The Vampire Prince
question
Should Darren have become a Prince?
Ivan
Jun 13, 2013 06:36PM
I was discussing this with a friend, who said that Darren shouldn't have become a prince. He said that Darren broke the rules, and the Vampires shouldn't of accepted him back in, or make him Prince. I thought he should have, because he uncovered Khurda, and the Vampaneze. He technically only did one thing wrong, which was try to run away. Even then, he only did because Khurda made him do it, and Khurda was trusted, since he was going to become a Vampire Prince himself. Then, Darren didn't give up on the fight woth the boars. Technically, Harkat was the one who jumped in, and Darren couldn't be punished for that. what do you think?
reply
flag
I think the same. I mean sure he's younger than the rest of them, but that makes him even better. I'm glad he became a prince, and if you ask any characters in the hall of princes then, they would have said the same.
That would be the right thing but, the Vampire clan is supposed to be super strict. This wouldn't be something they would do.
It was okay, but I was uncomfortable with some of that plotline. My least favorite part of the series.
I think the author made him a prince just to further the plot. I mean look at how many things evolved from just making him a prince.
I don;t know my friends...I just know that when i READ ''i HEAR THEIR SCREAMS: Darren, THE PRINCE OF VAMPIRES'' my skeen became hot and my heart banged because I was hoping that I can really think good of this miserable sun of DISTINEY!
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
