To answer questions about
The Book of Life,
please sign up.
Cam
A feminist? Hardly. It's yet another book where the male romantic lead exhibits controlling behaviors reminiscent of abusers that are written off as "protective," or otherwise explained away ("he's centuries old! he's old fashioned!"). Ugh. So sick of this crap. (Note: I'm not saying I hate the books. I've read all three and I love the witchy parts. I just can't stand controlling, in-the-real-world-he'd-be-an-abuser asshole Matthew.)
Sue Ouellet-Cofsky
Have you read the trilogy...starting with Discovery of Witches? Then you will see how their romance started and with that book and the second in the trilogy, Shadow of Night you will follow how she becomes as you call her a "Superwitch"
Gnome Claire *Wishes she was as cool as Gnome Ann*
I'm going to disagree with the other answers I found their love to be very clichéd insta-love with Stockholm/kidnap undertones.
(I've not actually read this book but I read the first 2 and our question seems to be about them so I thought I'd answer anyway)
(I've not actually read this book but I read the first 2 and our question seems to be about them so I thought I'd answer anyway)
Tina Murphy
they met at the library and she wasn't a super witch at first if you read book one discovery of witches you will discover how they met and the obstacles that they went through together to become who they are.
MJ
I can see your point about the super witch, but for me it is explained enough (in the fiction world) that she was born extremely powerful and once her powers were unlocked, they started to 'overwhelm' her, so she HAD to quickly figure out how to manage them... leading to super witch.
As for feminist, I think it's Sean who tells her about his inability to take shit from woman (that conference thing he was telling her about). There is also the whole 'vampire man rules' patriarchal thing they have going on. Yasbeau obviously took that with a teaspoon of salt... Even if she did do it silently. I think if we had met Mathew even a week before he met Diana, he would have been a completely different character. He was pretty much forced to overcome those particular short comings just to get to know her and become a part of her life.
As for feminist, I think it's Sean who tells her about his inability to take shit from woman (that conference thing he was telling her about). There is also the whole 'vampire man rules' patriarchal thing they have going on. Yasbeau obviously took that with a teaspoon of salt... Even if she did do it silently. I think if we had met Mathew even a week before he met Diana, he would have been a completely different character. He was pretty much forced to overcome those particular short comings just to get to know her and become a part of her life.
Ashley Bell
I'm guessing you didn't realize there were two previous books because, um, no, she was not an instant super witch and no, Matthew is not a feminist. He doesn't get all "Go, Diana!" until the story's nearly over.
Maria Rose
This question/comment is like the readers of the Bridgerton series romance. You totally forget that Matthew is basically a man from 531 (the year he died as a human and was reborn as a vampire) and despite the fact that he has lived 1500 years give or take, he does have a bit of an old fashion view of the male/female role in a relationship plus most women he did know with the except of Eleanor during the Crusades were fellow vampires. It is also explained that when a vampire connects to a mate, he becomes possessive of all her needs (think wolf who mate for life). The connection is so close that if his mate dies he will die. His mate has to be strong enough to stand up for herself and we all know Diana was.
Anna
He is NOT a feminist. Did you finish the series???
Robyn Blaber
It pains me to relive having read this terrible trilogy, but there is no way I could imagine two real persons (ha!) such as Diana and Matthew even being civil to one another let alone falling in love. For starters... he's DEAD! He's a walking corpse! He's cold to the touch! Gross!
On the other hand, she's an insufferable know-it-all with an eidetic memory. In normal dating scenarios, one must grant that the woman is always right, but dating her would be sheer torture. She is always right, and screams it at the top of her lungs.
Although Matthew eventually becomes a vocal feminist, he starts out an UNDEAD MONSTER who wants to EAT HER... and she starts out a super-smart, bookish, jock, #MeToo feminist who is always right. These two basic sets of characteristics never change. How does *anyone* see this as fertile ground for a romance?
On the other hand, she's an insufferable know-it-all with an eidetic memory. In normal dating scenarios, one must grant that the woman is always right, but dating her would be sheer torture. She is always right, and screams it at the top of her lungs.
Although Matthew eventually becomes a vocal feminist, he starts out an UNDEAD MONSTER who wants to EAT HER... and she starts out a super-smart, bookish, jock, #MeToo feminist who is always right. These two basic sets of characteristics never change. How does *anyone* see this as fertile ground for a romance?
About Goodreads Q&A
Ask and answer questions about books!
You can pose questions to the Goodreads community with Reader Q&A, or ask your favorite author a question with Ask the Author.
See Featured Authors Answering Questions
Learn more
