How is it more realistic...
Because 'just one person' dying and 'just one person' not getting what they hope for out of war
is slightly more realistic than no one dies and everyone gets what they want.
But my point isn't realism, fiction doesn't
necessarily have to be completely realistic in all ways. What I am saying is that:
the author put it the way it is deliberately and for a good reason; if many people had a negative reaction that was part of the whole point
I think that in response to your reaction, Chad, about Tom's death and how "Everyone achieved their goal except Jake," KA would say that part of the point is that even if you win you don't necessarily achieve your goals and even if you achieve your goals you aren't necessarily going to be happy with the aftermath. If the series leaves you feeling upset and unhappy then KA would (did) say:
Fine. Pretty soon you'll all be of voting age, and of draft age. So when someone proposes a war, remember that even the most necessary wars, even the rare wars where the lines of good and evil are clear and clean, end with a lot of people dead, a lot of people crippled, and a lot of orphans, widows and grieving parents.
The point I'm trying to make about this, or really any form of art, is that even if you didn't like it or weren't happy with it, it was there for a reason and it would be wrong to take away from that.
