Just a quick observation about the disbelief some have expressed that Barrons would forgive Mac for not helping his son. I don't find this strange at all, Barrons is a smart cookie and he had the book within his grasp at one point - and walked (or rather ran) away. He recognised himself that he would no longer want what he wanted it for once he had it (If that makes sense!). I don't think he would expect, or want, Mac to sacrifice herself.
I was team Barrons until I read Shadowfever...but he really didn't do it for me in this book. I was hoping to see a return to basement Barrons, but alas it was not to be. I suspect that the love scenes in Dreamfever will always be my favourite - I thought that the mix of raw lust and tenderness was flawless and while I was sad that Mac was pri-ya at the time, it gave us the chance to see Barrons really care for her.
Anyway, I'm now team UK. Love him ;)
I mentioned this before in an other thread, but I would find it odd if Barrons didn't have the mentality "with me or against me". He is part of a world where there is a game of players who uses each other to further their own agenda. No one in his world trust each other. Mac wanted the book (he told her to go home, to have a life). If Mac wanted the book then she had to step into his world.
He took a chance on Mac. He could have voiced her in the beginning. He could have seduced her. He did neither, only offer information, train her, and gave protection in exchange for mutually going after the book.
Of course she is either with him or against. Would you rather Mac be a character that kept playing both ends, holding loyalty to no one? She got damn lucky, in my opinion, that she came across Barrons (considering the state she was in - losing a sister, in a foreign land, wanting revenge and wasn't leaving no matter what danger she got herself in). Rowena would have used Mac to her own psychotic delusion of "for the greater good" and or killed her when sensing her darkness. V'lane asked a price for every gesture shown towards Mac. V'lane's character didn't change towards Mac until he was forced to play by a different game (one in which Barrons would have killed him if he touched her. Which is why he kept trying to get Mac to work with him/be with him of her own free will).
Barrons doesn't make love. I think because that is a human "saying" (he said "make love" in that one scene to annoy her/to get a reaction out of her - according to KMM). He has a nature, and it includes f*** his mate. He already said that were Mac is concerned there are no rules. I believe he is implying that he will kill anyone, including his men, who try to hurt her (actually, I think he did more then imply, can't remember the paragraph...because Mac asks him what would happen if they go after her).
And I don't think he threw Fiona to the dogs. People have a problem with Barrons killing but not having a problem with the fact that Fiona tried to kill Mac? He may have cared for her, but she did betray him. If he can't trust the people around him, why have them around?
I've always considered these books dark. And perhaps it's because I'm not expecting the typical hero story to unfold but rough, raw, dirty characters surviving. Moving forward. Black, gray, white all rolled together that doesn't make room of idealistic philosophy of good (and or only good people do great things).
Last edited by mcmissa; 02-18-2011 at 03:52 PM.
*Created by mcmissa*
Thank you, Jill! I also thought the storyline with his son humanized him, but I couldn't believe he accepted it when Mac didn't get the spell out of the book. She had promised. Barrons said over and over again that he didn't care what happens to our world, he wanted the Book. I finally came to the conclusion that he decided it was impossible for Mac to get the spell for him since the Book would just possess her. Barrons is nothing if not pragmatic.
I'm sorry, I could never let a man in my bed if he ate human beings. I don't lions for killing zebras, that's their nature.
BUT - if a I saw a lion in my street, I would want someone to shoot him.
@McMissa - actually, I kind of thought Mac was playing both ends against each other and holding loyalty to no one. She couldn't figure out who was really on her side. For most of the four books the question was who will help me get revenge and save my world from the Fae? How can I get the book and who am I supposed to keep it away from? She went back and forth between V'lane and Barrons and sometimes the sidhe seers.
In ShadowFever Mac temporarily goes over to the Dark Side (possibly pushed a bit by the Book) and wants power so she can just remake the world her own way. Then she goes back to her old ways, never committing to one guy until almost the end. Sadly, she seems to go with Barrons mostly because she loves him, not because she has somehow figured out that he is better than V'lane.
Barrons didn't trust her (now we know why) and so she didn't trust him. In fact, although he was more honest than V'lane, Barrons was not on the same side as Mac. He wanted a spell to save his son. If that had ended up destroying our world, he wouldn't have cared. As it happened, it wasn't possible to do one without the other. Animals may be simpler than humans, but they are not nice.
Last edited by Leiha; 02-18-2011 at 04:30 PM.
It is the nature of a lion to kill Zebras. So they are forgiven? I think the Zebra would have dispute with that.
Who is to say it isn't Barrons nature to kill humans? He never stated to being human. Mac often referred to Barrons as a lion. At the very least, we know he is definitely a predator. And we know Mac isn't really human anymore either.
If some beast was on my street I'd want to be protected as well, degrees of evil. Good person wanting to protect themselves from that nature of a beast by killing it. Always a reason to defend killing?
Barrons did address her skirting around (and I rather forgive her for it, since she had to learn quickly to survive), Ryodan even mentioned "choose a tide", and Mac, at the end, stated herself that Barrons was her "wave" but it didn't mean she had to depend on him like a surfboard.
Have to disagree (all in perspective I guess), I think she chose Barrons long before the last book. I think it is tied up in her not wanting to admit what she felt for him. And it's why Christian kept confronting her about truths and lies when he asked her question about Barrons. Her old ways of gathering information? I thought she handled it pretty well considering she was dealing with a UK Prince and end of the world type stuff. Besides, more then half the time he came to her and she acted.In ShadowFever Mac temporarily goes over to the Dark Side (possibly pushed a bit by the Book) and wants power so she can just remake the world her own way. Then she goes back to her old ways, never committing to one guy until almost the end. Sadly, she seems to go with Barrons mostly because she loves him, not because she has somehow figured out that he is better than V'lane.
He once called her an "idealistic fool", and said he trusted her when she wheedled him into helping the Keltars. I think it all comes down to What exactly does he trust her with and not with. Same with Mac. I think what they trusted each other with evolved and changed throughout the series. Sounds like any relationship when people are afraid to get hurt or betrayed.Barrons didn't trust her (now we know why) and so she didn't trust him. In fact, although he was more honest than V'lane, Barrons was not on the same side as Mac. He wanted a spell to save his son. If that had ended up destroying our world, he wouldn't have cared. As it happened, it wasn't possible to do one without the other. Animals may be simpler than humans, but they are not nice.
I don't think animals are nice nor mean. They act as what is in their nature. They don't carry with them an agenda like humans do.
Here's the thing. I don't just want to be protected from the lion killing me and mine. I would also shoot a lion that might eat pretty much any other human. Accept that he's an animal, sure. Let him kill other humans? What does that make you?
I don't blame Mac at all for playing both ends. I think she had to. I was just pointing out that she was doing that all along. She may have been attraced to Barrons, but she also always wondered what he was and what he would do. Before she knew what he wanted the Book for, I think she would have gladly found it and locked it away without telling him. If she had found anyone else she could trust to protect her, I think she would have left.
I don't think she was ever actually able to "play" Barrons :)
In the situation you discribed, the lion isn't evil. Neither are you. Yet your both willing to kill each other.
Humans kill for more then just surviving. The lion is just surviving. If you were to spin the tale that the land all the humans are occupying went in and destroyed his home, destroyed the home of his fellow lions and the food that they once had which is now cuasing the lion and other lions to die. To the lions, if they were acting other then just surving, to use a humanize characterisitic was acting "Heoric". But since the lion wants to kill you and other people, it should die. And we should feel okay with that because now we are protected.
Edit**, I take it back. She did play him once. To go help the Keltars. Haha..love that scene. I think Barrons thought it was hot too.
Last edited by mcmissa; 02-18-2011 at 06:01 PM.
I get what you're saying and don't think you wrong at all, but feel differently about the points you brought up... to me, the points that disturb you about the ending are the points that make it more beautiful to me
Barrons and his child-it's a doozy of a plot line, but Barrons says it best, and Mac says it best. Barrons never refers to himself as "human", he's often described as more "animal" than man- do we fault an animal for killing another for food? Do we fault ourselves (vegetarians/vegans aside) for breeding animals in capitvity so we can eat them? we don't... we don't consider ourselves "animals" because we value our higher level of thinking and self control, but if this is so, is there any difference between humans & animals, and fae & humans? And how Mac describes Barrons' situation with his son- what wouldn't a parent do for their kids? Could anyone truly say, that as a parent, they could watch their child suffer agony for all eternity even though know a way to at least help them rest for a time?
Barrons says he's neither hero, nor anti-hero, and he's not good. He had strict rules, like you said, with him or against him, and if the worlds goes to hell oh well. With Mac it's different though, and that's what makes their love special. People fall in love all the time, and if there wasn't a special element in the love you have with one special person we wouldn't cherish those few relationships that are... different. Mac trumps all his rules... that is the beginning of Barrons' change. He'll never be a knight in shining armor. But love is changing him- Mac's love is changing him because her love is just for him, because of who he is and despite of who he is. When someone loves you despite what you've done, not only because of what you've done, you tend to progress into the person you believe is worthy of their love... it's what Christianity is based upon.
I like the darkness/grayness of this series because it's not... an escape, it's a series that makes you think, makes you look inside yourself and ask what it is you would die for, live for, kill for, save... who would you turn dark for? Who will you crawl to the light for? Every person in this series can be seen as both hero and villain, good & bad... that's how life is. I think that's what Karen was shooting for.
Karen did something not often seen- aside from the absence of heroes and villains, all the characters really do stay true to who and what they are, except for Mac and Barrons, but it's not a "progression towards heroism" that she writes about. She writes about a girl who goes through so much tribulation, that in order to survive, the "skins" of nurture and environment get stripped away and she becomes what she's always been deep down inside, bare bones. She writes Barrons as a character dancing on the fine line of good & evil, with a tendency to out step into the "evil side", he's already "bare boned", already a creature of nature, so his story is about opening up, dropping his stone defenses and strict rules. Like she wrote in DrF, she eroded them into a unified great big wall.
that's just my input though.