What About Blair Waldorf’s Baby?

by Lauren Boyer

—

Warning: spoilers.

There’s a reason the hit television show Gossip Girl lives on to this day. Its excitement and extravagance is reminiscent of Fitzgerald’s Gatsby in more ways than one. If Dan Humphrey is Jay Gatsby, the outsider working his way into the carelessly convenient lives of those around him, then Blair Waldorf is his Daisy. However, one plot hole in particular carries notable ethical implications. What about Blair Waldorf’s baby?

Throughout the show, it is clear that Blair’s pregnancy does little more than add effective but unnecessary drama to the plot. The tragedy of her miscarriage is more tragic because of what it does to Blair’s romance with Chuck (which survives) than the lost life of her child. 

The infant carries little identity and remains a nameless, genderless tool. By keeping viewers on the edge of their seats for a prolonged period as Blair determines the identity and significance of her child’s father, the child’s role becomes enwrapped in her relationships. Between Blair’s tortured love triangle and Dan’s romantic struggle to make it a square, the effect of the chaos is that Blair’s relationship to her child is less important than her relationship to the men around her. 

Apart from complicating the plot, Blair’s pregnancy introduces a new emotional level not yet explored. From the private and rare tears of Chuck Bass to the violent collision that unravels, the idea of Blair's baby is a deadly one. It’s no wonder the writers couldn’t let it continue. But instead of giving the baby value outside of a Magic 8 ball to their mother and the audience, the child is killed off in a way that does no justice to their worth.

The emotional blow that is Blair’s miscarriage is overshadowed by her concern for the seemingly unkillable Chuck Bass who makes it out alive. Instead of turning to grief for her child upon Chuck’s recovery, she grieves Chuck like a widow because their relationship seems to be over (again). The only one who seems to expect her to react in grief for her child is her fiancé, the child’s father, Louis. However, Louis’ grief is not explored and the focus is on his changed romantic relationship with Blair. 

The result of attaching the value of Blair’s child to her shifting relationships leaves the child with no value at all. When Blair realizes her independence, her pregnancy loses its purpose, and so the life of her child is suddenly terminated and all move on. But this works — for the show. It’s not the first time its characters use those around them and escape unscathed. And Dan’s place, like Gatsby, is to be totally mesmerized by the disregard for human life. 

Blair is as uninterested in her child’s welfare as Daisy is with Pammy’s. But before Blair, there was Georgina, who threw a teenage pregnancy on Dan and then left him to father her child for months, before returning to rip Milo from his arms and announce it was all a lie. Not to mention the sudden appearance of Scott (a long lost son) who, after a phase, is forgotten. Even the ambiguous murder of Bart Bass by his own son holds little moral dilemma. Blair’s baby, Milo, and Scott each serve to add drama between other characters’ relationship dynamics before being entirely forgotten.

While at first glance this casual treatment of life seems typical of dramas, underneath it is a reflection of the moral philosophy of Western society and an exploration of its embedded contradictions. 

German philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote, “Act so as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, at all times also as an end, and not only as a means.” What this means is that it is never morally correct to use another human being in a way that doesn’t recognize their human dignity. Put simply, don’t use people. 

Dan Humphrey may be the outsider looking in, but what he’s looking at is the cold disregard of others. That is what he wants and what he becomes. The selfishness is so natural we hardly notice. 

There is nothing wrong with Blair’s miscarriage or Dan’s decision not to pursue Milo or Rufus and Lily letting Scott leave. What is problematic is the lack of the worth to all human beings given to each of these characters. There is not enough time given to the emotional bombshell that is Blair’s miscarriage. There is no validation that murder is wrong or that the loss of life matters. The only worth given to characters like Milo and Scott is that someone better off cares about them for a moment. In this way the screen perpetrates harmful ideas. Not valuing life on the screen leads to not valuing the life around us. We copy what we see online, and if we aren’t careful we will forget the great principles our country was founded on as quickly as Daisy forgot Gatsby. 

If you are looking for the excitement of Bonnie and Clyde or the material glamour of Fitzgerald, then Gossip Girl offers a great evening. But before you settle too deeply into your sofa, remind yourself that while the characters on screen might not be real, your desire to be them is as real as Dan Humphrey’s — as is the moral danger of their lifestyle. And you're much less likely to handle miscarriage and murder as eloquently as the characters on screen. Because the pain of those challenges is more real than you think.