Oh God, you're gonna make me drive to Canada so I can stand outside your window holding a boom-box, wearing my tan trench-coat of emo-pain and playing 'In Your Eyes', aren't you? AREN'T YOU!?! Because, seriously, this was GLORIOUS!!
Like, I said. I don't really hate this pairing (Ivy/Glenn).
I don't hate it either. It's just one of those *looks at CBMcG* Am I *really* supposed to believe that this is NOT going to end badly? Ivy's a vampire. Ivy's a vampire who can't separate her blood lust from her sexual desires. Glenn's a human, which is like a walking, talking Happy Meal to vampires. Oh yea, this has 'happy ending' written ALL over it! Plus, I'm also not happy that CBMcG alluded to Ivy's attraction to Glenn was because he was injured.
As far as I can tell, all of the words were spelled correctly.
Lol, I love that in scraping the bottom of the barrel in an attempt to find something positive to say, good grammar is one of the few things left to grasp upon!
ETA: I'd also like to thank you for putting, in pictures, what I failed to explain in like 12 paragraphs, ie, this -
I didn't hate Rachel torching the place or whatever, I just felt it was a bit ... I don't know .. It was like an epic tantrum.
Had finding Kisten's killer and the torching happened at the end of book 5 or the beginning of book 6 (which it *really* fucking should have), it would have made more sense. Rachel's pain and the rage would have been more immediate, closer to the surface. Instead, this takes place two books and 6 months later. I'm not saying there should be a moratorium for one's grief but in that time, Rachel non-dated Marshall (along with totally awesome witch-sex in the belfry), met the previously unheard of 'true love of her life' and moved heaven and earth to steal him from Al. So, her grief and rage feels.. disingenuous. Honestly, it's the type of reaction I'd expect from Rachel if Jenks, Ivy, or Alice were killed, not a glorified fuck buddy who occasionally cooked for her.
no subject
Like, I said. I don't really hate this pairing (Ivy/Glenn).
I don't hate it either. It's just one of those *looks at CBMcG* Am I *really* supposed to believe that this is NOT going to end badly? Ivy's a vampire. Ivy's a vampire who can't separate her blood lust from her sexual desires. Glenn's a human, which is like a walking, talking Happy Meal to vampires. Oh yea, this has 'happy ending' written ALL over it! Plus, I'm also not happy that CBMcG alluded to Ivy's attraction to Glenn was because he was injured.
As far as I can tell, all of the words were spelled correctly.
Lol, I love that in scraping the bottom of the barrel in an attempt to find something positive to say, good grammar is one of the few things left to grasp upon!
ETA: I'd also like to thank you for putting, in pictures, what I failed to explain in like 12 paragraphs, ie, this -
I didn't hate Rachel torching the place or whatever, I just felt it was a bit ... I don't know .. It was like an epic tantrum.
Had finding Kisten's killer and the torching happened at the end of book 5 or the beginning of book 6 (which it *really* fucking should have), it would have made more sense. Rachel's pain and the rage would have been more immediate, closer to the surface. Instead, this takes place two books and 6 months later. I'm not saying there should be a moratorium for one's grief but in that time, Rachel non-dated Marshall (along with totally awesome witch-sex in the belfry), met the previously unheard of 'true love of her life' and moved heaven and earth to steal him from Al. So, her grief and rage feels.. disingenuous. Honestly, it's the type of reaction I'd expect from Rachel if Jenks, Ivy, or Alice were killed, not a glorified fuck buddy who occasionally cooked for her.