Group Re-Read: #48 The Return

[11:11]

I was so disappointed that this was Rachel's last book. I don't feel like it got time or whatever to be better than it could have been. I also feel like David's return wasn't what it could have been. Did like the ending though.

[JohnBlaze]

I do believe this book should have either been incorporated into the final arc better, or taken place before it. The final arc is supposed to have started with 45, but seems to lag a bit until it picks up again in 49.

Couldnt agree anymore

[Gafrash]

I don't remember the bolding lines. I read this book recently, but I don't know what you mean.

#The Return I had purchased had certain highlighted phrases, done to an effect kinda like a guilt-voice on the back of your head. So things like, 'I'm not some kind of a nut' 'I was smarter than any of you' were repetitively boldened in the narrative (sometimes at random places) to convey Rachel's guilt/insecurities.
Was mine the only one?!?!
 
 

[RYTX]

no I had that too.
I guess you could chalk that up to psyche, but for some reason I always picture it as an incorporal Drode whispering in her ear, just to mess with her, get things moving in the right direction

[EscafilDevice]

Ugh, this book...

I agree with everything Chad and anijen said.

I hate this book because it could've been awesome but it was so poorly done and not really the best evolution of Rachel's character.

#22 is my favorite book in the series, I still get chills whenever I read it. I think that it (and you can consider #32 working in there as well) predict that Rachel gets over being a "bloodthirsty killer." I really wish that more of her background was explored (her interactions with classmates, how she did in school, her relationships with her family, etc) rather than "lolz a boy just asked me out but I like Tobias instead."

Honestly, you could interpret Rachel as having "reformed" at the end of this book too because of how she turned down Crayak's offer (I really like the dream theory, btw).

Anyway, she definitely killed David and she cried for like the rest of the day and watched a Lifetime movie or something.

[anijen21]

Anyway, she definitely killed David and she cried for like the rest of the day and watched a Lifetime movie or something.

lol ia

[Alex Oiknine]

1) One of the biggest problems I, and presumably other fans, have with this book is the fact that a good chunk of the beginning is taken up by dream sequences. In fact, we don't even get to 'reality' until about five/six chapters in. So, with that in mind, what do you think was the purpose behind such lengthy dream sequences? Did they fulfill their purpose?

to be totally honest, I'm still not totally convinced the whole thing wasn't a dream. I mean, it's kind of hard to deny people who weren't involved referring to it in later books, but we all know the series self-contradicts more than a slippery witness in a murder trial with tourette's, so hear me out:

In book #22, Rachel explicitly states that they never heard from David again. If we get to choose our "truth" in this series, I'm picking that...

Anijen21, you know you complete us in the LJ community with your book reviews, yes?

You know, to me, this story just jarred very badly with the character development we were to expect of Rachel the rest of the final arc of the series. "I know the line, I won't cross it, I would never do that" becomes "Yes, now if you'll excuse me I'm going to go hit that young soldier with this semi now"

I mean, where was all that interim character development? Not that that was the fault of this book, in particular, I'm just saying I feel like at some point the character development of Rachel degenerating into a troubled kid who wouldn't cope well with the end of the war just disappeared and then suddenly came back 20X worse than ever before.

Maybe if we were going for such a huge amount of degeneration by the end of the series and knew the series only had six books left Rachel should have had to agree to kill Jake at the end only to wake up and find out that Crayak had been teasing her with no intent of using her after having been turned down so many times. You know, doing what he does just to be cruel, because he can.

Or something that at least made the actions she makes in the next Ax book logical when he has to fight with her over control of the vehicle.

I think I just have gotten to a point where I need to whine about it every time this book comes around to be reviewed though.

[EscafilDevice]

I feel like the only answer to this is that KA got lazy with Rachel and wanted to kill her off in a half-assed effort to make a statement about war.

[Chad32]

Quite possibly. Someone pointed out that the members who were most willing to fight (Rachel and Tobias, also Ax) got the shortest end of the stick, while the members that most opposed fighting (Marco and Cassie) were happiest. Jake originally didn't want to fight or lead, so he didn't turn out quite as bad, but since he came around to the war eventually he did suffer a bit afterwards.

Coincidence? I think not. The original message is hope, but it gave way to war is hell. Apparently even the most just war will destroy you if you enjoy fighting it at all.

The amount of pain that the Anis go through is directly proportional to how much they enjoyed fighting for freedom.

[EscafilDevice]

I feel like it's so inconsistent with the earlier tone of the book, not to mention that KA can't flip-flop on whether or not Animorphs is really a kids' series or not.

[Kotetsu1442]

But yeah, killing David was more about responsibility and mercy than her being bloodthirsty. I mean you can obviously tell she doesn't enjoy the thought of killing him. It couldn't be more obvious. Of course Cassie wasn't present, so the thought of rachel killing David probably seemed wrong to her still...

I agree with this and the ideas that lead up to it. One point Rachel made during this book was basically 'was our trapping him and letting him live instead of killing him being kind to him [like we convinced ourselves] or just kind to ourselves?" Which is really a strong and rather deep point that could have been explored more in this book rather than the one line it got.

Though it is Rachel who struggles with this issue, I think she understands it much better than Cassie; who really could stand to think about that when she is 'moralizing' things. Cassie lets her uneasy feelings guide her morality, and though the two can relate and work together, what you 'feel like' isn't what morality is about. Even though Cassie is 'the strongest and bravest of them in her own way' she is willing to decide that killing an enemy isn't right unless forced to in battle, but will sentence them to a fate considered by many to be worse than death as an alternative because it is easy for her to live with. Perhaps Crayak should have spent some times tempting Cassie into causing the greatest harm with the best of intentions instead of trying to temp Rachel into flat out betraying all of her friends and murdering her cousin.

I'm sorry, but I think David could have been put into the end of the series too....like a final battle against Visser 1, Tom, and David....but sorry...thats too much of a Hollywood adaptation, lol

Actually, now that you mention it, I think 'Hollywood adaptation' is a great way to express what is wrong with the feeling of this book, it's that warping/oversimplifying of characters that messes deranges Rachel's very cool and interesting character into a rather flat and bland stereotype (I like Terenia's description of reducing her to a two-sided coin); messing up the Crayak from his omni-competition with Ellimist in individual, subtle moves on a grand and amazing chess board into a very direct, meddling schemer that doesn't really make sense in the context of the Game; and basically turning David into that insane Rat King from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.



The end of this book, as many have stated, certainly redeems it a valuable material to the series; particularly with that ending of "I'd like to think that she choose this..." but being all the more powerful because it was left ambiguous; but otherwise this book is kinda weak and insulting to the series, especially placed in the "things are starting to come to an end" ark.

[Gafrash]

...The amount of pain that the Anis go through is directly proportional to how much they enjoyed fighting for freedom.

That is an interesting statement, Chad28. I never looked at it that way, but I can't help noting that characters like Cassie and Marco seemed much better off, Ax is a bit ambiguous unknown, either than the fact that he's become a Prince, which is a big thing in his people's culture. But, to me, characters like Rachel and Tobias had comparatively little involvement the last major arc, and hence little in terms of happiness post-war. As if KA had done what she wanted to do with them and didn't really have much else to do with them after the next book.

Still, it felt like she could have done something more here in #48:The Return. It seems it's only worth it because of Rachel and David's last scene. I would have rathered have seen this as Rachel's last major scene in #54 than here.

[Kotetsu1442]

I agree, that is an interesting view and it's worth looking at it from that perspective, but I would disagree with the necessarily negative tone of it. That is to say, Rachel's death at such a young age may not have been a happy thing for her, but since we all have to die sometime then going out fighting may be considered satisfying and preferable in her book to trying to adjust to a 'normal' way of life in a world no longer familiar  to her. For Ax as well, though it's not clear what his exact fate as an individual is after the encounter with The One, it is probably safe to say that he would prefer to be known for having lived up to his honor and bravery as a prince by confronting the enemy rather than showing cowardice.

If I were to express the sentiment/moral that KA reached through the conclusion, I would remove the negative aspect (That enjoying the fight more brought proportionally greater pain or that war will destroy you if you enjoy fighting it at all) and say that more generally the moral was along the lines of the Greek traditional philosophy that "A Man's [Person's] character is [or determines] His fate" which is seen throughout their mythology and theatrical works.

Actually this is well supported by Rachel's philosophical musings in the previous Rachel book,#37, The Weakness; she had studied Oedipus and other Greek tragedies recently in school and examined her own hubris. Her eventual conclusion was another way to word this: "So it's a trap. An inevitability. You are who you are. Character is plot. Character is destiny." Not necessarily a negative thing, although I suppose 'trap' is a pretty loaded word, removing one's freedom to choose their own fate. But if you assume that one is ultimately, through free will, in charge of determining the kind of person that they are, then the message is simply that who you decide to be determines the nature of your end, or again as the Greeks said a couple thousand years ago (I guess there is nothing completely new under the sun): "A Man's character is His fate."