manda's Reviews > Vampire Academy

Vampire Academy by Richelle Mead
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
5548051
's review
Jun 01, 2011

it was ok
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.

elfswood
430 likes · flag

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

Reading Progress

02/12/2016 marked as: read

Comments (showing 51-100 of 334) (334 new)


message 51: by Erfa (new) - rated it 5 stars

Erfa Tahir Kelly wrote: "I'll have to try Bloodlines :)" If you liked Adrian in the Vampire Academy, you'll like Bloodlines. He's everywhere in the series:) And Sydney is Rose's sorta alter-ego. She's awesome, even if she makes some frustrating stick-to-the-rules-and-be-a-responsible-Alchemist decisions. I love her.


message 52: by Kelly (new) - rated it 1 star

Kelly Thanks Erfa!


manda I've heard of Bloodlines, but I was wary of starting it, since I wasn't sure if I would understand or "get the feel" of the book without reading the rest of the Vampire Academy series. If it stands perfectly well as its own series, I might give it a shot.


message 54: by Erfa (new) - rated it 5 stars

Erfa Tahir Kelly wrote: "Thanks Erfa!" Anytime! ^_^


Molly Sounds like you read the book completely out of context.


manda Sounds like you don't understand the subjectiveness of context.


message 57: by Kelly (new) - rated it 1 star

Kelly Molly - what are you talking about? She read Vampire Academy and didn't like it (nor did I). So she did read it in context.... She hasn't read Bloodlines so she didn't read that out of context either...


message 58: by Turtlemonkey (new)

Turtlemonkey Sorry to but in but I'm a little confused by the review. From what I gathered the book is set in Romania, so what's with the 'Well they only want *white* guys? White guys this, white guys that,' Aren't Romanians caucasian? It just seemed like a really odd thing to include unless there's somekind of racial component to the book I'm missing.


manda Turtlemonkey wrote: "Sorry to but in but I'm a little confused by the review. From what I gathered the book is set in Romania, so what's with the 'Well they only want *white* guys? White guys this, white guys that,' Ar..."

Race has nothing to do with the book. The whole point of my putting it in the review, was as a comparison.

(ie) the example of girls I know who are are attracted by white guys simply because they are white (because in their head, white = hot) reminds me a lot of Rose who are attracted by hot guys because they are hot. Or attracted by Moroi Princes because they are Moroi Princes.

In other words, they only value a guy as a decorative object, not as a person. I don't know how to make this explicit enough.

That's why I said in my review:

"The heroine of this book reminds me a lot of those girls."


manda Paige wrote: "For someone who didn't like this book you put a lot of effort into disliking it and omg a vain teenager that's a shocker and for somebody who dislikes the character rose because of her vanity when..."

First of all, I don't need to "put a lot of effort" in order to dislike something. You either dislike it, or you don't.

Second of all, when did I compare myself to those "slutty" girls?
I said "most of them are fugly", not most of them are fugly, and you should all fall in love with me instead, because I'm so beautiful and I look better in a bra than anyone else in my school.

Sheesh.


manda Guess what, sweetcheeks, people judge things, and other people, all the time. I can say Kristen Stewart can't act if her life depended on it, it doesn't mean I'm "putting myself above her". I can say I think Sarah Jessica Parker looks like a horse, doesn't mean I think I'm better than her.

And if you actually read the review, you'll see that I did tell you why I didn't like the book. Also, that "topic" you said was "irrelevant", is actually a contextual elaboration of why I felt so vehemently as I did towards Rose - because she reminded me of real, live people whom I do not like nor respect at all.

Anyway, if I did want to "bitch over the internet", that's my bloody prerogative. I'm not shoving your head against the computer screen, screaming at you to Read my review, bitch!
You're free to leave any time, you know.


manda One: Learn to punctuate.

Two: Learn to spell.

Three: I wasn't going to elaborate again, because it's up there in the review, but since I realize not all our reading comprehension are on par, I'll try to make it simple for you:

There are certain groups of people (view spoiler) who value boys by the colour of their skin. Which is white. Which, according to them, makes them OMGZ a Totally Hot Species.
I despise and disrespect these people, because of their shallowness, and because of their playing around with peoples' feelings.
These certain groups of people remind me of Rose because she, too only values people by shallow things: because they are "princes", or because they are "hot", and because she, too, plays around with peoples' feelings.

So when I read about ROSE, it made me associate her to people in real life who makes my blood boil. Which, by extension, affected my enjoyment of the book.

And that, is how it is fucking relevant to the book. If your head wasn't so clouded with OmG Fangurl rage when you read my review (view spoiler), then you would've been able to see that.

Bye, now.


Isabella Amanda wrote: "One: Learn to punctuate.

Two: Learn to spell.

Three: I wasn't going to elaborate again, because it's up there in the review, but since I realize not all our reading comprehension are on par, I'll..."


Picking on a person because their comprehension and grammar is not as eloquent as yours is a low, unnecessary blow. Her opinion is in no way more or less valid as a result of this. Nor do you need to use obscene language.
I have many objections to your review and subsequent comments on this page but I do believe that it is your opinion and personal context so I will not berate you or list the various reasons which make it essential for Rose's character to be this way.
I will however state that every character is flawed and every character needs to start at a less-than perfect state so that they can make that progression and change throughout a series or novel.
I understand why you view her as such a repulsive or unlike-able character but perhaps do not judge quite so much or so intensely when clearly you have not read the entire series.
Thank you :)


message 64: by ♡ Half Blood Prince ♡ (last edited Aug 12, 2012 03:08AM) (new)

♡ Half Blood  Prince ♡ Isabella wrote: "Amanda wrote: "One: Learn to punctuate.

Two: Learn to spell.

Three: I wasn't going to elaborate again, because it's up there in the review, but since I realize not all our reading comprehension a..."



People coming in here, to her review, calling her "vain" and "conceited" and belittling HER opinion, and you tell her off for using obscene language??
oh trust me, she couldve said a lot worse. Wow. When will ppl learn that just because you dont use "obscene language" doesnt mean what you're saying is not offensive. Take a look at the original comment from paige, and tell me who's discrediting whose opinion, here.


Isabella I am not saying that anyone's opinion is right or wrong. Because the fact of the matter is that *no one's* opinion is right or wrong. An opinion is just that, an opinion and it is purely that of the person who is expressing it. I was not condoning Paige's 'insults' in any way. I was simply saying that it is not necessary for either party to insult one or the other to get their points across.
If everyone in this world would accept the actual concept of an opinion being owned by a singular person then we would be living in a much more peaceful place.


message 66: by manda (last edited Aug 12, 2012 03:19AM) (new) - rated it 2 stars

manda Isabella wrote: "Her opinion is in no way more or less valid as a result of this. Nor do you need to use obscene language."

And what opinion is that? This one here:

your just as vain and conceited as you say rose is

Or this opinion that my opinions are "stupid" and I should keep them to myself, like in here:

don't compare it to stupid irrelevant topics that you just want to have a bitch about over the Internet

When did she ever give any opinions on the book and when have I ever said her opinions on the book are not valid?



"every character is flawed and every character needs to start at a less-than perfect state so that they can make that progression and change throughout a series or novel."

I know. It's called character development. However, I'm completely entitled to make a judgement on her character as she was in the first book. If she didn't develop during the course of this one book, that's not my fault, nor my problem. I put money in buying the book, I put time in reading it, I can certainly reserve judgement on it.



"perhaps do not judge quite so much or so intensely when clearly you have not read the entire series."

No, you see, us readers are not obligated to "read the entire series" if we don't want to. We don't have to read an entire series in order to form an opinion of a particular book.

And anyway, if I did read the rest of the series, and I happen to hate it, give it a negative rating, put out my opinion out there, then I'll have people come up to me screaming "if you didn't like the first book, why the hell did you continue on to the rest of the books?!" etc etc ad infinitum. Smh.


message 67: by Kelly (new) - rated it 1 star

Kelly I cannot believe that on a site like Goodreads, where people read books and then review them (shocking, I know), Amanda is being pilloried for not liking Vampire Academy. If you'd like you can start personally attacking me as well because I found it to be an abysmal book as well...for the same reasons Amanda did. I live halfway around the world from Amanda and we do not know each other. How can that be? It must be a conspiracy because don't we all have to have the same opinions on everything?!

Paige - review the book! If you like it, tell everyone why you did...why are you attacking someone you don't even know for her own opinion? Plus and I'm not trying to be rude, I can't even understand your posts because of the way you've written them...you write in one long sentence with no endings to any thought. Almost incomprehensible. You should try to work on that. Trying to articulate your thoughts on Goodreads is not the same as texting your BFF ;-)

Isabella & Turtlemonkey - I am not one to use coarse language much, but if I were Amanda I would be cussing like a sailor. She wrote an articulate review of Vampire Academy and laid out the reasons why she did not like it in a very logical way...it is not confusing. She was not saying race had anything to do with Vampire Academy...again, I don't understand where the confusion is coming from.

As an older female, I think it might be time for some of you younger girls to pick up a book with a little more substance than some of the YA fantasy books (and no, I'm not saying they are all bad...I have enjoyed many of them). It seems like we have more than a little hysteria going on here about a book about vampires...really? Go read Pride and Prejudice for a little break :)


message 68: by Erfa (new) - rated it 5 stars

Erfa Tahir C'mon guys, we're on Goodreads to review books and stuff. It's our own opinion. Let's respect that, okay? This is so sad. Chill.


message 69: by Turtlemonkey (new)

Turtlemonkey Holy crap you girls are nervous. I never even read the book, I got linked to this review from a somethingawful forum discussion about goodreads not being a very good place to go to for finding new reading material. I'd enjoyed the automatic book recommendations so I was surprised to see the site had a bad light. When I saw this review I was genuinely curious as to why race had anything to do with the reviewer's dislike of the book as no, she doesn't specify within the review why it's at all relevant. Even so, her explanation of the comparison puts her in a bad light, she didn't like certain characters because she projected onto them people she didn't like from high school. Again, I never read the book and have no intention to, but as a review it seems in bad form to brush something off as bad writing because it reminds you of people you don't like.

Good god, you guys are one to talk about hysteria. This is the first time I've seen a goodreads discussion and the sheer immaturity and childishness from all sides around is not just astounding, but frankly absurd. If this thread is anything to go by then this community is indeed just another livejournal hive of bored, immature fangirls.

Also Pride and Prejudice? That's your response to 'go read something with more substance in it'? In a thread about yet another tween vampire jerk off novel? Lady, seeing that as you are quick to tell us you are of an older and more experienced generation, how about you step away from the romance section for once and pick up a book with an actual story in it?


message 70: by Kelly (new) - rated it 1 star

Kelly Amanda never said race had anything to do with the book. Turtlemonkey, sounds like you should read the book and then comment on someone's review. Also why don't you go take a little gander at my bookshelf and then tell me to pick up a book with an actual story in it...wow the ignorance of your comment is astounding...probably better for you to look at my bookshelf before you make a completely asinine comment like that.

The only hysteria came from those who could not handle others not liking a book they loved. Amanda wrote an articulate review of her own opinion...no hysteria in that. I merely clicked "like" because I actually liked her review. Then all of a sudden everyone is attacking her personally so I have been just standing up for her (and my) right to have an opinion about something. It is not hysteria to not like a particular book. To be honest, the only time I've ever even given this book another thought is when I see these ridiculous personal attacks coming into my inbox because I've commented at one time or other on this thread. I'm not hysterical about it...it doesn't even hold an iota of space in my brain. I've read too many amazing books to give this one another thought.


message 71: by Turtlemonkey (new)

Turtlemonkey You're nonstop posting in a thread about tween vampire porn posting about how people need to read more serious literature, like Jane Austen. That says a lot more about who you are as a reader than your high school reading list from fourty years ago.

I'm out. You guys should seriously be embarrassed for yourselves. I had no idea where people were getting the idea that goodreads was a bad website but having seen you guys in action goodreads' reputation makes a lot more sense. The review is childish more than it's helpful, the reactions to the review and vitriol against a differing opinion is even more childish, and the ensuing counter-reaction by the original poster is downright embarrassing to watch. Instead of this being a community about the love of reading and helping other readers out, instead it's just a platform for angry teenagers to vent out their high school hatred and middle aged women trying to be taken seriously by bragging about their online bookshelf. The fuck is wrong with you guys.


message 72: by manda (last edited Aug 12, 2012 10:50AM) (new) - rated it 2 stars

manda Not that it's relevant, but the people I knew in school were lovely. The people I "projected the main character" to is not just a separate, inconsequential group of tweens. They are a select part of the demography, and if you knew anything about my (and I suspect, other south-east Asian) cultures, you would have heard of these groups.

I resent it that you brush it aside as "people I didn't like from high school", because it belittles my whole stance against these groups, when it is in fact not something to undermine. It is from these types of people and their type of mindset where countries such as mine have problems of children being easily whisked away by foreigners. Your snide "high school" comment makes it sound tripe and I am frankly disgusted you have the gall to comment on something you clearly have no context of whatsoever.


Also, there is no need for you to attack a fellow commenter's taste in books. If you think the "romance section" is strictly reserved for the younger generation, then I'm afraid you don't know much about literature.


message 73: by Kelly (last edited Aug 12, 2012 10:20AM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Kelly Turtlemonkey wrote: "You're nonstop posting in a thread about tween vampire porn posting about how people need to read more serious literature, like Jane Austen. That says a lot more about who you are as a reader than ..."

Wow Tutlemonkey....get a life...I'm going to start cussing like a sailor if I have to read any more of your hatemongering...


message 74: by ♡ Half Blood Prince ♡ (last edited Aug 12, 2012 10:28AM) (new)

♡ Half Blood  Prince ♡ Wow i'm sorry this shite's still going on, Manda. If anyone should be ashamed or embarassed, then its the ignorant troll who Makes comments based on ASSUMPTIONS and possibly her own high school experiences.

Newsflash, just because you dislike people, doesnt mean they're your high school rivals, or competition for your love interest. Your assuming it thus only speaks largely of your own mindframe and level of growth.

Just keep reviewing and ignore all these disgustingly shallow-minded trolls, Manda.


message 75: by Kelly (new) - rated it 1 star

Kelly Well said, HalfBloodPrince, well said! Amen!


manda Thanks for backing me up, HBP & Kelly, and giving a more clear-headed response. I realize my own responses sounded a little hostile (and I don't regret nor apologize for that).

There's just one last thing that bugged me, which I missed earlier in my rage.

Turtlemonkey wrote: "but as a review it seems in bad form to brush something off as bad writing because it reminds you of people you don't like."

For the benefit of other potential readers out there, I have to clarify that nowhere in my review did I say that Vampire Academy had "bad writing".

In fact, if you enjoy quick, light reads, and can go about reading books without putting much thought into its depth, I would say you might enjoy Vampire Academy yourself.

Rose did remind me of the types of people I don't like. That is not bad writing. That just makes me abhor the main character, which is one of the reasons why I didn't like the book. If Turtlemonkey actually read my review, she/he/it would have perfectly understood that. For someone so intent on shaming me for my opinions, his/her/its own reading comprehension skills isn't exactly something to brag about.


message 77: by Kelly (new) - rated it 1 star

Kelly LMAO Amanda!


Meghana I really don't think you understand Rose. She's a teenager and she's confused. If you've read the other books, you'll notice that she changes a lot.
So what if she thinks she's hot?
don't expect the characters to be perfect and moral all the time. Rose is an interesting character. You should try accepting her for who she is. You'll find out that she's a lot of fun.


manda Meghana, I'm not sure you understand that not everyone is going to like the same things you do. And no amount of "persuasion" is going to convince them to. There is a fine line between thinking you're hot (heck, I think I'm pretty), and acting like a conceited dipsh*t, and for me, Rose crossed that line. And I don't care if she changes in the other books; I have no interest in reading them, and this is a review of the first book.


manda Scarlet wrote: "She commented on my review too. Makes me wonder if she has for other negative VA reviews as well. :/"

*sigh* sorry about that. It seems that a number of avid VA fans have been cropping up a lot recently.


manda Scarlet wrote: "Oh really? I wonder why that is."

I have no idea. All I know is, VA fans rarely comment on this review, but last week suddenly at least three of them suddenly started commenting at once. Turtlemonkey mentioned something about a forum leading to this review; I'm not sure I believe that, but if it's true, maybe other reviews are also linked.


♡ Half Blood  Prince ♡ Turtlemonkey wrote: "I'm out. You guys should seriously be embarrassed for yourselves."

heheh. you know what ppl like turtlemonkey, you know, who leaves a debate that they started, remind me of?

http://www.cracked.com/blog/3-kinds-p...

the number one on that list. But instead of the "3 Kinds of People That Need to Go Away", a more appropriate title would be "3 Kinds of People That Need to be Shot in the Head".


manda ♡ Half Blood Prince ♡ wrote: "Turtlemonkey wrote: "I'm out. You guys should seriously be embarrassed for yourselves."

heheh. you know what ppl like turtlemonkey, you know, who leaves a debate that they started, remind me of? ..."


Whoops, GR didn't give me a notification that you commented. Lol. leaving a debate/discussion you started without hearing the other side is like pretending you're too good to engage, when really you're just:

Image and video hosting by TinyPic


♡ Half Blood  Prince ♡ bahahaha
and all their troll comments are little more than




message 85: by Kelly (last edited Sep 03, 2012 07:53AM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Kelly Hilarious! Soooo true...Amanda and HBP - both are those are awesome! Totally feels like we've been dealing with craziness.


message 86: by Claire (new)

Claire Kelly wrote: "I cannot believe that on a site like Goodreads, where people read books and then review them (shocking, I know), Amanda is being pilloried for not liking Vampire Academy. If you'd like you can sta..."

Thanks for a message of sense!


message 87: by Claire (new)

Claire Erfa wrote: "C'mon guys, we're on Goodreads to review books and stuff. It's our own opinion. Let's respect that, okay? This is so sad. Chill."

Thanks for the comment! I agree completely. Then again, I once heard a story about someone crying because it was suggested that a Tom DeLillo book be shelved in sci-fi as well as literature!


message 88: by Claire (new)

Claire Turtlemonkey wrote: "Holy crap you girls are nervous. I never even read the book, I got linked to this review from a somethingawful forum discussion about goodreads not being a very good place to go to for finding new ..."


My goodness. Everyone calm down. This is a site where we can all express our opinions, and there's no need to tear someone else down for feeling differently about a book than you do. If you genuinely have a book suggestion for us--something we might not all have heard of--please, I'm eager to hear it.


message 89: by Kelly (new) - rated it 1 star

Kelly Claire! Thank goodness you're here...we need more voices of reason :)


manda 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.


manda 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 93: 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.


manda 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?


manda *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 98: by manda (last edited Dec 10, 2012 03:51PM) (new) - rated it 2 stars

manda 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 99: 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 100: 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.


back to top