After reading their discussions, it's actually about the slavery in that empire. Navier did not do anything to abolish slavery. This is the plot device that was taken for granted by a lot of readers. This situation sheds a new light to the entire story. It become more than a story of a married couple broken by a mistress to a whole social issue on that empire and it actually makes sense.
As another commenter said it's more about Navier not doing anything about slavery being legal in her empire. But I can see it for what it is, it's the writer overlooking the implications of what she actually wrote. She probably made Rashta a slave to make it more dramatic and engaging but completely ignored that slavery is not a lighthearted topic. She completely ignored that the ones with the responsability to not let slavery exist in the empire were both Sovieshu and Navier.
I think it's an issue that comes with engaging lightheartedly with heavy topics such as slavery, politics and social struggles. We see Navier donating to charities but we don't see her create social programs so that poor people stop being poor. IRL that is something a corrupt politicians only wanting to clean their images would do. Because charity is nice and all but it's doesn't focus on changing the structural situations that lead to poverty, only gives the poor kid a meal and send him back home. But again this is the writer getting in over her head with the topics she choose to write about.
As another commenter said it's more about Navier not doing anything about slavery being legal in her empire. But I can see it for what it is, it's the writer overlooking the implications of what she actually wrote. She probably made Rashta a slave to make it more dramatic and engaging but completely ignored that slavery is not a lighthearted topic. She completely ignored that the ones with the responsability to not let slavery exist in the empire were both Sovieshu and Navier.
I think it's an issue that comes with engaging lightheartedly with heavy topics such as slavery, politics and social struggles. We see Navier donating to charities but we don't see her create social programs so that poor people stop being poor. IRL that is something a corrupt politicians only wanting to clean their images would do. Because charity is nice and all but it's doesn't focus on changing the structural situations that lead to poverty, only gives the poor kid a meal and send him back home. But again this is the writer getting in over her head with the topics she choose to write about.
This is a good point. The author never did explain slavery. It was kinda thrown in there. It made it seem like only Rashta was a slave and that she was a slave for plot devices. The never talk about what the emperors or empreses (past and current) thought about or what policies where in place. I won't talk about the author's writing, but this is something that is pointed out but not explained.
Yes, this is a good point. The story mostly focuses on the characters themselves and not the roles they play/titles they hold. It would be interesting to see how certain social stances they take or don't take affects them, shifting some of the focus more to the their actual roles as emperors and empresses.
I read some of the comments, and now, I'm confused. Some people say that Navier didn't do enough to help Rashta. I can understand why some people sympathize with Rashta, but she was a mistress. What wife goes out of her way to help a mistress? If I remember correctly, Navier did try to give her advice and Rashta was given teachers, but Rashta cried at the slightest thing. If she didn't want to do something, she cried. If someone said something she didn't like, she cried and then actively/intentionally went against what they said. Also, it's not like Navier knew she was a slave at the start. In her eyes, she was a mistress in what was once a monogamous relationship. People also try to portray Rashta as a naive victim. In my opinion, Rashta was ignorant considering that she didn't know a lot of things, but she was not naive. She knew exactly what she was doing even in the beginning. In a way, Rashta and Sovieshu both acted like their fathers, the people they hated. Sovieshu can be blamed for giving her power, but she alone holds complete blame for what she chose to do with that power. Someone can give you a weapon and another person can tell you to use it, but at the end of the day, you hold the most blame for using it while the rest are merely accomplices.