Maybe this is a sign of my age-I am probably one of the older, if not the oldest, members here-but since when is a story improved by the death of a main character? I feel like I’ve enjoyed plenty where such characters all lived to the end. Personally, I think Jo’s stories and inclusion add depth to the story itself. His adventures show, rather than tell, that there are things going on in Natalia other than whatever Heather and Picket are up to.
Jo Shanks is a special case among the Green Ember characters. S.D. Smith included him in The Green Ember, then decided to bring him back for Ember Falls. Jo grew on him enough that he decided to give him a book of his own, and then another, and then another. He also had roles in the third and fourth books, which was kind of to be expected from a member of an elite combat unit. S.D. Smith may have started these books to write about Heather and Picket, but Jo sneaked his way into being another main character.
I think “Mary Sue” is too strong a term for Heather-that gives the impression, to me at least, of someone superhuman. Lest we forget, it’s her brother who can’t be on the same battlefield as a named Wolf character without going all “The bolt of Tash falls from above!” I’m a bit surprised there’s so much dislike for her. Granted, in Ember Rising and Ember’s End I do prefer Picket’s sections to hers, but I figure that’s because she’s in the more depressing/creepy situations. It’s like how I enjoy Frodo and Sam’s adventures in The Lord of the Rings less than the the rest of the Fellowships because they’re traveling into Mordor with Gollum, not because I dislike Frodo or Sam.
As far as personality flaws, Heather has them-I just don’t think they’re especially pronounced. In part, I think this is because we only get small slices of her life, most of which involve moments that call upon Heather to be the best that she can be. Queen, scribe, and seer she might have been, but her chosen vocation was that of a doctor. I know doctors aren’t perfect, but a truly dedicated healer, to my mind, has a great capacity to rise above themselves in service to others. That being said, some weaknesses of Heather’s can be observed throughout the series:
As was mentioned by @Saraina , Heather struggles with insecurity in the first book. The fact that she’s over it by the end doesn’t diminish the reality.
Heather has a temperamental streak throughout the first few books, and we might have seen it in book four had she not spent it almost exclusively in company with Smalls. It’s true her outbursts were typically only in response to others’ bad behavior, but that’s not always a good reaction. Jo certainly didn’t need her aggravating his injured arm.
Heather had a strong will, which could be both benefit and detriment to her. At one point in Ember Falls she was pushing herself so hard that Emma had to pull rank and order her to go out on a break.
Heather’s flaws are also downplayed by the fact that she is usually quick to realize she’s been behaving badly, and that-so far as we read-appears to be the end of it. Her eavesdropping habits, her unfounded dislike of Heyna, her hostility towards Kylen-all are recognized and repented of within a short time in the books. The reality is that weeks or months are taking place that we’re not seeing much of. Picket, by contrast, is more stubborn in his faults, until he is humbled by the results of his manipulation of Smalls and the resulting admonitions of Wilfred.
He’s also a pretty strong case in point that Heather did not have “perfect everything”, along with their murderous uncle. I also wouldn’t say Whittle and Sween were perfect parents, given that they concealed pretty everything about their former lives from their children. They had their reasons, of course, and it built up the whole revelation about Garten’s betrayal, but I still get the impression that they were too secretive.
I get that flaws help to add depth and realism to characters. If y’all will forgive me saying so, though, a lot of media seems to lean towards characters who are so flawed that you have to strain to find any redeeming qualities about them.
Maybe this is a sign of my age-I am probably one of the older, if not the oldest, members here-but since when is a story improved by the death of a main character? I feel like I’ve enjoyed plenty where such characters all lived to the end. Personally, I think Jo’s stories and inclusion add depth to the story itself. His adventures show, rather than tell, that there are things going on in Natalia other than whatever Heather and Picket are up to.
Jo Shanks is a special case among the Green Ember characters. S.D. Smith included him in The Green Ember, then decided to bring him back for Ember Falls. Jo grew on him enough that he decided to give him a book of his own, and then another, and then another. He also had roles in the third and fourth books, which was kind of to be expected from a member of an elite combat unit. S.D. Smith may have started these books to write about Heather and Picket, but Jo sneaked his way into being another main character.
I think “Mary Sue” is too strong a term for Heather-that gives the impression, to me at least, of someone superhuman. Lest we forget, it’s her brother who can’t be on the same battlefield as a named Wolf character without going all “The bolt of Tash falls from above!” I’m a bit surprised there’s so much dislike for her. Granted, in Ember Rising and Ember’s End I do prefer Picket’s sections to hers, but I figure that’s because she’s in the more depressing/creepy situations. It’s like how I enjoy Frodo and Sam’s adventures in The Lord of the Rings less than the the rest of the Fellowships because they’re traveling into Mordor with Gollum, not because I dislike Frodo or Sam.
As far as personality flaws, Heather has them-I just don’t think they’re especially pronounced. In part, I think this is because we only get small slices of her life, most of which involve moments that call upon Heather to be the best that she can be. Queen, scribe, and seer she might have been, but her chosen vocation was that of a doctor. I know doctors aren’t perfect, but a truly dedicated healer, to my mind, has a great capacity to rise above themselves in service to others. That being said, some weaknesses of Heather’s can be observed throughout the series:
As was mentioned by @Saraina , Heather struggles with insecurity in the first book. The fact that she’s over it by the end doesn’t diminish the reality.
Heather has a temperamental streak throughout the first few books, and we might have seen it in book four had she not spent it almost exclusively in company with Smalls. It’s true her outbursts were typically only in response to others’ bad behavior, but that’s not always a good reaction. Jo certainly didn’t need her aggravating his injured arm.
Heather had a strong will, which could be both benefit and detriment to her. At one point in Ember Falls she was pushing herself so hard that Emma had to pull rank and order her to go out on a break.
Heather’s flaws are also downplayed by the fact that she is usually quick to realize she’s been behaving badly, and that-so far as we read-appears to be the end of it. Her eavesdropping habits, her unfounded dislike of Heyna, her hostility towards Kylen-all are recognized and repented of within a short time in the books. The reality is that weeks or months are taking place that we’re not seeing much of. Picket, by contrast, is more stubborn in his faults, until he is humbled by the results of his manipulation of Smalls and the resulting admonitions of Wilfred.
He’s also a pretty strong case in point that Heather did not have “perfect everything”, along with their murderous uncle. I also wouldn’t say Whittle and Sween were perfect parents, given that they concealed pretty everything about their former lives from their children. They had their reasons, of course, and it built up the whole revelation about Garten’s betrayal, but I still get the impression that they were too secretive.
I get that flaws help to add depth and realism to characters. If y’all will forgive me saying so, though, a lot of media seems to lean towards characters who are so flawed that you have to strain to find any redeeming qualities about them.