Clarke's Argumentative Essay: Clarke And Bellamy

765 Words4 Pages
3x5: Clarke and Bellamy 's Argument A lot of people are upset about Clarke and Bellamy 's scene in 3x5 when Clarke sneaks into Arkadia to talk to Bellamy. The main thing I 've seen is people calling Bellamy abusive when he yelled at Clarke about her leaving them, him bringing up "things of the past", and him playing her emotions before handcuffing her to the table to bring her to Pike. While I agree with others that that move was wrong and manipulative, I 'm curious as to why everyone is so hell bent on Bellamy suppressing his emotions, especially when everything he said was true. It doesn 't matter that Clarke was over it, that she put it in the past, becase Clarke isn 't the only person that matters. Problems don 't just disappear for…show more content…
Clarke did do a lot in season 2 to keep the peace between her people and Lexa 's people. She played a large part in forming an alliance, and eventually made a deal with Lexa that would aid both groups of people in their escape from Mt. Weather. But the part that Bellamy and Monty played in Plan B after Lexa abandoned that deal is constantly being erased in favor of depicting Clarke 's struggle. I understand that Clarke needed some time to herself, but I don 't agree with the whole "I bear it so they don 't have to." The damage is already done, and Clarke 's self-exile doesn 't do jack shit. Her people are still hurting with the effects of what happened at Mt. Weather. None of them are saints, and we barely see how the others are coping. While I 100% don 't agree with the majority of Bellamy 's actions in season 3, he did lose someone who was dear to him, and Pike swooped in before he was able to grieve properly. Bellamy was vulnerable, and he made terrible decisions afterward. But he 's rightfully allowed to be angry about the past, no matter how calm and collected Clarke was. Bellamy is allowed to express his feelings. He 's allowed to be upset that Clarke left. He 's allowed to be upset with Clarke saying she needed him, when nothing she 's done has proven that. (I 'm not suggesting that Clarke needs to pander to Bellamy, but her saying that she needs him felt wrong and almost manipulative.) He 's allowed to be angry with someone who left, but then…show more content…
Clarke looked feral when she saw Lexa for the first time in months, and she had every right to. Lexa betrayed their initial agreement, and then she had her kidnapped and brought to her? Why wouldn 't she be mad? She called her a bitch and spit in Lexa 's face, and almost killed her when Roan gave Clarke that knife. Why isn 't that abusive? Why is that being so romanticized? Why is Clarke allowed to have feelings of resentment, but Bellamy is expected to bottle them up because Clarke was being nice? Lexa was being nice to Clarke too, and Clarke still violently attacked her. There 's an obvious double standard at play, but people choose to ignore it for the sake of their ships. They want to ignore the wrongs of one character but call out those same wrongs of another character in order to prop up their faves. People are okay with calling Bellamy 's anger abusive, but
Open Document