City of Lost Souls
discussion
Jace and Clary's relationship... do they really love each other?
love is a hard thing to convey in a book, and they dont have years to develop feelings, imagine if twilight went on for years! no books move quite fast but i think its love, not just teenage lust
Love makes us selfish. Sometimes we forget that to love is to respect the person we love, not to keep them happy by our definition. When we love, we want that person to always be with us, for us to keep them happy. We forget, that they also have their needs, their individual life.I believe that Jace and Clary love each other, despite the selfishness Clary holds over Jace, or their desire to touch each other.
@Andre
You have awesome detailed information there. I took more attention to the characters that I love and failed to notice more about Jordan and Maia.
btw...I think Magnus is said to be 700-800 years old. But I agree with him being 'too young' for his age.
He should have been more mature and understood Alec better instead of feeling sad and disturbed by his teenager boyfriend's attitude.
I also noticed some inconsistencies in Ms Clare books. She explained some of them on her tumblr. Unfortunately, some information has successfully contradicted what we read in her books.
Well, there is the problem with Magnus' age. In book 1 he stated that he was so old that when he was young the dead sea was supposedly only a pitiful lake... well the first problem with that is that the dead sea was often much bigger than it is today, but that is beside the point. In CoA, I noticed that right away, Alec states that Magnus is about 300 years old and looks 19 (which is at odds with Clary referring to him as a man but to Alec as a boy in CoB when seeing him for the first time) and finally in CoG Magnus said he was about 700-800 years old. Supposedly Clare said that he was born in 1640. Well my problem is: does she let him lie deliberately or is that an example of inconsistent writing?But in either case, he far too old to behave the way he did.
Do you have a link to that tumblr page? Because I must say if what an author "reveals" off-book contradicts the books that is a vary bad sign.
Nurlely wrote: "Love makes us selfish. Sometimes we forget that to love is to respect the person we love, not to keep them happy by our definition...I believe that Jace and Clary love each other, despite the selfishness Clary holds over Jace, or their desire to touch each other."Since when selfishness makes true love? And since when putting your own need before other person's wish shows that you care for and love them? My goodness...*facepalms*
And had you noticed that in order to satisfy her own needs, Clary is willing to subject Jace to a fate (being controlled and losing his own free will) that he thinks is worse than a possible death, huh? That........I think is way beyond 'love makes us selfish'; it's what I'd call DAMN SELFISH.
Remember Lyra and Will from His Dark Material trilogy? When in the end they had to separate in order to save the worlds. They didn't clings to their own happiness, they chose to let go of each other. And remember, these two fictional characters are *younger* than Clary when they made this choice.
Mizuki wrote: "And had you noticed that in order to satisfy her own needs, Clary is willing to subject Jace to a fate (being controlled and losing his own free will) that he thinks is worse than a possible death, huh? That........I think is way beyond 'love makes us selfish'; it's what I'd call DAMN SELFISH."Exactly, she knew what he thought of it and considered how reckless she had been all those months and he didn't just call the adults everytime it was really extremely selfish of her to act this way. She didn't truly think of him, she only thought of herself.
Also being in love doesn't mean you forgive everything, just because you cannot buy love doesn't mean ist without conditions. Like I wrote love implies trust and when that trust is shattered you get hurt and love demands alot of trust to when that trust is shattered it hurts even more. That is why Jace's reaction at the end of the book is totally unrealistic and not a sign of love, rather some sort of obsession.
Of course they love each other! It's just that they've been through a lot. Mature people love in a different way. Buy YES! The absolutely ADORE each other! It's just that it isn't the kind of sweet love you're used to.
Mizuki wrote: "Rachel wrote: "Clary loves Jace so much that she can't bear to have him turn himself in and die. She is desperate for a way to stop him and the only weapon in her defense is Sebastian."She's desp..."
Haha I've learned from Andre (Thanks Andre) that I should not argue and such when I am mad that someone else has a different opinion. Cassie Clare wrote this story saying that Clary and Jace love each other. Her fictional characters that SHE CREATED are in love because she says so and that's what she tried to portray in her writing. Some people see it, others don't.
Andre wrote: "Mizuki wrote: "And had you noticed that in order to satisfy her own needs, Clary is willing to subject Jace to a fate (being controlled and losing his own free will) that he thinks is worse than a ..."But you see, Clary knew she had a chance of saving Jace. However slim, she was going to try. Clary is going to do whatever she can to keep Jace alive. If she knew it was the only other way, Clary would have acted differently, but since she had even a sliver of hope to cure Jace, she wasn't going to let him die. Because of this, he did survive in the end.
Mizuki wrote: "Since when selfishness makes true love? And since when putting your own need before other person's wish shows that you care for and love them? My goodness...*facepalms*"Since when did I write about true love? And what true love were you referring to? A love that sacrifices oneself for the person they love? That is a love you read in some story, not what you can find in real life. Although love in fantasy has many meanings. In Cassie's case, she has wanted her books to be a bit 'more realistic' than some Disney story, so her 'true love' is more about what is close to real life, complete with its selfishness.
Selfishness is part of love, as sad as it sounds.
I don't know about "Remember Lyra and Will from His Dark Material trilogy?" Haven't read the series.
My true love is more of long suffering ones. Romeo and Juliet, Tristan and Isolde, sort of love. They were selfish in their own way.
Andre wrote: "Do you have a link to that tumblr page? Because I must say if what an author "reveals" off-book contradicts the books that is a vary bad sign. "
I don't follow Cassie's tumblr as diligent as her other fans. I only check this out sometimes
---> http://www.cassandraclare.com/
Her inconsistency was not a new thing for me. I was her Facebook fans in 2010 where she was pretty diligent responding to her fans on Facebook.
Don't bother to check out that on Facebook. She removed her comments long time ago. I am not so sure about her tumblr. Maybe she still keeps some there.
I would have to agree with those who said it is just lust not really true love. Although i am a Clace fan i just do not see how in that short amount of time they could "love" each other so strongly. It usually take years to find your "soul mate". But of course this is a matter of my own opinion it is not the same for everyone. But we will have to see where there love goes in book 6!
I think it's very possible they did actually love each other at first sight. I remember some characters talking about how shadowhunters form really strong bonds. It's just their nature.
Faith wrote: "It usually take years to find your "soul mate". "Usually doesn't mean that it is always. There are many people who love instantly, regardless the lust accompanies that love.
Jace and Clary's instant love is not a new thing. Aragorn and Arwen fell in love at the first sight. Romeo and Juliet fell in love very quickly.
Not everything is like Harry-Ginny, Ron-Hermione or Katniss-Peeta, where it takes time before they realise that love exists.
What about in real life? How long did it take for Bonnie and Clyde to fall in love?
At Nurlely: It all depends on your opinions about love. If you don't believe in love at first sight, or finding your sole mate, then you see Clace very differently. Idk if you've ever been in love. Like REALLY in love, not just a crush. It's hard to understand their relationship because we aren't them and we don't know exactly how they feel.
Nurlely wrote: "Mizuki wrote: "My true love is more of long suffering ones. Romeo and Juliet, Tristan and Isolde, sort of love. They were selfish in their own way."Since when ..."
Really? Romeo and Juliet love? That is pure lust. They see each other and think it is love at first sight. They irrationally get married the next night and Romeo deflowers Juliet. Then, the day after they commit suicide. They are lusting over one another and when they think the other is dead, it causes them to go catatonic and kill themselves. That's lust at it's best.
Rachel wrote: "At Nurlely: It all depends on your opinions about love. If you don't believe in love at first sight, or finding your sole mate, then you see Clace very differently. Idk if you've ever been in love...."You've got the wrong person ;) I am one of them who believe that Jace and Clary fell in love at the first sight.
I have never experienced love at the first sight (maybe love at the first look at Johnny Depp... LOL) ad had lots of crushes, but that doesn't mean that I don't believe it.
Rachel wrote: "Really? Romeo and Juliet love? That is pure lust. They see each other and think it is love at first sight. They irrationally get married the next night and Romeo deflowers Juliet. Then, the day after they commit suicide. They are lusting over one another and when they think the other is dead, it causes them to go catatonic and kill themselves. That's lust at it's best. "
Hahahahaha..... They indeed love each other so much, to not able to live without. Who says that lust is to be excluded from the feeling?
Rachel wrote: "Really? Romeo and Juliet love? That is pure lust. They see each other and think it is love at first sight. "I no longer want to argue about love. Here's just a quick reminder: Romeo and Juliet is a story about teenagers not using their brains and acting on impulse, just the same as Clary.
Ok, these are too many comments at once, so I will address them all at once:1) Nurley thanks for the link. The answers to her FAQs… they kind of sound like advertisement to me. I mean look at the answer to the Bane Chronicles. And if inconsistencies are nothing new in her case… that is not a trait of a good writer and not a good editor either.
2) It's just that it isn't the kind of sweet love you're used to. Excuse me? Whenever they are not fighting or making out they are always portrayed as "sweet."
3) Her fictional characters that SHE CREATED are in love because she says so and that's what she tried to portray in her writing. Some people see it, others don't.
Don't assume that people don't see that. Especially when Clare's books are full of "I say so"s. However when you go after that and basically just accepts what the author is throwing at you, what difference is there between a good book and a bad book? When you just accept something because it is stated so, what are you then? An active reader or a passive consumer? And if you are the latter, what makes you stop reading a book? And what exactly is it then that makes you like a book or start a book in the first place?
There are two concepts relevant for that, and also to the whole Clace love, the first is "secondary reality" and the second is "suspension of disbelief."
"Secondary reality" is a term coined by J.R.R. Tolkien and basically it says that a universe can differ from ours as long as it is consistent within itself. However when that is not the case, as I personally think happens in MI, TD, TVD (the show, I do not know the books) and of course Twilight, you "need" suspension of disbelief, which basically means that you just accept everything a writer throws at you. But then there is the question again, why do you read and what sort of reader are you? And by what standards do you differentiate between a good book and a bad book?
3)If she knew it was the only other way, Clary would have acted differently, but since she had even a sliver of hope to cure Jace, she wasn't going to let him die. Because of this, he did survive in the end.
Ariel, seriously, do you read what I write? This was not the only possibility. Not even remotely. Is the Clave just a single person? Do you think all of them act the same?
By having Jace being free of Sebastian they would have known Sebastian's plans and to figure out who Sebastian's followers are they would need him alive and for that they need Jace alive. Also by the time Clary would have fled with Jace the others already would have had Gabriel's sword. And why didn't Clary use her rune powers to capture Sebastian? Her runes are stronger than those of normal Shadowhunters. She didn't even think of that possibility. And even if they wanted to kill him, they could have been on the run for some time at first in which maybe others could have cconvinced the Clave. They also could have told them about the role of the Seelie Queen in all of this. Clary even could have thrown her own talents in the lot, like in CoG. She is too valuable and ally to not have a voice in all this. But none of this ever occurred to her. And even if, she could have respected Jace's choices and actually trust him. In her mind he is the experienced Shadowhunter so sshe should give him some credit and at least consider that he knows what he is doing.
4) Selfishness is part of love, as sad as it sounds.
Based on what?
5) Although i am a Clace fan i just do not see how in that short amount of time they could "love" each other so strongly.
Actually that is a problem with all her books and relationships. It happens too fast. Which would be ok, where the books consistent, but not even that. Considered that it all happens and develops so fast Clary and Jace should be much further and Clary should not only trust Jace but also see more than just his looks.
6) I remember some characters talking about how shadowhunters form really strong bonds. It's just their nature.
I remember that too and I had a problem with it from the start. They stated that in book 5, or maybe 4, but before that they stated that Shadowhunters are humans and only their goal and "powers" (that was also an inconsistency because at first they only had runes and later they have special powers) separate them. Also believing that is a case of suspending disbelief, because I have seen nothing in those Shadowhunters I haven't seen in real life. How Clare had Clary state that "mundane" after such a battle would have panicked had made me want to smack her for that. First how does Clary even know that and second, not all Shadowhunters are warriors and during the attack on Alicante many people were running scared and the like and suddenly they are all calm? What are they? Clones of the kids from Signs?
7)Jace and Clary's instant love is not a new thing. Aragorn and Arwen fell in love at the first sight. Romeo and Juliet fell in love very quickly.
Not everything is like Harry-Ginny, Ron-Hermione or Katniss-Peeta, where it takes time before they realise that love exists.
What about in real life? How long did it take for Bonnie and Clyde to fall in love?
Here is the thing: Tolkien was not a writer that knows how to write realistic relationships. Juliet was a little girl and Romeo quite fickle as it seems. Bonnie and Clyde… What do we really know about them?
These other couples did know love exist, it just took time before they fell in love with each other, but that is how it works. This love at first sight can be a good start, but it is not what keeps love alive.
8)It's hard to understand their relationship because we aren't them and we don't know exactly how they feel.
And that is not our job, it is Clare's. And considered how often she writers from Clary's perspective she had plenty of opportunity to make that clear.
9)Really? Romeo and Juliet love? That is pure lust. They see each other and think it is love at first sight. They irrationally get married the next night and Romeo deflowers Juliet. Then, the day after they commit suicide. They are lusting over one another and when they think the other is dead, it causes them to go catatonic and kill themselves. That's lust at it's best.
Actually I think it's not just lust, it is kind of an addiction. Well that and maybe they were just a plot device to get their families together.
10)Who says that lust is to be excluded from the feeling?
Nobody says that, not here at least, but if what Romeo and Juliet felt was true love… love doesn't seem such a good thing. After all what is great about such self-destructive behavior? Had Romeo not acted so crazy they would both be alive.
11)Romeo and Juliet is a story about teenagers not using their brains and acting on impulse, just the same as Clary.
Definitely. And that is the problem with Clary and the others as characters. They never seem to learn anything. And wasn't Clary supposedly trained to become a Shadowhunter? Didn't they teach her anything about tactics and the like?
Mizuki wrote: "I no longer want to argue about love. Here's just a quick reminder: Romeo and Juliet is a story about teenagers not using their brains and acting on impulse, just the same as Clary. "So what about them being teenagers? Can they not love?
Your understanding about love is what you probably experienced, but love is not that simple, or can be felt by mature people only.
But I can not say that you don't have a good quick reminder for yourself... ;)
Lemony Snicket in Horseradish: Bitter Truths You Can’t Avoid:
Love can change a person the way a parent can change a baby — awkwardly, and often with a great deal of mess.
----------------------
Stendhal in his fantastic 1822 treatise on love:
Love is like a fever which comes and goes quite independently of the will. … there are no age limits for love.
Love has many definitions, and owned by everyone. Young, old, childish, mature, generous or selfish people.
Andre wrote: "O4) Selfishness is part of love, as sad as it sounds.Based on what? "
Based on the story. Romeo and Juliet were quiet selfish, for acting based on what they feel for each other and made decision based on what they thought might happen, before consulting anyone.
What makes you think that you can exclude selfishness from love? Is love about all the good things only?
10)Who says that lust is to be excluded from the feeling?
Nobody says that, not here at least, but if what Romeo and Juliet felt was true love… love doesn't seem such a good thing. After all what is great about such self-destructive behavior? Had Romeo not acted so crazy they would both be alive.
Is love that simple? To love is to have all the good things? Isn't that what naive teenagers think of love? And all the parents who go against them are considered to do not know the love they have?
Happiness feels so close to those who are in love, but pain is not far. The happiness one feels while the love one is close, also brings pain when that person is away.
What did Romeo do with him being in love? I feel that you are trying to make a logic meaning out of love. I hope not, for with different people, love keeps the logic out of a person
Andre wrote: "Here is the thing: Tolkien was not a writer that knows how to write realistic relationships. Juliet was a little girl and Romeo quite fickle as it seems. Bonnie and Clyde… What do we really know about them?These other couples did know love exist, it just took time before they fell in love with each other, but that is how it works. This love at first sight can be a good start, but it is not what keeps love alive.
"
I hope you didn't mean to say that Shakespeare is a bad writer, since you made good remark of Tolkien and spared Shakespeare none.
You can read about Bonnie and Clyde too. They fell in love instantly. What do we know about them? What do we know about Aragorn-Arwen? We read about them, don't we?
These other couples? Nice. We can not really say all couples, right? Since love is different with each person, some couples might have different love with the other couples.
Not all love takes time before it is recognised. Love at the first sight does happen. And both are not safe from being separated, not because the time the love takes to be recognised, but what the persons in love do after they fell in love.
Since when did I write about true love? And what true love were you referring to? A love that sacrifices oneself for the person they love? That is a love you read in some story, not what you can find in real life.For the whole time I have been talking about Clary not respecting Jace's wish and people are still arguing with me that she really, truly loves him instead of just lusting after him or being obsessed with him. And then you came up with the "love makes us selfish" argument.
So I'm under the impression that when you talked about "love makes us selfish", the "love" you were referring to is equal to true love. Since the whole argument is about whether there're love between Clary and Jace, or is it just lust and/or physical attraction.
My point being, love requests respect and understanding, instead putting your own needs before your loved one's, or just simply ignore their wish and request.
. In Cassie's case, she has wanted her books to be a bit 'more realistic' than some Disney story, so her 'true love' is more about what is close to real life, complete with its selfishness.
As to what you would like to refer to as 'realistic love', may I ask why it is 'unrealistic' to ask people to respect my wish and decision when those people claim to 'love' me? What would you think when the people who claim to love you refuse to respect your wish? Do that make you feel you're loved?
Can we at least agree that love isn't an excuse for people to be selfish?
Nurlely my thoughts are the same as Mizuki's. And also, on what basis do you think that Romeo and Juliet are any Standard to go by? Because in my eyes the whole story is only tragic but not romantic.
you have to remember that Clary and Jace are young and at that age almost every guy or girl feels like they love each other. if they had not been through so much together would they still be together? (god know) they have come through some very trying times and have grown closer because of them. it may not have started out as love but it could have easily have grown into it during their time together.
Mizuki wrote: "For the whole time I have been talking about Clary not respecting Jace's wish and people are still arguing with me that she really, truly loves him instead of just lusting after him or being obsessed with him. And then you came up with the "love makes us selfish" argument. ..."The topic is about whether Clary and Jace really love each other. And I said Yes. Their love is not necessarily a true love, for it is still too soon to determine theirs as true love. They fell in love at the first sight, as some of people do in real life.
My point was, love is not that simple, and we can not really give just one meaning to love itself, for love has been translated into so many meaning. Selfishness is also part of love.
When we are in love, we will be approached by jealousy, no matter how strong our love for that person is. One negativity will raise another. With jealousy comes selfishness. Who can say that there is a love in this world which is free of selfishness?
Can you?
Even a mother love for her child is not totally free of selfishness, no matter how tiny the portion is.
As to what you would like to refer to as 'realistic love', may I ask why it is 'unrealistic' to ask people to respect my wish and decision when those people claim to 'love' me? What would you think when the people who claim to love you refuse to respect your wish? Do that make you feel you're loved?
There is nothing unrealistic about asking others to respect our wishes.
But for Clary, her understanding about 'saving' Jace based on what she knew. It didn't have to be the truth, and the Clave might not kill Jace on spot but 'torture' him first for info.
But Clary has spent her entire life kept by her mother from the reach of the Clave, for the Clave has 'no feeling' to whatever demonic and will kill anyone who is suspected to go against the Clave. That has been the lessons she learnt. Since she refuses to live if Jace dies, she would do anything to 'save Jace, even going to the loathsome Sebastian.
Clary is young and is not expected to understand that when our soul mate dies, we will still be able to live this life, and get over the sadness.
Can we at least agree that love isn't an excuse for people to be selfish?
Why? Aren't differences making this world interesting? LOL.
So sorry, but my understanding of love is not that simple. And people use anything as an excuse, including (even mostly) love.
My understanding of love is that love can make me happy, but love does not feed me.... LOL
Andre wrote: "Nurlely my thoughts are the same as Mizuki's. And also, on what basis do you think that Romeo and Juliet are any Standard to go by? Because in my eyes the whole story is only tragic but not romantic."Based on what I was taught about it, and on what teenagers are still taught about it at schools. Teenagers remember more about its romanticism, about both Romeo and Juliet can not live without each other.
Yes, that is what is taught, but is that really true? I mean when you look at the whole thing without what you are taught, how does it look then?Also you mentioned yourself that when you are in love there are These other Feelings that often come along with it. But where are those? Jace supposedly was somewhat jealous of Simon, but I seriously cannot remember anything like that Happening with Clary. Are we to assume that she is already that secure?
Nurlely wrote: "The topic is about whether Clary and Jace really love each other. And I said Yes. Their love is not necessarily a true love, for it is still too soon to determine theirs as true love.I gave up, if love means (a) noticing nothing but your partner's physical beauty, (b) ton and ton of make-out, (c) only caring for your own desire, (d) not respecting your partner's wish, (e) "everyone beside my boyfriend be damned, I don't care about them!"; then.......these two are in sickening, perfect love.
And I once again come back to my old arrangement, Clary is too immature a character to love anyone in any meaningful way.
My point was, love is not that simple
My point being, love isn't an excuse for people to act selfish.
Who can say that there is a love in this world which is free of selfishness?
Well, did you notice that I haven't been talking about people being jealous, I have been talking about Clary being selfish to a point that she would subject Jace to a life of being controlled and losing his own free will? And Jace had already made it clear he would rather face the Clave than suffering this fate? I don't think this level of selfishness can be excused so easily, so please don't excuse it with layman talk like "Everyone is selfish! Everyone gets jealous!" I strongly doubt everyone would make the same choice as Clary had done.
But for Clary, her understanding about 'saving' Jace based on what she knew. It didn't have to be the truth, and the Clave might not kill Jace on spot but 'torture' him first for info.
Well...then, I don't know. Why Clary would think turning Jace to Sebastian is better than escaping with Jace AWAY from Sebastian? I mean, after escaping, at least Jace can make his own choice, for goodness' sake!
The more I think about it, the less it makes sense.
Why? Aren't differences making this world interesting? LOL.
So to you, love being an excuse for selfishness is perfectly okay, I get it. But I can't share such an opinion, sorry.
So sorry, but my understanding of love is not that simple. And people use anything as an excuse, including (even mostly) love.
Then I have problem with how Clary's selfish act hardly brings her any circumstance. Jace hardly seems to be angry with her after being betrayed like this. Ms. Clare, are you for real?
Ok. I've had enough. Jace and Clary are in love because the author says so. The author makes the story and all the things in the book, including the definition of love or how love is supposed to be in that little fictional world.my other comment is better but this is just the annoyed me. :p
Andre wrote: "Not so with Maia and Jordan, the two reconcile way too easily. "Yes I can't wrap my mind around it, either. When in CoLs Maia just...forgives Jordan? What? This guy had ruined her life!
Maybe Clare does the Meyer and therefore needs everyone to reconcile. The Lightwood parents reconciled also. I guess that means Alec and Magnus will reconcile too.Addieborja wrote: "Ok. I've had enough. Jace and Clary are in love because the author says so. The author makes the story and all the things in the book, including the definition of love or how love is supposed to be..."
If you just sswallow whatever the writer throws at you, by what Standards do you then assess what is good and what is crap?
Also the world Clare created is based on our own, so she doesn't have all free reign.
Mizuki: My point being, love requests respect and understanding, instead putting your own needs before your loved one's, or just simply ignore their wish and request.Me: Everyone loves in a different way. It's YOUR opinion that love should be about respecting your loved one's wishes. This doesn't define how someone else would love another.
Mizuki: I strongly doubt everyone would make the same choice as Clary had done.
Me: Exactly. This is how Clary loves Jace. It might not be how you love another person though.
Andre: Yes I can't wrap my mind around it, either. When in CoLs Maia just...forgives Jordan? What? This guy had ruined her life!
Me: Maia realizes that Jordan still loves her, and that it wasn't his fault he did that to her. He wasn't in control of himself. Maia is remembering the old Jordan who she loved so much, before he became a werewolf and had anger issues. She sees that he is a good person right now and is willing to give this nice Jordan another chance. It's like having an argument and then forgiving each other.
((P.S. How do you italicize text?))
Ariel wrote: "Everyone loves in a different way. It's YOUR opinion that love should be about respecting your loved one's wishes. This doesn't define how someone else would love another."I'm truly amused right now. What kind of love can that be without respect and understanding? Simple physical attraction and ton of make-out?
I do know NOT everyone would respect their partners' wish even when they claim to 'love' them. Usually I saw such cases in abusive husbands/lovers or someone who's down right selfish and only cares about themselves.
So I agree, not everyone would respect their partners when they supposedly 'love' them.
Exactly. This is how Clary loves Jace. It might not be how you love another person though.
Yup, again I have to agree, not everyone can get so selfish that they refuse to listen to their loved ones' wish and willingly turn their partners to the evil villain...
Plus it's not Andre, it's me asking why Maia would forgive Jordan.
italicize text: < i > put your text in between < /i>
Mizuki wrote: "Ariel wrote: "Everyone loves in a different way. It's YOUR opinion that love should be about respecting your loved one's wishes. This doesn't define how someone else would love another."I'm truly..."
Thanks! The italicize text thing was driving me crazy. :)
And I was answering both of you, I was just quoting Andre.
I'm not saying everyone will be nasty to the person they love, I'm just saying they might not be thinking as logically as you are right now about the matter. When people's emotions get involved, they don't always think before they act.
Andre wrote: "Jace supposedly was somewhat jealous of Simon, but I seriously cannot remember anything like that Happening with Clary. Are we to assume that she is already that secure? "Jace was fully aware of his handsomeness, of him being so attractive, and was confident that Clary loved him and not Simon. He had all Clary's attention on him whenever he was around. Why bothered himself with being jealous? Especially when he was (beside of being super gorgeous) a shadowhunter and Simon a mundane.
Mizuki wrote: "I gave up..."Nice. But then you continued writing??
Nurlely wrote: "Jace was fully aware of his handsomeness, of him being so attractive, and was confident that Clary loved him and not Simon. He had all Clary's attention on him whenever he was around. Why bothered himself with being jealous? Especially when he was (beside of being super gorgeous) a shadowhunter and Simon a mundane. "
I don't know, Clare wrote it that way. And again, despite Jace apparently having screwed around Clary never shows any sort of sign of jealousy, even in that Scene in CoA she is just hurt nothing more. And don't Forget, she is the character we are suppossed to relate to. But she is just plain weird.
Andre wrote: "I don't know, Clare wrote it that way. And again, despite Jace apparently having screwed around Clary never shows any sort of sign of jealousy, even in that Scene in CoA she is just hurt nothing more. And don't Forget, she is the character we are suppossed to relate to. But she is just plain weird. "
I think Jace is the character we are supposed to relate to. Jace is on the cover and the centre of attraction despite Clary's role as the 'story-teller'.
Weird? I think most of main female characters are written as annoying and lame (except Katniss, Hermione, Meghan, Katsa, Penryn....)
Well Clary is lame and weird. Which makes it especially weird to me that such a whiny Mary Sue in distress is so popular. Not her of course, all of them. And either way, even if These two really love each other I think we can all agree that this is not some sort of epic love or so.
Not some sort of epic love indeed.
Then why, do so many people believe that they are? That is a mystery to me. Do they just believe what the book tells them?
I don't think the book tells me that they have sort of epic love. Based on what I read, I feel that they do really love each other, but more in a teenager way, with teenager lust and selfishness. The kind of love that make them justify their deed in protecting their love one. Act more and talk later kind of teenager love.
Nurlely wrote: "Mizuki wrote: "I gave up..."Nice. But then you continued writing??"
I saw that it's pointless to carry on when I learned your standard for love is Romeo and Juliet. But I did want to list my (a) to (e) points out once and for all so you might, just might take a look at what you had been defending/defining as 'love'.
Maybe there is 'love' between Clary/Jace (though I don't think so), but such love doesn't seem to worth much to me--some other people also think so as well.
Daisy97 wrote: "I actually had a hard time believing Jace and Clary really loved each other too. But I am a Clace fan!"glad to know someone who actually likes the books also has difficulty believing in what Clare wants to sell us as 'love'.
Nurlely wrote: "I don't think the book tells me that they have sort of epic love. Based on what I read, I feel that they do really love each other, but more in a teenager way, with teenager lust and selfishness. T..."And that is another problem with these books: No one ever even tries to make them stop, quite the contrary in book 5 they even get encouraged to act that way. Their "love" is downright self-destructive when it lets them act that way. Which is obvious even in the books, but still, nothing.
Mizuki wrote: "I saw that it's pointless to carry on when I learned your standard for love is Romeo and Juliet."LOL.... I find it's cute that you still go on...
Gave up...no?
Maybe there is 'love' between Clary/Jace (though I don't think so), but such love doesn't seem to worth much to me--some other people also think so as well.
Suit yourself. And you can bring along those 'some other people' with you. I have enjoyed reading TMI so far, and I don't usually count other people's 'happiness' in making my fave-list books.
You are more than allowed to hate TMI, I care less about what you decided for yourself... ;)
Andre wrote: "And that is another problem with these books: No one ever even tries to make them stop, quite the contrary in book 5 they even get encouraged to act that way. Their "love" is downright self-destructive when it lets them act that way. Which is obvious even in the books, but still, nothing. "
It is obvious that you do not like the series. I think it is good that despite your 'dislikeness' toward the series, you still bother to read the series.
I can not say that for my account. When I don't like a book, I don't waste my time reading the next one in the series, unless I made a promise to do so.
You might find nothing in the series, and is kind of annoyed when many think quite differently from you.
For a while, you seem to forget that when we love a book, we sometimes find something more about what we love from it, and in that moment, choose to neglect the flaws made by its writer.
Wow, someone is obviously showing colors, typical for fanatic fans. So get a taste of your own medicine:In case you didn't notice, some people, me included, still have the hope that films are based on good books and with all the hype going on they get curious and want to find out.
Also as bad as the books are they were easy to read and that was basically it. Actually it was so easy to read and remember that I read it during walks.
But all has its limits and so I did not finish Clockwork Angel.
Also since you cannot escape this crap, people like me think it's better to know what all this is about and have an opinion based on that especially when people like you hit on our nerves. Actually you really force yourself on us.
And what is so great about this series anyway?
That it’s a story basically done time and time again?
That the author couldn't even keep it original enough not to copy exact sentences from her Draco Malfoy fanfic, and had CoB and CA basically with the same story?
That her vampires and werewolves are nothing more than bad amalgamations from all sorts of cliché vampire and werewolf tropes and actually nothing more?
That she cannot even follow her own established rules?
That she can't visualize what she is writing?
That her pacing is totally over the top?
That her fourth book reads as though she did it for money and nothing else?
That she acts like a cultural vandal with all her demon names? Seriously, not even those she can assign right.
That her main character is incredibly shallow and a giant Mary Sue?
That her characters act not like actual people but badly programmed robots?
That she constantly has someone or something burst into a room to avoid certain topics?
That she says one thing now and next time the opposite?
That she constantly switches POVs and sometimes so badly that even skilled readers have trouble following the story?
That her claim of diversity being good is a bad joke when faced with the fact that her most diverse creatures are the demons?
That her "diversity" among the good guys is nothing more than tokenism?
That she cannot even use the full potential of what she herself created?
That her male lead relies on nothing but looks and the bad boy stereotype?
That the fear her villain creates is in no way justified by what he has actually done?
That the majority of actions her "warriors" have do not fit a warrior at all?
I could go on and on about this but I think these points should get the basic idea across to you?
But consider two thinks:
1) Unlike what you seem to suggest, people do not just say "I don't like this book" and then find flaws in it, they don't like it because they found flaws.
2)Did it ever occur to you that by neglecting the flaws of a writer you basically encourage that one not to improve? How do you think good authors come to be? That they simply fall from the sky?
PS. These "other people" you seem to suggest do not exist: Look at the reviews and you will find them!
Hahahaha.... someone is really a hater. An impressive hater indeed. Loathing the series while spending the precious time reading it.I am actually one of Cassie's fans who don't believe that she is without flaws. She has been writing inconsistencies ever since City if Bones and was accused of plagiarism. But who can say that a writer is free of flaws?
But I has been enjoyed reading Cassie's books although not her recent ones, and I read what I enjoy most, not what others tell me what I should enjoy. In this case, certainly not base my liking on your hatred.
It has been so interesting reading and responding to you, getting a different point of view from a hater, instead only from fans.
Fans who close their eyes of Cassie's flaws make me wonder, but people who spend their time hating a book wonders me even more.
If you care about making a better writer, have you ever attempted to send any of your 'wise advice' for Cassie to amend her flaws? Did she reply? Or are you simply a big talk and no action? I did my share more than 2 years ago.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
"She's desperate" isn't an excuse, Clary is putting her own need for Jace BEFORE Jace's own wish and request. It's what I'd call "selfish".
You know what's the problem? Clary is immature, she has been an immature character throughout the series, which means it's difficult for her to love someone in any meaningful and mature way.
Later, at the end of CoLS tho, Clary repents her choice and tells Jace that she should have respected his decision and let him turn himself in.
Took her long enough, but it can't erase her betrayal against Jace. She apologized, fine. But it doesn't mean her betrayal never happened.
Do they start tearing at each others clothes the minute they see each other? Do they start making out like crazy? Don't say no because of the heavenly fire. That wouldn't be the only reason why not. "
Wow, do you remember the two of them keep making out and making out even when they should have started planning how to escape from Sabastian?