Why I most likely won't be reading The Gilded Blade.
SPOILERS AHEAD
JLB the catfisher:
I have said this before and I will say it again whilst dying of hysteria on this hill, I feel incredibly catfished reading this series. JLB explicitly said that the series is about Grayson before TGG even came out nows she's done a whole 180 and made it all about the OG characters. She also said that you don't need to read the OG trilogy in order to read the spin off which is a complete lie especially with the spoilers that we got. How would readers understand the gravity of Emily being alive if they didn't read the OG trilogy? Also how can you go on live stream and say that you have put clues in every book, that it all links back to the original storyline whilst claiming that it's seperate from the OG trilogy? It's clear to see that this woman lets her fans lead the story instead of having a backbone for herself. My point is she claimed that the series was about one thing and completed switched up as the series progressed and she saw the comments and reactions on instagram.
Emily being alive:
The way you know an author is milking a series is when they bring back dead characters (Looking at you Taherah Mafi as well). This is such a lazy plot line and it undoes literally everyone in the OG trilogy. Avery struggled with insecurities because of her, Jameson and Grayson's relationship broke down because of her, Rebecca and Thea couldn't be together and happy because of her. So much happened because of this girl and all of these characters were starting to get closure and all of a sudden she's still alive. Bringing back a character only works when they have a change of heart, the best example I can think of is Gally from Maze runner. Gally is a massive Douche, he "dies" in the first movie and then in the last film it turns out he's alive. But the thing is, Gally has a massive change of character which positively impacts the story. Emily is still a bitch, at least when she was "dead" you could defend her by saying "well we don't know he because she's not alive to defend herself" that argument completely goes out the window. Which pisses me off so much considering I was one of the people who would defend her.
Grayson not being able to catch a damn break:
I don't care what anyone says Emily SA'd Grayson in that scene where he was chained up. And not amount of context can change it, if the genders were reversed it wouldn't even be a discussion. What is the point of this? Who actually wants to see this? And the fact that Emily goes as far as saying "Did you think of me or Lyra?" or something in the lies of that is just sick. I seriously don't understand JLB's motive in bringing back this storyline of Grayson not being able to get over Emily, I thought that was wrapped up in TBH. This just goes to show that she's grasping at straw and doesn't know how to develop a good plotline. Also him getting punched by Rohan? like what the hell is up with that? I can about Grayson a lot he is one of my favourite character but when authors constantly trauma dump on their characters it's just lazy writing. Reading TBH, TGG and GR was nice because the progression of Grayson's character was rewarding to see. He's closed of emotionally, realises he's not doing okay, seeks therapy, matures and becomes emotionally aware. I feel like all of that is undone based on the spoilers we have seen. According to Libby there is a point in the book where Grayson isn't sleeping properly or eating properly, like why can't he just have some damn peace???
Epilogue:
I am not against young couples getting married, I am very pro marriage but Javery getting married makes no sense. It's not fitting for their characters at all since they are more invested in travelling, also they aren't ready for marriage. Jameson needs to go to therapy, take some anger management courses and learn how to control his anger and reckless impulses before he can be a good husband. Also why are characters getting married in a YA book? I will also die on this hill when I say that Lyra and Grayson most certainly would get married before them, because that is how their dynamic is. Javery's dynamic is not like that, its clear to see that JLB want the whole promise ring to come back for the instagram fans since they have been begging for a wedding.
Loss of interest:
Overall, everything has just put me off from reading the books which is really sad because I was looking forward to a good ending. The adding extra characters like Nora, Kaitlyn etc. Eve possibly dying (will reading), Toby dying in order to "be with Hannah", Emily being alive, Avery's kidnapping taking up the entire book, Lyra's mom possibly not being her mom at all. All of it has just put me off from reading the book in general.
The Hawthornes and Avery are doing to others, what Tobias did to them. Showing that the cycle is repeating itself.
I get that Avery donated all the money, which I think was the right thing to do. But cycles don't end by giving wealth away, they break by you deciding you want to change. It seems to me that the Hawthornes have not changed, and Avery has decided to live like them.
What did Tobias do to all the characters in the OG trilogy? He placed a game in front of them, and proceeded to play them from beyond the grave. The funny part is that the characters could have stopped at any given time, but willingly chose to continue (despite them complaining about it). To be completely honest, there is no reason as to why they needed to know why Avery got the inheritance. Yes that's the storyline, but if you think about it nothing bad would have happened if Avery had just stayed in the house for the year and didn't play Tobias's game. They have nothing to gain/lose by knowing, everything was still left to Avery and nothing for the Hawthornes regardless on them playing the game.
Avery and the Hawthornes are doing the same thing, but they seem to be very oblivious about it. The Grandest Game is about giving people a chance to win 17 million dollars by winning the game, but the people in the game have legitimate reasons to play. If Lyra doesn't play she'll lose her family home/not be able to go to college, if Rohan doesn't play he'll lose the Devil's Mercy etc. Point being Rohan and Lyra have things to lose if they don't play the game. I know someone who works in Public Trustee (dealing with wills and stuff) and they said something regarding their clients "Money brings out the worst of people". If you place 17 millions dollars on the line, realistically people will do terrible things to get it, hence the mishaps in the story.
I made a post about how I didn't like TFG, one thing I didn't mention was that none of the characters seemed to learn anything from the trilogy. I thought by the end they would understand that not everything is a game, you can't do whatever is takes to win, fighting dirty is wrong regardless on if you win, you can't treat people like a pawn/game etc. By the end, nobody has learnt their lesson, and because they didn't learn anything, the cycle is repeating itself. What angers me is that Lyra has done the right thing throughout the entire story and she is directly affected by the Hawthorne's tone deafness and ignorance when it comes to wealth. It also angers me that people like Lyra exist in the real world, we have so many billionaires and the working class are paying the price for it. I get that it's just fiction, but then again in someways, fiction mirrors the real world.
Thank you @beautifulmusicengineer for suggesting this!
EXACTLY!!!!!! and that's where the contradiction becomes impossible to ignore, Avery says she donated the money because she understands how destructive wealth can be yet she immediately turns around and builds a game where money is the central motivator, if she truly believed money shouldn't control people, then creating a 17 million dollar game makes no sense, you can't reject the system and then use the same incentive to drive people into desperation. What makes it worse is her stated intention, she wanted people to experience what she experienced first with her mother's games then in the Hawthorne house but she didn't need money, power imbalance or real world consequences to do that, she could've created a contained, voluntary game inspired by her journey where people could engage intellectually without risking their homes, futures or safety, instead she chose replication over translation. As you said Tobias games worked on Avery and the brothers because they have the privilege to walk away, the players in the grandest game don't, for Lyra and others this isn't curiosity or growth it's survival. Once money becomes the hook, the game stops being about experience and starts being about coercion.
So donating the money doesn't prove growth it just proves she moved the money while keeping the same mindset. She didn't break the cycle Tobias created she stepped into his role, rebuilt the structure and called it opportunity.
That's why it feels so frustrating the cycle isn't ending, it's just being JUSTIFIED.
I was really hoping there would be a moment where they thought to themselves "we're becoming just like the old man" or something like that, just to give them a wake up call. Savannah and Lyra can see it, but they have no self awareness.
You know, I'm absolutely in love with the fact that Cho is soft for Jane? Like this man will say no 100 times and then Jane walks up and Cho changes his mind after a single back and forth.
Then when Cho says Jane isn't going with him? The next scene we get is Jane in the car as they approach the place they're going.
When Jane gets in hot water with Lisbon and the others? Cho backs up his car and picks him up.
i think all my opinions are normal and basic but ik some people will disagree and that's fine. however do try to be normal and relax cause i am never in the mood
avery and jameson aren't soulmates <- i'm always saying this and it's not even an opinion it's the text but whatever
I don't like how basically every character is being neatly paired up into a couple
i also don't think everyone should be friends in the end like i really don't think lyra wants to be friends with any of these people and literally why should she. same with rohan and savannah. it would be extremely forced
avery never led grayson on (apparently some people think this???)
jameson and grayson being willing to compete over emily and all is a result of their upbringing sure but it's also because of misogyny on their parts
gigislate shouldn't become canon
avery doesn't "deserve" her fortune regardless of everything she went through (people also believe this??????)
jennifer consistently antagonizes or sidelines characters of color, especially if they're black. delavish and xanmax were both rushed in at the last book and given way less to work with than the other main ships; guess what they have in common.
i'm always saying this but I'll say it again: i fundamentally do not trust people who see lyra as white or with eurocentric features. same with people who call her lie-ra. i'm not saying you're racist but i'm also not saying you're not racist. at the end of the day we have nothing in common.
the amount of hate emily and eve get in this fandom is misogynistic but we already knew this i hope
rovannah is the best couple in tgg. in the whole series maybe actually
avery and grayson are the best written characters of the series <- likely opinion for me to have
the way people exaggerate to complain about "everyone" (two characters) comparing avery to emily "all the time" (two instances) is more annoying than the actual emily mentions
lyra, gigi and rohan should've been the only povs for all three books. avery being kidnapped obviously should have not been a plot point at all let alone one this relevant considering that she's an acquaintance at best and a stranger at worst to the main characters. why tf should they care this much
eve is right to resent toby. eve is right to feel however she wants about toby in fact
eli and mellie need to die like seriously
max should've been a more important and more developed character
games untold should've included a story about xander and his dad
we were robbed and i mean ROBBED of more avery/libby sister bonding and parallels to the hawthornes. why tf did we get nash's bachelor party but not libby's? hello?
alisa is the realest and everyone needs to die for how they treated her
tobias hawthorne abused his grandsons. he didn't see himself that way cause he never hit them and was present unlike skye but he was still an abusive parent to them.
ok i think that's it. now for some universal truths:
everything bad that's ever happened to anyone ever is tobias hawthorne's fault and i hate him.
nobody on this reality fucks with avergrayson the way i fuck with avergrayson
bonus the naturals take if you've made it this far without blocking and reporting me: the "michael deserves a happy ending bc his relationship with lia is toxic" thoughtline is inherently racist and misogynistic bc it begs the question of why don't you wish for another love interest and a happy ending for lia as well? curious. plus i'm gonna be so fawking real right now. between the two of them, michael is the one who actually lashes out the worst and in the most genuinely hurtful ways. lia should treat him worse. and the average michael fan/ cassiemichael shipper is going STRAIGHT to hell for their transgressions against lia zhang.
that's it im done good night. love and light to everyone
A lot of discussions about birth rates very intentionally leave out the elephant in the room: women's rights and place in a society. When people talk about countries with very low birth rates, they always bring up economic issues, like inflation or a lack of work-life balance. These are all important, but I think using these factors alone to account for why people aren't having as many kids as they used to completely discounts the autonomy of the women that would be hypothetically birthing these children. You see this when people talk about East Asian countries and you see it when people talk about the USA. In a lot of countries around the world, women have made great strides over the past century in improving their rights and legal status, but this improvement is not absolute, and it is often mothers who have the worst outcomes. Not only do they continue to face discrimination for being women, but they are also often burdened with a disproportionate amount of childcare and housework, and face even higher levels of public scrutiny than other women. So, why would a childfree woman ever want to opt into this lifestyle?
However, this line of thinking often turns into people deciding that if we give mothers more support, this will fix the birth rate! And I do not believe this is true. In some of the countries closest to reaching gender equality the birth rate is still low. Motherhood is inherently undesirable to many people. Obviously not everyone, there are plenty of women who want to have kids and that's perfectly valid if it is a true internal desire. However, the process of pregnancy and childbirth is inherently a stressful and dangerous process that many people would rather avoid. Taking care of an infant requires sacrifices and time off of a career, even if your husband is taking an equal role. And many women still do not want to do it. And the important thing is, this should be respected. This is valid.
Personally, I think a high birth rate is a tragedy. It means that women are being forced to push their bodies to the limits to give birth to many, many children, and forced to give up their own goals and dreams to care for them. Usually, it means continual rape of a woman to produce these children, as in a highly patriarchal culture, a woman's pleasure is usually not prioritized. I'm being intentionally vague here because these patterns can appear around the world, in highly patriarchal countries in the Middle East as well as extremely Christian subcultures in the US. It isn't a coincidence that patriarchal religious communities have high birthrates.
Once women win some fundamental rights, they gain some control over their own fertility. A lot of times, this looks like abstaining from having children altogether and straight women abstaining from men altogether (whether they are officially 4B or just can't find a man that meets reasonable standards).
An increase in support for parents may increase the birth rate a bit, as women who want children but don't want to give their lives up for them can now choose to do so more safely. However, women who do not want children at all will still not have children. And this is a good thing. This is a win for bodily autonomy.
Under true liberation, the birth rate will likely be quite low, but this is a good thing. Only women who truly desire it should have kids, and even if this makes it harder for business, the benefits of bodily autonomy outweigh any possible drawbacks forever.
So basically whenever I hear men talking about the birthrate I assume they have never considered the issue seriously from the perspective of someone who actually would be having these hypothetical children.
kianamaiart
origamiaround
yousharknotpass
discoholicmusic
pixelskylines
