Princesses Behaving Badly by Linda Rodriguez McRobbie

Solid 3.5 Stars

MAYBE I DON'T WANT TO BE A PRINCESS

           

          This book wasn’t bad, it was actually quite interesting; but there were a lot of small things that added up into making it not worthy of over the three-ish star mark.

            The history in the book was interesting. I loved learning about the different princesses or anti-princesses that broke the common mold and paved their way to infamy through battles, sexual favors, or by direct infiltration of the monarchy. Many of the princesses I’ve heard of before and have even admired in the past, but many of them were also weird, wacky, and sometimes downright terrifying. Plus, the shortness of each story was really nice. It didn’t feel like an overload of information which was great for someone with my attention span.

            BUT. There were several small factors that just added up into a controlled mess. To start, there were minor typos. And when I say minor, I mean that they were very minimal such as writing Princess Elisabeth’s name as Elizabeth every once in awhile. They were so minor that it didn’t deter from the book that much; it was just an inconvenience.

            Secondly, for a book that is supposed to be celebrating women, the author used the word slut several times which rubbed me the wrong way. I feel like I would have been okay with it if it was a word that was used back in the early first century and the 1400s (the eras in which she used the word). I don’t know, I may be nitpicking here, but it would have been better to use words that were contemporary to the time. It would have been better if the author didn’t call these women out as “slutty” even when just using the term as an example of a common misconception. Again, this could be totally far-fetched. I was talking to my mom earlier about my dislike for its use in the book (because it’s also not very academic) but she didn’t see a problem with it, so it could just be me.

            Finally, when I was reading through the references in the back of the book, I decided that I didn’t know how many of the stories I could believe. The author used many academic sources for her research, but she also used many non-academic sources such as blog posts, The BBC, and The New York Times. Now, these publications are generally accepted as viable sources for information, but they weren’t written by experts in the field who know exactly what they’re talking about. The articles were written by journalists—and while journalists are good at writing and research, the articles could also be full of bias which makes the information in the book itself less reliable. (I guess it makes sense, though. The author is a journalist herself).

Don’t get me wrong, it’s alright to take information from magazines or newspapers, but take it lightly. For instance, I would have been alright if the author used only newspaper and magazine articles for her stories about the modern day princesses that were all over the press in their times. The press was how information got out during the 1900s and 2000s. I just wish she would have used only academic sources and not magazine and newspaper articles for princesses from 500 to 1000 years ago. It would have made the stories much more believable, at least for me. I found myself just kind of reading, but not having any wow moments because it was information you could find if you did a simple Google search.

            I also wasn’t a fan of the author’s attempts at witty interjections. It ruined the flow of the information. I think the author is a very talented writer and could have just written out the history without trying to modernize it by her wit because it kept my interest even when it was just an outpouring of information. It was an entertaining and easy read; not to mention that the flow from subject to subject was generally smooth (when the author didn’t provide interpolations, of course).

            I’d recommend this book simply because it is full of good stories and it really piqued my interest into discovering more about many of the princesses I read about. Besides, who didn’t want to be a princess at some point in their life? This book simply satisfied my childhood interest (but also made me think that maybe being a princess isn’t all the great!).

*Check out my other reviews -->here<--

*Subscribe to receive notifications for when I post more reviews!

Long live the queen,

Lauren

Everless by Sara Holland

4.75 Stars

I AM SHOOK. PLOT TWISTS GALORE

Book Rating:  High PG

Language:  G

Sex:  PG  (Jules does make-out with a person whose name shall remain anonymous).

Violence:  High PG  (There’s a lot of blood, someone is stabbed in the chest, another’s neck is cut open. I’d consider it more like Narnia-esque violence).

Drug/Alcohol Use/Abuse:  G

            

            This book is so good. And not just good in the sense that the plot and characters are interesting, but good in the way that makes you feel like you’re somewhere else—like you’re only a visitor in your own world because the one from the book has totally and completely immersed you.

            

            The story takes place in a land called Sempera where seventeen-year-old Jules lives with her weakening father. It’s a world where time is considered a precious commodity to the elite few who are willing to pay for more. For most in Sempera, however, time is merely an idea, a few drops of blood that can be sold to see them through the next week. When Jules gets the opportunity to work at Everless, the palace she and her father were forced to flee ten years earlier, she jumps at it, despite her fears and hatred for the elite Gerling family.

            

            There are so many great things about this story, but what really hooked me was Jules’ character. It’s difficult now in YA to find that perfect balance between a total “Mary-Sue” character and a character whose only qualities are her toughness and emotional detachment. Sara Holland seems to achieve this balance. Jules is a tough character. She had to work hard for everything she got and it showed in her actions. This wasn’t all of her character though. Jules was also friendly and personable. She cared deeply about other people and how those people viewed her. She was hard-headed, a bit naïve at times, but never claimed she was all-knowing. There was one scene at the end of the book where Jules was witness to a death, a sudden death, and she reacted to it like a normal human being—by screaming. (Honestly, most people would probably either be too shocked to say anything or let out a cry/scream like our girl Jules did). She was an all around believable character who maintained a sense of purpose up through the very last page.

While on the subject of character, I thought Liam and Roan Gerling were both done well. I think what I like most about the brothers were their realistic relationships with Jules. Growing up, the three of them had been childhood playmates. Roan had always been the energetic and personable one whereas Liam was cold and withdrawn. I ADORED how Holland portrayed Jules’ infatuation with Roan. It was childlike and dreamy. Many authors would fall into the trap of making this childhood love the main romance from the very beginning, but I had a list of three people Jules could have ended up with and each pairing was given relatively the same amount of build-up. (This book is romance-lite™ which I appreciate more than you know). Additionally, I enjoyed the development of Liam’s character and development of Liam through Jules’ eyes. He went from “If you ever seen Liam Gerling, run” to a guy with redemptive qualities.

This isn’t a very happy story, but if you know me you’ll know I’m a sucker for that sort of thing. It made me think about what I would do in a situation where I could “bleed” my own time in order to afford my next meal. Would I do it? Would I die slower from starvation or would I give up the last year of my life for one last meager meal? How could you decide? I adore novels that represent a stark contrast between the classes because at times it seems all too real. It’s just you average girl-finds-her-courage-in-an-oppressive-world kind of story. (But one that’s done really well).

Adding to the reality of it all, I really enjoyed the relationships that were built throughout the story, I’ve read a lot of poorly written books lately and the relationships are always focused on the main character and her love interest(s). I always think of Bella Swan in this scenario. Her relationships were strictly isolated to Edward and Jacob. Her friends from school were practically non-existent because Stephenie Meyer didn’t build the friendships that would have made Bella an infinitely more compelling character. What I loved about Everless was that Sara Holland didn’t just build the relationships with Jules’ potential love interests, but she also gave her friends in Ina Gold, Alma, and Laura, and gave her mentors such as Caro (Forgive me if I butcher the spelling of names. I listened to the book and didn’t read it). Jules was able to connect with all sorts. Not only this, but the relationships were built realistically and they took their time to build from wobbly first impressions into trusting friendships and mutual understanding. PLUS, JULES WASN’T CONTINUOUSLY LUSTING AFTER ANY OF THE BOYS. (Except for Roan, but he was her childhood love, so can you really blame her)?

The only thing wrong with the story, if I were to be nitpicky, was the fact that the first several chapters fell into the unfortunate circumstance of info-dump. It took me a good while to truly understand the world and the whole concept of “bleeding time.” I suppose it was a difficult concept to explain in the first place, such as how it came to be, so I’m not entirely sure if an info-dump was avoidable in the first place.

I listened to this on Audible because sometimes they decide they love me and give me a free book and month. I didn’t enjoy the narration but felt like the story was all that really mattered. I’ll definitely be trying to get my hands on a hard copy within the next few months. I enjoyed the story enormously.

"The memory of our expulsion from Everless comes back to me in scattered images, bursts of sound and heat. I remember Liam shoving Roan toward the hearth, a moment of stillness like the space between lightning and thunder.”

*Check out my other reviews -->here<--
*Subscribe to get notification when I post more reviews!

Hail and farewell,
Lauren

The A.B.C. Murders

4 Stars

Book Rating:  PG

Language:  G

Violence:  PG (The most grisly of murders was the second one where we get a description of the dead body. Two of the murders are committed by blunt force trauma).

Sex:  G

Drugs/Alcohol:  G

            Boy, was this book a trip. I actually picked this book up because 1. There was a first edition copy sitting in my parents’ basement, and 2. I was required to read a book by a British author for my Brit Lit class—so really it was destined to be.

            I really enjoyed this story because of the enigmatic yet engaging characters. This story was driven by character and dialogue which I believe is what makes it so unique for a story written in the first half of the 20^th century. I’ve read a lot of stories written in the early to mid 1900s and what comes to mind are authors like William Faulkner, John Steinbeck, and Jack London all of who heavily rely on symbols and motifs to tell their stories. The thing about Agatha Christie is that her stories are told through hearing rather than seeing. The dialogue is what drives the story forward which is incredible considering the amount of characters that are used as valuable players in the plot.

            

            The premise for the story was exquisite. I love a good psychological tale that makes you question who the murderer is, what the murderer’s motive is, and how the murderer was able to let him or herself get to the point where they were able to kill without any sense of remorse. Agatha Christie was so ahead of her time as far as delving into the mind of a madman. The only real reference she had for serial killings was Jack the Ripper in the 1800s. The notes from the killer to Poirot were reminiscent of the killers of the 70s like The Zodiac Killer or BTK. She was writing about a killer’s signature before it was even a common term. The novel explored the mind of a serial killer before the name was introduced.

I went to see Murder on the Orient Express last year and loved it. Other people didn’t like it because it seemed to drag on. The fun part about Agatha Christie’s stories though are that despite surrounding murder and mayhem they are not grisly but instead are conscientious of minor details and building relationships before cracking the cases wide open in the final few chapters. The A.B.C. Murders was exactly that. What was interesting was that the murderer was brought into close contact with Poirot and Poirot even learned to trust him. I never suspected the true killer until it was revealed in the end. Christie does such a marvelous job with her reveals. They’re lengthy, but everything is explained before being tied up with a nice little bow. Sometimes mystery authors have trouble tying down their big reveals without it being a total information dump. Agatha Christie’s novels should be used as a point of reference for writing really satisfying reveals. I didn’t feel like it was too much, it managed to stay casual, and it completely took me by surprise. (I somehow fall for the Agatha Christies plotlines all the time).

      

      Plus Poirot in and of himself is entertaining. He and Captain Hastings are just like a modern Sherlock and Doctor Watson.

“To say a man is mad is merely unintelligent and stupid. A madman is as logical and reasoned in his actions as a sane man—given his peculiar biased point of view.”

*Subscribe to get notifications when I post more reviews!

*Find my other reviews -->here<--

adjö,

lauren

Into That Forest by Louis Nowra

2 Stars

Book Rating:  PG-13

Language:  PG-13 (Multiple uses of sh*t and b*tch, the only two that really stood out)

Sex:  PG (The girls witness a man doing “something rude” to himself. They witness the tigers mating. A man exposes himself to a young girl several times over)

Violence:  PG-13 (Grisly descriptions of killing animals and blood lust as the tigers and girls tore into carcasses. Whaling descriptions)

Drugs/Alcohol:  G

            

            I wanted to like this book. I really did. I spent money on it even when I told myself I couldn’t buy anymore books. It was an interesting premise and the cover is gorgeous, how could I resist? I’m weak, okay? It just didn’t do anything for me. It was difficult to get into, it was difficult to keep going, in fact, it was difficult to finish. I debated putting it down and never picking it up again at 50% through. 

         

            I have a lot of beef with this book, but I didn’t hate it. The problem is, I can’t decide what exactly made it redeemable. It might have been the fact that it wasn’t afraid to talk about touchier subjects? I don’t really know; I’m just spitballing. Maybe I just feel like being generous.

          

            My first issue with the book was the dialect. The dialect was ridiculous. I hated it from the moment I started the book. The whole premise of the book was that when this woman, Hannah, was younger she lived with tigers in the wild and lost her language. Sure, that’s happened in other stories. Children are lost in jungles and found again, they have to relearn the norms and language of society. I just felt like Hannah definitely had enough years to learn how to speak properly. She was found again when she was about ten. She wrote down her story when she was in her seventies. Sixty years is plenty of time to relearn a language. She was around people speaking properly for years. She was around whalers in a city; she lived with a man, Ernie, until he died. These were all people who could speak. My problem with this was that she was talking about not having good grammar and language but the only bad things about her language were when she used me instead of my and were in place of was. AND THIS WAS THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE BOOK. It was constant and annoying.

            

            I get that this story was supposed to be an honest and realistic, but there’s a line. This book made me sick. The descriptions of the girls as they tore into their fresh kills were sickening. I usually have a pretty strong stomach, but I was disgusted. The girls would shove their faces into the bloody necks on the animals and tear out their throats and then the tigers would have their turn. I hate books and movies where all the animals die so this was a really difficult book for me to finish, especially because of how grisly the deaths were in nature.

            

            On top of the animalistic nature of the story, I wasn’t able to connect with any of the characters. They annoyed me more than anything. Hannah’s narration was draining and it just felt fake. I didn’t like her in the beginning when she was normal and I didn’t like her when she was feral. I felt like she was forcing Becky into doing the things she didn’t want to do time and time again. I didn’t like Ernie or Mr. Carsons. Becky was alright. I just wasn’t attached to any of them and really had no sympathy for any of them either.

           

            Lastly, the lack of chapters drove me nuts. I felt like I was forcing myself to get through something I didn’t want to get through. There were no definitive breaks in the story. I get that this is supposed to be a stream of consciousness type of thing and I’m cool with that as long as it’s a short story. But with this, a book that is less than two-hundred pages felt like it was twice that. It was just not a fun read altogether.

            

            ALSO. It took Hannah so little time to become feral. It was like two weeks and she was running around on all fours and tearing into the throats of animals. After the flood that strands the girls, Hannah automatically adopts the two tigers as her ‘parents’ and doesn’t even give a second thought to the issue that she and Becky are stranded in the jungle. The timeline for Hannah and Becky turning feral just doesn’t make sense.

           

            I feel like this is such a mess of a review, but this was a mess of the book.

“The lean-to were filled with tiger skins all nailed to the walls of hanging from the beams—all in different stages of curing, so it stank like a swap filled with rotting animals. I think I lost most of me language there. I mean, where are the word to explain what I saw?”

*Sign up to receive notifications when I post more reviews!
*Find my other reviews -->here<--

adjö,

Lauren

I Was a Snob...I'm a Little More Chill Now

              

              Recently, I had a conversation in my British Literature class that really ticked me off. We were talking about book to movie adaptations. If I were talking to these people five, maybe six years ago I would have vehemently agreed with them that movies desperately need to stick to the books and there is no room for interpretation. It should be the book in movie form and nothing else.

           

              Here’s where I disagree as my twenty-three-year-old self. I enjoy movies. A LOT. Films are made for entertainment. When I go to a movie, based off a book or not, I ask myself, “did I enjoy this movie?” If the answer is yes, then I say the producers succeeded in a job well done. For instance, superhero movies are a BIG thing right now. I’m not a huge fan because it seems like many of them are just constant streams of battle. (This isn’t true for all superhero movies, because Wonder Woman was lit and I will stick with that opinion until I die. I might even post a love letter to it). The point is, not all popular movies are enjoyable to me.

            

              Now, you might be asking yourself, why was Lauren so ticked off in British literature? What made her feel so passionately that she had to sit down at her computer and write up a blog post that no one may ever read?

           

              THE FREAKING HOBBIT MOVIES.

            

              As I stated earlier, I wasn’t upset because the people were talking about how good the movies were like most would assume. No, I was irritated because everyone hated them with a passion I didn’t know existed. I’m just gonna come out and say it. English literature majors are snobs. I’m two years away from getting my literature degree, I WOULD KNOW. People are entitled to their opinions and I support that wholeheartedly. You can hate The Hobbit movies, that’s fine. I happen to love them. Just give me valid arguments as to why you hate them. All my fellow classmates could come up with was that they didn’t follow the book as closely as they should have. That’s not a good enough reason.

            

              I could seriously write an entire post that would probably end up being five or six pages in standard MLA 8 format on why The Hobbit movies are great (I still might), but this isn’t what this post is about. Take a movie for what it is—a form of entertainment. How was the characterization? How did you feel about the acting? Was the movie split up well enough into action, comedy, and emotional response? How did you feel after it was over?

              I’m not saying that all movies based off of books should be more than just how accurately they portray that book, but other aspects need to be taken into account. For example, I find The Hobbit movies forgivable because the book literally had no characterization whatsoever and there was no real suspense. The movies added that. Then you look at Eragon which could have easily stayed in line with all the plot twists of the books, but instead the movie took an entirely new

direction that made it impossible for the events of the second book to occur. I still enjoyed the movie, I still watch it every once in awhile because it’s entertaining. Alternately, I love The Maze Runner movies. To be honest, the books bored me a bit. The movies get so much flak for not following the books, but I think they do just fine. It’s all about context, I suppose. (Plz don't come for me).

            

              I still think that movies should follow the books, but if the book itself is seriously lacking in characterization, action, and even the basic adventure structure, then I feel like it’s alright if aspects are added here and there. I enjoy movies. I enjoy books. I enjoy movies based off of books. I just feel like I’ve become more relaxed when it comes to movie adaptations because if they are enjoyable, who am I to judge? I can still read the book if I’m not satisfied in the end.

*Subscribe to get notifications when I post something new!

adjö,

Lauren

Wuthering Heights by Emily Brontë

5 Stars

GET READY FOR MY FAVORITE CLASSIC

Rating:  PG

Language:  G

Sex:  G (Pretty blase. There are stolen kisses but it's all innocent)

Violence:  PG (I wouldn't say it's necessarily violent, I would say it's more intense than anything else. It deals with dark themes and has instances of physical and emotional abuse).

Drugs/Alcohol: G      

           Wuthering Heights has been my favorite classic for years so it’s very strange that I haven’t been able to sit down and write a review detailing everything I love about it.

           

            It surprises me that when the novel was first released it was ravaged by unconstructive criticism. For instance, in a review for the newspaper Atlas, an anonymous reviewer stated that it “casts a gloom over the mind not easily to be dispelled. It does not soften; it harasses, it extenerates….” (Extenerate, I just learned, is a term that means to eviscerate—which is also a term for disembowelment. This reviewer was ruthless). My only explanation as to why the book received so much hate in its early years was because the novel explored themes of darkness that they were not used to. Jane Eyre, Charlotte Brontë’s novel, received praise upon praise. Though it still dealt with a serious subject matter and had its good dose of darkness, it was a book the people could still relate to. Wuthering Heights seemed to drip with darkness and despair and the people of the mid-1800s did not appreciate it in the slightest.

            

            See, I fell in love with this book because of its dark intonations. I loved Heathcliff as the dark, brooding, anti-hero; I loved the setting on the British moors with the wind and the rain; I loved Cathy for how much I despised her. Mostly I loved the forbidden, yet toxic, love between Heathcliff and Cathy. It was a consuming love that drove them both to madness. Logically, they could never be together. Cathy decided to marry for status and Heathcliff married for revenge, but their tragic love attempted to transcend these borders.

            

            This book is not nice. It does not detail the lives of the upper class living in nice sunshiny homes with servants at their beck and call. The Earnshaws have money, yes, but they are separated from society. Mr. Earnshaw adopted a young Gypsy boy and let his daughter run wild through the moors without supervision. These people are so removed from society that they have no real notion of how they should act. I could feel the distance by the treks made between The Heights and the town and between Wuthering Heights and Thrushcross Grange. There’s rain, grit, mud…all sorts of unpleasantries that make the book feel so much more real. It’s not a happy story, but life isn’t happy either.

         

            Adding to that theme of unhappiness, I don’t quite like the way Heathcliff is portrayed in popular culture. Oftentimes he’s depicted as the brooding, handsome hero who just had all the wrong hands dealt to him in life. He is not this at all. We see Heathcliff as a child, growing up in a family where kindness was hard to come by after Mr. Earnshaw’s passing. The only kindness he received was from Cathy, a spoiled and at times indignant child. We see him grow into a man, in love with the girl he grew up with. We see Cathy marry Edgar Linton because of his social status and we see Heathcliff, heartbroken, fade into the background. In the end of the novel, we’re able to see how Heathcliff became the abusive and angry person he is. He hated Hindley Earnshaw who gave him nothing but years of belittlement and abuse. In the end, Heathcliff ultimately becomes the person he hated. Heathcliff was not created to be a person to be loved and sympathized with. Emily Brontë does something so clever with his character because she helps her audience see a man without any positive relationships for what he is. He’s broken, abused, and has no outlet for his repressed feelings that have only grown over the years. It’s heartbreaking, but did Heathcliff actually stand a chance growing up with Hindley and Cathy?

               

            Cathy and Heathcliff were interesting choices for main characters. They practically have no redeeming qualities, but I’m drawn to them nonetheless because of their horridness. It makes me wonder how two people, so entirely terrible, can find a love in each other. It kept me reading because despite not actually liking Heathcliff or Cathy all that much, I still loved them. It’s such a dichotomy. I hate them because they are both self-absorbed, vengeful, and completely disillusioned, but at the same time, I want to read their story because they’re interesting. They’re captivating characters.

          

              The contrast in this book is what makes it so entirely enchanting. There’s the contrast between the unpredictable moors and tumultuous Cathy (I still believe the moors are in direct relation to Cathy’s character. It’s as if she is the moors). There’s the contrast between Cathy and Heathcliff’s relationship that offers no hope in the end and Hareton and Catherine’s relationship which offers recompense for the tragedy that is Cathy and Heathcliff. There’s always hope in the end that the next generation will do better than their parents. Catherine and Hareton are that hope.  

*Find the old reviews for Wuthering Heights here

*Check out my other reviews -->here<--

*Sign up to receive notifications when I post more reviews!

adjö,

lauren

I Know it's Not 2009 Anymore, But I'm Still Team Jacob

           

           Team Edward versus Team Jacob might be a blast from the past but all the feelings came rushing back as I watched Twilight this weekend. (Plus no one else will listen to my Team Jacob rantings because they all share an endless love for pasty vampire, Edward Cullen. And that's what this will be. RAMBLINGS). Jacob would have been so much better for Bella and things could have been radically different if Edward didn’t decide to do something stupid and turn himself into the Volturi because he took something out of context in New Moon. But on a sidenote, I don’t think Bella deserved Jacob in the first place. He was a little too good, a little too trusting, and a little too sensitive to really deserve Bella’s wishy-washyness.

            From the beginning, since they were little, Jacob and Bella were friends. When Bella returns to Forks, she rekindles her friendship with Jacob. This way she knows that there’s more to their relationship than just physical attraction and the fact that he’s a super strong, sparkly vampire. When Bella gets to Forks, her friendship with Jacob grows. It’s playful and Bella can actually feel like a human being when she’s around him. She doesn’t have to worry about Jacob killing her in a frenzy, she doesn’t have to worry about how he’ll react to something she says or does…she can just be Bella. Bella and Jacob’s relationship has much more of a base than Edward and Bella's does. It’s great because she and Jacob have things to talk about, more than just vampire conflicts, Romeo and Juliet, and their love for each other.

            Jacob also isn’t a controlling sociopath. Edward listens in on all of Bella’s private  conversations, he watches her sleep at night just for some strange gratification because human slumber is somehow “fascinating,” he gaslights her all the time, and even goes as far to disconnect the battery from her car because he doesn’t want her to visit Jacob because it’s “too dangerous.” Edward is also attracted to Bella in the first place because the smell of her blood is irresistible. He gets to know her because of her blood (and the fact that he can’t read her mind which in unnerving in and of itself). Now is that any basis to build a loving relationship?  

            But Jacob Black is an entirely different story. He’s the opposite of Edward in every way. He lets Bella have her friends. He may not like that she hangs out with vampires, and he tells her that all the time, but he also doesn’t sabotage her relationships by cutting the wires in her car. Jacob likes Bella for her. He likes Bella because she’s comfortable. He likes Bella because she’s beautiful. He likes Bella because when he’s with her it’s easy. This isn’t to say that Jacob doesn’t have his faults—he certainly does—it’s just that his faults are less pronounced and less damaging to Bella in the long run. He has outbursts of anger, mostly with Bella’s preoccupation with Edward, and he likes to get under Edward’s skin, but he never takes it to the point where it causes his main girl any harm.

            Can we also mention that when snuggling or hugging Jacob it would actually be WARM?? And not ice cold. Like Edward. The old man. The vampire whose coolest trait was that he killed rapists in the 30’s. (Which is cool. Like, bro. Keep doing that).  PLUS, Bella wouldn’t have to feel like she had to change for Jacob…just saying.

            I know Jacob gets a bad rap for the forced kiss in Eclipse and I’m not forgiving him for that. (You know, the one where Bella broke her hand hitting him)? He was kind of a jerk both times, you know? BUT. Bella is at fault here too. She told Jacob she loved him and gave him hope that there could be something between them. So he kissed her because he thought that maybe she felt the same way. She punched him; he said that he wouldn’t kiss her again until she asked. I feel like Jacob was too sensitive to get involved with a girl like Bella who thrived on the drama. And her boo, Edward, wasn’t much different. Edward waited until Jacob was listening to talk about his and Bella’s future wedding which was a real jerk move.

            I think what really gets me though is that Stephanie Meyer wrote off Jacob and Bella’s relationship and feelings for each other because of a non-existent baby that may or may not have even happened. After everything that happened between them, their feelings for each other, and everything Jacob went through for Bella, their relationship was just completely devalued. For everyone who loved Jacob Black and thought he should have ended up with Bella, this was just like a slap in the face.   

            So ultimately, yes, Bella and Edward probably deserved each other because they were both kind of terrible people, but Jacob deserved better. And if better was Bella, so be it. He deserved more than to have his love for Bella diminished. He suffered because of her and his love for her became nothing which is so incredibly frustrating. Jacob was sensitive, he didn’t expect Bella to change, he didn’t stop her from living her life because he believed in her probably more than anyone. Jacob was a gem and was really done a disservice in the last book.

adjö,

lauren