Oddly specific reasons why I stopped reading popular book series
Six of Crows
-> Kaz gets introduced with the famous line of “Kaz Brekker doesn’t/didn’t need a reason” and then it goes on to show you how he absolutely needs one. There has to be some kind of profit gained for him, ntm that that line does not correspond at all with the seres of events that then followed.
-> the voice for Kaz in the audiobook is creepy given he’s supposed to be a teenager
-> he takes the job for the ice prison thingy without asking when the deadline is for it.
Twilight, second book, which has a title, I'm sure:
-> prologue opens with something like “.. there was a good chance that we’d die here” said by Bella about herself and Edward; I knew that there would be two more books, so they would not die. Tension dead!
I don’t trust people, who review books and call out a toxic relationship in one series, right before turning around to profess their love for Malec and CC’s writing.
Just wanting to continue that discussion on naming Malec naming the baby Max. Some parents see it as a way to honor their loved ones and for their memory to live on in the continuation of the name. For some, this backfires horribly and the parent realizes they haven't really processed as well as they thought so they are constantly reminded of their loss and it comes out against the child. Others don't experience this. 1/3
They may from time to time think about their loved one, but I think everyone has those days where a memory hits them unexpectedly as that's just a part of grief. That's a risk some people take. Even giving a child the middle name of a living relative, you are taking that risk should something happen. It is up to the parents to make sure the child knows they don't have to live up to anyone. And in this scenario, with Max dying so young, the baby really doesn't have a memory to live up to. 2/3
I understand some people can't take that risk with names, but there are people who understand what are they doing. I don't think it's bad to name a child after a loved one dead or alive as long as you understand that they are not that person and don't treat them as if they are. I don't know if all that makes sense but I really just wanted to get another perspective involved in the discussion. Thanks for reading my long message. 3/3
Hey there,
this probably relates to this post I made a while ago and ... okay.
Something, that maybe didn't come across well in my original post is, that I don’t judge anybody for however they use names of dead relative or living ones, or second names. I personally don’t like it in real life for personal emotional reasons. I also don’t like it in media, or it has to be done ridiculously well for me to work.
Now, the thing with Max has several levels:
- in media, I feel like it’s a cheap tearjerker move, a cheat for getting emotional involvement of the consumer without doing the work (which imo is an ongoing theme with CC)
- in the Shadowhunters Chronicles or however the franchise is called by now specifically, I personally don’t like the choice, because it’s like using the warlock child as a replacement for Max Lightwood (whose death was a whole other level of bad writing imo)
then it went on with naming the second child Rafael Santiago and it just became a gimmick (I could probably write a separate essay about how CC fumbled the whole Malec adoption thing, but I won’t because it’s not good for my health)
- as an objective point for the case of writing a franchise with many characters in general, I simply don’t think that reusing names in such close proximity is the smartest move (I’d rather go for using it as a second name, so you don’t oversaturate the name)
Final point:
You’re free to have your opinion, you can find it bad or good, you can like CC’s execution or not, I put no judgement on these things in any way. However I about stopped my involvement in the fandom after finishing my final paper/thesis(?) for my bachelor’s degree, so everything I posted about TMI and CC and the show, I think, is about 3 to 4 years old.
I don’t mean to be rude and I’m not angry for people replying to my posts or sending me asks, but I’d appreciate it if you’d check the date of something that was posted (through clicking the three little dots at the top of a post).
I made my peace with this franchise (as in I moved on from it) and it’s not an active conversation for me anymore.
I don’t know if it’s unpopular opinion or just something people don’t talk about. However it’s something I wanted to write down somewhere for a while, so I thought: Why not today?
This is about the trend of ‘cringing’ at your own old art.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve done it myself, laughed about how ‘bad’ my old drawings were and so on. It’s usually just lighthearted and with no bad intention, I mean, hey, you’re laughing about your own stuff and looking back at old art is in general just very interesting because you can see how far you’ve come and how much you’ve learned. I prefer it a lot to the trend of talking down your current art.
But as I saw these kind of posts from very advanced artists, I couldn’t help but think, that their ‘cringe-y old art’ was the level I’m at currently.
And I was actually proud of that, or tried to let myself be proud of it, because it’s such a trend to dislike your own stuff (like I mentioned before).
I kept thinking, and eventually got to the point, that I realized, my old art, that I made fun of and ‘cringed’ at, was at the same level of somebody else’s current best. And making fun of my own stuff, was indirectly at the same time the same as making fun of their current skill level.
So, I always see these posts with a bit of a bitter aftertaste. Of course, you’re allowed to say about your own stuff what you want, but I think, it would be better to think of them as ‘different’ from your current style or skill level, than to see them as ‘worse’.
We have enough negativity in the art community as it is and I think, changing these little things can help already.
I consciously stopped putting negative phrases in my posts or tried to always put them in relation to something positive, like ‘the perspective isn’t completely right, but I still like it’ or ‘I had fun with this'. And I think, it has helped me a lot to improve my relationship with my art and also my way of approaching stuff like art block, etc.
So, yeah, even if it’s really old art, you were proud of it at some point, and I don’t think, that should be easily discounted and thrown out of the window as ‘bad art’. It is what got you to the point you’re at now.
I don’t like either of them and think, they don’t deserve the singled out fame they get after the war. Both are placed on pedestals they don’t deserve to be standing on based on their actions and the narrative is created to favor their portrayal for the reader. But objectively they don’t hold up and I didn’t buy them as a couple.
Wait, I don't get it. Do you hate CC because of the way she portrayed Alec and cast out all the good things he did?
Hey there :) If you want to get into the depth of my dislike for CC, you can go through my anti-cc tag and the final paper tag. I feel like I covered most of my issues about CC in those posts.
To give an abbreviated list of reasons I have an issue with her is:
- her portrayal of Alec as the empty vessel for an idealized positive message, that is not rooted in the story (she sidelined him, characters look down on him, etc. it’s subtle, but it’s there)- her shallow portrayal of the complex coming out-issue in a homophobic society- her attitude towards criticism, by which I mean, that she can’t take any- her habit of unprofessionally ranting about things that go against her and missing the point completely on those most of the time- her constant victim-attitude- her habit of portraying herself as some kind of fighter for the LGBTQ+ community which she mostly only uses for publicity and back in the day to draw attention towards herself and away from the show- her open and also very unprofessional behavior towards the show and actors
- and I just think, that she’s not a good writer and has tons of inconsistencies in her story (the basic idea for the Shadowhunters world is a great one, but she doesn’t use it properly in my opinion )She’s also a prime example of a case of ‘toxic author creates toxic fandom’
I’m sure, there are some things missing here, but it’s been a few years by now since I’ve written about the topic and so far it’s pretty much concluded for me.
It’s no secret, that there are a lot of people, who stopped the Captive Prince trilogy after the first book and that’s okay. The themes aren’t for everybody, the series in general has very mature themes and content and is not for everybody. The thing I want to touch on in this post is more about the reasoning of dropping the series after the first book.
Just to be clear, if you stopped the book or refuse to read them, because you don’t care about the characters (mostly Damen, because it’s his POV) or find the story boring or the things happening triggering, I have no issue with that. Nobody should be forced to read something that make them uncomfortable, bores them or downright is a threat to their mental health.
Disclaimer: There will be spoilers for the third book, because I feel like I need to put them in here to make the point because who are against the series won’t trust my word on ‘Oh, you will understand, when you get to the twist’ and because those against it might not read it at all anyway.
Again and again it comes up, that people are shocked at how the first book plays out, when they went in expecting a romance story like it’s (unfortunately) often advertised. (It’s not a romance, it has a romantic subplot.) And as I got back into watching booktube videos, I kept hearing things like:
“I don’t see, how Laurent could ever be redeemed.“
“I don’t see how they’re supposed to end up as this epic power couple.“
(I would also argue, that they don’t really end up as the power couple, but you can see at the end of book three, the potential of them becoming one)
Upon hearing these things, my first thought was always ‘Well, then read it and find out?’ because it’s one of the main motivators for me to keep reading certain books. (I mostly finished TMI to see how the relationship of Magnus and Alec would end and to this day I haven’t read the scenes of Clary being kidnapped by Sebastian and Jace because that was a storyline I didn’t care about.)
But I also kept thinking about these comments about Captive Prince and that part of ‘I don’t see how this could be resolved’ as if they thought about every possible way of how this story could go and didn’t see a good conclusion at the end of any of these roads.
The Pattern of Romance
It made me think about how romance is usually written and noticed, that we usually have the pattern of:
1. book: Get together
2. book: Crisis happens
3. book: Making up/final establishment as a couple
In most books where the romance aspect plays a more prominent role the couple gets together at the end of the first book because their romance developing is a specific arc in the book. Not for Captive Prince. There it is more like:
1. book: We can help each other
2. book: Physical Attraction noted and acted on it + mutual respect
3. book: Feelings are happening all over the place
(sort of, it’s been a while since I read the books)
The thing is, in terms of the usual romance plot, you get the first arc of the typical romance over the course of three books (which is why I mentioned, it’s just a subplot). But with most books, we tend to be conditioned, that romance happens either fast or becomes quickly visible, with insta-love being all over the place these days.
So, this is the first one of my theories, with which you can disagree if you want and chalk it up to me not having read that many mainstream books lately.
Laurent’s Redemption?
People, who read the first book despised Laurent and are often up in arms about the abuse that happens between the couple-to-be and yes, I agree, that almost flogging Damen to death is not the best first date idea. (It has the added horror to people, that Damen is a POC and Laurent’s white, but that’s a story for another day, told by somebody else.)
I was skeptical going into the first book. I’ve seen people hating it with a passion and others loving it like their first born child. So, I was curious to see how this would go. It was probably good for me, that I was spoiled for the stuff, that would happen and the flogging specifically, so I knew it was coming, which made me more curious on how this would play out.
Pacat had pretty much written herself into a corner after the flogging scene, I think. How would she get out of that and I do think, it takes more than a full book to get out of that Dead End, when at the beginning of the third book it is revealed, that Laurent knew who Damen was from the start - the person, who killed Laurent’s older brother.
That and the point, where we find out, that his uncle, the Regent, also sexually abused Laurent after Auguste’s death and took advantage of him being emotionally vulnerable, that puts the whole first book into a new perspective.
Yes, Laurent is cruel in the beginning, but he is also in a situation where he is confronted daily with his abuser who holds the throne, and there’s nobody to talk to.
And in this situation he is gifted a slave, who he knows is the killer of his brother, who he is stopped from actually killing in revenge by the guy who sexually abused him. I would say, looking back it’s fucked up situation to be in and to survive.
Therefore I would also say, Laurent doesn’t get redeemed, he was cruel af and until the end, he doesn’t exactly become the king of Fluff, but that would have been a realistic character development. The flogging especially is something, that is very present between them and nothing that is imo treated as ‘ancient history, we all make mistakes’, Just like Damen carries the guilt of killing Auguste, despite it having happened during a war, with them on opposing sides.
Laurent doesn’t get redeemed, he gets explained. His actions aren’t excused, but made understandable.
Why the difficulty with understanding him?
Looking at the character in broad strokes, Laurent is the stereotype of the cruel prince: royal by birth, scheming, living in luxury, cruel for fun with a sort of lethal beauty
Though there are details added in the books, that shape Laurent’s character beyond the aforementioned stereotype are:
- He’s not cruel for fun in general, he is cruel towards Damen because he knows who he is (Damen remarks later, that Laurent would have let him go had he been any other slave)
- He lives in luxury, but doesn’t cover himself in jewelry, he covers himself in fabric as a defense against what has been done to him by the Regent
- He’s royal by birth, but his throne is held hostage by his uncle, who first sexually abused him and now wants him dead
- he is scheming and good at it (something, that I found instantly fascinating), but this as well is a defense developed as a measure of survival against the threat of his uncle
- he’s really pretty ... no twist there.
(Only, that he knows to use his looks if has to.)
Most of these details are not that prominent in the public display of the character because they are connected to spoilers of the plot.
Now, we have the more prominent stereotype of the ‘Bad Boy with the terrible childhood/past’ who just gets away with awful stuff because of his past. Readers are used to a character being awful at first taking that road of having some kind of tragic backstory thrown at the reader and that excuses their actions. So, I think, people often think, that is the only way it could go and are put off by that. But that’s not the case. Laurent’s childhood/past is pretty much hell, but it’s not used as excuse. (He himself doesn’t even bring up the sexual abuse, it’s his uncle basking in torturing Damen with that reveal.) It’s used to put his actions into perspective and as a reason for Laurent’s deep hatred for the Regent.
So, yeah, Laurent is an onion, that was peeled against his will once and now bites when people try to do it again.
And the additional reveal of him knowing who Damen really is almost gives you whiplash after reading the first two books (especially the second one) of “Wait, WHAT?” because you realize Laurent grew to trust and respect Damen for his skills and personality despite knowing he killed his brother, he acknowledges that skill, too. (Honestly i found that refreshing after all those blind revenge plots of ‘I will avenge my [add family member here] and if it’s the last thing I do’.)
The Dilemma of POV
Damen is the only POV telling the story, therefore the abuse he suffers is more visible and the reader actively suffers with him. It’s also shown, while Laurent’s abuse is told (in a much shorter way, too). That way, the abuse Damen suffers is more prominent, easily explained by the basics of writing.
Not to mention, that people, who stopped after the first book don’t even know about Laurent’s story.
It’s a case of ‘visible abuse vs. invisible abuse’, which is reflected in the writing. And if you want to be really provokative, you could say, the people’s reaction to Laurent and Damen is a mirror of society’s reaction to visible and invisible abuse and to the case of ‘not looking like a victim’ ...
There’s also the possible case to see Laurent as ‘the risk of an abuse victim turning into an abuser’ ... (there are some topics, that could be turned into a paper)
Conclusion?
Pacat took a great risk with Laurent in the first book and to advertise it as love story didn’t do it any favors, but what she ended up achieving was quite impressive.
So, going back to the beginning of “I don’t see how this supposed to work itself out positively.” ... you’re not supposed to see that after the first book, it’s the point of the series to create a tense starting point and make you wonder how it’s supposed to be concluded.
The problem stands with people, who have read the first book, judging the whole series as bad and terrible and judging the people who like the whole series and going ‘I don’t get how people can like this series’.
When going into books, it can be important to realize, that our judgement of that book is influenced by expectations created by other books, the summary on the back and character types we met before or patterns we’ve seen before and when we get tidpits of these patterns in new books, we tend to put the rest of the pattern in by ourselves and see it as fullfilling the pattern despite it not being the case.
This why I tend to go for spoilers to either save myself the trouble of going down a path I don’t want to go or with at least wait a bit to see if the storyline I’m following is really as predictable as I think it will be (just skimming the text).
If it ends up being predictable, I kick it, if not, I’m surprised positively and eventually go back to reread the part I skimmed.
It’s more helpful to go “Will it go down this road?” instead of “It’s going down that road!”.
So, when CP doesn’t make it apparent how Damen and Laurent end up together after the first book, and you don’t like it, it’s not the fault of the book, it’s more your problem of expecting it to do so - is what I’m trying to say here.
The trilogy is actually also not a trilogy like we are most used to seeing them, with each of the books having a concluded story arc, it’s more a case of one story being broken into three acts/books. And again, the expectation to get a trilogy like people expect based on how most are structured is not the fault of the books.
Are they flawless? No.
But seeing people shit on CP as ‘trash’ and ‘problematic’ and then go and praise Cassandra Clare for her books, just annoys me and makes me think, that there are way more urgent issues of more subtle problematic writing, that we should worry about. Not to mention, that CC’s stuff is YA - aimed at teenagers - and CP is adult fiction.
And with this I conclude my two cents concerning people’s problems with CP.
@birdyloverlightwood-bane I decided to address your messages as one, I hope, that is okay:
1. If you don’t consider their actions abusive, then that’s fine. I don’t share that opinion, so I’m just going to add the thought, that you can be abusive for reasons and sometimes even without the intention of it being so.
2. I make the difference between biphobic actions and biphobic person. I do consider him in the first category, not necessarily in the second one. If you don’t see him in either category, that’s fine.
3. I do know about her being offered more for a Clace trilogy, but honestly don’t care much about it as she’s already a well-accomplished author, so I don’t think she’s going to have that much of a financial disadvantage with her decision to write the Malec trilogy.
What adds to the bitter taste for me when it comes to the trilogy is that she conveniently announced writing the First Time story around the same time, the Malec episode of the first season of the show aired, and therefore diverted attention from the show without having any reason to announce it that much in advance, not to mention, that it first was a short story meant for a charity, then turned into a Novella (?) and eventually into a trilogy, of which the release of the first book has been pushed back.
What she says about the motivation behind the writing of the book might be true, but I don’t care, also so far released snippets of the book have proven to be of imo low quality and as TBC not aligned with the canon of the books, which in my eyes is a sign of poor writing.
As for the adult aspect: the content so far is still aimed at teenagers and is already so borderline adult, that in an official adult work she can go much further. That with the addition of Alec being not legal and barely legal at the beginning is just not appropriate in my opinion after my experience with adult romance-fantasy books. (There’s more to unpack here, I think, but that's as far as I wanted to go atm)
