Why is Nick Durand such a decisive figure in the #Absentia fandom? Let’s start from the beginning – A thread.

The initial description and promotion of Absentia described it as a “crime thriller about an FBI agent (Katic) who disappears while hunting one of Boston's most notorious serial killers…

Missing for 6 years, she returns to find out her husband has remarried and her son is being raised by another woman.”

More than 95% of the show’s viewers were Castle viewers, carrying the same expectations about character relationships (like Castle and Beckett), and unconsciously expecting the same intensity.

Absentia was no Castle. It couldn’t be. Emily Byrne was no Kate Beckett and Nick Durand was no Richard Castle who would wait for his lady love on hands and foot. That was strike number 1.

How dare Nick remarried and didn’t look for Emily? Because EMILY IS STANA and how can anyone not choose Stana? (Audience’s mindset). Strike number 2

Why did Nick move on after 6 years? Why did he stop looking for her and be happy with someone else? Frankly, his character till date has been sketchy and shallow at best.

Majority of the fans love their fav actors (justifiably so), and unconsciously support whatever roles they portray. They could never see Emily beyond their initial perception of her being a poor, unfortunate victim of circumstances who was wronged by everyone but mostly by Nick.

Don’t forget that Absentia has been marketed until season 2 with Emily Byrne being described as an ‘anti-hero’. (Something which I personally don’t agree with, but let’s have that discussion some other day).

There was no proof being offered as to where Emily was and was she actually a murderer? It was her word versus evidence.

Now, as Castle fans we know that the evidence isn't the whole story but AGAIN this wasn’t Castle.

Emily had the audience’s sympathy because the show is from her point of view, and we love Stana so ‘she is always right’, and the majority wouldn’t bother to look at the situation from the other characters point of view.

Emily sees Nick and Alice and her son being a perfect family. She feels bad. We as audience feel miserable. And again, ‘why is Nick happy when Emily is miserable’ thoughts surround us.

Then comes strike number 3, the patchy storyline, they never explained why Flynn didn’t know about Emily. Nick ever had a talk with him? We don’t know. It was all our speculations.

In S2, we find out he was in therapy and grieving for his missing wife but that was that.

They never said in words but it was evident that Nick Durand was a workaholic. A regular joe, if you may. Neither too smart nor too ambitious. A guy who didn’t mind Emily running rings around him as Papa Byrne said.

Nick Durand is a by the book character. He goes where evidence leads, and it pointed out towards Emily being the mastermind behind her disappearance and murder.

We as audience knew about Emily’s pov & of course we’d side with her, but think about character’s perspectives. Nick was in the dark cos she kept him there.

Emily and Nick have an emotional, intimate/vulnerable AND consensual moment where they have s*x which was them trying to reconnect because they have a long a** troubled history between them which only the two of them know.

Emily used that moment to throw Nick off, making him believe that she was guilty of something. Again, we as audience knew she wasn’t but he didn’t, neither did Detective Tossbag ( to be fair to him).

Fast forward, Nick doesn’t trust Emily because he has no reason to. We as audience have seen all her struggles, and quest to prove her innocent so we blame Nick for being a douche.

Alice is pregnant. We blame Nick for… having a baby with his second wife? Emily doesn’t hold any grudges towards Nick or Alice. She just wants to have a relationship with her son. Full stop. But we as audience hold our grudges cos he is an easy target.

Can you really blame someone for not acting the way you want them to just because you know the entire story/perspective, and they don’t? That's up to you guys.

Start season 2. We see a new guy on the block. Cal Isaac, a mysterious, former navy SEALS guy, whom we don’t know anything about.

Comparisons start and Nick is hated even more. Even for existing. At the same time, we don’t know anything about Cal’s past, his emotional baggage or history. He looks good and that’s all that matters.

We see Cal serving as the emotional support for Emily. An anchor, while she falters.

Nick’s relationship with Alice falters because the two of them grew apart, due to a myriad of reasons. Alice has an extramarital affair and who is blamed? Nick.

Nick has difficulty coping up with so many emotional events that have taken place in his life with regard to the closest people in his life, but does he get any sympathy? No. Why? You can guess.

He is blamed to be a “deadbeat dad,” while we have had no proof of that. But who cares? Hating Nick is the popular thing to do.

Because how dare he not believe Emily when she was manipulating him or lying to him cos “Emily IS Stana and we love Stana.”

Emily and Nick are a family. They have a son. They will always have a connection regardless of their living situation. Accept it.

Love or hate any character, it doesn’t matter but understand the psychology or motives behind their actions, and then criticize. It will add credence to your argument.

This thread isn’t an attempt to whitewash Nick Durand or anything. Anyone can have whatever opinion they want, it’s your prerogative, but context matters. Please keep it in mind whenever you criticise a plotline or a character. Thanks.