Richard's Animorphs Forum

Animorphs Section => Animorphs Forum Classic => Topic started by: cenovia on September 23, 2008, 06:58:41 PM

Title: Rachels assassination mission, did it really change anything?
Post by: cenovia on September 23, 2008, 06:58:41 PM
So, this topic has probably been discussed to death, but having just finished the series and not wanting to necro a thread, I'm making a new one...

Do you guys think that Rachel killing Tom really changed anything?

It really confused me in the end that Jake would send Rachel to kill Tom. It seems to me it ultimately solved nothing. The blade ship still got away, they still had the cube, and with 100 hard-core yeerk politicos on board wanting to rebuild the empire, it hardly seems like the loss of Tom would stop anything.

It didn't even stop the blade ship from destroying the pool ship in the end. They just decided not to, for whatever reason. Although, I suspect it was seeing 17 thousand of their kind as space popsicles that made them realize the war was over and firing would only needlessly kill more of their own.

So Jake's decision to kill Tom seemed like it had no tactical benefit at all. The only motivation I can think of is that Jake wanted so badly to free his brother before the end of the war, thinking that this was the Animorph's last battle, that even death would be an acceptable escape now. Or could Jake really think Tom was that much of a threat to him, after all he knew about him? What do you think?

Anyway, so that's why I feel Rachel's death was a complete waste. I didn't even like her towards the end, she was so one-dimensional and crazy. I don't know whether the war just drove her nuts or whether the ghost writers never really understood her, but if it was the former then I wish they would have explored Rachel's breaking point more. Even though she was nuts, I still didn't want her to die, and yeah, that whole part of the book really just pissed me off.
Title: Re: Rachels assassination mission, did it really change anything?
Post by: Phoenix004 on September 23, 2008, 07:02:27 PM
Oh yeah, stopping Tom's Yeerk and a hundred other Controllers with access to the morphing technology and a fully operational Blade Ship was a total waste!  ::)
Title: Re: Rachels assassination mission, did it really change anything?
Post by: cenovia on September 23, 2008, 07:11:13 PM
But she doesn't stop the Blade ship or keep them from having morphing technology. Read line 5 and onwards.
Title: Re: Rachels assassination mission, did it really change anything?
Post by: AniDragon on September 23, 2008, 07:12:00 PM
It would have made a bigger difference if Erek hadn't screwed them over by powering down the weapons.
Title: Re: Rachels assassination mission, did it really change anything?
Post by: Phoenix004 on September 23, 2008, 07:18:50 PM
But she doesn't stop the Blade ship or keep them from having morphing technology. Read line 5 and onwards.

No, but that was what she attempted to do. Besides, she did kill a bunch of Controllers, including Tom who was their leader.

It would have made a bigger difference if Erek hadn't screwed them over by powering down the weapons.

Exactly, they would have been able to destroy, or at least disable the Blade Ship if the weapons hadn't been disabled. Not that I entirely blame Erek, he was blackmailed into helping and his programming forced him to stop further violence.
Title: Re: Rachels assassination mission, did it really change anything?
Post by: cenovia on September 23, 2008, 07:21:11 PM
It would have made a bigger difference if Erek hadn't screwed them over by powering down the weapons.

I don't see how Rachel being on board the blade ship would've helped. I can't see how Jake would want to use Rachel as a backup plan for destroying the blade ship. Destroying Tom? Yes. Entire blade ship? No. Rachel did not have the tactical chops to bring down an entire ship by herself, and yes she was fierce but she certainly didn't have enough brute force by herself. I would think that if Jake wanted someone on there to destroy the blade ship and/or stop it from escaping, he'd send Ax to sabotage the ships engines, or even Marco.
Title: Re: Rachels assassination mission, did it really change anything?
Post by: AniDragon on September 23, 2008, 07:38:37 PM
Ax was needed on the pool ship, and I seem to recall that he'd considered Marco, but in the end decided on Rachel.
Title: Re: Rachels assassination mission, did it really change anything?
Post by: cenovia on September 23, 2008, 08:02:40 PM
Ax was needed on the pool ship, and I seem to recall that he'd considered Marco, but in the end decided on Rachel.

You're right about that, but I think he considered Marco because Marco almost took out his own mom, not because he ever wanted him to take out the Blade ship.
Title: Re: Rachels assassination mission, did it really change anything?
Post by: XenomorphLV426 on September 23, 2008, 09:55:53 PM
Please read the book again before making crazy threads.
Title: Re: Rachels assassination mission, did it really change anything?
Post by: Hylian Dan on September 23, 2008, 11:54:29 PM
Tom was the wild card because he had his own twisted motivations separate from the other Yeerks aboard the Blade Ship. Jake and Visser One had utterly screwed him over, Jake by slipping under Tom's radar the whole time, Visser One by limiting Tom's future promotions because of that, and Tom was going to have his revenge on them. Tom wanted Visser One and the Animorphs dead, the other Yeerks with him only cared about escaping.
Title: Re: Rachels assassination mission, did it really change anything?
Post by: Kitulean on September 24, 2008, 01:00:04 AM
Please read the book again before making crazy threads.

Please don't be rude, Xeno. His question has plenty of merit, because I've wondered the same thing plenty of times.
Title: Re: Rachels assassination mission, did it really change anything?
Post by: XenomorphLV426 on September 24, 2008, 04:46:14 AM
The book illustrates the situation pretty clearly.  Rachel and Jake weren't entirely successful in their scheme, no, but the mission was to infiltrate, kill Tom, and hopefully in doing so confuse and destroy morale among his followers, with the intention of forcing their hand into surrendering with the majority of the others.

So, she killed Tom, and they got away anyway.  Not as planned.  But they had a moral obligation to go in there and do whatever they could to stop Tom.  So yes, Rachel going aboard the ship changed things, in that the Blade Ship would have been more dangerous with a competent leader aboard, and their actions went at least some way to preventing the threat.

Rude?  Probably.  My explanation obvious?  Definitely.
Title: Re: Rachels assassination mission, did it really change anything?
Post by: Kitulean on September 24, 2008, 04:49:48 AM
It's obvious to you, that doesn't mean everyone agrees. Many people see Rachel's death as pointless, a way of having one of the animorphs die in the end without a clear reason for it beyond the 'it's the last book so we need something dramatic!' thing.
Title: Re: Rachels assassination mission, did it really change anything?
Post by: XenomorphLV426 on September 24, 2008, 05:00:08 AM
Many people see Rachel's death as pointless,

Well then, they'd be put into that big broad brightly-lit "wrong" category.
Title: Re: Rachels assassination mission, did it really change anything?
Post by: Kitulean on September 24, 2008, 05:12:09 AM
That is, AGAIN, your opinion. The point is that the Original Poster disagrees with you. That doesn't make him wrong, and it doesn't make you wrong either. It's an opinion. Don't be rude just because he thinks differently than you.
Title: Re: Rachels assassination mission, did it really change anything?
Post by: XenomorphLV426 on September 24, 2008, 05:15:49 AM
See, that's not entirely accurate.  Opinions can still be wrong.  I've illustrated how the assassination mission was both significant and in a certain light justified in its sacrifices, through using the books as strict evidential basis.  There's a certain point where that ceases to be opinion and becomes demonstratedly factual.

I apologize in retrospect for the rude demeanor.  I just feel that what's presented in the narrative we're discussing overrules any sense of 'opinion' when it's directly contradicting the source.
Title: Re: Rachels assassination mission, did it really change anything?
Post by: Kitulean on September 24, 2008, 05:17:42 AM
No, sorry, that's still your opinion. The idea that it was pointless can be backed up as well. Just because you can supply evidence FOR your opinion does not make it any less an opinion. And it doesn't make the other person wrong, or dumb for presenting a contrary thought.
Title: Re: Rachels assassination mission, did it really change anything?
Post by: XenomorphLV426 on September 24, 2008, 05:54:47 PM
The idea that it was pointless can be backed up as well.

Okay, I don't dispute that.  I've just yet to see the supporting evidence.  Until then my position still has the weight and credibility.
Title: Re: Rachels assassination mission, did it really change anything?
Post by: xoxogabyxoxo on September 24, 2008, 09:37:42 PM
It was a total waste of everything! what i liked the least was Rachel dying. She was my favorite in the book, and then Tobias being all alone. Hes the one I felt most bad for, because Rachel dyied and she feels no more, but Tobias did feel really bad.... but i just wonder if there is going to be more after this , maybe with another title. Maybe Rachel comes back in this spiritual way, or maybe Cryak brings her back. I was just wandering why at the very end, didnt she call cryak and told him shell kill Jake and she could live, because the first time they met, he kind of hinted what was going to happen to her.
Title: Re: Rachels assassination mission, did it really change anything?
Post by: Kitulean on September 24, 2008, 09:55:35 PM
Wait, wait, are you saying you're surprised Rachel didn't call the most evil being in the universe and offer to kill her cousin?  :wow:
Title: Re: Rachels assassination mission, did it really change anything?
Post by: Chad32 on September 25, 2008, 08:26:41 AM
That is just wrong right there. If she had called out to Crayak, I would have lost all respect for her. She really would have gone completely to the dark side. Not that the ghostwriters weren't trying to build up the idea that she was all dark, and would never be able to recover after the war. Bull honkey.
Title: Re: Rachels assassination mission, did it really change anything?
Post by: filmstu2005 on September 26, 2008, 02:13:13 AM
I disagree with Xeno. Sorry, but Tom was not the main target. Why kill Tom when someone else could've taken his place. There were plenty other controllers on deck, and its not like Tom never told them his plan.  And the blade ship still escaped.

Honestly, we've been over this b4, and i personally feel the story was rushed. Period. KA wanted out, and she got out. And in the most unreasonable way, I might add. It was a rushed story with a plot that was all over the place and showed no real planning. It honestly seemed like she was making stuff up as she wrote along. Rachel's death couldve easily been avoided. But oh well. It wasnt.

And that's my opinion. And i dont think its wrong.
Title: Re: Rachels assassination mission, did it really change anything?
Post by: XenomorphLV426 on September 26, 2008, 04:34:39 AM
They wanted to kill Tom because it's established Tom's Yeerk is actually a cunning strategic leader.  Sure, somebody would have taken over, but they may not have had his level of ruthlessness or expertise.
Title: Re: Rachels assassination mission, did it really change anything?
Post by: Kitulean on September 26, 2008, 04:41:37 AM
And other yeerks aren't cunning or strategic? There was a specific reason that yeerk had to be killed RIGHT THEN? They couldn't just go after him later when there was more of a chance of the GROUP taking him alive? Yeah, sorry, still doesn't make sense to me.
Title: Re: Rachels assassination mission, did it really change anything?
Post by: Chad32 on September 26, 2008, 08:00:35 AM
I wonder how the blade ship got past the Andalite fleet anyway. Maybe they were too far away at the time to catch it before it got into Z-space.
Title: Re: Rachels assassination mission, did it really change anything?
Post by: Hylian Dan on September 26, 2008, 01:31:55 PM
Quote
And other yeerks aren't cunning or strategic? There was a specific reason that yeerk had to be killed RIGHT THEN? They couldn't just go after him later when there was more of a chance of the GROUP taking him alive? Yeah, sorry, still doesn't make sense to me.

Tom would have taken down the Pool Ship. The other Yeerks didn't care about it, they didn't have vendettas, they just wanted to escape.
Title: Re: Rachels assassination mission, did it really change anything?
Post by: Champion on October 13, 2008, 06:59:50 PM
i think it was more rachels destiny. she is a warrior after all. and after the war, God knows what she woulda done. She'd probibly go insane, if she wasnt already. I think Jake saw two things, a Rachel in the future who was insane, and a Rachel going down in a battle. Now which would you've of chose?  Plus thats not taking into concederation she's not too important after the auxillary Animorphs. Earlier in the series, the Animorphs needed her brute strenght, but later on, not so much. Then there is wether Jake would have wanted Tom to live out the rest of his life as a slave...
Title: Re: Rachels assassination mission, did it really change anything?
Post by: Chad32 on October 13, 2008, 09:32:55 PM
I don't buy that. At all. Knowing Rachel, she would have survived without going crazy. Joined the military, become a extrame sportswoman, or something.

It's also true that Jake didn't want Tom to beome the next Eva.