Oh, that is interesting! I actually remember that comment now that you remind me, although at the time I obviously had no idea what it was about.
I would think it might mean that they had a sexual relationship and were brothers. Perhaps got into something before they realized it and then a) ended it painfully or b)decided to continue as they were. In any case, it seems likely that the editor would ask them to cut an incestuous relationship and that could be the reason for the change. Personally I would have loved to see that. But hey! It leaves something for fanfic, right?
But *clutches at Royston and Hal* I definitely wouldn't want it at the expense of my adorable boys! I love them far too much ;-)
I would think it might mean that they had a sexual relationship and were brothers. Perhaps got into something before they realized it and then a) ended it painfully or b)decided to continue as they were Yeah, you could be right - I hadn't considered that. If that was the case, I can see why their editor might have been a bit worried about it. A gay relationship is a bit of a stretch for some YA publishers, even now, but a gay incestuous relationship woule be drawing the line. It's a shame really - I'm sure Jaidani could have pulled off something like that tastefully and sensitively.
As for Royston and Hal... they were sweet, but a little too sweet at times. At least, IMO. ;)
Ooh, that is quite interesting! I can see why an incestuous relationship between Rook and Thom would have to be cut.
If it wasn't an incestuous relationship, I'm still quite glad it was cut out, since it gives the book a little more variety, and I find that once I get what I want (in this case Rook/Thom), then it's a bit boring.
I agree with you though, I'd have preferred to see Rook/Thom over Royston/Hal, since the latter is just a bit too sweet to me, and I think the anticipation of it, rather than the fulfillment of it was more interesting. (I'm awkward, aren't I? "Oooh, I want this!....But not now that it's happened." haha)
I think the anticipation of it, rather than the fulfillment of it was more interesting
I feel the same way. It somehow seems that it came too easily, Royston's "oh no, I mustn't" being their only problem. Maybe it would be more interesting if Hal had been more hesitant... That said, I still really like them ;)
That's exactly it! I hadn't thought of it that way, but yes, there's not a lot of conflict, and it's not that I wanted it to be drawn out for too long, but aside from Hal's inexperience, it felt a little like he just swooned into Royston's arms. I do still really like them, but they didn't appeal to me as much as Rook and Thom, I guess.
I'm glad it's not just me that found Royston/Hal a little too sugary at times.*g* I did enjoy the build up to their relationship, though - the 'getting-caught-in-the-rain', and the boathouse scenes are some of my favourites from their half of the story.
Hehe, yeah, I know what you mean about the anticipation being more interesting than the fulfillment: for instance, I find I enjoy reading about the unresolved sexual tension much more than the boring resolved stuff. ;)
I think the only reason I'd prefer Rook/Thom to Royston/Hal is because it didn't actually happen. Which is not to say I don't love Royston/Hal. I fucking adore them, you know? They were perfect and sweet and amazing and they made my heart pitter patter with their epic little romance. I think Rook/Thom is one of those things that I like even better because it didn't happen. I was reading the book hoping that it didn't, because two pairing among the four main characters would've been too much. That being said, I will gladly read all the Rook/Thom fanfic in the world.
Comments 21
Reply
I would think it might mean that they had a sexual relationship and were brothers. Perhaps got into something before they realized it and then a) ended it painfully or b)decided to continue as they were. In any case, it seems likely that the editor would ask them to cut an incestuous relationship and that could be the reason for the change. Personally I would have loved to see that. But hey! It leaves something for fanfic, right?
But *clutches at Royston and Hal* I definitely wouldn't want it at the expense of my adorable boys! I love them far too much ;-)
Reply
Yeah, you could be right - I hadn't considered that. If that was the case, I can see why their editor might have been a bit worried about it. A gay relationship is a bit of a stretch for some YA publishers, even now, but a gay incestuous relationship woule be drawing the line. It's a shame really - I'm sure Jaidani could have pulled off something like that tastefully and sensitively.
As for Royston and Hal... they were sweet, but a little too sweet at times. At least, IMO. ;)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Haha, indeed. The way they write sexual tension (especially of the UST variety) is something worth squeeing over. *g*
Reply
I'm all up for the Rook/Thom subtext, but if it actually became canon it would feel way too cliche and 'everyone gets paired off'&etc
Reply
If it wasn't an incestuous relationship, I'm still quite glad it was cut out, since it gives the book a little more variety, and I find that once I get what I want (in this case Rook/Thom), then it's a bit boring.
I agree with you though, I'd have preferred to see Rook/Thom over Royston/Hal, since the latter is just a bit too sweet to me, and I think the anticipation of it, rather than the fulfillment of it was more interesting. (I'm awkward, aren't I? "Oooh, I want this!....But not now that it's happened." haha)
Reply
I feel the same way. It somehow seems that it came too easily, Royston's "oh no, I mustn't" being their only problem. Maybe it would be more interesting if Hal had been more hesitant... That said, I still really like them ;)
Reply
Reply
Hehe, yeah, I know what you mean about the anticipation being more interesting than the fulfillment: for instance, I find I enjoy reading about the unresolved sexual tension much more than the boring resolved stuff. ;)
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment