Amanda's Reviews > Vampire Academy

Vampire Academy by Richelle Mead
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
5548051
's review
Apr 13, 13

bookshelves: not-my-cuppa-tea, young-adult, paranormal, romance, craptastic
Read in June, 2011

14 Apr '13
Future commenters: if you disagree with the review, that is perfectly fine and normal. If you wish to add your own thoughts of the book, that's also perfectly fine. But please keep the ad hominems and accusations (and not just directed at me, but also other commenters) at home.

Everyone's free to say what they wish on a public forum. But I am also free to moderate what goes on in my space. I've never deleted/moderated comments before, as that goes against my beliefs on free and public discourse, but any future offensive or judgemental/critical-of-people-instead-of-the-book comments will be ignored and deleted.

This is a review of a book, not a fact sheet. Just because I think this book is stupid, does not mean I think people who enjoy it are stupid. No need to be defensive/insulted over it.



11 Dec '12
Edit, because I am fucking sick of people coming up to the comments section, especially without reading through the previous pages of comments, and stomp in, guns blazing with accusations of racism and slutshaming.

1) Racism / wtf does Race have to do with anything!? / stfu you racist cow! / Stop putting irrelevant topics in your review, bitch!

>>please refer to:
comment 69
comment 74

2) Slutshaming / How dare you call her the S word! / Girls like you are setting back feminism by a few decades! / Other holier-than-thou comments

First of all -- if you're going to start accusing me of slut-shaming simply because of my use of the word "slut", GTFO. I'm going to steal a commenter's words here: slut-shaming is not about the word, it's about a mind set. (view spoiler)

But just to make it extra crispy clear: it isn't Rose's sluttiness that pisses me off and makes me loathe her, it's her hypocrisy and objectifying of human beings. Had she been a male character I would have called him an ass/jerk/manwhore. How many people would object to that?!

>>please refer to: comment 116



17 Apr '12
Where I come from, there are these type of girls who would literally throw themselves out at any white boy. I'm not sure why, but it seems that they have this idea that Caucasian = hotness. Boys, being boys, well ... they snatch up every opportunity. What really bugs me though, is not only the immense cheapness of these girls, but the extent to which they will go out there and hunt these western boys. Don't get too eager and start asking me where this paradise of easy sex is, though. They're not the exotic Lucy Liu goddesses; most of them are just plain... fugly.

The heroine of this book reminds me a lot of those girls. Well, except she's not one of the fugly ones.
This one sentence wraps it up for me:

"I was a pretty dhampir, one who didn't mind getting into trouble and pulling crazy stunts. I became a novelty; they liked having me around for the fun of it."


Just like those girls know these foreigners only keep them around for the "fun" of it, and would just as easily toss them aside like a used condom.
Rose Hathaway is the kind of girl who'd hook up with a guy just because he's hot. She'll be with one guy, but thinking about another. She is constantly thinking about getting with guys:

"You flirted with the other guys simply for the sake of flirting. You flirted with Jesse in the hopes of getting semi-naked with him. He was a royal Moroi, and he was so hot, he should have worn awarning: flammable sign."


and yet when someone accuses her of being a slut, she's all indignant. What, if you don't go as far as sex, then it annuls any tendencies of sluttiness? Please. I have a lot of promiscuous friends - I'm not exactly wearing a promise ring myself - but at least have the decency to embrace your inner slut.
What irritates me even more with this character is how she would then go about referring to other dhampirs who offer "services" to morois as "bloodwhores". Bitch, please - you're not so far off yourself. Hypocritical characters are just not my thing. ESPECIALLY when they don't realize they're being hypocritical, or when the author doesn't realize s/he's writing a hypocritical character.

Now, there is a difference between confidence and arrogance; both I find charming in their own ways. But Rose Hathaway is neither. She is downright up herself, which is not a trait that I find endearing. I had to roll my eyes every time she described her sexiness...

"I knew I was pretty, but to Moroi boys, my body was more than just pretty: it was sexy in a risqué way."


"I knew perfectly well that there weren't a lot of girls at this school who looked as good in a bra as I did."


The first one or two times were perhaps forgivable. But the third time around, I really couldn't help but groan. But in fact, Rose seems to be only obsessed with looks (which is odd, considering her "occupation" as a guardian); you'd think considering what she's been through, she'd be a little less shallow than that.

"Me. Turning into Alberta. Her...and all the other female guardians. They're all leathery and stuff. Fighting and training and always being outdoors - they aren't pretty anymore." I paused."This...this life. It destroys them. Their looks, I mean."


But forget her vanity for a second. Let's take a look at her apparently "redeeming" characteristic; her loyalty to her best friend, Lissa. You know, the one whose relationship she sabotaged?

"Why don't you just leave her alone? Are you so messed up and desperate for attention that you can't tell when someone doesn't like you?" He scowled. "You're some crazy stalker, and she knows it. She's told me all about your weird obsession-how you're always hanging out in the attic together, how you set Ralf on fire to impress her. She thinks you're a freak, but she's too nice to say anything."


...and for no other reason than jealousy. Oh, and because this dude comes from a shamed family. Never mind how much her best friend obviously adores him. Never mind how much he obviously cares about her in return.
All in all, I just couldn't sympathize for Rose. She was an attempt of a kick-ass, independent, empowered young girl - but she came across as conceited, hypocritical, and shallow.

Then the princess girl? Lissa? I don't know ... she was just bland. None of the characters in the book stood out for me. Even the romance seemed kind of forced (not to mention predictable - but aren't they all?!). It seemed the only reason Dimitri and Rose had this vibe going on was because of their mutual hotness (a word frequently thrown out there in the book). There was this brief explanation of how it was also because of their shared extreme dedication in being guardians - which I didn't buy. I have an extreme dedication in journalism, but I don't fall in love with every dedicated journalists out there.

Plot-wise... meh. Nothing special. The story was about a vampire and her half-human, half-vampire guardian, who had run away from a "vampire academy" and at the beginning of the book were captured and returned. The secret behind their escape was obviously a device to keep us hooked, but when it was finally revealed, it didn't seem too "wow, omigod" for me.
The Vampires in this story didn't even seem like your traditional vampires, other than their weakness when exposed to direct sunlight, and their occasional "feeding". There was apparently another type of Vampire, which were called the "strigoi", which we didn't see much of; and even when we did, it wasn't even that exciting.

Editing-wise... could be better. "describrd" on page 142 is one of the errors that I remembered. There were more, but I can't be bothered flipping through the pages to find them.

In conclusion. Maybe I would've liked this better if I were... 15? 16? But then again, maybe not.

323 likes · likeflag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Vampire Academy.
sign in »

Comments (showing 101-150 of 320) (320 new)


message 101: by Amanda (new) - rated it 2 stars

Amanda Thanks for the sane comments Claire (^_^) although honestly it's like talking to a brick wall at this point :p


๑ஜ๑ Jαѕмιиє ๑ஜ๑ Hi Amanda.
Did you read the rest of the series? Cuz I adored this book, but I can totally see your POV. As the series progresses, she sorts out her priorities, she and doesn't throw herself at guys anymore (other than her BF lol). She becomes a better fighter too, and the story itself get way better. Shadow Kiss (book 3) I'd say is the best. You should continue if you haven't already.


message 103: by Amanda (new) - rated it 2 stars

Amanda Hi Jasmine, unfortunately I'm not interested in continuing the series, as the first one wasn't successful in capturing my interest, so I really don't want to invest more time and money on the next books. (Plus if I did read them and end up writing another scathing review, some people would probably blame me for continuing a series I obviously didn't like in the first place.)

Anyway, I've read other reviews, and it doesn't seem like my kind of thing. But oh well, different strokes for different folks and all that. Glad you enjoyed them, at any rate.


message 104: by Amy (new) - rated it 5 stars

Amy I must say that I loved this book. And your review just contains info of the early rose. All characters undergo some sort of transformation in any story and this one was no different. The point is that rose changes. She is no longer the party girl and she wouldn't dream of cheating on dimitri.


message 105: by Amanda (new) - rated it 2 stars

Amanda Hi Amy! Yes, I'm aware that my review only describes the "early Rose" as you put it.. it is after all, a review of the first book. I'm sure her character develops in some way in the next books, but that doesn't belong in this review.


Sasha  Mizaree (Reviews) Omg, stop with the god damn slut shaming. You do realize women can have body autonomy and enjoy sex right? If they aren't hurting anyone, it's not fucking wrong. Jesus. And where did the race thing come from?


message 107: by Amanda (new) - rated it 2 stars

Amanda *rolls eyes* if you didn't bother reading through the comments to see if your concerns had already been addressed, I won't bother answering your "question" either.


Sasha  Mizaree (Reviews) Amanda wrote: "*rolls eyes* if you didn't bother reading through the comments to see if your concerns had already been addressed, I won't bother answering your "question" either."
Roll your eyes all you want.
I'm not really expecting you to answer me, I was mostly expressing my outrage that people still call women sluts in this day and age. It's distressing, especially coming from other women. That's not a legitimate criticism of a book, rather your own traditional moral values of what women should be like. Fine, you don't like it that a girl does certain things with her sexuality, but it doesn't make it wrong on any level. It's not your call, and this whole attitude just annoys me. Some of the examples you brought up in your review reek of that Churchy, sex negative attitude. If anything I am impressed with the author for creating a female character that has some body autonomy. It's a step forward. So what if she likes to get with guys and admits it? Nothing at all.


message 109: by Amanda (last edited Dec 10, 2012 03:51PM) (new) - rated it 2 stars

Amanda I was mostly expressing my outrage that people still call women sluts in this day and age. It's distressing, especially coming from other women. That's not a legitimate criticism of a book, rather your own traditional moral values of what women should be like.
To which I'm just going to repeat what I said earlier: if you had read through the comments, you'd see this issue had already been addressed.

For the sake of argument though, Rose's actual sex doesn't matter. I'm saying this because I am sick of feminism being used as an excuse to justify deplorable behaviour. And I'm not talking about sleeping around with people. I'm talking about sleeping around/wanting to sleep around with people, plural, just because they are "hot" or "Moroi" or "Caucasian" or "rich" or whatever other shallow reason. When all a girl does is constantly think about guys (or vice versa), as if the value of their life revolves around the opposite sex.
And as for "people still calling women sluts"....well, it's a word, and I'm not afraid to use it, no matter what all this BS about "slut shaming" does to try and stop me. There are slutty people who are awesome, but then at the other end of the spectrum there are just trashy sluts. Rose's behaviour for me was unfortunately the latter.


message 110: by Red (new) - rated it 1 star

Red Here we go again ;) poor Amanda. i dunno how you havent just closed this thread. i've been following this for ages now, and it seems you have to repeat yourself SO many times. you could probably put up a disclaimer on your review or something.

i think what lot of people dont get is that "slut shaming" is not about the word, it's about a mind set. so when they see your casual use of the word "slut", people jump on the "slut shamer!" wagon and feel the need to voice their anger without actually looking at the message you're trying to get across.


message 111: by Sasha (last edited Dec 10, 2012 04:17PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Sasha  Mizaree (Reviews) Amanda wrote: " I was mostly expressing my outrage that people still call women sluts in this day and age. It's distressing, especially coming from other women. That's not a legitimate criticism of a book, rather..."

What's wrong with sleeping with someone because you find them physically attractive? Some people are okay with one night stands, or other purely physical arrangements. I recall Rose hooking up with guys who seemed perfectly aware that it's all it was. So if two people involved are happy, in what way does this make it wrong?

I'm not sure where you got the idea that Feminism justifies deplorative behavior. However as I said earlier, sleeping with people because you find them physically appealing isn't in any way morally wrong. As long as nobody is being deceived or hurt that is, which in this case they were not.

Thinking about guys a lot. You may not like it, you may find it annoying, but once again that isn't exactly something that's morally wrong. I may not like that somebody really really likes football, because I find fascination with football annoying, however that doesn't make it wrong. Nor does it give me any right to tell someone they are stupid/immoral for it. I find it great that she can admit that she likes men and enjoy her sexuality this way, in a world that's still so far from a sex positive attitude.

Yes, the word slut is a word. So I Nigger, spick, chink, and other words. Does that make them all fine and dandy?

What makes someone a trashy slut or the okay kind? And who gets to set these standards exactly?

If I may bring up some personal examples from highschool days, I recall that all it took to become a "trashy slut" was not being friends with the right people. So, while one girl maybe doing the exact same thing as another girl, her friends will never call her a slut but will be quick to look down on somebody outside their circles. This is what it sounds like to me. You claim you have friends who sleep around, and that is okay by you, but you can turn around and judge a fictional character's behavior which may very well resemble that of some of your friends. Seems unfair if you ask me. And at the end of the day, what happens between a man and a woman (or woman and woman, man and man, whatever) is their business and no one else's.
I've read the whole series, and all I saw was consensual sex/hooking up between informed people who were happy with the outcome. I fail to understand what's so deplorative about that.


message 112: by Amanda (last edited Dec 10, 2012 05:06PM) (new) - rated it 2 stars

Amanda well the whole nigger/chink/etc requires a whole differet philosophical discussion which I fear will be long and also take this thread much more out of topic than it already is. Suffice to say those examples involve a lot of prolonged, historical, deliberate victimization of a minority and ethnically/culturally different group. You may argue that women undergo the same treatment, but that is where the debate lies.

As for the "what's wrong with being attracted to people just because they're physically attractive", first of all if I remember it correctly, Rose is fifteen. And while I understand she's all raging hormones at that stage, what I do not appreciate is the message that that is the norm, and what is "cool" (consider the way she would look down on other girls, who she believed not up to her calibre, or with "boobs that didn't look as good in a bra as hers was"). Just like the message of smoking or drinking is cool; while that is a personal choice, I would appreciate it if young audiences, who are at an impressionable age, were not conditioned to believe that you need all these things to be a "kick ass" or "cool" person.

Second of all, like i said in my review, what got to me wasn't simply her wandering eyes, but how hypocritical Rose was, by calling those girls "bloodwhores" and looking down on them when she's not so different herself. You may say that this makes her a believable character, but that is not the issue. Rose is believable in that aspect. I just didn't like her.

Finally, in this book's case, it wasn't so much physical attraction as it was shallow behaviour. She was attracted to people because they were "Moroi", or princes... Which I think is objectifying human beings. Which is why I brought up the whole comparison with the "race" issue in my review; a select few of the demography here only being attracted to caucasians just because they are white, and will be good to show off and dangle in front of your mates. Both parties consenting or not, I still think that kind of behaviour, or treatment, of people is disgusting. I find it sleazy if a guy picks his girls based on her booty so he can boast about it to his friends, I find it disgusting when girls cling on to rich men and spend his money so she can show off her jewelry to her friends, I sure don't appreciate this mindset being condoned especially from a young age through Rose's deifying of the "Moroi".

On the whole "trashy" point, I'm talking about behaviour and mindset. What I was saying, basically, is that "slutty" is an adjective. It does not define a person. Hence some sluts are cool, nice people, some sluts I'd get the hell away from. Of course, your definition of what makes a cool, nice person is your own to decide.


message 113: by Amanda (new) - rated it 2 stars

Amanda i think what lot of people dont get is that "slut shaming" is not about the word, it's about a mind set. so when they see your casual use of the word "slut", people jump on the "slut shamer!" wagon and feel the need to voice their anger without actually looking at the message you're trying to get across.

Thanks R. "slut shaming is a mindset"; I love that.

If Rose was a guy, and I called him a manwhore or a shallow prick, or whatever, would these commenters still insist on antagonizing me for "slut shaming"? So much for gender equality.


Sasha  Mizaree (Reviews) Yes, they would. Because I'm not just nitpicking your use of the word, your message itself was shaming of Rose's sexual expression. FFS


Sasha  Mizaree (Reviews) I need to ask, because this stunned me that you would actually think there is any debate, and I'd like to clarify before jumping to conclusions.

Are you saying the victimization women have experienced historically was not deliberate or somehow less significant than say racism?


message 116: by Amanda (new) - rated it 2 stars

Amanda Look. Obviously my interpretations is different than yours. You see it as an expression of sexuality, for me there are thousands of ways you can express sexuality without reverting to objectifying people. If you're good and dandy with people behaving like that, good for you. I'm not, and it's got nothing to do with "slutshaming" as my stance is true regardless of sex or gender. And as this is my review, I have every right to judge Rose's character based on this.

What exactly was your purpose of coming here? It's obviously not for discussion, as you seem more intent on venting out your bullheaded accusations of slutshaming or misogyny or whatever have you.


message 117: by Amanda (new) - rated it 2 stars

Amanda Sasha wrote: "I need to ask, because this stunned me that you would actually think there is any debate, and I'd like to clarify before jumping to conclusions.

Are you saying the victimization women have experienced historically was not deliberate or somehow less significant than say racism?"


No, the debate is whether the circumstances and roots of racism is comparable to that of the oppression of women. The comparison is not whether one is more significant or hurtful than the other.
For instance, the oppression of women have come mostly from patriarchal mindsets, not necessarily a deliberate desire to victimize women. The same cannot be said of racism.


Sasha  Mizaree (Reviews) So, if you agree that sexism is just as significant, yet you use terms like slut and do so freely, does it mean you believe racially offensive terms should be fair game too?


Sasha  Mizaree (Reviews) Amanda wrote: "Look. Obviously my interpretations is different than yours. You see it as an expression of sexuality, for me there are thousands of ways you can express sexuality without reverting to objectifying ..."

Yes, it's obviously not for discussion. Which is exactly why I've been addressing every point you make and responding with my own. How very bullheaded of me. Honestly, if you don't see your behavior as slutshaming, even when I specifically pointed out reasons why it is, then there's nothing more I can say.
I'm sure you'll be just fine with that.


message 120: by Amanda (new) - rated it 2 stars

Amanda Nope. This is where I disagree. To me, words such as "slut" are only negative or positive depending on your mindset and attitude, while terms such as "nigger" are used by people, even from the beginning of time, specifically as a derogatory term to inflict pain.
How else is it alright to call your fellow girlfriends a "slut" or a "bitch" in a jocular way? Or mean it as a compliment?

Honestly, if you don't see your behavior as slutshaming, even when I specifically pointed out reasons why it is, then there's nothing more I can say.

Please, do enlighten me, what did you specifically point out as slutshaming, which I haven't responded to already and you are yet to re-address? That is how a debate goes, isn't it?


Sasha  Mizaree (Reviews) You know, some people call each other nigger and still mean it as a compliment. I've heard terms like "you're my nigger" and the like said to each other by friends. I guess maybe it's an attempt to reclaim the word? But it doesn't change where it originated or the pain it caused, or what it stands for. Reclaiming is a tool after the damage has been done.

And some people do take that mindset with the term slut, or bitch etc. They reclaim terms that were invented to shame and belittle a particular gender.

Personally, I choose not to use the term in general, because I don't see the point. Nor so I like the idea of reclaiming it. If someone wants to have lots of sex, then that's that. I don't see why it deserves a special term. But some people do, and that's their choice.

However, it's not what you did here. You called her a trashy slut and spoke about her sexual expression in a demeaning manner. So even if we agree that the word changes meaning depending on the mindset, you still used it in a way that was meant to shame and degrade.

If you wanted to call her shallow, you could have. If you wanted to say she was a cheater, then you could have called her that. If you wanted to point out that she's something else, well, there are many words you could have used. But you chose one in particular.

Terms like slut wouldn't even NEED to exist if female sexually was never regarded as wrong, was never oppressed and shamed. The only reason there are different mindsets now is because some people, in an attempt to strip it of some of its power, have reclaimed the word. But that doesn't change what it was invented for, and what it means. It doesn't change the hurt it caused in the past and present.


message 122: by Amanda (last edited Dec 11, 2012 12:26AM) (new) - rated it 2 stars

Amanda So basically you are saying that you object to my use of the word "slut", and not, as you put it earlier "Because I'm not just nitpicking your use of the word, your message itself was shaming of Rose's sexual expression. FFS".

"You called her a trashy slut and spoke about her sexual expression in a demeaning manner."
Sigh. The "trashy" part that I said in the comments earlier was actually just a way to describe the negative end of the spectrum. You can replace it with any other word to suit your taste.
And I think you missed the part where I said it's not her "sexual expression" (sleeping around) that bothered me, but her objectifying people, and the fact that she was a hypocrite.
(hence my review: and yet when someone accuses her of being a slut, she's all indignant. (...) - but at least have the decency to embrace your inner slut.)

If you wanted to call her shallow, you could have. If you wanted to say she was a cheater, then you could have called her that. If you wanted to point out that she's something else, well, there are many words you could have used. But you chose one in particular.
I used the word "slut" because it's shorter than saying "If someone calls her a person who likes to sleep around with any random hot guy", and it's also what the word happens to mean, and describes her character.

And I am aware of friends calling each other "nigger", although as far as I know, only amongst fellow African Americans.
I personally don't think a "reclaiming" of that particular word is necessary, because as I've said before, the word was always meant to cause pain.
Words such as "bitch" and "slut" and "whore" were ways to describe certain behaviour (promiscuous girls; brash, outspoken girls, etc.), and it is people's interpretation of this behaviour that is either negative or positive.

And yes, "some people do take that mindset with the term slut, or bitch etc." -- but that kind of mindset and interpretation is what feminism is trying to change. While you don't see why it deserves a special term, I don't see why we should be afraid, or ashamed of the word, especially as we claim that the interpretation of it shouldn't be shameful in the first place.


Sasha  Mizaree (Reviews) Words like bitch, slut and whore were also always meant to cause pain as well. They were not neutral terms, are you kidding me?

A woman is a bitch if she doesn't accept a man's unwanted advances. She's a bitch if she has an opinion. She's a bitch if she shows anger, no matter how warranted. The word bitch is meant to silence a woman, to take away her voice, because the worst thing you can be is a bitch (or so a woman is made to believe.) It's a shaming tactic mean to take away control.

You also don't want to be a slut, because we are taught as women that "sluttyness" means you don't deserve respect (since clearly, someone's lack of respect is all her fault, not theirs). Women who are branded as sluts are blamed for being raped. They get denied basic rights to safety, not only in the past, but it STILL happens.
The term slut was invented to take a way a woman's right to decide what she does with her body and sexuality, and to place the blame for the negative treatment she receives on her instead of on the offender. Aka, victim blaming.

How on earth can you believe those words are just "ways to describe certain behavior"?


message 124: by Amanda (new) - rated it 2 stars

Amanda "A woman is a bitch if she doesn't accept a man's unwanted advances."

Yes, and a man is also a dick if he doesn't call back.

The thing with shaming tactics is it only works if you are actually shamed by it. Why should you be ashamed if you slap a guy who's trying to grope you, and then he calls you a bitch? I know a good lot of empowered girls who would wear their "bitch" badges with pride.

And as I've said just in my last comment, all of what you said, society's interpretation of words such as "slut" and "bitch", is amongst others what feminism is trying to change. Maybe back in the days, women would be shamed by it, but nowadays, with all the progress we've achieved, it makes no sense to still be ashamed. Hence being ashamed of the word itself, to me seems like a counterproductive step backwards.

Women who are branded as sluts are blamed for being raped. They get denied basic rights to safety, not only in the past, but it STILL happens.
Please don't feel the need to enlighten me on this, as I happen to live in one of the most patriarchal and conservative Muslim countries in the world.
Which is also one reason why I'm quite offended when you called me "churchy" or whatever, as in my adolescence I've been punished and suspended a good lot of times for being anything but conservative.
In some areas women aren't allowed out after dark, and if they are caught outside, they may be imprisoned and later raped by police officers. And it's "their own fault".

And of course it's a way to describe behaviour. The difference with words such as "Nigger", "Faggot", "Retard", etc -- those words define a person, and in a derogatory sense. It ascribes an attribute of a person s/he has no control or choice over. With "bitch", "dick", "slut" -- it describes choices people make. Choices that at the time were perceived by society in a negative light, hence they tried to suppress and shame people into stopping.


♡ Half Blood  Prince ♡ much as i love this banter it's getting out of topic, no?

ppl are obviously gunna keep coming here calling you a slutshaming machine based merely on your use of the word slut. as someone aptly put it up there, slut-shaming is a mindset, not the use of a particular word. Holy Fuck.

i'm with Red, manda, you ought put up some kind of note or something to prevent repeating yourself so many times.


message 126: by Kelly (new) - rated it 1 star

Kelly Amanda wrote: " I was mostly expressing my outrage that people still call women sluts in this day and age. It's distressing, especially coming from other women. That's not a legitimate criticism of a book, rather..."

BRAVO, Amanda, BRAVO! Well said. Ignore Sasha - she obviously didn't read your intelligent articulate review. I don't know why people continue to attack you on this review that I agreed with completely.

Sasha - I could not disagree with you more...there was nothing churchy or of the "oppression of women" in Amanda's review. You obviously don't understand what is empowering for women. That being said, the book is not supposed to be about feminism...it is just a piece of fiction. Some people loved it and some didn't...period. This is just ridiculous to take it so seriously. Do you really think this book is something other than just a light bit of entertainment? Glad you liked it, but don't understand the need for you and others to treat it like a religion....with the need to defend Rose against all of us who don't agree with your opinion.


Cherishemmy sasa Can yous all like chill the fuck out? shit man. ...


message 128: by Amanda (new) - rated it 2 stars

Amanda ♡ Half Blood Prince ♡ wrote: "much as i love this banter it's getting out of topic, no?"

Kelly wrote: "Amanda wrote: " I was mostly expressing my outrage that people still call women sluts in this day and age. It's distressing, especially coming from other women. That's not a legitimate criticism of..."

Thank again Kelly & HBP. Oh and I took you and Red's advice and put up a note of sorts.
Should've also wrote one up there for comments such as Cherishemmy's. I mean, really, what do people expect to come out of comments saying "chill out" or "calm down"? If you don't like the tone of the thread, get the fuck out. No one's forcing you to read it.


message 129: by Noel (new) - rated it 5 stars

Noel This book is for young adults maybe younger it's more of a girl book to, romance and an ain't a slut she is like a lot of teenage girls


message 130: by Kelly (new) - rated it 1 star

Kelly Amanda wrote: "♡ Half Blood Prince ♡ wrote: "much as i love this banter it's getting out of topic, no?"

Kelly wrote: "Amanda wrote: " I was mostly expressing my outrage that people still call women sluts in thi..."


Just saw this comment...you are very welcome! I will defend your right and mine to not like a book that others do like (personally I think it makes us more discriminating readers haha). Don't you think it is about time people stopped making hateful comments on your very articulate review (that I wholeheartedly agree with)?! It's getting a little ridiculous...people need to move on...;-)


message 131: by Amanda (last edited Jan 11, 2013 03:30PM) (new) - rated it 2 stars

Amanda Noel wrote: "This book is for young adults maybe younger it's more of a girl book to, romance and an ain't a slut she is like a lot of teenage girls"

That's where you and I disagree. I think it's fairly obvious she's a very promiscuous girl -- and a lot of teenage girls are also very promiscuous. Of course there's nothing wrong with that in itself.


message 132: by Juliet (new) - rated it 4 stars

Juliet ya!! I hate rose's personality too!! such a "badass" wow


message 133: by Jolene (new) - rated it 2 stars

Jolene Yap Goodness, when I was reading the first bit of your review, I was thinking: this sounds pretty familiar. I'm almost sure that we've been living in the same region, because I know people like that too. And yes, it's not very appealing in a character, is it? Loved the review by the way, it was so personal to me, and it cracked me up at parts.


message 134: by Amanda (new) - rated it 2 stars

Amanda Jolene wrote: "Goodness, when I was reading the first bit of your review, I was thinking: this sounds pretty familiar. I'm almost sure that we've been living in the same region, because I know people like that to..."

I see you're from Singapore, so we are in the same region :P I can't speak for other Asian countries, but I do know that sort of "culture" can be found in all south-east Asian countries. Rose reminded me too much of it, which is why it got personal for me, too.


message 135: by Erika (new) - rated it 3 stars

Erika Yes! I completely, completely, completely agree. You have pretty much summed up exactly how I feel about Vampire Academy. wanted to yank my hair out while reading Vampire Academy. The endless similes, the immature tone; there was no depth whatsoever. Nevertheless, I'm the type of reader that can't stop a series once I've started unless they are absolutely terrible, so I kept up with series, and in Mead's defense, they get more interesting once you hit the 4th book. And the spinoff, Bloodlines, is pretty good.


message 136: by Kelly (new) - rated it 1 star

Kelly Nice review Erika! You hit how I felt on the head :-) "Lack of depth" - exactly!


message 137: by Alex (new) - rated it 4 stars

Alex Whalen Alright, first off. I loved this book. I thought it was such a good twist for vampirism. Ex specially since everybody put there is writing about some vpires since twilight came out.
Now I agree with your view of rosé. But if you keep up through the series, in each book she matures. I think it was the authors point to have rose seem to immature and hypocritical because that left room through out the series for her to grow up.
And yes I agree, Lisa was a bit bland. She was the robin to Rose's batman. The sidekicks tend to be a bit unrated.
If this was just a novel, then yes the book would fall flat. But richelle mead did an excellent Job maturing the characters throught the series. All the issues you have, actually come up through each book.
Now, how everyone was on your ass about your review. It was your point of view. If someone didnt like what you said, there was no need to start an entire argument over a word. Shows how mature people are when they get offended over a damn review.


message 138: by Kelly (new) - rated it 1 star

Kelly Alex - Nice to hear a rational point of view from someone who loved the book! I agree that there is no need to be hateful just because we feel differently about a book :-)


Scarlet I second that! I wish more people with differing opinions could learn to accept/try to understand other points of view.

I've heard that a lot on my review too, that Rose matures throughout the series. I'm happy to hear that, but people still get on my case as well as Amanda's. For god's sake, we're reviewing how she behaves in THE FIRST BOOK ONLY. We can complain if we want to XD


message 140: by Luiza (new)

Luiza I'm looking for a new series to read and I liked the ratings of Vampire Academy. But then I read this review. I was shocked at how unbelievably bitchy the main character was portrayed, to the point I started thinking, "no way people are defending this kind of person!" Maybe making her a bitch was exactly what the author wanted so then she could change and become really great later on, and everybody would be proud of her and it would be beautiful. hm

But then again, maybe the next books would be just as shallow and disappointing. And I don't think I want to waste my time finding that out. Anyway, still looking for a new cool series and open to suggestions. o/


message 141: by Kelly (new) - rated it 1 star

Kelly Scarlet- I agree completely. I've also heard people say Rose gets better etc. but I think she was so yucky in the first one that I absolutely hated her...felt no connection to her at all. I don't need "perfect" characters but they need to have at least one redeeming quality that makes them interesting or endearing. If the characters repulse me or bore me I have no incentive to read any subsequent books involving them because I just don't give a rip what happens to them.

That being said, Luiza, a lot of people really liked VA - you may as well. I think if you started it you'd know fairly quickly whether you like or hate Rose :-) Have you read Daughter of Smoke & Bone (Daughter of Smoke & Bone, #1) by Laini Taylor or Theft of Swords (The Riyria Revelations, #1-2) by Michael J.  Sullivan? I really liked both of these...love the worlds, the stories and the characters :-) Happy reading!


message 142: by Sara (new)

Sara I have tried to read over some of this comment-argument but it's large and seems to be full of people who speak without bothering to listen.

Anyway I have not read this book, and before reading your review didn't plan to. And even though this is just your opinion I don't see how I could ever find a comment like this-
"Me. Turning into Alberta. Her...and all the other female guardians. They're all leathery and stuff. Fighting and training and always being outdoors - they aren't pretty anymore." I paused."This...this life. It destroys them. Their looks, I mean."
good for a character to say. I mean I have read and enjoyed books with pretty/slightly shallow girls in them but usually they learn their lesson or have some kind of redeeming quality. Cocky confidence is not redeeming and when paired with an interest in your looks it ends up as outright vanity.

Anyway your review sounds great and not at all racist...
but then again I am just here and you may have edited or something...


message 143: by Jenny (new) - rated it 5 stars

Jenny Cobb I do love vampire academy. It's one of my favourite series. I can see why people don't like and such. It's an opinion people. You'll just have to get over that fact. Not everyone is gonna like the same book. It's life.


message 144: by Amanda (new) - rated it 2 stars

Amanda Sara wrote: "I have tried to read over some of this comment-argument but it's large and seems to be full of people who speak without bothering to listen.

Anyway I have not read this book, and before reading y..."


I agree with you on overly cocky chracters, and Rose was too much for me. apparently she grows as a character in the sequels, but I've decided this series is not for me.

And I did not edit any of the content of my review (but of course you can only take my word for it :p ), I think some people just misunderstood what I was trying to say with the whole race comparison.


message 145: by Lucy (new)

Lucy those were actual quotes from the book?? shocked.


Scarlet Lucy wrote: "those were actual quotes from the book?? shocked."

Indeed, they are.


message 147: by Fatuma (new) - rated it 3 stars

Fatuma Oh yes, you said it! LOL As I reading the book, Rose kept rubbing me the wrong me. I mean, I just didn't LIKE her, but for the life of me couldn't put into words exactly why. Thanks for this!


message 148: by Kitty (new) - rated it 5 stars

Kitty Whiskers Wow, I can't believe the comments going back and forth. First of all, to everyone, we should respect other peoples opinions. Not everyone will like this book, and not everyone will had this book. With that being said, I enjoyed it.
Now I have read a lot of books, both new, old, horror, comedy, and YA etc. So my library is full of mixed genres.

I view these types of books as guilty pleasures. I don't think they will have the subtitles of other books, and they are not in depth. However they are entertaining. I found Rose had her flaws, but because I can't read these types of books with much substance, I end up reading them for the love story and the mysteries.

Now I hope I won't be bashed like some others for my opinions, I think that everyone opinion is right, hence why it is an opinion. I also hope, that for whomever didn't like this book, I hope what they read after was much better :)


message 149: by Kelly (new) - rated it 1 star

Kelly I agree completely Kitty. Not every book is for everyone. I hated this book, you liked it and I respect that :-)


Jessica Donovan I almost didn't read the book because of this review... but my friend liked it so much, I read it anyway. I am glad that I did, because it was pretty enjoyable. I found, while reading, that most of this review is misinterpretation, exaggeration, projection, and lying by omission. Goodreads is better than this. I don't mind when people do not like a book that I do -- to each their own -- but honesty is high on my list of priorities, and a good review is not a review that is as fictionalized as the book it is reviewing.


back to top