If Cassie had a lot more edge as a character...

[CounterInstinct]

Remember the book where Rachel, as a starfish, splits into two? I always wondered what Cassie would be if she was the one who had two of her.

Until the final arc, where she was convincing some disabled kids to be Animorphs.

She has this manipulative side of her. She's good at reading emotions, to the point that she can manipulate them. Sort of hypnotism. She's even deadlier than Marco or Jake in this field.

Too bad this part of her wasn't elaborated, and they had to go on about morality and had Cassie bear the burden all on her books.

If Cassie became a manipulative hypocrite, would she be more interesting? To us? Knowing she's the least popular character.

[MoppingBear]

Mean Cassie would promptly go down to the Yeerk pool, kill Visser 3, and take over the invasion.

[char486]

I never understood why there was so much Cassie hating!! Cassie was one of my favorite characters growing up, and even more so now as an adult. I think her constant search for some kind of moral peace with everything that she had to do was far more interesting and relatable than, for example, Rachel's blind bloodthirstiness. I think many readers liked Rachel so much (and Marco for that matter) because we all secretly wish that how we would be able to be life threatening, war-like situations; brave, efficient and unemotional. When in fact, most of us would have had the kind of internal struggles Cassie often voiced. That being said, I guess characters like Rachel and Marco are more fun to read.

But I totally agree that she had the potential to have a dark, manipulative side. Though I think we had enough darkness with Rachel, especially towards the end there.

[SuperBlue]

Cassie was also one of my favorites. I think the main problem with her and the fans was that Cassie made a lot of stupid decisions based on either her morality or her just being naive.

[Alic]

i'd rather her have been killed off than have a different side to her.

[SuperBlue]

I like how Cassie was technically the only Animorph to survive. It showed that at least one Animorph was able to move on with their life after the war

[Chad32]

She does have a manipulative side, which shows in some places like when she convinced David to become a ****roach to escape, and when she got Jake to continue leading instead of letting someone else lead.

I'm not really sure what would happen if there were two of her. Her bad side would likely be a manipulative hypocrite, and the good side would be her strict moral and empathic side.

I disliked Cassie because she holds onto her beliefs so tightly that she'd be ok with any bad thing that happened as long as she didn't have to cross any lines. She's a moral extremist.

[Myitt]

I never understood why there was so much Cassie hating!! Cassie was one of my favorite characters growing up, and even more so now as an adult. I think her constant search for some kind of moral peace with everything that she had to do was far more interesting and relatable than, for example, Rachel's blind bloodthirstiness. I think many readers liked Rachel so much (and Marco for that matter) because we all secretly wish that how we would be able to be life threatening, war-like situations; brave, efficient and unemotional. When in fact, most of us would have had the kind of internal struggles Cassie often voiced. That being said, I guess characters like Rachel and Marco are more fun to read.

But I totally agree that she had the potential to have a dark, manipulative side. Though I think we had enough darkness with Rachel, especially towards the end there.

Hi char, welcome to RAF!  I'm Tara, you can post an intro thread here: http://animorphsforum.com/forum/index.php?board=7.0  and, if you'd like, a personal thread here:  http://animorphsforum.com/forum/index.php?board=30.0

I also don't get the Cassie hate!  Cassie was always my favorite character, too.  I sympathized much more with her moral debate and animal-loving than Marco's humor or Rachel's battle-craziness, as interesting as the other characters were.  I think it would have been interesting to see Cassie's dark side, which was only hinted at in #41 when she and her Yeerk became a terrorist-slash-rebel against the Yeerk Empire.  Blowing up buildings.  The extreme peacemonger: Fighting and killing innocents and the enemy because it's "the right thing to do".  Killing them to free them.  So I think that side was there, or at least hinted at, just never fully explored. 

Was Cassie really being stupid, giving Yeerks the morphing cube rather than stopping the man she loved from killing his own brother?  It gave the Yeerks a big advantage, and was the one thing the Yeerks didn't have that the Animorphs did (barring Visser Three/One), but she was acting out of a rash decision to protect someone she cared about.  I can't say I would have done any different.

[Chad32]

There was a third option, you know. That being take Tom alive. It's like a lot of sadistic choices that heroes get where they have to choose one of two things, and both would end badly. Except they're supposed to find a third option. A tiger and wolf can take down a Human controller, even if he has a dracon beam.

If anyone is going to be praised for saving earth by giving morphing power to another species, it's Elfangor. Not Cassie.

[CounterInstinct]

There was a third option, you know. That being take Tom alive. It's like a lot of sadistic choices that heroes get where they have to choose one of two things, and both would end badly. Except they're supposed to find a third option. A tiger and wolf can take down a Human controller, even if he has a dracon beam.

If anyone is going to be praised for saving earth by giving morphing power to another species, it's Elfangor. Not Cassie.

Yes, but if they took down Tom, the Yeerks and the Taxxons wouldn't even think about using the morphing power to [do genocide] themselves into nothlits! Having morphing power was that unthinkable.
Cassie had the foresight to see this.
The third option is. Well. What was it again? First option was to take down Tom, second was to let him go.
Jake can't go on, he had only three legs. I don't think a wolf can drag a person fast enough till the Visser catches on.

[Chad32]

Cassie did not have the foresight to see this. She wasn't thinking that far ahead. also I think it's well established that Cassie can morph quickly, not to mention they didn't have to worry about their identities. They could have carried him off in their natural bodies while Visser Three was still distracted by everything else and out of sight.

Giving Yeerks morphing power to get them to turn away from V3 is an admirable plan. But not done in a way that hands V3 the box so they have to fight groups of golden eagles and stuff. It was done all wrong with no forethought at all. She was not thinking straight on any kind of level.

If she really had the foresight then, it would have been explained in the book. Instead they edited out a line that was originaly in there where Cassie said or thought "What have I done?". Then she makes some excuse in a later book. I haven't read it in forever, but fans use that, or the fact that it didn't turn out as bad in the end as it could have, to justify what she did.

[Seventhsage]

hmm, I like this.  Cassie was always the quiet conscience of the group, yet willing to put those aside when the time came.  I don't think there would necessarially be a good and evil should she split, there would be a moral side (if an animal is suffering, you can't put it down, because there's still hope while it's alive) and her other side would be, essentially, Marco, just more in tune with people.  Point A, Point Z, I'm not getting there, you're getting there for me...

Mean Cassie would promptly go down to the Yeerk pool, kill Visser 3, and take over the invasion.

No, she'd convince him to give her control of the invasion.  No need to kill him, that's wasted effort

[CounterInstinct]

@chad:

I halfway agree with you.
\halfway, because, she DID saw THAT FAR ahead, it's just that, unlike Marco or Jake, she doesn't see the road from A to Z. She just sees A and Z, and the road, well, she kinda manipulates others to work itout for her.

And I think, her reason wasn't just added later. I think she said that she kept it secret. Plus, for two books, only Jake and Cassie knew what really happened with the cube. So she didnt have a chanceto explain.

Point A, Point Z, I'm not getting there, you're getting there for me...

No, she'd convince him to give her control of the invasion.  No need to kill him, that's wasted effort

Yes, she'd be scary like that. Kind of like an evil Elfangor or such.

[Kotetsu1442]

I think her constant search for some kind of moral peace with everything that she had to do was far more interesting and relatable than, for example, Rachel's blind bloodthirstiness. I think many readers liked Rachel so much (and Marco for that matter) because we all secretly wish that how we would be able to be life threatening, war-like situations; brave, efficient and unemotional. When in fact, most of us would have had the kind of internal struggles Cassie often voiced.

I can't speak for everyone, but I would say that there is nothing wrong with struggling to decide what is right and what is wrong and reach a moral peace. I would be OK with someone voicing out against doing something wrong even if "it's necessary," I would even be OK with someone willing to die and even loose the war for humanity because they weren't willing to do something wrong (A point made early in the series was along the lines of "what's the point of wining the war for humanity if we give up what makes us human?") but the problem with Cassie is that she decides that something "Doesn't feel right" and therefore "May be wrong" but rather than ever coming to a stance on something ("This is wrong and I will never do it, no matter what the cost" or "This is not wrong, it's weird and feels creepy and against my nature, but isn't actually wrong so I need to prepare to do it if I must") but instead is ready to throw a wrench in things when they need to decide. I can respect when a person has morals and am OK with this aspect that her character brings to the team, but I can't respect when a person is going to say that they 'have morals' when they are not willing to sort out vague feelings into beliefs, because being unwilling to sort out what is or isn't right for you in Cassie's case means being willing to let people die because she's unwilling to decide.

Do I hate Cassie? No. But she did spend time acting as a weak link instead of a moral compass (Which isn't to say that the other characters didn't have flaws or that character flaws are a bad thing).

[Chad32]

Since I'm involved in the rereading, I will get around to rereading books 50 and beyond, and make a more informed decision than trying to remember from way back when I read the final arc.