Log in

No account? Create an account
Pet Peeves: - Not So Human [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Not So Human

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Pet Peeves: [Jul. 30th, 2006|03:54 pm]
Not So Human


[Tags|, ]

What are your pet peeves involving the alphas of ABVH? Is there a specific scene or action that makes you sick? Something Anita says or does regarding them that you think was not only useless, but stupid? Whatever it is, whatever the reason, put it down in the comments and we can all bitch and moan together.

From: zgirl714
2006-07-30 10:49 pm (UTC)
I hate her wishy-washyness about vampires/weres. Does she hate their beast or does it turn her on? Does she want the picket fence or not? I couldn't put up with that.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: mneiai
2006-07-30 11:06 pm (UTC)
I really don't know how anyone does. Like with the vampire thing--she doesn't want to be around their dead bodies, but she'll give head to their flaccid penises?

One of the reasons Anita always drove me insane was because of how she treated the Richard thing. Even back when I disliked Richard I was sort of like "whoa, wait a minute...he's doing everything you want him to!"

When she had sex with Nathaniel in his leopardman form, was that because of the arduererere? I can't remember. If it was, well, what does it matter now? She's already had the sex, she might as well get over it. If not, then she really shouldn't have any right to dislike anything that the lycanthropes do, considering how very kinky that was.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: zgirl714
2006-07-30 11:31 pm (UTC)
What? In his leopard form? The furry kind or the actually leopard cat kind? That really weirds me out.

I always liked Richard. I never got the Richard hate but that is mostly because I always try to be aware about the untrustworthy narrator and there isn't a more untrustworthy narrator then Anita.

I think that Anita's moral code is determined by her crotch so her views on a subject shouldn't be taken seriously.

You know what is so sad about the Anita Blake books? Anita is almost a caricture of what medieval scholars thought women would be like if they had freedom. Screwing demons? Check. Having children out of wedlock with no desirnable father? Check.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: mneiai
2006-07-30 11:38 pm (UTC)
In the half-and-half form, not the full leopard form. Though I'm sure that's not far away.

I think part of it is I usually like it when the protagonist ends up with the "bad guy" and while Jean-Claude wasn't the antagonist, he was still, in the earlier novels, considered pretty bad. So, I wanted Anita to end up with him, and Richard was getting in the way. Also, what I find desirable in a man has definitely changed between when I was a preteen and now, as a twenty-something. Now, the idea of Richard does sound good, early Richard looks like a sweet, good guy who you could whip just the right amount.

::laugh:: I never thought about that, but you're right!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: zgirl714
2006-07-31 12:06 am (UTC)
How innocent the first books were! If only we had known of the horrors to come so we could have appreciated old Richard and JC. They had spines and Anita wasn't spreading her legs.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: mneiai
2006-07-31 12:16 am (UTC)
It's so weird, looking back and reading those books, knowing everything that will happen.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: (Anonymous)
2007-08-02 01:01 am (UTC)
here, here. I used think LKH must be a terrible prude. Now I just wonder if she remembers there is supposed to be a story in PWP's.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: dwg
2006-07-31 02:34 pm (UTC)
I'm annoyed at how Anita goes totry and assert her dominance over the other lycanthropes. Whiles skimming through Lunatic Cafe and going over Richard's Crash Course To Dealing With Werewolves, he was explaining that a dominant isn't the same thing as an alpha. It just means you're badass at what you are, not necessarily badass over what they are. So Anita would be an alpha human, but that doesn't mean she's got the right to demand that the lycanthropes are submissive to her. Why? Because she's not one of them.

That part in TLC where she turns down Marcus' protection was just too stupid for words. Lady, you're human. They will eat you. Swallow your pride and take the damned protection.

Pretty much from that point on, Anita then seemed to have it in her head to stomp around and demand the same kinda treatment as a lycanthrope from lycanthropes. I don't care if she won the lupa position - she's still human. She's not going to be able to give the pack (and later the pard) what they need in a good leader. Simply because she's not one of them.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: mneiai
2006-07-31 03:05 pm (UTC)

I was always annoyed by how she decided how she fit into the pack (and pard). There has to be instincts that she can't even begin to understand that have a part in all of it, and there have been places, even later in the series when she supposedly has these "beasts," where she hasn't understood something that is probably second nature to real lycanthropes.

Rereading the scene in TLC where she kills Alfred kind of disgusts me, because she didn't have to. Not only was there no reason to refuse Marcus' protection, there was also no reason to make that a kill shot. You can do a lot of damage to someone, especially a preternatural being, without killing them and she had to have known that. She'll justify it to herself, yeah, but she obviously has issues with violence.

I felt sorry for Richard throughout the half of the book I've reread because she blames him for being unnecessarily (in her mind) violent, yet she went and killed someone for no reason and is always waving her gun around in people's faces, ready to hurt them. Richard was just doing what he, as a werewolf (and therefore not human, like Anita supposedly is at this point), does.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: (Anonymous)
2007-08-02 12:59 am (UTC)
Yeah let me bitch about the fact that every creature, human, walkie or crawlie thinks this horrid little woman who believes the universe centers on her and every entity on planet earth should bow to her is so unbelievably hot they can't possibly live without her.

What would happen if Anita never existed? I have no idea but someone please off her. I can't stand her. In real life she would have never made it to adulthood. Someone bigger would have squished her.

I think more and more Anita says very little that makes sense. Her inflexibility with Richard is beyond idiotic and don't get me started on this latest incarnation of Richard in The Harlequin. Richard of the perfect middle class family who has a fetish for pain during sex... in anita-verse 1+1 don't ever seem to equal... well even a number. Personally, I think he just wants to get back at Anita and it's all an excuse. I know I want to hurt her just watching her.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: etherealtb
2007-08-06 04:12 pm (UTC)
I agree, it totally doesn't make sense, Richard's suddely becoming so inflexible. I mean, I don't remember him wanting Anita to be a hause frau in the early books, do any of you?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: kerame
2008-01-05 11:45 pm (UTC)
Definitely not.

All he ever wanted from Anita was an equal relationship, and she's the one who couldn't handle that. That's a big part of the reason she betrayed him in TKD. Richard stood up to her that night, while JC learned to fear her because of her necromancy.

She can't have a relationship with a man unless he's broken. Asher, Nate, and Micah came broken in for her convenience. She broke JC with fear, then she broke Richard's heart and confidence. In TH, Anita even tells Richard he never wanted to be her partner because he wouldn't be "just an adjunct to her life". That's not a partner, that's a stepford-wife, and she's the one who wants that, not Richard.

I wish some other author would rescue this poor character. I hate most male romantic leads because they usually ARE controlling assholes. In this series the asshole just happens to be a woman, and the one character who tries to hold on to a shred of independence is reviled instead of sympathized with.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: kerame
2008-01-05 11:55 pm (UTC)
The sudden interest in s&m is just a way to further frustrate and humiliate Richard.

Not only will the hag not allow him to love another woman, despite his impossible "triple digits", he's not even allowed to fully enjoy sex with anyone else. She gets to look down on him for not "protecting" his other sex partners. In her sick mind demanding one-way monogamy apparently equals "protection" and love, plus she gets to claim (yet again) that he is "self-loathing". His real problem is that he still has too much self-esteem to completely submit to her like everyone else, so she'll just keep trying to beat him down until he's as much of a doormat as Micah.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: seizansha
2008-08-07 06:35 am (UTC)
my biggest peeve is simply that rafael is the only real alpha in the whole series. he's got the loyalty and power over the rodere; they listen to his orders even when anita's trying to boss them around.

sure, the few times richard pulls himself out of his identity crisis and tries to stop loving anita he is the ulfric, but how often does that happen, how long does it last? until anita waves the newest guy in his face.

at least it pisses him off.
(Reply) (Thread)