?

Log in

Previous Entry | Next Entry

some thoughts about the series.

So I just finished reading Rapture of the Deep, and rather than submitting my friends, of whom only one is as enthusiastic about Jacky as I am, to some of the thoughts that arose while reading, I'm posting here. No spoilers, though, I promise, since these are things I was thinking about when rereading Mississippi Jack and My Bonny Light Horseman a couple weeks ago.

Before I begin, though, lemme say that Rapture was pretty great. I didn't read the synopsis or anything like that before opening to the first page, so all I had to go on was the cover design, title, and the bits that closed Horseman. I pre-ordered the thing in January or February of this year, whenever I first noticed it had shown up on Amazon, even before the cover and synopsis were up :P


Okay, so.

1. I love the way Meyer jumbles actual history into the stories. We have the Napoleonic wars going on, so we have a specific place in history for everything to take place, but other than that, we, as readers, aren't intended to read the books as actual history books. They're fantasy-history, jumbling things up because it makes for a better story, or is funnier that way, or whatever. I don't mind that, even though sometimes my brain is going "uhm, wait a sec, that wasn't available in X-place until Y-years later" you know? And in reality, there's very little chance that a girl like Jacky could do all the things she does. Maybe a couple of things, but not all of it.

BUT. It drives me crazy that the clothing descriptions are sometimes anachronistic like whoa. It's like, there's such care put into making sure the ships and weapons are accurate for the time period, and then he turns around and describes a garment that is five years too early or fifteen years too late. I feel like it shouldn't bother me, because it's another example of jumbled history, but it's so detailed sometimes that I wish Meyer had given only general descriptions instead of specifics.

And underwear - geez, if I'm remembering my fashion history right, drawers weren't worn for five, ten years after Jacky gets her first pair. And even then, they were slit down the middle so you just spread your legs, pulled the fabric aside, and did your business. No pulling them down to bare your bum. Also, they were for the rich and fashionable, because they became popular due to the Regency style of dress. Every time Jacky's drawers are mentioned, I get thrown out of the story, because my brain goes "no, wait..." (Likewise, why does she never mention her stays? I'm pretty sure that Higgins wouldn't let her avoid those if he's making her dress properly. And she'd have to have had a bum-roll for some of her high-fashion dresses, the way she describes herself as skinny.) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwear#History and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1795-1820_in_fashion#Undergarments but my information comes from other sites and research posted to ag_over_18)

On the other hand, as much as this bothers me, I feel like maybe these things are included as a nod to modern sensibilities, the way the language used is a modern interpretation of how people spoke (with modern idioms and the like), and certain ways of doing things are ignored, or mentioned only to establish the setting or show how Progressive Jacky is.


So, uhm, does this kind of thing bother anyone else the way it does me? It doesn't ruin my enjoyment of the stories to read, for example, about ballet practices which seem to be pulled from the 1850s rather than the 1800s, but that kind of thing does disrupt my suspension of disbelief.

Also, there is something that is described in detail at the beginning of Rapture of the Deep which I could swear is completely anachronistic: the things described were invented with Queen Victoria, practically, and she didn't reign until the 1840s. (There was something else that I was convinced was ten years out of date, then I googled it and realized I had misremembered the date of the act as 1813 instead of 1753 for some reason? Likewise, there was another throwaway line that referred to something I was remembering as 1809 instead of 1801 -.- And I'm terribly sorry if anyone doesn't want spoiling but knows what act from 1753 I'm talking about, but, ha ha, just knowing that that particular act from 1753 is involved won't tell you how it comes up, or with whom it has any importance.)


2. I love that the series has certain things that always happen: Jacky always gets captured by an enemy and manages to escape. Higgins always clucks his tongue and scolds her for her improprieties, but dotes on her anyway. Jacky always meets someone who gives her a bit of an education in the ways of life. Amy always manages to write a totally indecent novel about Jacky's adventures that sells really well. Jacky and Jaimy get to see each other for a very brief moment before being forced apart. The moment those two get married, you know the series will end.

But, dangit, I don't like Jaimy. Don't get me wrong, I think he's great and a good character and I love the tension that arises because him and Jacky are trying to get together but can't seem to quite manage it. But I hate how Jacky acts whenever she's with him, especially in the last few books. It's like her character totally changes and she submits and gets all lovey-dovey and it just doesn't feel right. She acts completely differently around Joseph Jared and Richard Allen and Randall Trevelyne and Jean-Paul whatshisface, even though until recently, she's gone farther with any of them than with Jaimy (holy crap, she did have non-penetrative sex with Jean-Paul that night before the battle, right? it wasn't just me reading between the lines?), and she admits that she'd let herself be in love with them (especially Joseph or Richard) if she didn't have Jaimy. So why does she have to get all mousey and flustered with him?

I feel like she's clinging to her first boyfriend because they haven't really been able to spend any kind of quality time together, and so they've elevated each other in their mind's. I'm not sure if I'm explaining this right? But they were eleven and thirteen when they first met and now they're sixteen and eighteen (though, to be honest, it feels to me like Jacky's eighteen and he's twenty, and it's really weird when I'm reminded that she's only sixteen - I seem to have mentally put her on the Dolphin and at Lawson Peabody the first time longer than she was actually there), and I'm not sure that I can really get behind them having an endless, true love. But, like I said, I don't mind the fact that Jaimy's something of a plot device, and his actual character is pretty awesome, I just can't stand him because of how Jacky acts around him, and he doesn't seem to really appreciate her true nature, the way some of the other guys do - though that's possibly simply because they've spent more time with her than he has.


Am I making sense here? Does anyone agree with me? This isn't a 'shipping thing (though, I guess in some ways, it is a "ship" thing har de har har), and I'm really trying to make that clear, because it's about how I dislike Jaimy's role and I dislike the way Jacky acts around him, and it's frustrating to have the main character's personality change like that. I almost wish that those two never got to spend any time together, and that Jaimy was always just on the other side of the horizon, you know? But it'd be less character and more plot device that way, unfortunately. (Well, he's a plot device anyway, but you know what I mean. I hope.)

Comments

( 24 comments — Leave a comment )
the23rdjandal
Sep. 23rd, 2009 09:00 am (UTC)
You bring up a lot of really interesting points here, and I hardly know where to start in addressing them! Yes, you made sense, and it's really cool to see someone who puts the time in to get across everything.

And I'm so with you on the Jaimy thing! He's a good character, and it was really nice to finally see them get some time together in Rapture, but whenever Jacky is with him she turns into more of a mushy, lovestruck girl, than the character we know. It's only a small character shift, but she just acts that little bit different around him.

As far as the historical stuff goes, I don't notice it as much. Probably because I don't know my History all that well, so I don't identify things that might be a few years out of place.

I'm going to do a little plug here for the Bloody Jack Boards. You should join us. We've got a whole bunch of really interesting discussions going on over there, including loads on the character of Jaimy and his relationship with Jacky, compared with her other men. Clicky here
keristars
Sep. 24th, 2009 04:43 am (UTC)
I was an English major in undergrad, and the last few semesters my courses focussed on 17th-19th century English/British literature (I'm never sure if it's right to call the stuff from before 1801 "British", thus the slash there). Naturally, when studying literature, it helps to also study the cultural, historical, political, &c. things that were going on when the work was created. Nothing's created in a vacuum, and though the Romantics can be appreciated without knowing anything about the French Revolution or Napoleon, it really helps to have familiarity with what was going on in France and how the English were reacting and why the Romantics were doing things the way they did. (But you might already know this. :P One thing I hadn't understood before my Romantics course was that books like The Italian and Frankenstein were partly travelogues for people who couldn't do the Continental Tour because of the wars, thus lots of descriptions of the countryside and landmarks cribbed from older travel books.)

Anyway, that's pretty much how I'm familiar at all with the Empire/Regency period of history where Jacky's set. And I've learned a lot about the fashion of the period from discussions over at ag_over_18 (which is for fans of a children's historical book series that has matching dolls).

I do get it mixed up sometimes, though, myself. :P



Does that board have a lot of younger kids? I only ask because I've been avoiding public congregation sites for Bloody Jack fans because I don't want to deal with young teenagers who are all about relationships and stuff. A few times when I've poked my nose around, all I've seen are threads titled stuff like "OMG Who Do U <3 More: Jacky/Jaimy or Jacky/Randall???" you know? And after moderating an AG board with lots of what we called squealers (teenyboppers, I guess, you could say?), I just don't want to bother. When I talk about the Jacky books, I'm really more interested in discussing the history (what's right, what isn't, what's surprising) and themes and motifs and stuff. That's actually partly why I stayed away from this comm for so long - there were a few too many of that kind of post on the front page for me to feel comfortable here. (but now the comm is effectively dead, so.)
the23rdjandal
Sep. 24th, 2009 05:18 am (UTC)
That would explain it then. I'm actually incredibly jealous of you, as I've never really had the opportunity to study anything like that, except for seventh form (last year of high school, I'm in New Zealand) English History, which is all 16th-17th century, so a little earlier. I was hoping to do a paper or two at uni, but it looks like I'll be doing engineering, so no space for it. Very sad that. I do have a bit of background knowledge though, especially on the music.

The boards have a few younger members, but we've also got a lot of older members. Although the way that it's run means that we have less of the annoyingness. I completely understand your concerns though. I cannot cope with screaming teen fangirls who don't know how to use a keyboard, and nor can any of our mods. We've got very definite rules about chat speak and spamming, and we try to train the newbies to speak English as quickly as possible. We do get the occasional member who makes everyone want to strangle them, and that probably spreads more to the book discussion than anywhere else in the forum, largely because that's where the new members go first. But mostly it's a really great group of people, and we love to have fresh blood. Especially someone who's got really good ideas.
keristars
Sep. 24th, 2009 11:59 pm (UTC)
I'm trying to think of some websites for 18th - 19th century historical tidbits that might be of interest to you, but I'm totally blanking on the resources that my professor had for us. :( At any rate, have you read anything by Eliza Haywood? She was early 18th century, and her novellas and plays are fantastic - the kinds of stories that Amy writes, I suspect, but more "literary". It's a hundred years early, but she's one of my favorite English authors, so.

I think looking at art history textbooks that focus on that general period (post Reformation, pre Baroque) could also be helpful and maybe an easy way to get more familiar, at least, that's another way I learned about customs and the way people thought at the time. Since you're in uni, you might be able to borrow that kind of thing from folks, or there may be textbooks available for photocopies in the library. :)


I'll poke around the board some, and just maybe I'll join up, thanks!
captaintish
Sep. 24th, 2009 03:58 am (UTC)
I completely agree with you about Jaimy. I haven't read Rapture of the Deep yet -- I plan to go pick it up on Friday -- but I've always believed that Jacky and Jaimy wouldn't end up together in the end. They're each others' first loves. But they don't really know each other. It's evidenced especially in, I think, The Curse of the Blue Tattoo, in all those letter Jaimy wrote to Jacky talking about how he envisioned her at the school doing all sorts of girly things, and I'm just thinking, "Doesn't he know here AT ALL?"

Like you said, "he doesn't seem to really appreciate her true nature, the way some of the other guys do" -- EXACTLY!
keristars
Sep. 24th, 2009 04:22 am (UTC)
I felt that in Blue Tattoo, it wasn't so bad, because it was the first time they were apart and the stories hadn't really spread and they hadn't had time to write letters or anything - it was in Mississippi Jack that I really went "geez, seriously Jaimy?" at the way he was talking about her in his letters. (But I lolled so hard at the Jaimy/Clementine subplot, I swear. I thought it was one of the best parts of the book, which is easily my favorite in the series.) And then in some bits of My Bonny Light Horseman, I cringed, but he seemed to know Jacky a little better by then, and he was actually interacting more with her friends (like at the end, there, when he's on the Nancy B. with Higgins and Tink and Jim and Danny and Smasher McGee and John Tucker), so I thought he'd at least get more informed.

Not to spoil, but Rapture of the Deep has a lot of Jaimy/Jacky interaction in the beginning (because at the end of Horseman, she'd jumped off the cliff and swum to the Nancy B. where he was waiting, remember?), and it's really obvious the whole thing about them not really knowing each other. It's like he's this god that Jacky is crushing on really hard, and she's kind of ignoring the fact that so far, he's totally not willing to let her do her thing, because they're in ~love~. (And who on earth would go around kissing other men and practically having sex with them (I still insist that she gave Jean-Paul a handjob if nothing else in Horseman) while being totally in love and committed to someone else? It's just...not quite right. I think as much as Jaimy doesn't really know Jacky, she's not really as ready to get married as she thinks she is. And she's definitely not ready to get married to HIM!)

Hopefully, after spending more time together, Jaimy will figure her out and stop being an ass. But I don't want to spoil Rapture for you, on account of some of the things that happen in the beginning are Relevant To This Conversation, if you know what I mean.


And then there's the problem that Jaimy and Jacky have to remain somewhat committed to each other, with the promise of marriage, without actually ever being able to marry, because that's one of the giant over-arching plots. I mean, sometimes in series fiction, the main character gets married (I'm thinking of Ruth Fielding specifically, from the 1920s), but not when the almost-but-not-quite marriage is the dangling carrot driving the plot along. It's like if the Babysitters Club girls went to high school or college - it would totally mess up a huge chunk of the premise. Or if Nancy Drew got an actual job and married and had a child. Or if the Dana Girls were to leave school.

Basically, I'm saying that I would be very surprised if Jacky ever broke it off with Jaimy, or if they ever got married before the final volume in the series. It just doesn't fit with the way series work, not the ones I've read. (If the heroine does get married midway through the series, it's never a case where that marriage has been a plot carrot.)
keristars
Sep. 24th, 2009 04:24 am (UTC)
Also, sorry for writing another novel in response to you. >.>

I, uhm, love the Bloody Jack Adventures to pieces and I love talking about them, but this is the first time I've ever had a chance to talk to anyone besides cami713, and I guess I have a lot that I want to say? :P

(edited to fix cami's ljname.)

Edited at 2009-09-24 04:26 am (UTC)
captaintish
Sep. 24th, 2009 04:28 am (UTC)
LOL, no problem! It's nice to know someone else thinks the same way I do about Jacky/Jaimy. I'll be interested in seeing their interaction in Rapture. I'm in the middle of rereading Horseman right now, so I'm still sort of getting reminded of everything that happened. Can't wait to read the new one!
hms_surrender
Sep. 24th, 2009 11:40 pm (UTC)
I agree with you about Jaimy. Though it may just be because I adore Richard so much and want Jacky to run off with him... -ahem-

But historical inaccuracies! I'm (working on being) a history major, though my uni offers very few courses on this period (Whyyyyy? It makes me so sad). But I'm bothered mostly by the nautical inaccuracies. I'm a sailor myself, and when Jacky uses port, I keep screaming in my head, 'No! You'd be using larboard at that time!' Also buntlines... I'm not sure Mr Meyer knows what buntlines are... or that they wouldn't be found on a schooner without squares'ls.
And a number of other things. I don't think I noticed the nautical inaccuracies in the previous book because I myself learned so much about sailing in just this past year... But now I want to go back and read the series. xD Not a bad thing!
keristars
Sep. 24th, 2009 11:53 pm (UTC)
See, the port/larboard thing (which I didn't know about!) makes me wonder if it's another matter of making things more accessible for modern readers? or is it just a throwing out of some bits of accuracy in order to subtly support the idea that this is fantasy and not actual historical fact in any way?

Also, lol, the last book had me scratching my head, because it kept mentioning "rope" and I had to stop and think "wait, shouldn't that be 'line' or is it 'rope' in this case?" because I think "line" was only used when part of a compound word (like "ratlines"), even though the two were distinguished in previous books. (And now I'm reminding myself of the Dirty Jobs episode where he goes to work on the ship in San Francisco and learns about line vs. rope and tarring the deck which I'm totally blanking on the proper word for and so on. It was a really, really cool episode.)

I was obsessed with ballet when I was younger, and I did a lot of reading about its history for a project in fifth grade, so some of those bits of Horseman stood out to me the same way the nautical stuff is standing out to you. :P But I'd think he'd be okay with most of that, since he was a sailor himself, and I thought you had to learn the history of ships in the Navy? or maybe that's just the NJROTC (which my brother did - we're a BIG Navy town here).
hms_surrender
Sep. 25th, 2009 12:03 am (UTC)
That's what I was thinking it could be. Better for the general public to understand, as opposed to an O'Brian book which is so laden with nautical terminology you practically have to be an avid sailor to know what's going on.

Aha! That Dirty Jobs episode was filmed at the Maritime Museum of San Diego, which is where I volunteer and sail. We're known to the Coast Guard as the most professional volunteer sailing crew. I.e. we're OCD. Rope is the material of which line is made. Once you give that rope a purpose it becomes a line.

Ha, well the Navy and Coast Guard visit our Museum to learn some things, so being in the Navy doesn't necessarily mean you know a lot about sailing.
keristars
Sep. 25th, 2009 12:13 am (UTC)
Duhhh, as I was typing "San Francisco" I was telling myself that I'd mixed up the coastal CA city :P Someday, I need to get west of the Rockies to see all the cool museums in California. (I really want to get to the Monterey Bay Aquarium someday, too.)

And, yeah, I remember the rope vs. line thing, which is why always calling it "rope" was confusing me. Like when Jacky's diving, they talk about "pull the rope with three knots when the net bag is full", which seemed a bit wrong, but I just wasn't sure since it wasn't in use on the ship, exactly, you know?
hms_surrender
Sep. 25th, 2009 12:20 am (UTC)
Ha, it's okay. San Francisco actually has a quite similar Museum to San Diego's. We both have an Alaska Packers ship, a ferry boat, a schooner that takes guests sailing... It's actually eerily similar now I think about it.

Do some visit! The West Coast is quite a marvellous coast, if I do say so myself.
keristars
Sep. 25th, 2009 12:27 am (UTC)
LOL I've lived my entire life in Florida - it's kinda tough to get out to California - actually, I can count on my fingers the number of times I've left this region. (twice to DC as a kid, once to Chicago, another time to Kansas City, one trip to Pittsburg & eastern Ohio, two separate visits to family in Charlotte NC, and I did a study abroad in France for a month in 2004.) I'm moving to Milwaukee in a few months to go to grad school (archives + museum studies, actually!), and it'll be the first time I've ever seen snow. I'm really really excited about being further west, and thus maybe better able to travel around. Middle-ish of the country makes it easier than being in one corner, right?
hms_surrender
Sep. 25th, 2009 12:31 am (UTC)
Ha, well I can't say I've been anywhere else than SoCal. A few trips to San Francisco, numerous trips to Kentucky due to family, one trip to Florida (O, hai!), and a random cruise to Alaska before my hatred of cruise ships came about.

Hee, yes, middle-ish is easier than a corner.
(Anonymous)
Oct. 8th, 2009 05:15 am (UTC)
jacky and jaimy thing
they were 12 and 15 or 16 on the ship do your math correctly. Jacky was 8 when she became an orphan and was with charlie for 4 years says so in bloody jack page 7. So by the time she gets on the ship she is 12. 8+4=12 And in mississippi Jack Jaimy is 19 read page- 261 of miss. jack and jacky is about 15 ( in my bonny light horseman page 276 kacy says its her birthday oct 2 of 1806 her 16th so do the math a year sooner she would be 15) so that would make jaimy 3 to 4 years older than her. So 12 + 4 =16 and 12+3=15 so they are 12 and 15 to 16 not 11 and 13. Your should pay more attention to what you read.
(Anonymous)
Oct. 8th, 2009 05:17 am (UTC)
jacky and jaimy thing
they were 12 and 15 or 16 on the ship do your math correctly. Jacky was 8 when she became an orphan and was with charlie for 4 years says so in bloody jack page 7. So by the time she gets on the ship she is 12. 8+4=12 And in mississippi Jack Jaimy is 19 read page- 261 of miss. jack and jacky is about 15 ( in my bonny light horseman page 276 kacy says its her birthday oct 2 of 1806 her 16th so do the math a year sooner she would be 15) so that would make jaimy 3 to 4 years older than her. So 12 + 4 =16 and 12+3=15 so they are 12 and 15 to 16 not 11 and 13. You should pay more attention to what you read.
keristars
Oct. 8th, 2009 05:45 am (UTC)
Re: jacky and jaimy thing
Uhm, what? I'm not sure what the point of this comment is at all. Does it matter what their exact ages are? I actually thought (until I read Mississippi Jack) that they were the *same* age - both eleven or so.

Also, it's possible for them to be 11 and 13 and later to be 16 and 19, you know. This year, I am 25, and right now, I have a sibling who is also 25. But in a little over a month, we will be 25 and 26.

I may have misremembered Jacky's age on the Dolphin which in turn may have caused me to mess up on other ages/dates, but because of the way the books are written, it's difficult to intuitively follow the passage of time. Did you notice that it suddenly went from November in Rapture of the Deep, to being time for Carnival - which is right before spring - with no comment on the passing of time or mention of the Christmas holiday, or anything? In 1806, they may not have had Christmas trees or Santa Claus, but they did have a 12-day long holiday period that Jacky ought to have been obsessed with, since it usually consisted of parties and lots of delicious food. Anyway, because of this murky passage of time, I've always had trouble keeping track of when exactly things happen, and if it weren't for the constant reminders that she's 16 in the last few books, I'd be thinking that she's 18 by now. I'd say that ages and the years that pass aren't important, except as ways to mark out what's going on with Napoleon and King George.

In fact, I'll go ahead and say that it doesn't matter anyway, and the reminders that Jacky is 16 are only there as plot devices, to heighten the emotion when Flashby's trying to make her strip or when Biffil is threatening to rape her. And, of course, it's a handy excuse for why it's a good idea she not get married yet in Rapture of the Deep.

Anyway, I still don't understand the point of your comment, when you could have just said "by the way, you got a detail wrong about the ages." I'm pretty cool with being corrected on small details like that, and cami713 has had to set me straight any number of times, because I'm more liable to remember feelings, emotions, themes, &c than small things, like when someone's birthday is or the color of someone's eyes, especially if it's not terribly important to the story as a whole.
(Anonymous)
Oct. 8th, 2009 02:32 pm (UTC)
Re: jacky and jaimy thing
It was just to show that they are not as young as you thought when you commented on there ages. Back in those times girls were married off as early as age 13. Was it common for that to happen? no, but it was done. And men normaly started looking for a wife around 18 to 20. So with jaimy being 19 or so and jacky 16 there is no reason for them to not be looking at marriage. Just saying. I'm a big stlickler on details, I feel that the make or break a book. These ones are a little difficult to pick up on I agree and the time line is not clear, but they are there just hard to find. I guess my point is I don't see why at 16 and 19 or so they cant find true love. Many people from my high school graduated class are still with there high school sweet-heart and its been 4 years since I was in high school. I guess I misinterpreted your statement in the begging. But I do agree with the christmas thing as well. I think L.A. Meyer could pay a bit more attention to time frame to give us a better understanding of the time of year.
missyfaber
Nov. 18th, 2009 03:34 pm (UTC)
something that is also a little confusing is that the amount of time the two spend together on the dolphin differs from BJ to CotBT Davy at some point says after finding jacky and jaimy together (i cant find the exact quote but i'll keep looking) that he can't believe that for two years the slept together in the hammock and then in CotBT on the 1st page says "my mates for the past year and half". Since they don't really mark the time that passes, we can't be entirely sure how jacky is. Jaimy knows when he was born so he can calculate his age. But Jacky does guess for the majority of the book. Considering she started her period on the dolphin and that she had been malnourished for a while, a proven hinderance in development's respect. She could have even been pushing 13 or 14 and we wouldn't have known about it. Not to mention she's smaller than average and so looks younger than she probably is. So we can't really argue about age and what not cause to be honest I think Meyer keeps it in a ballpark so more people can relate and there isn't really a specific age noted. Of course she is of a certain age in Meyers mind, but of which we are not, in my opinion, intended to know. So it doesn't make any sense to argue.
(Anonymous)
Nov. 20th, 2009 08:27 pm (UTC)
I was not trying to argue. Just pointing out something. Sorry if it looked harsh.
missyfaber
Nov. 21st, 2009 08:43 pm (UTC)
Hey lol i'm just glad someone's passionate enough so it doesn't matter :)
keristars
Nov. 21st, 2009 08:47 pm (UTC)
Okay, so I'm pretty much in agreement with you. I coulda sworn that the first shipping out of the Dolphin was about two years, and that we just didn't see the returns to home port in England or whatever. The fact that Jacky got her period so soon after eating properly for, what, a month? sort of threw me off. And it's not like the food on a Royal Navy ship was all that much better than what she was eating on the streets.

However, Meyer keeps it in a ballpark so more people can relate and there isn't really a specific age noted was totally invalidated by the end of Under the Jolly Roger, because when Jacky meets her grandfather, he tells her when she was born with a specific year, and of course we have the historical events to use for comparison's sake. I would have very much liked for Jacky's age to remain ambiguous (and I can't shrug the feeling that she's 18 or 19 in the latest book, rather than 16), but Meyer ruined that possibility when he brought up her grandad.
missyfaber
Nov. 22nd, 2009 02:08 pm (UTC)
Yeah i don't really know how I feel about the grandpa. But my sentence about Meyer keeping it a ballpoint really only applied to the first book. And yeah, I think that she's definitely older than 16 in most of the books lol. It's just really hard to believe that all these crazy things happened to one girl in a short amount of time. Especially because sailing alone would take a while and she's been back and forth from Boston to England several times by the latest book. So I like to think she's older in my head. It makes things a little more enjoyable.
( 24 comments — Leave a comment )