Book Moments That Anger Up The Blood

[peacheslatour]

2 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

I am so, so, so glad I never read any of Danielle Steele's stuff, and am absolutely fine that I never will. 

Same.

[JustHereForFood]

4 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

I am so, so, so glad I never read any of Danielle Steele's stuff, and am absolutely fine that I never will. 

My mother read a lot of them and I once tried to read one to see what the appeal was, but I just didn't get it.

[dubbel zout]

IMO, Danielle Steele has about three different plots that she uses. She just changes the time periods and the physical characteristics of her characters. If you’ve read even one book, the rest will not be a surprise.

[andromeda331]

I read a few Danielle Steele because they were really popular. I hated the age differences between men and women and that if the heroine of the book did it was okay. Like if she had an affair well that was okay. If another woman did it she was bad. Same with looks. If the heroine was beautiful that was okay. But if another woman was beautiful she was bad. 

[Ohiopirate02]

23 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

IMO, Danielle Steele has about three different plots that she uses. She just changes the time periods and the physical characteristics of her characters. If you’ve read even one book, the rest will not be a surprise.

That would explain how she is able to churn out 6 books a year without using a ghostwriter.  

[madmax]

Karin Slaughter's Beyond Reach is one of only two books that I literally threw against the wall because of a plot twist.  The book itself was awesome, but the twist just gutted me.

Hannibal by Thomas Harris was the other one.  And that one just pissed me off.  It wasn't even the really gruesome parts.  The way he ruined Clarice was just horrible.  I'm sure it was just a money grab book.

[GHScorpiosRule]

It really takes something for me to get really angry and upset that I have to put a book down. And this was years ago, but in Divided in Death (J.D. Robb), we learn that this world's version of Homeland Security knew, KNEW that Eve's father was raping her on a regular basis, and did NOTHING. (not spoilering this as this is known about Eve's past from the first book).  She was only 8. And what did they do after (spoilering just in case)

one rape too many, she killed him

? They sanitized the apartment. Because you know, Rich was a useful tool or whatever. But when he wasn't, just move along. Who cares about a traumatized child?

I was totally Team Roarke! in how he wanted to handle learning that. That said, it's still one of my favorite of the series, because of the conflict, with Eve and Roarke on opposite sides, and how it was resolved.

[Spartan Girl]

Read A Shot At Normal by Marisa Reichardt, which is about a girl who sues her anti-vaxxer hippie parents to get vaccinated, and oh boy, it made me so angry. Not just because her parents quadruple down on their willful ignorance every time their daughter or anyone else for that matter tries to reason with them, but especially because of the way they treat her after they find out she went to the court. They refuse to talk to her, shut her out of the family meals, and behave like petty brats. It even results in a fight with the grandparents on Christmas when the grandmother rightfully points out that their extremist views are driving her away and the dad basically throws a temper tantrum. But who gets blamed for ruining Christmas? The poor daughter.

The worst part is 

Spoiler

even though she wins the case and continues to live at home and it’s implied there’s some kind of reconciliation, they don’t apologize for the shit way they treated her. I get that she didn’t want to move in with her grandparents because she had friends and a life, but loving your parents doesn’t mean you have to put up with their crap, especially when you KNOW they’re wrong. Ugh. That’s Jodi Piccoult level of frustrating.

 

Edited July 2, 2021 by Spartan Girl

[anna0852]

This old YA book called My Sister, the Creep. 14 year old Jackie is being used as a hair model by her older sister Sharon for her state beauty license exams. Except Sharon didn't tell Jackie ahead of time it meant a real haircut AND Sharon messes up the instructions, cutting Jackie's long hair far shorter than needed. Jackie gets rightfully furious and walks out, with Sharon pleading for her to come back so she doesn't fail. And I want to scream that Sharon should fail! That kind of mistake absolutely should cost her the exam. Where does she get off thinking this is a small mistake? 

[Spartan Girl]

Thousand Words by Jennifer Brown is about a girl who makes the bad choice of texting a naked pic to her boyfriend only to have it spread around after their later breakup. They both wind up charged with child pornography, although his legal consequences are more severe since he was 18 and legally an adult. Yet almost everyone in the story sticks to the unfair and slut-shaming narrative of “well, he wouldn’t have had the photo if you hadn’t texted it to him.” Even she comes to that same conclusion in the end.

You know what? NO. That shit isn’t going to fly by me. I’m so sick of victims of revenge porn getting as much blame (if not more) than the perpetrators. Yeah, it was a dumb thing to do, but that in no way absolves him of anything! He had free will and conscious choice and instead of deleting it like he said he did (liar) he chose to spread it around and humiliate her. Was it a little harsh for him to possibly have to register as a sex offender as a result? Maybe. But again he chose to be an asshole. As the saying goes, fuck around, get caught, see what happens!

Edited September 18, 2021 by Spartan Girl

[Spartan Girl]

I could have sworn I had The Light Between the Oceans in this thread. Well, although I said it a million times before, let me say it again: Isabel was the WORST. Any woman that knows the pain of losing a child, yet would willingly let another woman think her baby was dead just so that she could keep her for herself is beneath contempt. And the fact that it took her so long to own up to what she did, even when Tom’s life was at stake, was reprehensible. 

Edited October 26, 2021 by Spartan Girl

[lasu]

Just found this thread, and I'm going to come precariously close to defending Family Album, if you'll bear with me.  I read this book for the first time when I was about 11/12, back when it came out.  I got my hand's on my mom's copy.  I probably read it four or five times through middle school.

Now, let me pause here and say I've reread this book as an adult, and I was shocked at how bad it was, despite having grown out of enjoying DS's books by the time I was in my early teens.  I was especially surprised at how terribly homophobic even the most "open-minded" characters were.  The two gay men are written incredibly with awful stereotypes.  I couldn't stop cringing, BUT:

Lionel (the gay son) and his lover (whose name I can't remember) were presented as being a real couple who loved each other.  Keep in mind, this book came out in the height of the AIDS epidemic, and gay men especially were especially being villainized and shunned (I honestly can't remember if AIDS was part of the book or not...I don't think so??).  So, while when I read this as an adult who has been exposed to more ideas, I see how awfully it was written and the stereotypes and language make me cringe so hard.

That said, I had never knowingly known a gay person at age 11, and almost everything I'd ever heard about gay people was negative.  So this was the first gay couple I ever "knew."  And even though so much of it was crap, like I said, they were presented as truly loving each other.  I actually consider myself lucky, because I've spent my entire life never questioning that two men can love each other.  Learning that lesson at such a young age was really beneficial to me, I think.  Stupid book, good life lesson.

One of the dumbest things about the book is that when Faye meets her husband, he's a high ranking officer taking care of business in Guam during a war.  But later, he's suddenly a rich wuss who can't handle having a job or not being coddled all the ding dong day because he has no work experience.  Um...I'm pretty sure being a war vet counts as work experience and would have toughened him up.  It was just stupid.

[Grrarrggh]

That JK Rowling was stupid enough to write Severus Snape the way she did. No self-respecting double agent would act the way he did. 

[proserpina65]

14 hours ago, Grrarrggh said:

That JK Rowling was stupid enough to write Severus Snape the way she did. No self-respecting double agent would act the way he did. 

It's been years since I read the books so I'm not sure I understand what you mean.  Could you clarify?

[Grrarrggh]

7 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

It's been years since I read the books so I'm not sure I understand what you mean.  Could you clarify?

A good double agent doesn't advertise that they're on the side they're spying for. No way would a good spy have acted as Snape did towards his pupils. 

[proserpina65]

17 hours ago, Grrarrggh said:

A good double agent doesn't advertise that they're on the side they're spying for. No way would a good spy have acted as Snape did towards his pupils. 

My memory of the books was that Snape treated Harry and his friends rather badly, which wouldn't have indicated that he was actually spying on Voldemort's associates on behalf of Dumbledore, but as I said, it's been quite a long while since I read them.

[Black Knight]

One thing he does do that you could argue outs him is his casting spells to try to save Harry during the Quidditch match quite early on. But I'm not sure if he really has a choice in that, as if Harry dies the chances of taking down a resurgent Voldemort later are drastically lessened. A double agent has to risk breaking cover if the entire mission is at stake. He tried to be subtle about it and indeed the kids didn't realize what he was doing when they saw him - they thought it was quite the opposite.

[Grrarrggh]

Any good double agent would have acted nice and kind to Harry, trying to get into his confidence. He wouldn't have acted so obviously "evil". That defeats the point of supposedly spying for Voldemort. 

[proserpina65]

16 hours ago, Grrarrggh said:

Any good double agent would have acted nice and kind to Harry, trying to get into his confidence. He wouldn't have acted so obviously "evil". That defeats the point of supposedly spying for Voldemort. 

See, I never looked at it that way.  My take was that it was fairly well-accepted that Snape was an iffy character who resented his position at Hogwarts, and that his behavior towards most of the non-Slytherin students was more designed to keep anyone from suspecting that he was actually spying on Voldemort's associates for Dumbledore.  Plus, he really disliked Harry because of Harry's father, so his behavior towards Harry was genuine.

[Ohiopirate02]

3 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

See, I never looked at it that way.  My take was that it was fairly well-accepted that Snape was an iffy character who resented his position at Hogwarts, and that his behavior towards most of the non-Slytherin students was more designed to keep anyone from suspecting that he was actually spying on Voldemort's associates for Dumbledore.  Plus, he really disliked Harry because of Harry's father, so his behavior towards Harry was genuine.

That still does not absolve him of his abhorrent treatment of Neville.  I will never buy Severus Snape as a hero because of this.  No hero should ever be the manifestation of anyone's greatest fear like what happened with Neville and the bogart in book 3.  

[proserpina65]

24 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

That still does not absolve him of his abhorrent treatment of Neville.  I will never buy Severus Snape as a hero because of this.  No hero should ever be the manifestation of anyone's greatest fear like what happened with Neville and the bogart in book 3.  

It absolutely does not.  Snape is not a hero, I agree.  He's a complicated character with some redeeming qualities but also a lot of negative qualities.  He's fascinating, but ultimately not admirable.

[Bookworm 1979]

1 hour ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

That still does not absolve him of his abhorrent treatment of Neville.  I will never buy Severus Snape as a hero because of this.  No hero should ever be the manifestation of anyone's greatest fear like what happened with Neville and the bogart in book 3.  

Agreed.  I never liked Snape, even after all of the, "But he was just misunderstood!" BS that came out when JK Rowling revealed that he had a crush on Harry's mother.  Even if Harry's dad was a bully to him, that didn't give Snape the right to take out his frustrations on Harry.  Sorry, but Snape will never be a hero to me.  And don't even get me started on Dumbledore!

[GHScorpiosRule]

I can’t remember if I mentioned this, but it broke my heart and enraged me when in Chesapeake Blue, after Gloria FINALLY got her comeuppance, she managed to get some revenge when she set the Quinn’s’ warehouse on fire, and Seth’s drawings of the boats he’d made when he was 10, were burned and destroyed. And even before then, finding out that he’d been paying her blackmail as a child, even after it seemed she longer had any kind of power over him or Sybill. 

But that’s the great thing about Nora’s trilogies (and even single titles): there are high stakes and the happily ever afters aren’t achieved without sacrifices.

Yeah, I needed me some ❤️💕🥰💕❤️Cameron Quinn ❤️💕🥰💕❤️to tide me over after learning some stressful and upsetting news yesterday. And Sea Swept did the trick.

[Black Knight]

On 12/7/2021 at 4:09 PM, Grrarrggh said:

Any good double agent would have acted nice and kind to Harry, trying to get into his confidence. He wouldn't have acted so obviously "evil". That defeats the point of supposedly spying for Voldemort. 

Snape had Dumbledore's full confidence and thus knew much more valuable information to pass on to Voldemort that way. For most of the series Harry is a young boy with little information to share (and he generally doesn't even tell the adults he does trust much of it, in the time-honored standard of children/YA novels).

What really valuable information Harry might be able to share that Snape couldn't find out from his channel to Dumbledore, you'd have to offset against the very real danger that if he were seen to be friendly with Harry, other Death Eaters might report that to Voldemort and V might have started getting suspicious. There's only so much "it's all an act, I'm just spying for you!" that can be said, especially since in Snape's case he really was a double agent and so any suspicious the Death Eaters/Voldemort would have would be exactly right. Voldemort might have started keeping Snape under much closer watch, or asked Snape for proof of his loyalty that he wouldn't be able to follow through on, or if he did follow through the cost would be terrible (murdering innocents, e.g.).

[Grrarrggh]

7 hours ago, Black Knight said:

Snape had Dumbledore's full confidence and thus knew much more valuable information to pass on to Voldemort that way. For most of the series Harry is a young boy with little information to share (and he generally doesn't even tell the adults he does trust much of it, in the time-honored standard of children/YA novels).

What really valuable information Harry might be able to share that Snape couldn't find out from his channel to Dumbledore, you'd have to offset against the very real danger that if he were seen to be friendly with Harry, other Death Eaters might report that to Voldemort and V might have started getting suspicious. There's only so much "it's all an act, I'm just spying for you!" that can be said, especially since in Snape's case he really was a double agent and so any suspicious the Death Eaters/Voldemort would have would be exactly right. Voldemort might have started keeping Snape under much closer watch, or asked Snape for proof of his loyalty that he wouldn't be able to follow through on, or if he did follow through the cost would be terrible (murdering innocents, e.g.).

It's not about any info he could or couldn't get from Harry. It's about convincing Voldemort that he is his man through and through AND, in Voldemort's opinion, keeping Dumbledore and others from realising this. Voldemort would never expect Snape to act like a DE. He would expect him to play his part in pretending he's Dumbledore's man. It's a big failing of the way she writes Slytherins all together. Out and out almost psychotic evilness might be fine for Bellatrix but she applies to it every Slytherin save Slughorn. He's the only true Slytherin of the series. He actually gets through the world with cunning. Lucius Malfoy is slightly Slytherin-ish but he too fails at it. 

This isn't even getting into the fact that for 13 years Snape wasn't a spy and hurt the future Second War more than almost any other non real DE. How many Slytherins from his years as head of house immediately became DEs? All? And how many people who should have been Aurors were never made them because of his horrible teaching and requirement that only pupil's who received an O could be in his NEWT Potions class? Plus he clearly could have taught almost a generation of children quite a lot based on what was in his old text book but he never bothered. 

[proserpina65]

6 hours ago, Grrarrggh said:

And how many people who should have been Aurors were never made them because of his horrible teaching and requirement that only pupil's who received an O could be in his NEWT Potions class?

How would Snape preventing students from becoming aurors have hurt Voldemort's second war?  I'm sorry, I'm just not getting your argument here.  Not that you aren't entitled to your opinion on the subject, of course, I'm trying to understand the point, I guess.

[Grrarrggh]

9 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

How would Snape preventing students from becoming aurors have hurt Voldemort's second war?  I'm sorry, I'm just not getting your argument here.  Not that you aren't entitled to your opinion on the subject, of course, I'm trying to understand the point, I guess.

Sorry, I switched Snape based annoyances without warning. It's a bit of a disorder lol. I meant he hurt the Light's side in the Second War. 

[Spartan Girl]

Nana’s emotional abuse of Mariam in A Thousand Splendid Suns was infuriating. Just because Jalil screwed her over didn’t give her the right to take out her grievances on Mariam, ridiculing her dreams about going to school, making her feel guilty for wanting Jalil to introduce her to her half-siblings, calling her a bastard, and making her feel guilty for being born in the first place. Hey Nana, if you feel so wounded about Mariam preferring Jalil to you, then maybe it would be a good idea not to treat her like crap all the time! That might improve things. But no, she’s so afraid of Mariam potentially abandoning her that she hangs herself. On Mariam’s birthday, no less. Real nice. 

The worst part was how even after all that, older Mariam excuses all that crap behavior by reasoning that Nana at least chose to raise her instead of dumping her in a ditch. That’s the lowest of low bars. 

Edited December 11, 2021 by Spartan Girl

[proserpina65]

On 12/10/2021 at 9:06 PM, Grrarrggh said:

Sorry, I switched Snape based annoyances without warning. It's a bit of a disorder lol. I meant he hurt the Light's side in the Second War. 

Ah, that makes more sense.

[JustHereForFood]

On the topic of Harry Potter details that frustrate us, why were we supposed to feel sorry for the Weasleys being poor? They decided to only have one income themselves. Sure, when all of those 7 kids (FFS) were young, Mrs Weasley probably had to stay at home, but by book 2, all of the kids were either teenagers away at school, or adults. There was no need for her to be a stay at home wife when it was just the two of them, she could easily get a job if she wanted to. So no pity from me for their financial situation.

[DearEvette]

40 minutes ago, JustHereForFood said:

On the topic of Harry Potter details that frustrate us, why were we supposed to feel sorry for the Weasleys being poor? They decided to only have one income themselves. Sure, when all of those 7 kids (FFS) were young, Mrs Weasley probably had to stay at home, but by book 2, all of the kids were either teenagers away at school, or adults. There was no need for her to be a stay at home wife when it was just the two of them, she could easily get a job if she wanted to. So no pity from me for their financial situation.

Were we supposed to?  I never did.  As a matter of fact, the only person in book universe who seemed to feel some type of way about that was Ron.  I always thought we were supposed to read Ron's resentment about his family's lack of money was a bit of a condemnation of him for not understanding that he came from this big loving family full of warmth when compared to Harry.  He took all that for granted and was only concentrating on the things he didn't have versus the things he did have.  If given the choice would he have changed places with Harry who did have money but grew up basically an emotionally abused afterthought.

[JustHereForFood]

28 minutes ago, DearEvette said:

Were we supposed to?  I never did.  As a matter of fact, the only person in book universe who seemed to feel some type of way about that was Ron.  I always thought we were supposed to read Ron's resentment about his family's lack of money was a bit of a condemnation of him for not understanding that he came from this big loving family full of warmth when compared to Harry.  He took all that for granted and was only concentrating on the things he didn't have versus the things he did have.  If given the choice would he have changed places with Harry who did have money but grew up basically an emotionally abused afterthought.

I don't know, I had the impression that we as readers were supposed to see the contrast between poor, down on their luck, but loving big family of Weasleys and the rich, but cold and/or dysfunctional and evil families of almost all other pureblood families.

[Spartan Girl]

In fairness to the Weasleys, a factor in their poverty was Arthur being kept in a low-level position by Fudge because of discrimination against anyone who liked Muggles. According to Fudge, it meant he lacked “pure blood pride.”

[Grrarrggh]

6 hours ago, JustHereForFood said:

On the topic of Harry Potter details that frustrate us, why were we supposed to feel sorry for the Weasleys being poor? They decided to only have one income themselves. Sure, when all of those 7 kids (FFS) were young, Mrs Weasley probably had to stay at home, but by book 2, all of the kids were either teenagers away at school, or adults. There was no need for her to be a stay at home wife when it was just the two of them, she could easily get a job if she wanted to. So no pity from me for their financial situation.

It also didn't help that Jo can't math so the cost of things was odd. It seemed downright cruel to me that Ron and Neville didn't get their own wands until the ones that were forced on them broke. It's not like their families knew nothing of the magical world AND were nearly homeless level poor. A wand that picks you is godsdamed important. 

Plus, why were the Weasley children always wearing muggle clothing? 

4 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

In fairness to the Weasleys, a factor in their poverty was Arthur being kept in a low-level position by Fudge because of discrimination against anyone who liked Muggles. According to Fudge, it meant he lacked “pure blood pride.”

That I don't believe. I think he never got a high position because for someone who supposedly is obsessed with muggles and has worked with them since he was 17 he can't even remember the world telephone and other things? 

[proserpina65]

16 hours ago, Grrarrggh said:

That I don't believe. I think he never got a high position because for someone who supposedly is obsessed with muggles and has worked with them since he was 17 he can't even remember the world telephone and other things? 

No one could accuse J.K. of consistency.

[Grrarrggh]

5 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

No one could accuse J.K. of consistency.

That's why it always angers up my blood when fans claim she thought everything out from the beginning. 

[SmithW6079]

In The Expanse novel series, any scene that included Clarissa Mao. I have never hated a fictional character as much as I hate her. 

[Haleth]

11 hours ago, SmithW6079 said:

In The Expanse novel series, any scene that included Clarissa Mao. I have never hated a fictional character as much as I hate her. 

Yeah, I was angry at any attempt to whitewash her crimes, both in the books and the show.

[BlackberryJam]

Every single state prosecutor legal decision in Perversion of Justice: The Jeffrey Epstein Story. Let's be real here, the whole book made my blood boil. 

[Spartan Girl]

I’ve silently stewed about this book moment long enough:

The Book of Otto and Liam by Paul Griner is about two parents struggling in the aftermath of losing their little son, who was murdered in a school shooting. Their grieving is made worse by the relentless stalking and harassing by losers that claim the whole shooting was a hoax, led by a woman known as “Kate.” The father spends the novel trying to track the bitch down, but is ultimately discouraged out of vengeance by a detective friend, who informs him that “Kate” supposedly feels bad about what she did and (actual quote) “for what it’s worth, she wasn’t a real hoaxer, she was just in it for the money.”

*stares hard at the screen for a long time*

LIKE THAT MAKES IT ANY FUCKING BETTER?!?!?

Starting conspiracy theories for profit is about as low as it gets. And “Kate” can mewl all she wants about how “sorry” she was and she “never meant for it to go that far” but that doesn’t mean a lick of spit unless she made a public statement owning up to what she did, apologizing to the parents, and telling her followers to stop torturing them. She did none of those things, she just went off the grid like a coward.

So yeah, it pissed me off that the book ended that way instead of at least allowing the father to confront “Kate” face-to-face (albeit nonviolently). That was the bare minimum she owed.

Edited January 31, 2022 by Spartan Girl

[Grrarrggh]

2 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

I’ve silently stewed about this book moment long enough:

The Book of Otto and Liam by Paul Griner is about two parents struggling in the aftermath of losing their little son, who was murdered in a school shooting. Their grieving is made worse by the relentless stalking and harassing by losers that claim the whole shooting was a hoax, led by a woman known as “Kate.” The father spends the novel trying to track the bitch down, but is ultimately discouraged out of vengeance by a detective friend, who informs him that “Kate” supposedly feels bad about what she did and (actual quote) “for what it’s worth, she wasn’t a real hoaxer, she was just in it for the money.”

*stares hard at the screen for a long time*

LIKE THAT MAKES IT ANY FUCKING BETTER?!?!?

Starting conspiracy theories for profit is about as low as it gets. And “Kate” can mewl all she wants about how “sorry” she was and she “never meant for it to go that far” but that doesn’t mean a lick of spit unless she made a public statement owning up to what she did, apologizing to the parents, and telling her followers to stop torturing them. She did none of those things, she just went off the grid like a coward.

So yeah, it pissed me off that the book ended that way instead of at least allowing the father to confront “Kate” face-to-face (albeit nonviolently). That was the bare minimum she owed.

Seriously?? If there is anyone who deserves to live through a school shooting and lose someone they love.... Ick. That book won't be on my reading list. You should write the author and ask them about it.

[BlackberryJam]

2 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

I’ve silently stewed about this book moment long enough:

The Book of Otto and Liam by Paul Griner is about two parents struggling in the aftermath of losing their little son, who was murdered in a school shooting. Their grieving is made worse by the relentless stalking and harassing by losers that claim the whole shooting was a hoax, led by a woman known as “Kate.” The father spends the novel trying to track the bitch down, but is ultimately discouraged out of vengeance by a detective friend, who informs him that “Kate” supposedly feels bad about what she did and (actual quote) “for what it’s worth, she wasn’t a real hoaxer, she was just in it for the money.”

*stares hard at the screen for a long time*

LIKE THAT MAKES IT ANY FUCKING BETTER?!?!?

Starting conspiracy theories for profit is about as low as it gets. And “Kate” can mewl all she wants about how “sorry” she was and she “never meant for it to go that far” but that doesn’t mean a lick of spit unless she made a public statement owning up to what she did, apologizing to the parents, and telling her followers to stop torturing them. She did none of those things, she just went off the grid like a coward.

So yeah, it pissed me off that the book ended that way instead of at least allowing the father to confront “Kate” face-to-face (albeit nonviolently). That was the bare minimum she owed.

So...a fictional take on Sandy Hook and Alex Jones without the emotional payoff of the Sandy Hook parents suing that motherfucker into oblivion?

[Spartan Girl]

30 minutes ago, BlackberryJam said:

So...a fictional take on Sandy Hook and Alex Jones without the emotional payoff of the Sandy Hook parents suing that motherfucker into oblivion?

Basically.

[MadyGirl1987]

So, I’m reading “Reprieve,” by James Han Mattson, and I have never seen an author who so obviously hates fat people, especially women. I’m reading it in eBook form and highlighted the worst offenses in these screenshots…

[Spartan Girl]

It Will End Like This by Kyra Leigh, a modern YA version of Lizzie Borden, certainly did a good job of pissing me off in how Maddie and Charlotte's dad and girlfriend treated them after their mom died. The dad basically just expected them to just get over it and "let him be happy" with the woman that he cheated on her mom with; he acted like it was no big deal that he gave the girlfriend the mother's jewelry, excusing that she left it to him in the will. Uh,, it doesn't matter if she left them to you, giving it to your girlfriend instead of your daughters is in extremely poor taste.

And the girlfriend had the nerve to be all snotty, dismissing their justified anger as "bad behavior" and telling the girls "you act like your mom wasn't perfect, but she wasn't." Did I mention that all of this was only SIX MONTHS after the mom died?

And yet despite all of this horrendous behavior, these two selfish assholes have the nerve to be shocked when the girls start to (wrongly, it turns out) suspect that they poisoned the mom! Golly gee wilikers, what on earth would give them that idea?

Edited April 21, 2022 by Spartan Girl

[Grrarrggh]

On 4/21/2022 at 12:19 PM, Spartan Girl said:

It Will End Like This by Kyra Leigh, a modern YA version of Lizzie Borden, certainly did a good job of pissing me off in how Maddie and Charlotte's dad and girlfriend treated them after their mom died. The dad basically just expected them to just get over it and "let him be happy" with the woman that he cheated on her mom with; he acted like it was no big deal that he gave the girlfriend the mother's jewelry, excusing that she left it to him in the will. Uh,, it doesn't matter if she left them to you, giving it to your girlfriend instead of your daughters is in extremely poor taste.

And the girlfriend had the nerve to be all snotty, dismissing their justified anger as "bad behavior" and telling the girls "you act like your mom wasn't perfect, but she wasn't." Did I mention that all of this was only SIX MONTHS after the mom died?

And yet despite all of this horrendous behavior, these two selfish assholes have the nerve to be shocked when the girls start to (wrongly, it turns out) suspect that they poisoned the mom! Golly gee wilikers, what on earth would give them that idea?

Interested because I just read a great academic article espousing that Lizzie Borden killed her dad and step-mum because she'd been sexually abused by her dad. I might give IWELT a read.

[andromeda331]

2 hours ago, Grrarrggh said:

Interested because I just read a great academic article espousing that Lizzie Borden killed her dad and step-mum because she'd been sexually abused by her dad. I might give IWELT a read.

That's interesting. I've heard that theory before but I don't much about it.

[Spartan Girl]

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban: I found it hypocritical that Hagrid of all people lectured Ron about valuing his pet over his friendship with Hermione. I love Hagrid and all, but how many times did he endanger everyone with his choice of pets?! Not to mention the fact that Harry and Hermione were made out to be pariahs for getting all those points taken away from Gryffindor because they were caught breaking curfew for trying to cover up Hagrid buying an illegal dragon.

And I’m sorry but Ron had every right to be pissed at Hermione for her cat supposedly eating Scabbers**, and the fact that she was in completely denial over it, not even trying to apologize until Ron extended the olive branch to help her with Buckbeak’s case. I know she was going through a lot that year, but she brought most of it on herself.

**Yes, Scabbers was Pettigrew all along and faked his death to frame Scabbers, that’s not the point. Hermione still could have been a little more sensitive about Ron’s valid concerns about Crookshanks and Scabbers.

Edited June 21, 2022 by Spartan Girl

[Grrarrggh]

I stopped like Hagrid much the moment he attacked an eleven year old because he was angry with the child's father. Sickening. And I started to seriously question Rowling's writing ability when she decided that Ron would have though Harry lied to him about the Goblet of Fire. 

[Spartan Girl]

11 hours ago, Grrarrggh said:

I stopped like Hagrid much the moment he attacked an eleven year old because he was angry with the child's father. Sickening. And I started to seriously question Rowling's writing ability when she decided that Ron would have though Harry lied to him about the Goblet of Fire. 

Uh…when did Hagrid do that?

Yeah, GOF was not Ron’s finest moment, but knowing his insecurities about being Harry Potter’s poor best friend, it was unfortunately believable. But going back to my original point, Hagrid telling Ron he should value his friendship more than his pet irks me because Hermione obviously valued her pet more than her friendship with Ron, so it goes both ways.

But I will always love how enraged Ron was upon finding out that Scabbers was Pettigrew. The description of that he “took it like a personal insult” was spot on because it was. Pettigrew sneaked into Ron’s family, mooches off them for years, and was no doubt using Ron’s friendship with Harry to turn him over to Voldemort the second he got any news that Voldemort was back.

I am so glad hr got strangled by his magic hand in DH. He deserved it.