1. that it hews really, really close to paranormal romance conventions. You're right. It reads like extremely violent YA fiction with a slightly older cast. This isn't a major issue, so far as I'm concerned. It's an issue; I'd kinda like to see a thirty-two year old act her age a bit more rather than like a sixteen year old with her Very First Crush Ever. But it's not a major beef.
This next one, however, is:
2. What the hell is up with inferring that all Agents are part of the same bloodline and then indicating that Maddy is "the last direct descendant?" This bothered me. Quite a lot.
All right. It's driving me fucking nuts.
Okay. Look. Either all Agents are derived from the same common ancestor--which makes them ALL direct descendants--or they're not. Unless you want to make an argument about, for example, a direct female line-mother to daughter-to-granddaughter-to-great granddaughter-to-great great granddaughter and so on.
Which is by the terms she lays out, impossible from the start of the bloodline.
I suppose you could also have a chain of eldest to eldest...but that doesn't mean the bloodline is more direct in any significant way. To use a personal example, I am not sure whether or not I'm a direct descendant of Richard Henry Dana Jr. I know I'm related. What i am unsure of is whether I'm a direct descendant or whether I'm a collateral descendant
What I am telling you when I say that is that I'm not sure whether he was my great-grandfather's grandfather or his grand uncle or uncle. He was one of the three. I'm really not sure which and I'm not very good at remembering to follow up on that with members of my family who have all the family records because frankly, although I think he's a cool guy and it's really neat that we're related, it doesn't matter that much to me the particulars of how. If, however, he was my great-grandfather's uncle, then I'm a collateral and not a direct descendant. If he was my great-grandfather's grandfather, then I'm a direct descendant.
Either way, we're part of the family bloodline: his ancestors are my ancestors too, every single one of them. Whether OUR relationship is direct or not is just a matter of if his children's children's children eventually spawned me, or his nephew's children's children did.
Which means if all the Agents come from the same two grandfather-figures, THEN THEY ARE ALL DIRECT DESCENDANTS. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. PERIOD.
If they are not, then why the bloody blazes are there so many Agents, and why does their talent run through the bloodline?...
These sorts of fine details bother me all out of proportion to how they bother most people, I think. But they bother me because they tell me that the writer *did not think through the logical conclusions of her premises* and I HATE THAT. Maybe it's because as a writer, even just as a hobby-writer as I am, I try very hard to think through the logical conclusions of my premises. It strikes me as very sloppy when authors don't bother.
You'd think from all the bitching I just did that i hated the book and I wouldn't read the sequel. I actually thought it was a nice enough read with a likable enough heroine and some interesting conflicts and world building. I actually do like those kinds of books, particularly in the summer (I seem to get more weighty conceptually in the fall and winter).
It was a nice read. I'll probably read the sequel. Since it's coming out after the NY bar and while I'll be on a much-needed vacation, I'm actually looking forward to it.
But that direct descendant thing? That's really driving me nuts.
Yeah, that is something I vaguely refer to in my review but wanted to avoid potential spoilers. Like you, I'm big on thinking logically and I suspect that the author probably means something other than what she said in the book. At least I hope so. :-p
It really is a very, very, very fast read.
I think my primary beef with it is twofold:
1. that it hews really, really close to paranormal romance conventions. You're right. It reads like extremely violent YA fiction with a slightly older cast. This isn't a major issue, so far as I'm concerned. It's an issue; I'd kinda like to see a thirty-two year old act her age a bit more rather than like a sixteen year old with her Very First Crush Ever. But it's not a major beef.
This next one, however, is:
2. What the hell is up with inferring that all Agents are part of the same bloodline and then indicating that Maddy is "the last direct descendant?" This bothered me. Quite a lot.
All right. It's driving me fucking nuts.
Okay. Look. Either all Agents are derived from the same common ancestor--which makes them ALL direct descendants--or they're not. Unless you want to make an argument about, for example, a direct female line-mother to daughter-to-granddaughter-to-great granddaughter-to-great great granddaughter and so on.
Which is by the terms she lays out, impossible from the start of the bloodline.
I suppose you could also have a chain of eldest to eldest...but that doesn't mean the bloodline is more direct in any significant way.
To use a personal example, I am not sure whether or not I'm a direct descendant of Richard Henry Dana Jr. I know I'm related. What i am unsure of is whether I'm a direct descendant or whether I'm a collateral descendant
What I am telling you when I say that is that I'm not sure whether he was my great-grandfather's grandfather or his grand uncle or uncle. He was one of the three. I'm really not sure which and I'm not very good at remembering to follow up on that with members of my family who have all the family records because frankly, although I think he's a cool guy and it's really neat that we're related, it doesn't matter that much to me the particulars of how. If, however, he was my great-grandfather's uncle, then I'm a collateral and not a direct descendant. If he was my great-grandfather's grandfather, then I'm a direct descendant.
Either way, we're part of the family bloodline: his ancestors are my ancestors too, every single one of them. Whether OUR relationship is direct or not is just a matter of if his children's children's children eventually spawned me, or his nephew's children's children did.
Which means if all the Agents come from the same two grandfather-figures, THEN THEY ARE ALL DIRECT DESCENDANTS. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. PERIOD.
If they are not, then why the bloody blazes are there so many Agents, and why does their talent run through the bloodline?...
These sorts of fine details bother me all out of proportion to how they bother most people, I think. But they bother me because they tell me that the writer *did not think through the logical conclusions of her premises* and I HATE THAT. Maybe it's because as a writer, even just as a hobby-writer as I am, I try very hard to think through the logical conclusions of my premises. It strikes me as very sloppy when authors don't bother.
You'd think from all the bitching I just did that i hated the book and I wouldn't read the sequel. I actually thought it was a nice enough read with a likable enough heroine and some interesting conflicts and world building. I actually do like those kinds of books, particularly in the summer (I seem to get more weighty conceptually in the fall and winter).
It was a nice read. I'll probably read the sequel. Since it's coming out after the NY bar and while I'll be on a much-needed vacation, I'm actually looking forward to it.
But that direct descendant thing? That's really driving me nuts.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment