, but that's not remorse. That's a person that wants to pretend the things they did wrong didn't happen and they can forget about it, not that they actually feel bad about it and crucially, want to change for the better.

I just feel differently about it. I feel like I've seen a character who has cared about helping and protecting others. Based on what I've seen visually, I don't feel like Andrew/Elena is a narcissist. I'd actually argue that Marina is closer to fitting that description. She hasn't shown any empathy for her husband, nor very much for the rest of her family. She's the angry one in every argument, and she dismisses anything that Andrew says by guilt-tripping him. She is willing to put a seemingly innocent bystander like James, into danger for her own safety.

Narcissists can be scammed. Really, he got scammed twice. His mentor first made him almost lose everyone close to him. And even after that, he went BACK to the same man and then lost all his money. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...?

I won't argue that Andrew isn't foolish. We all agree on that. I do pity the fool though. I think his flawed character is really being punished unfairly, and that just makes me want to root for him even more. I like redemption arcs. I don't like how unforgiving Marina appears to be, nor do I like how she seems to think he deserves this as revenge of some sort. Legally, what Andrew did was a civil matter that should have played out in divorce court. It's not likely that Marina could have filed charges against her husband and put him in jail for life.

In summary, my main issue, which I think you share, is that this story keeps breaking the rule of "show, don't tell". Too many important things have happened offscreen. I don't feel the same emotional impact from something I didn't see visually. It's not organic, and it can feel like gaslighting. The daughters being used to tell us, the audience, that Elena is really a great mother, despite us not seeing any of that with our own eyes, just isn't enough to change the way we feel. When Marina is being used to tell us, the audience, how we should feel about Andrew, it's just not very effective. So, if we are supposed to be suspicious of what Marina says, that's excellent story writing, because many of us are questioning her. If the opposite is true, then Marina's character is failing to change the way that some of us feel about Andrew/Elena. Again, my main concern isn't about whether Marina ends up being good or bad. I'm concerned that if Marina was intended to be a trustworthy character for the audience to listen to, that plot device isn't working the way it should be.

 

[rebirth095]

I think part of the reason why we were being so speculative was because it felt like a shock to be told that Andrew had done something bad. By the time we got to page #433, an emotional bond between the audience and the main character had already been formed.

This is something I respectfully disagree with. As I said, he was a plank of wood. Like most MelissaN protagonists, he was a blank slate that just went along with the plot. I felt no positive nor negative inclinations towards him as up to that point, there was no characterization.

Even until now, I can't tell you anything about Andrew as a person. He's an actor. So what motivates him about acting? What are his inspirations? Who's his favorite director, actor? What's a memorable quote he said, or something insightful he's noticed or thought. What's a scene that's happened I can point to and go "oh, that's classic Andrew"?

When things started spiraling out of control, Andrew didn't selfishly run away from his problems and risk putting others in danger. Onscreen, it looks like Andrew's biggest character flaw has been his willingness to trust others.

I wouldn't characterize that as being selfless. Just passive. Until very late in the story, he never takes ownership of the situation. When things get dangerous, it takes others to convince him.



I would absolutely agree with your characterization if it had been Andrew that had brought up ways to look more convincing, and then he was betrayed by the Doctor's more extreme surgeries. But that's not what happened. He was twiddling his thumbs and people around him had to convince him to do something.

Looking back at page #433, Marina isn't willing to trust Andrew, even when he is telling the truth. If she truly felt like she could never trust him again, then she lied when she said she forgave him. Maybe I'm unique, but either give someone my full forgiveness or I don't. If I forgive them, I do let go of the past and basically pretend like whatever the problem was, never happened. I think that's what is best to move forward for both parties. If a person did something unforgivable, I simply will not forgive them. It's very cut and dry from my point of view.

I think we just fundamentally disagree on this philosophy. Trust isn't a binary thing. It's on a spectrum. I trust my coworker to watch my house. I don't trust them with my bank account info.

If I'm in an abusive relationship, and my alcoholic boyfriend says he's going to quit drinking so I forgive him... that doesn't mean that once I've forgiven him I'm wrong to feel unsafe when he starts buying alcohol. Or if he says he's going out to the bars with friends, and promises he won't drink. That doesn't make me a hypocrite or a liar. Especially if he comes back home reeking of alcohol and clearly tipsy.

Or if my boyfriend cheats on me and says it was a one-time thing. But then I catch him flirting with someone. Trust is earned. Forgiveness is about rebuilding trust. And especially from an outside perspective, Andrew has done things that aren't trustworthy (such as sleeping with Nikos).

Marina has apparently been dishonest from before page #1, about truly forgiving Andrew.

Again, I won't blame the victim here. Marina was a victim of Andrew. I fundamentally can't be upset that after what he put her through (TWICE). Forgiveness in this context isn't absolving him of what he did. It's about letting him prove that he's changed. And we really see that he hasn't.

I'd actually argue that Marina is closer to fitting that description. She hasn't shown any empathy for her husband, nor very much for the rest of her family. She's the angry one in every argument, and she dismisses anything that Andrew says by guilt-tripping him. She is willing to put a seemingly innocent bystander like James, into danger for her own safety.

Except we know the backstory now. We have very good reasons why she's not showing empathy. Her husband told her to pretend he's always been Elena, and they'll have a code phrase to speak privately.

Marina has no idea that Andrew really did have memory loss. With their backstory, I understand how that sounds insane. Even WITHOUT that backstory it sounds insane.

Marina shows a great deal of concern. As soon as Elena doesn't respond to the keyphrase:



This is so much more than Andrew ever shows Marina.

And then, Andrew sleeps with Nikos. Once again, from Marina's point of view, the two of them came up with a plan, were on the same side... And then this man goes and sleeps with her Uncle. And after speaking with her Uncle, finds out that Andrew called their marriage a sham.

Rewind to her first outburst: They're on their honeymoon, and Andrew commits to pretend to be Elena for the whole duration.

How is it unjustified for her to be angry? James jumped in entirely by himself, and followed her back home.

Again, my main concern isn't about whether Marina ends up being good or bad. I'm concerned that if Marina was intended to be a trustworthy character for the audience to listen to, that plot device isn't working the way it should be.

I don't think she's supposed to be 100% trustworthy, but that's because I think there's supposed to be some degree of "anyone could be the killer". Which is why we keep hiding women that could be Marina or could be someone else. It's supposed to further the mystery. That said, in my opinion, I find the writing to lend credibility to what Marina says over what Andrew says. Clearly you disagree. But while I do completely agree that this work suffers from telling rather than showing, in my opinion this work has very clearly shown that Andrew is not trustworthy. We aren't just told his backstory. We've been shown it through flashbacks.

We're shown it through what character's choose to say. A lot of people mistake "show don't tell" to mean that all dialogue is "telling". That's not true. We are shown things about characters based on what they say and what they focus on.

During the last exchange:



Even if you believe Marina to be a hypocrite, her side of the conversation actually brings up her feelings towards Andrew. She's the one that says she loved Andrew. We don't get the reciprocation. Not in the present, not in the past. Not in thought bubbles, monologues, dialogue, or actions.

That shows us a difference between the two. A reasonable person would realize how sketchy it is to sleep with your wife's uncle, and understand that even without the prior broken trust, how that is a betrayal of trust. That's why I don't trust Andrew and don't think he is empathetic. He doesn't understand that even though he may be a victim, he's also hurting others. Both of those can be true, and he's ignoring that (and in this case hurting both Marina and Nikos).

Like, even if you think Marina is a hypocrite, then isn't the fact that Nikos is upset as well shows how much hurt Andrew's emotional manipulation causes? Isn't that showing us how Andrew isn't exactly a good guy?

 

[Stevedore100]

This is all really interesting - I give my appreciation to all of you for expressing your ideas on this - it's literally better than the story itself. I find the inconsistency aspect the most important - the narrative has tripped under itself too many times to allow ant be to firm a cogent analysis that withstands too much scrutiny.
Way back in I think his first dream sequence,c there's a point where it is stated that Andrew didn't marry for love (I'm paraphrasing). Is that actually true? Or is that Andrew mentally atoning for telling Nikos that he and Marina were t really husband and wife? I still have no idea.

Also, I think having Marina leave Andrew alone and go off to Crete after that first dinner may have been not a great idea by Melissa. I might have waited longer for having Marina make such a strong action. It really divided the audience into Team Andrew and Team Marina right away. My reaction was "that was pretty cold, rash and just asking for a bad situation to get multiples worse" but I can also see how someone would think Marina was entirely justified in taking time off. Whichever case, though, people's attitudes towards these two were already being cast.

 

[LadyBoyJay]

As I said, he was a plank of wood. Like most MelissaN protagonists, he was a blank slate that just went along with the plot. I felt no positive nor negative inclinations towards him as up to that point, there was no characterization.

By default, an audience naturally identifies with the main character. When a character feels underdeveloped, it's common for the audience to fill in the blanks. That's why it's important for a writer to properly develop any character that they don't want being misinterpreted by the audience. It's very likely that some of our views of Andrew/Elena are more "fan fiction" than anything official. However, if the audience has a wrong interpretation about a character, it's not really their fault.

I wouldn't characterize that as being selfless. Just passive. Until very late in the story, he never takes ownership of the situation. When things get dangerous, it takes others to convince him.

I would agree that Andrew/Elena is passive and lets others tell him what to do. In my opinion, that goes against being a narcissist. I feel like Andrew/Elena has been trying to please others. I'd call him a people pleaser before I'd ever call him a narcissist. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

How is it unjustified for her to be angry? James jumped in entirely by himself, and followed her back home.

Why not push him away? She knows that he is putting himself in danger. The only person that benefits from his presence is her.

I don't think she's supposed to be 100% trustworthy, but that's because I think there's supposed to be some degree of "anyone could be the killer".

That's the point I'm trying to make. In the last update, Melissa used the daughters to tell us about some offscreen mother-daughter bonding that we didn't see. Because that offscreen stuff was told to us, not shown to us, it doesn't feel organic. It feels fake. I'm not saying it didn't happen, just that it wasn't strong enough to affect emotions. That's why I'm worried that if Melissa has been using Marina to tell the audience how to feel about Andrew/Elena, it's not working, because part of the audience doesn't feel like Marina is trustworthy.

Even if you believe Marina to be a hypocrite, her side of the conversation actually brings up her feelings towards Andrew. She's the one that says she loved Andrew. We don't get the reciprocation. Not in the present, not in the past. Not in thought bubbles, monologues, dialogue, or actions.

I certainly felt like Andrew loved Marina in the early chapters. I had no reason to think otherwise. If he never explicitly said he loved her, I feel like he showed it with his body language and his longing to return back to being Marina's husband. It's the newer details and revelations that are trying to change how the audience views the first half of the story.

Like, even if you think Marina is a hypocrite, then isn't the fact that Nikos is upset as well shows how much hurt Andrew's emotional manipulation causes? Isn't that showing us how Andrew isn't exactly a good guy?

I think Andrew and Marina are both flawed characters. They've both made bad choices. I don't feel like Andrew is as bad of a person as Marina is telling me that he is. I can justify and make excuses for his bad decisions easier than I can for Marina. Many of Andrew's bad choices have occurred while being under the influence of alcohol, drugs, and mental issues. Not only has the method acting been a key plot point, but don't forget that post-surgery Elena has been experiencing memory loss, concentration capacity (which impairs decision-making), and, very importantly, loss of self. Sure, the doctor said "may experience", but I'm 100% convinced from what I've seen visually that those side effects have been occurring.




Again, everything that Marina has said might be true. However, her character as a narrative plot device, isn't convincing me to change how I feel about the protagonist. In fact, the more I'm told that Marina should be trusted and her bad decisions should be overlooked, the more that just makes me feel like I'm being gaslighted (in general, not blaming anyone). Andrew cheated on his wife, but it's murky as to how much control Andrew even has over his own actions. How much of Andrew's original personality is left at this point is questionable. I don't think the Andrew that we saw in chapter one, still has much agency left as Elena. Even without the "loss of self" and the "method acting", I'd defend what he did as "taking one for the team". Quite literally... It wouldn't have been necessary for him to have done it, but it helped make the cover story more authentic.

When Marina cheated on her husband, she wasn't under any influence. She chose to do it. Maybe we'll learn that she was secretly "taking one for the team" as well. If not, some people can still justify it, but was it really necessary? For someone with her supposed values, does it feel like she was doing something honest and for the greater good of the family? She hasn't told Elena about it, nor her family. She's literally betraying her own core values as a character. Why should I trust her as a plot device to reveal information that is supposed to change my feelings about the main character?

Also, I think having Marina leave Andrew alone and go off to Crete after that first dinner may have been not a great idea by Melissa.

Exactly! Imagine an alternative version of Marina trusting her husband and staying by his side when he needed her. If she had been written as an unquestionably great person, we'd love her and believe everything she tells us. That version of Marina could have revealed shocking things, and I'd believe it.

 

[LadyBoyJay]

I do want to add this for context. This is specifically what I'm referring to about feeling gaslighted in the last update. Marina says that "Andrew/Elena is not capable of maintaining bonds with people". Maybe that's true, but that's from an offscreen story that I haven't seen, nor felt. I've seen everyone get along fine with Andrew/Elena. It's Marina that hasn't been capable of maintaining bonds with anyone. It wouldn't have taken much to have made Andrew less likeable earlier in the story if that was the long term plan. Something as simple as seeing him steal some cash from a family member would have been enough to dislike and distrust him.

Way back in I think his first dream sequence,c there's a point where it is stated that Andrew didn't marry for love (I'm paraphrasing). Is that actually true? Or is that Andrew mentally atoning for telling Nikos that he and Marina were t really husband and wife? I still have no idea.

I don't know if we'll ever get definitive answer. I think at that point in the story, he believed that to be true. It's just hard to tell what's even mentally left of Andrew's original personality.

 

[rebirth095]

It's very likely that some of our views of Andrew/Elena are more "fan fiction" than anything official. However, if the audience has a wrong interpretation about a character, it's not really their fault.

I have to give a nuanced disagreement here. Readers projecting too much is entirely up to the reader. Especially when it comes time to assess characters, discuss motivations, analyze the plot, etc. It's the author's fault if they've written their characters poorly/inconsistently. But it is not on the author when readers start supplanting fanon over canon. Shippers are the best example of this where you have readers that have latched onto or projected chemistry between two characters, and then grow increasingly upset when their fanon doesn't play out. That's on the reader. For analysis, taking a step back and examining what's actually presented is important, especially if a bias is rooted in fanfiction.

If he never explicitly said he loved her, I feel like he showed it with his body language and his longing to return back to being Marina's husband.

Here's where I don't buy it: During each of the scenes where Nikos is seducing Andrew, at no point are there any protests by Andrew about being unfaithful to Marina.



This is after the memory loss. Andrew is method acting, but also conscious enough to resist having sex. His justifications don't factor Marina into it at all.



His focus isn't on being back with Marina: It's being Andrew again.



Even when Marina is brought up, what Andrew fixates on is... well... Andrew.

There's a lot of pages, but so I haven't combed them all. But I can't recall a single time Andrew ever tapped the break on this relationship with Nikos due to it being unfaithful to Marina.

It's the newer details and revelations that are trying to change how the audience views the first half of the story.

Or, it's correcting a misconception due to realizing readers have gotten the wrong impression. Or, the reader's didn't have much of an impression due to the bland characterization. I don't think these newer details can be dismissed as "retcons". They're just that: newer details. Reader perception should evolve with their understanding of the character. Jamie Lannister from Song of Ice and Fire is a perfect example. You learn more about the character, so your impressions of that character should change (for better or for worse).

That's why I'm worried that if Melissa has been using Marina to tell the audience how to feel about Andrew/Elena, it's not working, because part of the audience doesn't feel like Marina is trustworthy.

I can understand and even agree with the fact that this scene is less emotionally powerful because the setup for this scene has been poorly handled. But I wouldn't say it's "not working". It's just not working as effectively as it could. I've said a number of times that this story would greatly benefit from an editor.

I said that I think that the story is meant to have a "whodunit" element to it. But just because Marina isn't 100% trustworthy doesn't mean I immediately go: "Nothing she says is valid". That's where I feel like I fundamentally am not able to see your point of view on this. To me, the exercise and game that the story is playing is "we don't know whether XYZ character is the culprit. Let's analyze assuming they ARE. And analyze the same scene assuming they AREN'T".

This is deeply unsatisfying from a character standpoint, but that's in service of the mystery. If done well, you won't fully understand the characterization until the real culprit revealed and you can piece together why someone seemed sus at the time, but it makes sense in hindsight.

And here's the main thing: I completely disagree that Marina is being used to tell the audience how to feel about Andrew. Marina is ranting about how SHE feels about Andrew.

So for something like:

Marina says that "Andrew/Elena is not capable of maintaining bonds with people".

I don't feel like that's Melissa telling the audience how to feel about Andrew. She's showing us how Marina feels about Andrew.

Marina can 100% be wrong about Andrew in this context. But she's 100% right in that's how she feels.

Marina feels that Andrew shouldn't have slept with Nikos. She feels that Andrew is untrustworthy. She believes that Andrew isn't capable of maintaining bonds with people.

That last one could still very well be true. There's not been enough time for Elena's relationships to be tested. Marina's relationship with Andrew has been betrayed 3 times now: When he was toxic to her during method acting, when he gave away all their money, and when he slept with Nikos. Of course she has this opinion. Because in her experience, the more time you give to Andrew, the more he's going to hurt you. I don't find that at all invalid from her perspective.

I have been the first one to complain loudly about how the writing has been... unconvincing. I brought up before that I don't buy that the daughter's see Elena as a mother figure. I don't buy Elena reciprocating those feelings. I don't buy Nikos being a good father. Eva and Sofia are way less trustworthy than Marina. But if we assume they're being genuine, then even if the writing isn't a high enough quality to show that, we can't dismiss what they say just because its written poorly.

I'm not a fan of Andrew. I don't think he's an interesting character. I don't like fools. I like scrappy underdogs. Scrappy underdogs have all these things working against them, but they try their best and I can root for someone giving it their all even if it fails. Fools pull everyone else into their bullshit. Andrew isn't clever, he isn't witty. His looks aren't even something that he earned. I just don't find him a compelling character.

In the context of this story, I don't know what Andrew "deserves". Mainly because I don't know what Melissa considers positive. By objective metrics, Andrew is a broke actor. Is becoming a MILF sextoy for a rich man a positive or a negative?

Because that's the thing: I don't like Andrew, but I don't "hate" him either. I do think "not talking to your fiancee and losing both your savings" is something that's not just a "oopsie" and I consider really morally bankrupt. But I don't know how to feel about him being permanently Elena. If we're supposed to think of this as a reward, then is Andrew a good enough person to deserve this reward? If it's supposed to be a punishment, has Andrew been shown to be a bad enough person to deserve this punishment? And similarly, has there been enough in the story where it's convincing that being Elena is a reward or a punishment?

That's generally where I'm at with this story. I'm trying to figure out what each character "deserves". And that's really fucking hard because most of the characters are blank pieces of wood, and it's unclear what the story considers a reward/punishment.

Do Eva and Sofia deserve a mother figure in their lives? Who knows! Why is it so important for two grown-ass women to have someone they call mommy?

Does Nikos deserve to have a MILF wife? No idea! What's this guy done for society that means that his loneliness needs to be fixed?

Does Marina deserve to have her husband feminized? Why not! Maybe its a reward so she can be with someone that has more than two braincells. Or if it's a punishment, I really fail to see what is so awful about Marina that she deserves this.

I mean... is anyone here rooting for Seferi to succeed? Like... why are we wanting Toska in jail again? At this point, what difference does it make? If Elena stays Elena, who cares if Toska is spying on them. They made it real! There's no threat then. I'm being a bit facetious: obviously you don't want a crazed mobster stalking you. But the dude is ancient. Wait two years and he'll probably keel over.

Genuinely, I'm back to something I said almost a year ago, and that's: I don't really know what ending would satisfy me at this point, and so all I can hope for are some more hot frames of Marina. The one modifier is now, I'd also like some scenes with the feminized Joel. Beyond that, I don't have a clue.

 

[rebirth095]

This is all really interesting - I give my appreciation to all of you for expressing your ideas on this - it's literally better than the story itself. I find the inconsistency aspect the most important - the narrative has tripped under itself too many times to allow ant be to firm a cogent analysis that withstands too much scrutiny.
Way back in I think his first dream sequence,c there's a point where it is stated that Andrew didn't marry for love (I'm paraphrasing). Is that actually true? Or is that Andrew mentally atoning for telling Nikos that he and Marina were t really husband and wife? I still have no idea.

Also, I think having Marina leave Andrew alone and go off to Crete after that first dinner may have been not a great idea by Melissa. I might have waited longer for having Marina make such a strong action. It really divided the audience into Team Andrew and Team Marina right away. My reaction was "that was pretty cold, rash and just asking for a bad situation to get multiples worse" but I can also see how someone would think Marina was entirely justified in taking time off. Whichever case, though, people's attitudes towards these two were already being cast.

At least for me, criticizing and analyzing other people's work is a way for me to practice and develop my own writing skills. It's a good exercise for understanding why some things work, why some things don't, and how people may interpret/misinterpret scenes.

Storytelling is problem solving. You're trying to find logical reasons why the story happens. The problem is that when you're enclosed in a bubble, those solutions might not hold up under scrutiny.

For me, I think the biggest mistake was the amnesia. It artificially dragged this story out way longer than imo it needed, and now that we have the benefit of those blanks filled in, it ended up not being of consequence in a meanigful way. The only thing it accomplished in actuality is that when Marina used the code word, Elena didn't respond. And that could have JUST as easily been rewritten to be due to the method acting escalating too high.

Most of the other choices, I think can be made more convincing with some workshopping. Like if Marina needed to be out of the picture, here's the easiest one: Have Nikos tell her she needs to leave, otherwise she'll blow Andrew's cover. The weirdest part about the early stuff is just how Nikos just stands around letting things happen that perfectly cause him to have a milf fucktoy. If it's a red herring, let's at least earn that red herring!

 

[LadyBoyJay]

At least for me, criticizing and analyzing other people's work is a way for me to practice and develop my own writing skills. It's a good exercise for understanding why some things work, why some things don't, and how people may interpret/misinterpret scenes.

I totally agree with that, and I really hope that these comments can provide some useful insight.

I think the biggest disagreement between us is how much control we believe that Andrew has over his own thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. Personally, I don't believe that Andrew has full control over himself. That might be why I seem more willing to give Andrew some get-out-of-jail-free cards to excuse his actions. I'm just not sure how much blame he deserves, because I don't know how much mental capacity he has, and I don't think he does either.

Just to give you a glimpse of my perspective, I view Andrew as a person who is suffering mental health issues. The method acting can be viewed comparably to a dissociative identity disorder. From that perspective, Andrew started off the story with a preexisting mental health problem. After the gender-affirming procedures, Andrew now has additional mental health problems, such as loss of memory and concentration (we've seen), sudden mood swings (we haven't seen), and loss of self (we've seen). So now, Andrew is suffering from a dissociative identity disorder and a functional cognitive disorder. From my perspective, he's almost like a neglected dementia patient. I think it's at least fair to question how impaired his cognitive abilities are.

Yeah, I know that this isn't a very sexy way to view the story, but I didn't write those details, so don't blame me. Was the action taken to sleep with Nikos, made with unimpaired judgment? Was Andrew able to fully comprehend the situation and assess the consequences. Was it a decision that was 100% from Andrew, 100% from Elena, a % mix of both, or neither? I'm not arguing this, but if someone wanted to argue that Andrew didn't cheat on Marina because it might not have been 100% his choice, I'd understand that perspective.

It's fascinating to see how different our perspectives are on this particular topic. I'd love to hear any other perspectives on Andrew and Marina.

 

[Stevedore100]

I would just add that, if that is Marina in disguise, our perspective of her and her motivations could change - right or wrong, she has seemed to be without any hidden agenda - she came to Greece on her honeymoon, things went south, she got pissed at her husband and finally told him she had enough, wanted a divorce and left. That all makes sense.
If she is now back, and in disguise, why? Andrew/Elena is a lost cause. My guess would be she does have something else on her mind that we never knew about.

 

[misseva88]

Does nobody think the mystery woman is Dimitra then? The freckles on her chest, the breast size and the hair length match.

 

[rebirth095]

Does nobody think the mystery woman is Dimitra then? The freckles on her chest, the breast size and the hair length match.

Legit forgot about her.

Honestly, in terms of visual clues: I think Dimitra is the closest visual match. She's older, the hair length (I'll note, given that there's been a makeover/disguise implied, I don't necessarily think hair style is the most useful clue), but to me most importantly, she's got the right waist. Joanna has a broader waist, while the mystery woman had a particularly thin one.





That said, unfortunately visual clues aren't very useful in general just because of the context of the dialogue. Quite clearly, the woman is having fun at the inspector's expense that she's undergone a major makeover. Perhaps even surgical, considering that a few weeks has been enough to heal from even invasive surgeries in this story.

Being meta, I think the clues are meant to cause the reader to think it's Marina after going through a makeover (possible surgeries). We're meeting the inspector again, there's some teasing, and the last person we saw him with was Marina.

Is this because this really is Marina, or is this a red herring? For some reason we still don't know the identity of the blurred out woman. Especially now that we keep talking about the original wife, thematically it wouldn't be surprising if she showed up (although we might not get confirmation of her identity until later).

 

[LadyBoyJay]

I'm happy to hear this!

Has anyone read that book?

You must be registered to see the links

 

[rebirth095]

View attachment 4570024
I'm happy to hear this!

Has anyone read that book?

You must be registered to see the links

This might be wording, but I'm honestly confused by this declaration. What are these "sides"?

In my previous posts, whenever I talked about things I agree with Marina on, it's that I believe in her pain and I believe in its legitimacy. I'm not "siding" with Marina because I don't know what that means. I've said it before but I'll repeat it here: I believe that Andrew is a victim. I also believe Marina is a victim. I also believe Marina is a victim of Andrew's (both past and present). I also have no idea what Andrew "deserves" from a story perspective. I also don't know what Marina "deserves".

So how are there sides? What are we supporting? In theory, if you hate Marina, then you are supporting Andrew staying as Elena and no longer being with her. If you hate Andrew, then you are supporting Andrew staying as Elena and no longer bieng with Marina.

So the two "sides" would be supporting the same thing. So how are there sides?

If Melissa's point is that she wanted to write it such that both character's are sympathetic, I would 100% understand that goal and support that goal. But the flip side of that is if you did a good job making characters sympathetic, then it shouldn't be that you root for one character over the other. It should be that the readers are conflicted about the characters because they're nuanced. By all means, root for having the story play out. That's the point of stories with "villain protagonists" (or anti-heroes in general). But just speaking personally, as an author I get frustrated (both at myself and at the readers) when my characters have all their good points praised while bad points glossed over (or vice versa). Which is why, this declaration confuses me.

I've not read the book, but based purely on the wiki article, the comparison is... interesting...? So on the surface Don Casmurro is a fictional memoir where the main character goes over his life, eventually climaxing when the MC believes his wife cheated, and that their son is not his.

Later, theories were popularized that the MC is an unreliable narrator, and the book is meant to be ambiguous. As such, looking through it from the lens of a paranoid jealous man changed the way to interpret the book. So there's debate on

1) Whether the author meant for the book to be ambiguous.
2) Whether the the wife was actually unfaithful.

I'll be honest, I really hope this doesn't mean that Mirror is just going to be ambiguous and we never really know whether there was ever any real malice intent. I would respect taking the creative risk though. The artistic part of me would laugh and be completely on board if Elena and Nikos got to the end, had a wedding, and the story ended: Have the readers rage and speculate for all eternity about who did what, and whether or not a conspiracy ever really happened, or if this really was just a "series of unfortunate events".

But the part of me that's reading it for personal enjoyment would rage right alongside those readers,

 

[Thalantyr]

This might be wording, but I'm honestly confused by this declaration. What are these "sides"?

In my previous posts, whenever I talked about things I agree with Marina on, it's that I believe in her pain and I believe in its legitimacy. I'm not "siding" with Marina because I don't know what that means. I've said it before but I'll repeat it here: I believe that Andrew is a victim. I also believe Marina is a victim. I also believe Marina is a victim of Andrew's (both past and present). I also have no idea what Andrew "deserves" from a story perspective. I also don't know what Marina "deserves".

So how are there sides? What are we supporting?

I think in this context, it's about who is at fault for the divorce. Some people think that Marina has treated Andrew terribly and/or he's not in control of his own actions and therefore he is justified in pulling away and starting an affair with Nikos. Others think Andrew is an irresponsible selfish asshole and therefore Marina is justified in her anger. Based on what you've said in the past, I'd say you count as being on Marina's "side", but admittedly I haven't read all the posts from the past couple days. They are very long and I'm still trying to catch up.