Undermining Lexa?

Luna 1

Though the story surrounding her importance was kind of predictable, Luna was an intriguing character since 3×09. She was enigma, never really described on the show except for a few mentions here and there. And when she was finally introduced, I was excited to see what she was like, what values she upheld, and what kind of leader she would be.

Before episode 3×14 aired, Jason Rothenberg said that we’ve never seen a character like Luna on the show before.

Haven’t we though? As the episode progressed, I saw so many similarities to Lexa, so much so that it seemed Lexa’s importance was being undermined.

Since her introduction in season 2, Lexa was seen as different, as someone who was willing to deviate from tradition and expectations in favor of peace. Kane saw something in her early on that gave him hope for an alliance and understanding.

“I spent time with your commander. She’s a visionary.” (Marcus Kane, 2×08)

Lexa was ruthless and strong when she wanted to be, but ultimately valued peace and justice. She was a “visionary”…at least up until Luna’s introduction.

Throughout the beginning of season 3, Lexa was always compared to past commanders.

“You’re special, Heda. I’ve been the fleimkepa for 4 commanders. No one has done what you have.” (Titus, 3×03)

Lexa and Titus

“I’ve served 4 Commanders as Fleimkepa, none of them half as wise or strong as Lexa kom Trikru.” (Titus, 3×09)

And Clarke encouraged her to create her own legacy, something her people were not happy about:

Lexa 3x06

“Jus drein just daun has always, always been the way of our people.” (Lexa, 3×06)

“Your legacy will be peace.” (Clarke, 3×06)


Lexa was proud of her legacy, even though it broke tradition:

“[Clarke’s] actions show us a promise for a new future, a world in which violence does not always answer violence, a world in which our children can flourish without the shadow of death.” (Lexa, 3×06)

But Luna already practiced a legacy of nonviolence and peace. She already broke the expectations of the Grounders. Both of them inhabited that attitude, yet Luna was supposed to be “different” and unique.

“You believe that to defeat an enemy who will stop at nothing, you must stop at nothing. How is that different than blood must have blood?” (Luna, 3×14)

I could overlook the similarities between them if it weren’t for another aspect of Luna’s character that seemed to contradict everything that we knew about Lexa: her strength.   Not only did Luna already exemplify a peaceful, pacifistic attitude, but Luna was illustrated as the rightful commander, who would have ascended if she did not flee the conclave.

“I didn’t flee the Conclave because I was afraid I would lose. I fled because I knew I would win.” (Luna, 3×14)

Luna 2

So Lexa didn’t even become the commander fairly? She wasn’t the strongest or most qualified? She was the second runner-up, the weaker of the two, who would have been killed if Luna didn’t leave?

If they had planned on introducing Luna, why was it so important to depict Lexa was unique and special? Not only did she die, but everything that made Lexa unique has been seemingly undermined by Luna’s character.


  1. Amen!!! This season just contradicts itself. I guess “love IS weakness, “blood MUST have blood, “life ISNT more then just surviving” and lexa wasn’t strong when she defeated roan. So frustrating it had so much potential.

  2. i think the writers are trying to force the viewers to focus on Luna, the mysterious last person who would help Clark and her people. Like you said they have mentionned her name a few times but we never really pay attention to it, but if you analyse it, it s like they have plant a seed in our head, by seed i mean luna. Like they did with Lexa. Because it s normal that everybody wants to know more about the mysterious person. They got us hook, that s their job. Kind of logic, they kill Lexa so they need another powerfull third person to help Clarke save everybody (again) and to keep the show unpredictable like they claim it to be. However the season is going to end, they have to come up with something totally new to make The 100 great again.
    Kudos to your analyse, i agree with everything you wrote.

  3. Your analysis make sense and it’s sad that Lexa ‘s uniqueness is being undermined by the same persons who brought all her qualities into light. Why would they do such a thing? Maybe to try to make the other fans move on to accepting a new commander (if there’s one).I think Lexa’s fans will feel betrayed about this plot line yet again. The least they could have done is to stick to the notion that Lexa was special. So much potential,yet sadly wasted.

  4. I completely agree–as for your last question, I certainly think while the show tried to, it failed quite miserably in having Luna>Lexa in the conclave. A self-professed pacifist who ran away–AFTER killing her own brother?–and didn’t face Lexa because she knew she’d win? There’s an air of cockiness that I wouldn’t presume her to be a good commander, and also a huge stinking pile of lack of intelligence because, you know, if you’re gonna suddenly make such an ethical turn to be a pacifist, don’t kill your brother first…

    Pacifist=/=good person, and I think Luna showed that she had no qualifications to be the commander at all; in running away she showed true lack of altruism for her people, and that’s what defines Lexa’s character so grandly, and that’s what made her coalition so successful. So aye, I agree on your criticism but I don’t think Lexa was undermined at all–or at least, if that was the intention, it rather backfired!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *