Author Topic: Rachel timeline (obvious spoilers, don't read if you haven't finished all books)  (Read 1224 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline EscafilDevice

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 213
  • Karma: 18
  • Gender: Female
So in every thread involving the ending Rachel's death is brought up. I'm firmly in the alive!Rachel camp and we all know that. Every summer I re-read Animorphs and this time around I've been paying particular attention to how she has evolved from the ****y teenage girl to the "bloodthirsty warrior."

Here's something I noticed in #22:

"Something kind of snapped in me after that. I didn't suddenly become all
soft and mushy or anything. I didn't turn into a wimp. But somehow the
joy I'd gotten from combat, the thrill I'd gotten from battle against
impossible odds . . . well, I guess maybe I just grew up a little.
Looking back, that seems totally out of place. It wasn't retconned, it was totally ignored. In her next book, #27 The Exposed, she goes back to being the "warrior" in her inner-dialogue. I can understand the others perceiving her that way, but it's like her ghostwriter completely ignored it.

BECAUSE SHE DID.

So here's my timeline of Rachel's books and her evolution.

#2. - Rachel's first book, just introduces her character/relationships.

#7 - here's Rachel's first hint of violence when she's in grizzly morph and Jake tells her "you are out of control!"

#12 and #17 - these seemed like more realistic portrayals of Rachel because she remained 2-sided.

#22 - Rachel first realizes she has violent tendencies (threatens David's family) BUT feels that she "grows up" by the end of the book after seeing David's fate.

Here's where it starts to get wonky:

#27 - The Drode is first introduced and shows special interest in Rachel for her violence. The narration is one-dimensional, though.

#32 - back to 2-sided Rachel, probably because it's the last book KA actually wrote before the final 2.

#37 - arguably Rachel's worst book, it's excessively short and ruins an awesome concept. Super-OOC Rachel, we could go on and on

#42 - the Magic School Bus book, it's kind of a mini-throwback to the earlier 2-sided Rachel but the main focus is on the Helmacrons

#48 - Rachel is reunited with David and faces Crayak again. I felt like this book cheated her and that KA should've written it or at least actually looked over the manuscript herself. She's one-dimensional again.

I just don't see the point of having books that specifically deal with Rachel having 2-sides - caring Rachel and bloodthirsty Rachel - and turning her into a 1-dimensional character by the end of the book. Did she kill David? If she did, then why? Did killing David show mercy?

Marco's my favorite Animorph but I see a lot of myself in Rachel and I hate how it ended for her.

Your thoughts? Does anyone else agree with how inconsistent this is?

Offline Chad32

  • God
  • ********
  • Posts: 11951
  • Karma: 195
  • Gender: Male
Not sure how 37 was out of character. Granted, I haven't read it in years, but the all Polar Bear Swat team style attack seemed like her. Not sure what you mean by ****ty teenager, either.

But yeah, they couldn't seem to decide what to do with her. Heck, if KA really wanted her to be a blood knight in the end, why make her last thought be about shopping? Why have the others wonder what she'd do after the war, then introduce a terrorist threat that she could definitely get into?


Ani-Master 2014!

Offline wotw2112

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Karma: 12
  • Gender: Male
I can no longer take anything from any of the 30 and 40-range books seriously.  Not only is the two-sided Rachel a more realistic and interesting portrayal, it is also more true to her roots in the earlier books.

You did a wonderful job with the outline.  I would just like to add one observation: the books you mention above where Rachel is really shown as a one-sided monster read like her portrayal in books where she isn't the narrator.  It seemed like the author (whoever it happened to be) had no real interest in writing "as Rachel".  Rather, the books were written "as Rachel is seen by everyone else".  Yet another instance where the ghostwriters robbed us of the content we should have gotten (and a clear indication of how they influenced the story's progression.)    
"Well, that idea might make a stupid idea feel better about itself."
"His goat killed you?"
"I love you shovel."
"Your conscience calls you on the telephone?"

Offline Chad32

  • God
  • ********
  • Posts: 11951
  • Karma: 195
  • Gender: Male
I think you're right. I don't really mind that other team memmbers were worried about her, since I'm more put off with how her inner self was protrayed. Jake used her to do the dirty work, and Cassie worried about her, but their portrayals of her didn't need to become who she was.


Ani-Master 2014!

Offline Liz

  • Gold Donor
  • *********
  • Posts: 6204
  • Karma: 164
  • Gender: Female
    • Facebook
Not sure how 37 was out of character. Granted, I haven't read it in years, but the all Polar Bear Swat team style attack seemed like her. Not sure what you mean by ****ty teenager, either.

Yeah, but the part where Marco was beating up on her and she was crying?  Totally OOC.

Offline Chad32

  • God
  • ********
  • Posts: 11951
  • Karma: 195
  • Gender: Male
I don't remember her crying. Was it after Cassie got captured? I think crying would be out of character, especially at that point in the war.


Ani-Master 2014!

Offline AniDragon

  • Gold Donor
  • *********
  • Posts: 2999
  • Karma: 174
  • Gender: Female
  • Train of thought, like broken pencil, has no point
    • My tumblr
Hm... While crying would normally be out of character for Rachel, I'm a firm believer that stress can make ANYONE break down and cry, and Rachel was under and awful lot of stress at that point.
~AniDragon, aka Riona-chan~



Currently Reading: Winterwode, by J Tullos Hennig
Currently Writing: Demon's Bane
Currently Editing: Elder's Requiem

esplin

  • Guest
Why not discuss rachel here, *bump*

Offline Estelore

  • Constant and Distant
  • God
  • ********
  • Posts: 6709
  • Karma: 369
  • Gender: Female
  • Your friendly neighbourhood plural system
Quote
You people really need to read the books, y'know?  Why is it that because Rachel takes a more direct approach with things it automatically means she doesn't think things through?  That she's some type of unstable aggressive maniac?

She's never portrayed that way by Katherine & Michael.  Some of the ghost-writers got a little carried away with it, but she's not half as reckless or single minded as the fandom paints her to be.

Oh, and "reckless".

Support provided.  *bows, smirks*

"Reckless" and "unstable" are very different things, lad. I never called her unstable.
I hate to break it to you, kiddo', but the ghostwriters made more books than K.A. and Mikey EVER did for this series, which means, no matter HOW they portrayed Rachel, the ghostwriters' portrayals ARE VALID. You can't just pretend those books don't exist.

YOU need to read the books.
All of them.

Also, if you're going to get into a habit of correcting my spelling, I'll be glad to bring up every grammatical error you've ever made in RAF and shove it back in your smug, spunky face.
I talk back because I like you, so be nice already.
The universe is, instant by instant, re-created anew. There is, in truth, no Past, only a memory of the Past. Blink your eyes, and the world you see next did not exist when you closed them. The only appropriate state of the mind is surprise. The only appropriate state of the heart is joy. The sky you see now, you have never seen before. The perfect moment is now. Be glad of it.

-GNU Terry Pratchet, The Thief of Time

Offline AlothAssassin

  • Banned
  • ****
  • Posts: 438
  • Karma: 11
  • Gender: Male
Meow.  Feistiness.  I approve.

All of that may be true, however I think it's worth noting the difference between the more subtle & elegant way K.A. wrote Rachel and the "Me Blond Hulk, Smash Stuff Now, GROARGH RAOWR" BS of the ghosties.

And, no, she wasn't reckless all the time.  Rachel thought things through as much as Jake or Tobias or Ax, just without the nine-steps-ahead ability that was unique to Cassie and Marco.  Jake was as reckless as Rachel, he was just tempered by the other team members to a higher degree, not as headstrong.
"Yorn desh born, der ritt de gitt der gue, Orn desh, dee born desh, de umn børk! børk! børk!" - The Swedish Chef.

“He is very wise man and very strong - although perhaps not so strong as his father Barbara.  Tough guy!" - Borat, on President Bush.

Offline Estelore

  • Constant and Distant
  • God
  • ********
  • Posts: 6709
  • Karma: 369
  • Gender: Female
  • Your friendly neighbourhood plural system
*rueful laugh*
I think we may be speaking two different languages. I called her reckless consistently, but we assigned two totally different meanings to it. You took my words to mean that she is always 100% loose-gun.
Not what I meant, and I'm sorry for the misapprehension.
She is consistent about her recklessness. Situations change her tactics, yes, but in SIMILAR situations, she most always falls back to the same decisions... and mistakes.
She's dependably brave-and-scared-and-angry.

Marco and Ax are not as dependable. They've shown that in SOME circumstances, loyalty comes second to whatever they consider their higher goal. Maybe they didn't follow through every time, and that is where their inconsistencies lie.
They would not have gone to kill Tom, for their own reasons, or they'd have bungled it in some way. Situations that would have gotten Rachel killed, they'd have avoided outright, because they are survivalists and not mission-minded near-altruists like Rachel.

That was the point I was going-for earlier, but somewhere along the way we got our wires crossed. :P

Ah, well.

Back on-topic. :)
The universe is, instant by instant, re-created anew. There is, in truth, no Past, only a memory of the Past. Blink your eyes, and the world you see next did not exist when you closed them. The only appropriate state of the mind is surprise. The only appropriate state of the heart is joy. The sky you see now, you have never seen before. The perfect moment is now. Be glad of it.

-GNU Terry Pratchet, The Thief of Time

Offline AlothAssassin

  • Banned
  • ****
  • Posts: 438
  • Karma: 11
  • Gender: Male
Ax and Marco would have absolutely killed Tom.  Smoking, much?

 ::)

Marco'd be a little more thoughtful about it, because of his own experiences, but he'd do it if necessary.  Ax wouldn't think twice.
"Yorn desh born, der ritt de gitt der gue, Orn desh, dee born desh, de umn børk! børk! børk!" - The Swedish Chef.

“He is very wise man and very strong - although perhaps not so strong as his father Barbara.  Tough guy!" - Borat, on President Bush.

Offline wolfev

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 390
  • Karma: 53
  • Gender: Male
I don't think 27 was 1 dimensional. I like the idea of Rachel having violent tendencies as she evolved.It only stunk in 32 when we see both sides of her and it doesn't make sense. She can't be so easily divided. She was too extreme. Either too lame or too evil. Her nicer half was pathetic. I don't understand why that was.
[img width= height= alt=" border="0]https://vspace.vassar.edu/evwaldron/warriors/banner2.jpg[/img]

esplin

  • Guest
I think that book kinda showed balance in Rachel.  It could have been better but still.

Offline Estelore

  • Constant and Distant
  • God
  • ********
  • Posts: 6709
  • Karma: 369
  • Gender: Female
  • Your friendly neighbourhood plural system
Quote
Ax and Marco would have absolutely killed Tom.  Smoking, much?

Quote
They would not have gone to kill Tom, for their own reasons, or they'd have bungled it in some way. Situations that would have gotten Rachel killed, they'd have avoided outright, because they are survivalists and not mission-minded near-altruists like Rachel.

Read a sentence in context for ONCE IN YOUR LIFE, will you please. :)
I didn't say they wouldn't have killed him, given circumstances favourable to it. I said they would not have GONE to kill Tom. They wouldn't have taken this out-of-the-way suicide mission, when so many other options would have been perfectly feasible.
Also, before they'd even consider taking such a mission, they'd have a very serious sit-down with Jake to see if he's off his head, because in all honesty, up until that point killing-Tom was a very hopeless and unJakelike thing to do or even to suggest. They'd be wondering what, specifically was the last straw that broke his resolve to save his brother/family, which was the one thing he pretty much PROMISED early in the series.
If being infested himself in The Capture (6) wasn't enough, if seeing his cousin, quasi-girlfriend, best friend, and two others loyal to him get almost-killed over and over wasn't enough, and if his parents' capture toward the end of the series wasn't enough, then whatever makes him crack has gotta' be big.

That all being said, there was never any doubt in my mind that, even only halfway through the series, if Ax had been given sufficient opportunity and received no direct order against it, he'd've killed Tom.
Closer to the end, or even shortly after his rescue in 4, when he didn't know the group dynamic as well, it'd have been perfectly logical for him to do it, because at both those times he has returned to being cold-and-calculating-for-the-greater-good, and especially toward the end he is questioning Jake's stability. He's already seen that Marco's mum created a few glitches in the group, like keeping secrets and all such. He simply cannot allow that to happen with his Prince. Also, depending on the situation at hand, Ax might believe that sparing Tom would be noticeable to the Yeerks in such a way that it would cause them to be aware of the humans-not-Andalites situation, although as many humans as they did knock-out-but-not-kill... that should have been obvious from the start. :P Leaving Tom unharmed would just help them find Jake faster.
Marco's another story. The only times he'd kill Tom are a) self-defence b) Jake asked him and has demonstrated some measure of sanity c) Marco sees Tom as a threat to Jake's ability to lead, sufficiently that he'd 'betray' his best friend to fix the situation.

Both characters have major thinking-on-their-feet and cold-calculation skills, but Marco is a long-term-planner, overall, and Ax is an opportunist. [I'll be happy to discuss that sentence elsewhere, but let's get back to Rachel on this thread, please.]

Anyway, no denying that they'd kill him, but the situation would have to fit their criteria first. Go-and-take-him-down is very Rachel-adapted. Let-him-come-to-us is Marco/Ax adapted.

Right, well, that's that.
Smoking? I've been called 'hot' before, but that one is fairly unused in this part of the world. Thanks for the compliment. ;)
*chuckle*


Now, regarding 32... yeah, they could have afforded to make Nice-Rachel a bit less of a wimp. :(
Admittedly, though, it was a great way of showing that she's just as scared as everybody else.
The universe is, instant by instant, re-created anew. There is, in truth, no Past, only a memory of the Past. Blink your eyes, and the world you see next did not exist when you closed them. The only appropriate state of the mind is surprise. The only appropriate state of the heart is joy. The sky you see now, you have never seen before. The perfect moment is now. Be glad of it.

-GNU Terry Pratchet, The Thief of Time