Urban Fantasy Series Fail

[future_guardian]

So, there's this urban fantasy series by Rachel Vincent (pretty sure the series is called Werecats, but I didn't see a series title on the book).  It's basically about this college graduate student, Fayth, who is one of the few breeding female werecats (called Tabbies) and supposedly on the side of good, and the evil werecats who want to use her

Comments

[future_guardian]

Usually when I read reviews for any other book, they're overwhelmingly positive and also right on (except I may find something small to gripe about because I find it hard to believe a book can be all-around good).

Weird thing is, people who have stuck with this series say "It gets good by the fourth book, you just need to be patient." I just don't/can't buy that. If the first book is weak, okay. Every author has their not-so-good book. If the second book is weak, frustrating. If the third book is weak, I don't even bother continuing.

[daystarsearcher]

Ugh, I hate when authors make this mistake. It's like, "Thank you so much for giving more people the wrong idea of what a strong woman is, and turning readers off feminism."

[suitetwentytwo]

I don't know why, but everytime I read 'I do what I want' it came out in my head as 'I doo whut I wan.' I don't know why. Now I'm saying it over and over again in my head. (Don't bother listening to the crazy person, aka, me.)

[in_excelsis_dea]

Is it me or do characters that usually claim to be brilliant never seem to be portrayed that way? It just seems like another hook to get the reader into the character: X is omg a genius! Other geniuses should read! Just like some people write books about larger sized characters, especially the thin authors (iirc, someone ranted once about Meg Cabot's series).

I read the first book in her Soul series (the teenage banshee one), and enjoyed it. But I've tried my best to stay away from this series and I'm glad after hearing this.

[ladyserenity84]

Yeah, I dislike it when authors simply state these aspects of a character and don't allow them to develop naturally, allowing the reader to develop these conclusions about her character.

Brilliant people, in general, often show their brilliance in ways they aren't aware - it's not an attribute that you can just slap on someone, characters included. True, people can be confident in their abilities, but they do not say to themselves "I am a genius/intelligent/strong independent person" - they may either not know it, or they may realize after some event or somesuch that they can do something really well, and usually there's a natural propensity to push themselves to something they know how to do - and just do it.

But then again, you also have geniuses who can give advice, but completely fail following it themselves. The art of showing that contrast well is to weave it so that you're not beating the person reading about it over the head with it. :P

[future_guardian]

Well put.

Now that I think of it, I may have liked Fayth a little better if she didn't tell us she was so intelligent, because then we could see it in her actions (or not; I personally didn't see her as intelligent action-wise).

Speaking of beating readers over the head, interestingly enough, there's another urban fantasy series that I do like (The Allie Beckstrom series, for anyone curious) that I think is this series improved just a little bit but with some of the same flaws. Allie is similar to Fayth in personality, not to mention that she makes sure readers know she's intelligent. However, I did see more genuine intelligence in Allie than Fayth, so I found that aspect of her character much more tolerable.

So, I think I could like a character in spite of writing problems if she (or he) also had some redeeming characteristics/lived up to what they claimed they were.