City of Groans

Yes, one of the everlasting topics concerning the series for sure. Jace having a chipped tooth was such a poor attempt at counteracting that since Clare herself forgot he even had one. It was such a faux imperfection in the first place that it’s laughable attempt to be honest. It must be noted that it is the major male characters that enjoy the beautiful looks, not necessarily those like Inquisitor Aldertree, Maurice Bridgestock, or Horace Dearborn. Though these characters are more villains and antagonists, it is not to say that all bad guys are not good-looking. Not in a million years would villains like Valentine or Sebastian be described as “pigeon-chested” or “bald with shiny head.” They would not be described as “bony” instead of being muscular or with disproportionate limbs. The looks of these type of antagonists or minor villains are a point of ridicule, not to genuinely present more average looks.

Not only are the more major male characters incredibly beautiful and handsome, that’s mostly what there is to them where the writing is concerned. Whenever someone—and more so their love interest—observes them, the writing mostly if not always focuses on their appearance. From the get go, City of Bones fails to show readers why Jace and Clary connect and form feelings towards each other in the first place precisely because the initial attraction is solely based on appearances, and more so those of Jace. Nothing in the narrative moving forward manages to deepen the emotional connection they supposedly have because the writing focuses mostly on how everyone looks and feels about each other without doing the legwork to form those points of connection otherwise.

What more underlines the (almost like) need for the male characters to be nothing but beautiful, handsome, or any type of way good-looking is how it was necessary to mention how Will was still handsome even in his seventies—and dying moment mind you. From the beginning of the series, the fear of aging and age has been evident in the background of the narrative, and this separate note on elderly Will’s looks just emphasizes that. As if to also compensate for Tessa looking still like she is in her mid-twenties. (Also to note that even during some scenes in TID where Jem opens up to Tessa, Tessa merely observes Jem's silver hair and eyes and how he looks like in any given weather.)

It gives the impression that we are watching a movie rather than reading a book. Many things are so externally focused, the importance lying on the looks of things than utilizing all senses and assets of literary elements. The stylistic framework leans more on painting the picture with looks rather than creating impressions with internalization and richer prose. Instead, what is evidently shown through the focus on how characters look any moment, the writing presents the story through more objective lense and relies on (and limits itself on) visual presentation that doesn’t allow deeper connection between the readers and the characters—or even between characters themselves. The style is often more cinematic—setting the scene, placing the characters, the dialogue, the description of actions, mannerism, a performance—than utilizing actual strengths of storytelling in book form.

Many things are limited to being external and the attraction is to those external elements. Eye color, hair color, the shape of someone’s face or sharpness of their jawline and cheekbones, smoothness of skin, what type of clothes they are wearing etc. All good information, sure, but does nothing on its own when that’s all the readers are going to get. Even during action scenes that necessitate more urgency there is time dedicated to describing how rooms look like or people look like or weapons look like and, even in some cases, a brief history of said weapons. I’m sorry, I thought there was something more pressing going on? If a character has the capacity to focus on every nitty-gritty detail about their surroundings during an action scene, how well am I sold of the fact that there is any urgency at all?

Though my next point isn’t directly about the topic of male beauty in the series, it sort of gets my earlier point across about bypassing looks and forming an actual and credible emotional connection between two characters. It’s also my favorite part in all of The Mortal Instruments. In City of Lost Souls, chapter 16 “Brothers and Sisters” Simon finally meets with Rebecca who has been frantically trying to reach him. Simon then decides to reveal to Rebecca that he is a vampire.

Simon couldn’t take it anymore. He stripped off his glove and held his hand out to his sister. His sister, who’d held his hand on the beach when he was too small to toddle into the ocean unassisted. Who’d mopped blood off him after soccer practice, and tears off him after their father had died and their mother was a zombie lying in her room staring at the ceiling. Who’d read to him in his race-car-shaped bed when he still wore footie pajamas. I am the Lorax. I speak for the trees. Who once accidentally shrunk all his clothes in the wash so they were doll-size, when she was trying to be domestic. Who packed his lunch when their mother didn’t have time. Rebecca, he thought. The last tie he had to cut.

Though the entire scene with Simon and Rebecca is good, this part really brings it home. It’s more palpable and touching than anything Clare has managed to write about other relationships—romantic, familial, or otherwise platonic. These are glimpses of an actual life and specific things that have happened in such a small space to tell so much about Simon and Rebecca’s life. Not the formlessness of the fantastical childhood Simon has had with Clary but actual tangible and relatable things they’ve experienced, which then also allows the readers to experience what they have gone through together and extrapolate from that.

This is something that is missing from the most of the other relationships and especially the romantic ones. Because the beauty of men takes such a precedence over everything, any opportunity to form these types of connections is buried underneath. Though Rebecca is a character rarely seen and barely spoken about, this scene in City of Lost Souls solidifies the perception of her. Though it is obviously a scene between siblings and relates to siblinghood, Clare somehow doesn’t manage this type of bond with any other brothers and sisters or relationships that have lasted long enough to accumulate this kind of history. Because even with those siblings their looks and focus are on their respective romantic relationships that somehow cannot be overshadowed by other meaningful—albeit platonic or even familial—relationships.

Yes, at least unhealthy in some aspects. The same really goes for all the romances between any of the main characters in any of the series. Personally, the crux of the matter is that the characters have no real identity outside of their (prospective) all-consuming romantic relationships, and the major part of that problem with romance is precisely the deep devotion that turns easily into codependency. Intense infatuation and desire is portrayed as desirable love that in reality neglects other areas of life as well as relationships outside of the romantic one.

Emma is unable to make a decision or act for her own good or even according to her own wants because the devotion and loyalty to Julian always outweighs what she needs. It’s decided by Clare to portray it so, to depict Emma almost as an enabler to support Julian and shield him from consequences of his own harmful actions that might cause Emma to distance herself from him. Instead of acknowledging that very apparent side of it—as is the proud continuous tradition of the narrative enabling the unhealthy coping mechanisms and skewed personalities and actions of its main male characters—Clare seems to be thinking that she is portraying something else here.

By Clare’s own word, Emma was unnerved by Julian’s ruthless scheming, and that Julian in actuality ended up turning Anselm Nightshade to the Inquisitor for what they wouldn’t have usually even bothered to deal with to that extent. It is a disturbing moment for Emma when she actually realizes the lengths Julian will go to keep his family safe. But instead of letting Emma deal with the side of Julian she apparently had no idea about, the capability of him “sacrificing” his morality and manipulating people, Clare ignores the implications (the sudden change in perception, the foreignness of someone you thought you knew completely, and what all that means as to the already existing feelings) and hitches her to Julian’s side because of her “love”. The revelation has no true or longer-lasting effect on Emma’s feelings for Julian and thus prevents him from taking any accountability or having to adapt to Emma seeing him in a new way.

Here problem boils down to the fact that there is no other outcome than them ending up together, so why do the work and explore more naturally arising issues between them—i.e. Julian’s behavior having a profound effect on Emma and changing her worldview on something she had trusted and thought she had always known—when they can be solved by Emma not really minding Julian’s scheming because she loves him so much and thus cannot distance herself from him. The whole dark magic pizza is such an idiotic and juvenile thing that it drowns out the underlying implication in the scene.

Clare's writing already suffers from flat and one-dimensional characters. When these characters begin the process of becoming a romantic couple, and especially once they do, they lose personal identity and independence. The couple functions as a unit, are always written going everywhere together and doing everything together to the point of parabatai seeming useless when all you’re going to do is fight battles with your romantic partner instead. Individuality is sacrificed in favor of portraying the same type of all-consuming love in each series. Decision-making is entirely influenced by the other of the romantic pair. Any unhealthy or even toxic aspect is only momentary, caused by some circumstances not under your control, and does not reflect the character’s true self.

Obsession is masked as passion when the romantic couple essentially becomes emotionally fused together. The narrative, especially in that scene with Julian and Emma, filters out the very apparent flaws and potential hardships in favor of this fantasized romance bordering on codependency. And sure, given the history of the characters, that could well be the angle Clare wanted to approach their romance from. In the case of Emma and Julian, they have a war trauma and a deep fear of being separated from each other, having both lost their parents in very tragic ways. Julian's obsession with keeping his family together requires a lot of secrecy and scheming, which in turn leads to his environment being very (consciously) isolated from "outsiders". How could Julian possibly be able to form healthy, trusting, and secure emotional bonds with anyone else when their circumstances and, mind you, Julian’s own choices—ridiculously artificial and engineered for angsty purposes without any proper basis but nonetheless—essentially force him into isolation where he can obsess over his family and idolize Emma without interference?  

Julian has no one else but his family and Emma. He doesn't want anyone else, and he doesn't trust anyone outside of them. Yet the outcome just isn’t honest to what Emma experiences throughout the developments in the story. Neither does the writing portray credibly how this kind of attachment turned into obsessive love eventually balances out into healthier and more stable kind that all of the romances in the series supposedly are. All of this to say because I don’t think Clare would admit to any of the main romantic relationships being unhealthy or toxic—maybe having hiccups and unhealthy moments because the characters have hiccups and at times are unhealthy themselves as well, the same tired old “no one is perfect” reasoning everyone already knows—because the romance the main characters have is portrayed as the desirable one.

Readers are supposed to root for Emma and Julian, just like we were supposed to root for Clary and Jace, for Tessa and, I suppose, Will, despite that even those romances were exactly the same brand of the all-consuming, intoxicating, and obsessive love. Each of these female main characters cannot function as an individual or act from their innate selves (because they barely have any to begin with considering bad characterizations) but instead they focus their thinking, decisions, and overall behavior around their intended romantic interest. The main female characters in the relationships are incredibly male-centric. Though, for example, while Clary and Tessa do not cosign many of the things Jace and Will do in their self-destructive ways, they do support them and shield them from any true consequences of that behavior having any effect on the relationship between them.

These heroines always, always, always yield to these lame-ass male characters whose behavior warrants no devotion from girls they’ve just met and barely know. It is just another manifestation of taking the hard choices away from the characters and the repeated theme where the heroine is not really the protagonist rather than the observer of the amazingness of the male protagonist.

Perhaps the most central problem I see here is that the way romantic love is presented is very romanticized and overemphasized, especially to the detriment of platonic relationships. The type of romantic love here ignores a lot of obvious problems and problematic behavior on the grounds that nothing could tarnish the readers' image of the ultimate passion between the main characters. And again, that's exactly why a very false narrative is formed that doesn't acknowledge or even seem to notice those issues. I've never subscribed to the way Clare portrays romantic love in her books. It's repetitive, always the same, and always only between the characters Clare likes the most. I feel nausea from boredom every time I read how the Herondales usually only love once, and really deeply and super seriously (even there we got to introduce hierarchy to romantic love).

When TDA begins, Julian hasn’t had any meaningful relationships outside of his siblings and Emma. Emma, on the other hand, has had a romantic relationship with Cameron Ashdown. I feel like Cameron was thrown in there as her ex-boyfriend for two reasons: to have more experienced female protagonist in terms of intimate life contrasted to Clary and Tessa, who had never dated anyone before their prospective partners, and to underline the strength of Emma’s true feelings for Julian and why she could not make it work with someone else. Otherwise Cameron was such a miniscule part of the series that I may need a magnifying glass to see his relevance.

Hi and thank you! 😊

I’m not completely offended by it. It's not a bad idea in itself. If we consider the story arc as completely limited to itself, Simon turning from a mundane into a vampire—a Daylighter no less—and into a Shadowhunter could be interesting as he is the only character having the experience of being all three. Tessa, of course, to some degree but not the way Simon has gotten the short end of the stick, especially with being a mundane and then a vampire. Tessa was never truly treated as mundane or lesser like Simon was, nor was she ever really trashed the way Simon was for being Downworlder. The writing treated them differently. What makes it strange and, by some margin, bad idea is basically everything else surrounding it. These are

❌ The entire thematic surrounding religion, Simon’s Judaism and personal faith being cast aside by the narrative, the Nephilim religion being nonexistent yet so cult-like, and none of this is acknowledged (of course)

❌ How none of the concepts and issues surrounding religion go together because of the severely lacking worldbuilding

❌ Simon not experiencing much of anything relating to his faith after his Ascension and having to adopt the Nephilim religion that is so vague and nonexistent. I think this was ignored by telling that Simon practices both and that’s that like there wasn’t some sort of commentary by him on how the Shadowhunters are so cult-like? This also leaves unaddressed the fact that what is even the point of forcing Ascendants into adopting the Nephilim denomination (that is barely it besides) when people do whatever they please as to religion anyway?

❌ Simon becoming a recruiter for the Nephilim and looking for new Ascendants to up their numbers for oncoming battles without going through any credible journey from being treated worse by very people he now somehow considers his own

❌ Simon’s relationship with Clary taking over his character arc because none of his transformations would have happened without him being so insistent on staying with her. The emphasis of Simon’s journey is so much on Clary that it’s ridiculous how largely Clary is the focal point that guides Simon through his many states and motivates him. How he always thinks of her and aids her whenever she needs—this contrasted to how little Clary is motivated by Simon or really anyone else other than Jace.

❌ Simon becoming a Shadowhunter is simply not earned. The gravity of his sacrifice and ending in City of Heavenly Fire is completely lost

Simon is in a very unique position for having being a mundane, vampire, and now a Shadowhunter, but Clare does pretty much nothing noteworthy with it. Simon is absorbed by the Nephilim mass he somehow gladly becomes just because he sides with his now friends, the good guys trying to change the Clave for better. Not that it was the Shadowhunters that tried to isolate him from Clary because Clary was like them and Simon wasn’t (mind you, the same people he now is friends with and sure, character growth etc. etc. not the topic….). Everyone tried to close him off from Clary while Clary barely lifted a finger to keep Simo by her side. It was Simon who did the heavy lifting and most of the work in their friendship, even at the detriment of his eventual relationship with Isabelle.

Simon is so easily saved from the fate of amnesia that it completely cheapens how the main characters eventually “escape” (or rather are let go) from Edom and Asmodeus. No one loses anything, and that’s my biggest gripe with Simon becoming a Shadowhunter. Simon becomes a Shadowhunter so Clary doesn’t lose anything. Clary begins her journey with Jocelyn, Luke, and Simon. Clary ends her journey with Jocelyn, Luke, and a promise of having Simon back. Simon should’ve been the cost of Clary’s entrance to her new life. After everything Simon went through because of her—though by his own volition of course—and what he gave up to be there for her and aid her whenever she needed, Clary should’ve lost him because she never “earned” him back. There was no true price for her and she eventually got a parabatai too as Clary as the most important Shadowhunter figure couldn’t have been left out of such special concept.

Simon forgetting about everything and living his best life with his family, friends, and the band would’ve been the bittersweet cost for everything Clary did in the series. That would’ve been a real loss, something Clary couldn’t come back from just like that and her life wouldn’t have continued as it was. At least something that would alter the course of her life significantly. Letting Simon go was the opportunity for it. But Simon is also Clary’s safety cushion. While Isabelle does point out to Simon how he always chooses Clary first, Simon himself also realizes this, the narrative completely drops it as an issue. Let’s not go there—the first aid for anything that would compromise Clary’s success as a character. When Simon turns into a vampire, the writing introduces a conflicting situation with his mother and sister, a prospect of having to abandon them both and thus losing them. How is this then resolved? In an answer few years back I said:

In the extra story in Lady Midnight, The Long Conversation, it is told that after the Dark War Simon became a recruiter whose job is to recruit potential candidates for Ascension, especially Sighted mundanes. When they hold the engagement party to celebrate Isabelle and Simon’s engagement, Rebecca attends the party, and she knows something about the Shadowhunters, but Simon hasn’t been able to tell her everything. Simon’s mom on the other hand, like you said, thinks he’s attended a military academy when he was in the Shadowhunter Academy and is oblivious to the Shadowhunter side of Simon’s life. So he’s been able to remain in contact with his family. If this wasn’t the case, Simon would’ve been obligated to leave his family forever, something I believe other Ascendants have to still do if they become Shadowhunters. With Simon’s circumstances there was a great opportunity to call out these cultish Shadowhunter laws that aren’t well justified at all. Instead his character was given a loophole so that Simon doesn’t have to say goodbye to his family and can remain in contact with them, as if this does anything to fix the underlying problem.

Now, I needed to ask: have you ever touched on the first interaction between Aloysius Starkweather and Will Herondale in TID? The one where the gang meets the old man at the doors of the Yorkshire Institute and he greets Will with an insult because the boy's speaking the welsh language? Don't you find it strange, that a Shadowhunter man feels the need to belittle another Shadowhunter because of his language and culture? And Jessamine too. In TID she's all oh, William is welsh, that's why he's weird. He's not english as if it is a sin not to be english. Even Jem is frowned upon too because he's half chinese (and therefore a foreign), now that I'm thinking of it. But isn't it a bit nonsensical, all this prejudice between Shadowhunters? Aren't they supposed to be.. let's say, international in a sense? And Shadowhunter culture: why sometimes it mimics mundane culture when the two are supposedly two different things with nothing in common?

Thank you as well and so glad to have you since forever, truly.

I think this topic has been touched upon in other world-building related discussions but in a more general sense. It is weird because while Clare insists on the Shadow World existing enfolded into ours and the Nephilim co-existing within the mundane world, she has never done the legwork to make it credible that the Shadowhunters have adapted mundane ways of thinking—even more so western ideologies—when they barely even interact with the mundane world or its cultures in any significant way. They have no true core identity as Nephilim nor hold any connection to their nationalities either. Despite that Jace, for instance, has spent his formative years in Idris, despite that he was forced to move to America, there is all this nonsense about his surname and blood but nothing of the cultural identity or the difference of cultures he experiences in New York compared to how things were in Idris. Because there’s none.

The Nephilim generally regard themselves separate from the mundanes and do not understand the mundane ways (Jace supposedly doesn’t even know what a metal band is in Lost Book of the White for joke purposes yet this humor bites the worldbuilding in the ass really), but the Nephilim are the same everywhere still. Oh, sorry, they do wear dark, shiny burgundy colored gear in China sometimes (and is told to go in and out of use every few generations, which begs the question whether they always ask the Iron Sisters to craft it for them and why other people around the world have not utilized similar tactic of avoiding the plain black gear?).

The Nephilim are portrayed looking down upon regular humans when they even bother thinking about the mundanes. In TLH and TID, the mundanes are utilized as labor and servants because that’s all they are good for in the Nephilim spheres where they don’t generally even belong. Considering that the series in general is dealing with inequality, it’s strange but not surprising that the writing never makes any comment on this class disparity completely constructed by the superior Shadowhunters. The Shadowhunters only interact with places that have Nephilim or Downworld presence. The only mundane people they interact with are the ones who already know more or less about the Shadow World. In TLH Clare goes on and on about decorum that is essentially Edwardian era specific ways of mundane behavior, and I see no reason why the Shadowhunters have adapted to these or even bother themselves with them?

Nothing in the series ever makes it seem that the Nephilim in any way identify with or liken themselves to the mundanes. They have alliances and affiliations with different religious and governmental organizations throughout the world to aid their cause, but nothing to note about their shared cultural aspects or ideologies. It’s weird that Clare clings onto these sociological and cultural dispositions of our world and presents them as something natural to the Nephilim when there is no perceivable or conceivable way for them to have adapted those ways of thinking. Homophobia, racism, sexism, and misogyny as the biggest examples. Some of these actively going against any logic in the way the Nephilim are presented throughout the series.

Clare writes Jessamine approaching Will with the period-typical mentality of the English people frequently having looked down upon the Welsh and the Welsh language, and how they’ve held rather patronizing attitudes towards Wales in general during 18th and 19th centuries. Not English Shadowhunters experiencing otherness towards their Welsh brethren for specific cultural process which has emerged over time and in their own cultural context, but just for being English and Welsh in general as if the mundane historical and contemporary attitudes and mindsets have any connection to or place in the Nephilim society.

Multicultural peoples throughout history have created some of the most flourishing and historically significant cities and metropolises. Idris in itself is—or at least should be—a multicultural hub where its people are concerned (otherwise heavily Eurocentric). Most remarkable of all has been the lack of culture and cultural differences between the citizens of Idris and the diaspora. Instead Clare focuses on the ethnic and nationality-related prejudices and attitudes without, once again, translating them to fit her imaginary people that fundamentally and physically differ from the ordinary humans and ordinary human societies in which these mentalities have developed over time. For example, historically many religious interpretations have portrayed women as faulty and faulted women for everything evil which has heavily contributed to misogynistic attitudes throughout the time and which still remain today. Outside of religious influences, many social, legal, and intellectual factors as well have functioned to subordinate and restrict the autonomy of women. What are these in Nephilim society? Their world being “enfolded into ours” is just an excuse for not having to do that leg work.

Clare wants to represent these social issues without translating them credibly into her own world. She writes Cordelia lamenting on how men don’t want women to possess power but we have no idea why do the Nephilim men even think this way. Where have they learnt this? When did they figure out that, hey, these mundanes are really onto something by subjugating their women and forcing them into housekeeping and into motherhood and childcare? One of the first of them was a woman, a warrior, who forged weapons of metal only she could work on, in the fires of a volcano no less, and made them swords that answer to the names of angels—a woman who bore stronger Marks than just any other Nephilim, than the first of them. Like that isn't badass?? Yet even in the original premise that was a separate job to being a fighter just because Clare wanted to ride on the coattails of the feminism movement.

[Also mastering the runes? What is there to master when you’re not going to be able to use half of them for not being a fighter?]

I've been asked this a few times before, but each time I've been a huge disappointment, lol. I don't really have any proper sense of James before TLH. I have read The Midnight Heir too long time ago by now, but in my recollection it was just another Herondale fest. Herondales’ exceptionality narrated by some other character, the exceptional love Tessa, Will, and Jem have for each other observed by an outsider to validate it. James in that story was very different than what he ended up being in TLH, almost so Jace-like that the 7 month difference between The Midnight Heir and Chain of Gold feels almost improbable. Angsty and edgy James turning into the piece of white bread that he is in CoG is strange and explainable only by the seven years between the publications between the two works.

[Note: Women in refrigerators is a term that describes a literary trope which involves female characters facing disproportionate harm to serve as plot devices to motivate male characters.]

In a way, I think. And by that definition alone, certainly. At surface level we can argue that both male and female characters in the series go through hardships, obstacles, and tragedies. They face fear and death and loss the amount no one ever should but as book characters are almost required for the stakes to be credible and the events in the story to have actual weigh and consequence. But Clare's writing is very male-centric. Even though she presumably writes strong female characters with their own stories and arcs, somehow we always end up focusing more on the issues and problems of the male characters, especially the male protagonists. Clary is the main character who almost completely lacks her own agency and motivation to act independent and outside of Jace. When things go wrong for Clary or she gets hurt, the narrative focuses on how Jace reacts or how he feels about it and how we as readers should feel sorry for Jace because of it.

TMI almost completely ignores Clary's own feelings, thoughts, goals, and whatevers towards anything other than those relating to Jace in favor of focusing on Jace's problems and crises. TDA eventually completely ignores Emma as the main character, whose parents' death was the event that drove the entire plot to begin with. It was her pain and her revenge that begins the trilogy and carries the story onward. Once Emma's apparent problem is resolved after the first instalment, the story slowly shifts to focus more and more on the Blackthorn family, Emma becoming like a supporting character in the series of which she is The Heroine. Emma is no longer driven by anything of her own other than her romantic relationship (and the conflicts it brings) with Julian. In TID Tessa is just as much of a drag as Clary, a main character who is led along the story as the men acting as her romantic interests chase plot threads for her.

In an older post I said that on paper these heroines are greater in power than their male counterparts, but it means nothing if they don’t matter in terms of the narrative you create. Because the narrative constantly bends down to the male characters, what does it matter that Clary, Emma, and Tessa are strong and powerful on their own fronts when most of their time is spend describing the looks and the hair and eye color of their love interest? And if our heroines are written as such, what hope do the supporting characters have?

Isabelle almost had an independent emotional story arc, but that was ultimately tied to her developing romance with Simon who did nothing to earn Isabelle’s trust or care. Isabelle notoriously has no business being around and has hard time justifying her presence in the series to any greater extent than being Simon’s eventual love interest because Clare barely gives her anything worthwhile or productive to do. Cristina’s premise had her faith in Raziel and interest in the faeries, but nothing she does stems from those. She is not motivated by the “infidels” acting against the word of the Angel. She is not fired up by the injustice of the Cold Peace and doing her most to dismantle it. Her faith and so the medallion she wears is for the convenience of her having the medallion which has the convenient property of protecting her and companions close to the medallion from the time differences between the mortal world and faerie lands, additionally to her getting the access to the moon’s road. What does her faith have to do with any of her character? Cristina could’ve been “nonreligious” and just worn it for it being an heirloom (and finding faith through its properties?) and as a character she would’ve remained the same.

The Wikipedia article features a response from a comic book writer Ron Marz who explains his approach to “fridging” the character Alexandra DeWitt:

“To me the real difference is less male-female than main character-supporting character. In most cases, main characters, "title" characters who support their own books, are male. Historically, male characters have been able to support their own books sales-wise, while female characters have not. I'm not sure this is the case anymore, but I suspect the mindset still prevails to a certain extent. So male characters who support their own individual titles remain somewhat immune to the kind of severe and permanent character changes you're sighting. It has more to do with sales figures than sex bias. So if "main" characters, including Wonder Woman, are generally sacrosanct, the supporting characters are the ones who suffer the more permanent and shattering tragedies.”

and:

“Alex was a character destined to die from the moment she was first introduced in GL #48. I created her with the intention of having her be murdered at the hands of Major Force. I took a lot of care in building her as a character, because I wanted her to be liked and her death to mean something to the readers. I wanted readers to be horrified at the crime, and to empathize with Kyle's loss. Her death was meant to bring brutal realization to Kyle that being GL wasn't fun and games. It was also meant to sever his links with his old life, paving the way for his move to New York. And ultimately I wanted her death to be memorable and illustrate just how truly heinous Major Force was. Thus the fridge. From the reactions, I think I succeeded fairly well at those goals. It's five years later and people are still talking about it. More than anything as a writer, you want the audience to react emotionally to your work, to care. I wrote a villain committing a truly despicable deed. That doesn't mean I endorse or admire that behavior.”

[Relevant parts as to the topic here bolded by me]

Without commenting on the sexism prevailing in the comic book industry, I think this is similar to how Clare approached Livvy dying. She knew from City of Heavenly Fire Livvy would die. According to Clare, the story is about Livvy’s death. Livvy died to underline the injustice of innocents dying, to underline the darker period the Nephilim will experience, to underline the risk and prevalence of dying while hunting demons, to up the stakes of the story and placing fear of death unto other characters as well; to break the very core of the Blackthorn family, the very core need of it staying intact; because the impossible situation they all were placed in lies at the heart of Clave being rotten to the core. Livvy died to draw a straight line from her death to the villainy of the Clave.

Like I said in my post about character deaths, there is certainly many messages conveyed through her death that are necessary for the death to mean something. But what is any of this worth in terms of the story or in terms of lessons in life for the characters? I don’t think most of the readers expect stories where only the bad guys die and good guys always prevail, and I don’t think any of the questions came from that expectation at all. I believe most readers despite their age understand the injustice of life and loss of innocence is usually at the core of stories like these. More so why specifically her from the point of story mechanics. I don’t really have much gripes with what Clare wrote in her answer here, but at the same time it is not necessarily the story she executed to the degree she in her answer presents. Livvy’s death, while having multitude of purposes, is still lacking in value, though I can make one concession: Livvy dying does finally break Julian and his delusion of being able to always keep his family intact. That does change his trajectory and forces him to let go of his obsession. But again, to what end does that happen but to fuel his own issues and those with Emma.

What speaks for Livvy being fridged is the absurdity Clare in her answer presents: to underline the villainy of the government she has constantly presented as the villain, even to the extent of absolving the main characters from their personal responsibility. She also does that here too. None of the characters would do this or be in the situation without the Clave, quite nonsensically, being the way it is. What are you saying here that is new? What are you saying that changes effectively anything rather than remaining just another day of status quo? The Clave responds to the needs of the story, it acts the way Clare needs it for it to even be the villain. And don’t get me started on that “they’ve been in an untenable situation that has been held together as long as it has because of Emma’s bravery and Julian’s wits, determination, and skill at manipulating, and everyone — Diana, Cristina, Mark, Ty, Livvy — has helped this situation to continue” part because brother, sister, all of it lies on convenience of storytelling and at the expense of everyone else’s credibility as characters.

Livvy’s death is a motivating incident for both Ty and Julian. Her death is a catalyst for decisions that would not otherwise be made. I’ve read comments saying how Livvy was such an integral part of the Blackthorn family, and all I need to know is how. Readers experiencing heartbreak over Livvy’s death seem to also comment more on how difficult it is to see Julian and Ty experience it and live on without her. What Julian did while he held her dead body. It’s still about other character’s pain and plot-wise it’s all that’s needed. Male characters experience pain and tragedies for readers to feel sorry for them. Female characters experience pain and tragedies for the male characters’ end. Livvy barely did anything worthwhile, was sort of there, dragged along because her main purpose is to die.

What speaks for that, aside from having not much important to do with the plot by herself (meaning nothing integral happened because it was Livvy of all people who did it), is also the underdeveloped dynamics between her and her family outside of Ty and Julian. They are the most central characters of the family, so their experiences as a twin and an older brother/parental figure are given plenty of space when Livvy dies. Who was Livvy with the rest of her family? In the end Clare failed to give Livvy an actual intrinsic and meaningful presence in the story. Her death was a tool used to achieve other ends which concern only Julian’s and Ty’s characters. She dies for their emotional pain and for her death to be a motivating incident. Even then Julian’s pain centralized mostly on Emma, Livvy’s death being a catalyst to bring more focus on the depth of their feelings for each other and how impossible equation their love is for them being parabatai. Even the Thule version of Livvy is for Julian’s pain.

Or maybe it’s just me that can’t connect to what Clare intended to write. Can’t connect to the idea that isn’t palpable on the page but logically deduced in retrospect and still lacks emotional weigh. I do think and it’s pretty clear that Livvy was fridged to further Julian’s story arc. Livvy only a little escapes the irreversibility and irreparability of death by fridging because she was resurrected as a ghost. So just a little.

I could have continued the topic at many points, to make the case better, because so many things in the story mechanics are dependent on each other. From point to A, to B, to C. What does each step mean and intend? What is the purpose for A to happen to get to the next point and then the next? What is the true value here and the message conveyed? Each part creates an overall picture that either works or doesn't. Is Livvy's death sad and heartbreaking for some? Certainly. Is there still much missing in its execution (due to a very one-dimensional and undistinguished character)? Absolutely. In the end, and what I'm really left with is that Livvy's death served other (male) characters more, gave more weight to other (male) characters' experiences, pain, and stories, so that the messages that Clare was trying to convey with her death didn't have so much weight. Especially when the points she tried to make weren’t nothing the readers already didn’t know either. Which leaves me with Livvy's death being more for a shock value and pain for male characters than an outright benefit to the story itself being told.

Agreed, no shame in it at all. It is commendable to recognize what you can and cannot do, and if the ability or competence is not sufficient to properly implement Ty's point of view, it is better to leave his PoV out (or reduce the amount of them as that seems to be the case). In this answer Clare wrote to the fan posting it here on Tumblr that the change was brought upon by the advice Clare got from her sensitivity readers, and taking their guidance is usually for the best.

I don't actively follow Clare or happenings surrounding her work on social media, so I'm not very aware of what she has promised in the past. As much as I research things and check for updates, I tend to disregard whatever is supposedly in store for the future series because most of the time I have found those teasers unfulfilled, lacking, or misleading after reading the books. Naturally, many things can change and do change during the writing process, initial plans going through transformations when new ideas come along, before the book is even published. So I rather not saturate myself with expectations that are more often let down than adequately met.

In that previously mentioned answer Clare also says that she has never considered point of views to indicate character importance or be a marker of who can be related to best—a mindset that reveals why this has been a problem in the past where a character who should’ve been utilized as the PoV one was not and the perspective of some other character was used instead. But I agree with the idea that some specific character having a PoV is not an easy road that always leads to the readers better connecting with them. In Clare’s own words, “POV can draw people in, but it can also shut them out”, to which as a reader of her work I can attest to.

I have previously talked about how I’ve been able to enjoy Jace’s and Clary’s characters more when I don’t have to be inside their heads and experience their inner lives anymore. Side characters have been Clare’s strength because they are usually not given a point of view, and so most of their characterization exists in the subtext from which readers can draw more interpretations instead of being handheld to every emotional aspect and action and thought of theirs, which is always the case with the PoV characters (of course depending on the author, their style, and capabilities).

the characters in question get tossed aside after their death, i've noticed. nobody ever remembers them and their name, it seems, is spoken out loud only for someone else in particular to have a reaction to it. there's almost no mention of who they were before, what was their character, who or what they loved. there is no... grief present? no moment of: i've loved christopher; he was funny, he was kind, he was a bit odd; livia? oh i miss her, she loved to... what livia blackthorn loved to do? i don't know. she became a symbol before i could meet her

Hey there. 😊

When looking at different story elements and their functionality and impact—whether discussing the treatment of more morally gray characters or character deaths or both—I think about their true purpose as well. What impact do they have on the story and characters? How do they appear in the story and change the course of the plot? What actually changes significantly because this specific thing has happened? What is the actual underlying goal that is intended to be achieved? What is it used for? What is it intended for? For whose benefit and for what objective was something written that way? Usually the writing tells on itself eventually, despite that the narrative might try to suggest something else.

To maintain a significant impact to the story, its characters, and the readers themselves, a character death should not be treated lightly. Characters ideally shouldn’t die out of the blue, nor should a death of a character be included just for the sake of shocking readers or making them feel bad. When the fate of a character is not seen as something inevitable, it loses its potency and the impact their death is supposed to have in the first place. A well-written and effective character death must have an actual impact to the story—to be crucial point in the plot—for it be meaningful. A death that cannot be removed from the plot without breaking it. But I do have a caveat to this: A character death might seem inevitable in the way the plot is constructed, but the intention behind it and so the purpose it serves may be weak, bad, or worthless in that things could have happened plausibly in some other way too, without sacrificing a character just for dramatic purposes. All these factors together determine the whole and its value to the story and the reader.

Many deaths in Clare’s series fail to have any long-term impact on the surviving characters, which makes the deaths feel like cheap tricks used mostly for shock value. Though some of the deaths do serve plot purposes, either the characters that die are very lacking, not rounded, or they have otherwise failed to be engaged with the story more significantly. The surviving characters might reminisce and think about those who have passed, but their present has not palpably changed because of their loved ones or friends have died. Subsequently most of those losses have little bearing on the remainder of the stories as well. You could argue that it is merely the manifestation of the Nephilim culture and way of life, a type of conditioning that life goes on no matter what, but it does strip away the humanity in experiencing someone’s death and the impact the narrative intends to deliver or—more likely in the case of this series—tries to benefit from. In many cases deaths are used, like you said, to garner sympathy for a character experiencing emotional pain for having lost someone. Additionally to the fact that the grief barely lingers if at all once its true purpose has been achieved.

A character death should do something important, like move the plot forward, instigate character actions, instigate changes in characters, and convey a message—in some way benefit the story and add value to it. A cheap plot device versus a crucial element that without it the story and its characters would not be the same (and I have to note that the value to the story needs to be more intrinsic, an end-in-itself, not only means to another relatively more idiotic end, though I think many character deaths are more or less a mix of both). Clare ignoring the other characters’ emotions when processing death is just another addition to the list of why many deaths, on and off page, feel cheap and like they are riding on the coattails of some other bigger concept, tragedy-in-itself, or feeling Clare has failed to translate into her own work or portray adequately.

Clare being extremely prone to her own biases and favoritism towards specific characters (her proclivity of creating and writing hierarchies especially among female characters) really underline the lack of equal treatment of her characters. She heavily lacks consideration in matters that affect other characters than her own favorites: Her favorites would not realistically be treated the way she wants if the other characters were given agency and space to experience any true and accurate scale of thoughts and emotions. Clare shuts those down because in her mind it’s not realistic. Several characters serve such weird and convoluted roles—aside from not being well-rounded in the first place for existing for the sake of male lead’s man pain, for instance—that the overall storytelling really becomes disingenuous. Especially when those characters are then killed off. The approach to the topic of warfare and battle is incredibly simple and juvenile. The true and heavy losses are not focused on (especially on account of those characters that are most affected by them, sans Julian and Ty to a degree) and are brushed aside if they do not serve the anguish of any main character. Death in battle is trivial and expressly so if it is the nameless/minor characters or the bad guys dying.

I generally regard the treatment of supporting characters, like Grace and Jessamine, just painful. I enjoy characters like these two (and Charles, the absolute legend) because Clare doesn’t try to disguise their actions as milder as she does with her protagonists and other favorite characters. On the contrary, I find myself disliking the characters that Clare herself feels sorry for and clearly wants me to feel sorry for while they—Jace, Clary, Tessa, Will, James, Matthew etc.—are given significantly more (unearned) understanding than their more authentically grayer counterparts. Clare doesn’t care enough about characters like Jessamine and Grace to coddle them or give them the same unending leniency she constantly bestows upon her favorites. They also serve more antagonistic roles and act as some sort of yardsticks to which the main (female) character can be compared.

What makes Jessamine and Grace differ from other characters is the very point that is the antithesis of every Clare protagonist: Their actions and mistakes have a true narrative cost. Both Jessamine’s and Grace’s characters stem from a specific premise, certain kind of history we eventually learn about and through which we come to understand their misguidances and desperate efforts to escape what someone or something else has predetermined for them. And they both experience character growth through those mistakes and misguidances as their actions have reactions and consequences. Comparably the main characters acting like inconsiderate assholes or otherwise selfish and rude is merely a façade and their true nature remains unhidden because of Some Kind of Pain or Emotional Anguish or Inner Conflict they are experiencing. The main characters are already who they are supposed to be and thus experience no true character development or change (aside from lowering the mask and being openly their true selves) while the more antagonistic characters have to go through that change because they truly aren’t there yet.

There is a baseline that is accurate to Clare’s own mindset. The closer a character is to that baseline or a standard (despite that I or anyone else finds it disagreeable or questionable) the less they experience any true character development. The “baseline” is where the characters should end up through development and personal growth, but the favorites already start there, remain there, and end their stories there, which is why they don’t truly change as people even after going through many ordeals and conflicts. Alec develops as a character that is more amiable to Clary (and rather poorly as he has no room on the page or any actual proper interactions or scenes with Clary that would actualize it by showing the development), because Clary is the standard around which everything eventually conforms. In City of Glass Isabelle thinks Clary is the destructive force that selfishly ruins everything, but in City of Lost Souls Isabelle thinks Clary is merely headstrong and does what she thinks is right despite that Clary has not changed her behavior at all. Isabelle has just changed her mind and thus changed as a character because she needs to conform around Clary for Clary to appear right without Clary herself going through actual character development.

Similarly Jace does not have to recognize what a non-friend, non-brother, and non-parabatai he has been to Alec because Jace especially is the standard. His flaws are cosmetic, addressed solely to make room for why he still remains inconsiderate and self-centered. Having his flaws addressed merely gives him a pass to remain the same. Simon, who is clearly the author's favorite character compared to Alec, is allowed to deviate from the standard from time to time, to have conflicting situations with favorites like Jace and Clary, because in the end he always conforms around Clary's needs and her story. He will always serve her before Isabelle, which funnily enough Simon does think about but never needs to act upon as the writing goes out of its way to never make Simon truly choose. And if it does, it’s such a non-sequitur that doesn’t matter or have meaningful weight as to his relationship with Clary if he ends up prioritizing Isabelle. They as characters will never be driven into a conflict where having to choose one (Simon having to choose Clary or Isabelle or Jace having to choose Clary or Alec, for instance) will be a detriment to one of those relationships.

James is a standard from which Alastair heavily deviates in the beginning, but as Alastair develops as a character and approaches the standard, the more accepted and amiable he becomes by the writing. Charles does not, which is why he is constantly ridiculed by the writing and used as a scapegoat and a tool (to remove characters from the story because their presence would interrupt the hijinks of the main characters) for things going awry. Julian may be “dark” and “twisted” but he still presents the standard set by Clare. Even when they do what is just objectively wrong or stupid, Clare refuses to hold them accountable by characters that are on the same side. Clare does not entertain possible or even realistic conflicts between characters that would be a detriment to them. She does not acknowledge, recognize, or value those thoughts that criticize or question characters she herself has always prioritized over a truthful and inclusive narrative.

What I'm trying to say in a very long explanation is that the characters who initially stand in opposition to Clare's favorites are forced to change themselves (“develop” as characters) into those who suddenly side with these favorites without the favorites having to confront the conflict by changing and adapting themselves. Clary doesn’t approach Isabelle or Alec, does not try to befriend them or make nice with them. Both Isabelle and Alec just transform into versions of themselves who accept Clary as she is without Clary, by her own initiative, ever resolving any of the conflicts or problems between them, because Clare would have to acknowledge that Clary is selfish and thoughtless and, in most cases, also the one in the wrong. But because Alec and Isabelle are further from Clare's standard, the norm, only their behavior (that is completely falsified as to Isabelle) and mindsets are criticized more harshly and made to change.

Though it’s interesting to note that while Jace is lenient towards Isabelle all the time, no matter what she says or does (supposedly against Clary for being another girl), he is often very harsh, catty, and vicious towards Alec. I could write another equally long piece about the treatment of Alec’s character alone, lol. But let's move on to the characters you mentioned (and a few others).

Just a quick update I need to make because it's killing meee even though I've been given nothing but patience and understanding from you guys before. I've been writing answers to your messages, but one is taking me longer than I expected, and I generally try to answer them in order from oldest to newest. For couple weeks now I've been working difficult and busy hours and have had other engagements that do not leave me enough time to sit down, focus, and write. I'm doing my utmost whenever there's a good spot. I'll get back to you as soon as possible.

You guys are really testing my humility with such kind messages. Thank you, I appreciate your words, truly. 😇🩷

Unfortunately I am giving my all to The Shadowhunter Chronicles with this one blog. I have (for better or for worse) very few interests that I can get really into, this blog being truly years in the making, and it's difficult to find time for all them in the same depth and capacity. Going through TSC turned out to be a fun but hulking task!

Hey, you. 😊 My humblest thanks once again. ❤️

It feels like only in this book have I reached the point of implementation that I have always strived for. Maybe the previous method of utilizing images of the text limited my ability to mess with the writing to this extent—it was definitely more work than quoting—but now nothing holds me back anymore! Which, as I mentioned in the previous dissection, makes me regret how lackluster I was with City of Lost Souls. But life was life-ing back then, and I can always go back if I feel the need to rehash things. Onwards and upwards.

Besides, I doubt much can up the idiocy and incompetence demonstrated in the chapters 6 and 7 of CoHF, lol.

The first contact with the entire concept of Conclave only comes in City of Ashes. City of Bones, the original edition nor the reissue, doesn’t even contain the word. We sort of get the idea that Maryse and Robert are at the helm of the Institute (as they were sent there to run it after the exile) but Conclave is not a thing yet in the first book. Even at such an early stage, we can conclude two very clear things: the Institute heads generally seem to be also the leaders of the Conclaves/Enclaves (and apparently if there are many in the area, the leader is the head of the largest Institute) and the New York one was entirely incompetent even back then.

In CoB, Jace basically says that no one else outside of his family has a permanent residency at the New York Institute. So every Conclave member on Manhattan rather pays rent or takes out a mortgage than live there, but I digress. The first character to utter the word “Conclave” was Magnus when he asks Alec why the Conclave was not at the Institute when the Silent Brothers called for help when Valentine went into Silent City to steal Maellartach. The Conclave, the entire Conclave, was investigating a murder of a faerie. → The New York Institute keeps being unmanned in crucial points because why anyone needs to keep watch or be reachable if someone sends an emergency call? (Aside from couple kids running around. Also why don’t the Silent Brothers use fire-messages?? Do they like fax their messages to some dusty corner in the Institute?)

AS AN IMPORTANT SIDENOTE: I have to make a correction to my previous complaining about Jace being in charge of Clary’s training and training her in City of Fallen Angels as if there’s no one else competent around to do that just because they haven’t gotten a new tutor. Like, he was, but rarely. The Conclave members did take care of that mostly. But to double down as I am committed to dissing Jace’s importance, I would prefer he wasn’t at all. Especially for the sake of training-lessons-turned-into-make-out-sessions. There’s like at least thirty people in the Conclave. Jace is not needed. Be gone. Go kiss on your own time.

The Conclaves/Enclaves don’t really seem to play a big part in any of the series. They are just sort of there as a component for the heads of the Institutes (or Inquisitors) to utilize, but all of them seem as disorganized as the Clave is as a whole. It is unclear which co-head takes lead in missions given that an Institute is run by two people as co-leaders. With Robert and Maryse, it seemed to be Maryse (which fits their characterizations!). But, what if Aline says one thing and Helen other? What if there is discord? Awkward and counterproductive. How do the co-heads divide the duties? What exactly are they aside from administrative and diplomatic tasks? What do these people do all day? I also realize now that I’m supposed to be talking about the Conclave, not the leadership of the Institutes.

In City of Lost Souls, Clary mentions a local Conclave meeting. Good to know they have those. What do they talk about there? Mission briefs and reports? State of local affairs? Who knows? In TID and TLH the Enclave meetings do take a more concrete shape as they actually meet up in scenes, but these meetings are had on a very random schedule based entirely on the needs of the plot. But mostly they seem to get nothing done. These stories are not build for the successes of the Conclaves or Enclaves.

Their numbers are confusing as well. When what I can only imagine being a part of the Conclave catches the kids red-handed at the entryway of the Silent City in CoA, it is said there is two or three dozen of them there. Then later it is said that Imogen has mobilized like half of the Conclave, but we have no idea how many we are actually talking about. I doubt fifteen. In CoHF, it is said that the whole of the Conclave, meaning “nearly every Shadowhunter in New York City” had evacuated New York, because that is also a solid plan. Yet we still have no idea how many that is. Well, at least thirty.

As to the concept as a whole, I don't really know. They have no proper internal structure. No specific duties or responsibilities divided between the Conclave members. They all seem rather freewheeling agents unless an Institute leader rallies them. Kadir Safar is someone who could be considered almost like a second-in-command to Maryse since Robert was no longer there, but that is nothing official anyway. Whether it is the Clave or any of the Conclaves and Enclaves, they always quarrel the same and leave their posts unmanned as they are not that bright with being organized or very military-minded for such militant people. The simplest answer to how Clare presents them and specifically the New York Conclave: Not well. I don’t know what they do half the time and what their purpose is aside from mindlessly running around the city to police people and kill demons.

Their education system is in shambles! The concept of ‘travel year’ is, I believe, introduced in Lady Midnight, where the characters discuss their plans for it, and I once again get a feeling like I’m supposed to know that such a thing as “travel year” even exists. They all basically only consider one destination for the entire year, but once Emma and Julian get to spend their travel year together without a fuss they plan a whole trip basically From Paris to Berlin.

I get the travel year with the idea that it’s extremely beneficial for personal development to immerse yourself to different cultures, languages, and environments. Working in a different place has a great potential to develop adaptability and independence, not to mention expanding your (professional) networks and self-reliance. In general, international expertise is invaluable for such a globalized people as the Nephilim. But.

As a concept, it seems to serve the same purpose as a gap year. A structured break from their training to… train elsewhere? From Thomas’ travel year I got the sense that he used it to familiarize himself with different styles of weapons and gain expertize in fighting during his time in Spain. He was sent there by Gideon as he saw it beneficial for Thomas, but looking at the cast of TDA, it seems you can do whatever you want with it? Though different times, I guess.

Who finances the travel years? Families themselves probably. Is there a quota per Institute of how many Shadowhunters spending a travel year there they can house in addition to the entire Conclave/Enclave? (Is there a max capacity in any given Institute? The New York Institute can house 200 people. Then again, all the Institutes are open to all Nephilim…) Like you said, I’m sure there’s more willing to spend their year in big cities than some Institute in a town with a population of two. It seems like they just decide where they want to go and there isn’t any actual process to apply.

Yet, it still sucks. There's not enough commitment to the bit, maybe. I mean, Jessie and Sophie and the Lightwoods think a bit poorly of him at the beginning, which is more consequence than Jace ever faced. I think it's just that I don't buy that Will is tortured by his curse and hates how he has to treat people. He's awful to Tatiana and Gabriel, and I don't think he ever really regrets it. A lot of the time he seems to enjoy it. His greatest concern is not being able to hook up with Tessa.

There was so much potential to explore how the act he has to put on conflicts with the person he actually wants to be, or even how he basically built his personality around being someone others would hate. Would he even be able to stop, just because he finds out the curse isn't real?

It also kind of reflects badly on Jem that he has no real problem with Will's behaviour. He might know there's some shit going on with him, but he's als supposed to be a good and kind person. No moral conflict there at all? The only time he ever really gets mad is when Will spits directly in his face. Charlotte and Henry don't try to correct him, and also don't get any blowback on his behavior as his guardians. His sister doesn't have a problem with it. The only person who maintains a grudge is Tatiana, and we all know how she was treated by the narrative.

The curse reveal does not earn the heaviness the story treats it with. It only how he treats other people, and that has never mattered for a main character in this series.

The lack of true commitment is at the heart of it. The curse exists just enough to keep Will and Tessa apart long enough, create conflict, and garner Will sympathy for circumstances mostly of his own making, but not enough that it would cause something irreversible and detrimental to Will's character. At the end of the day, everyone is still on his side and rally around him. He is never abandoned. He causes most of the internal harm he goes through himself. Will's curse had no significant (if any) meaning or impact on relationships other than the one between him and Tessa.

In one post I said that If Will’s curse was actually real, it would have warranted his distance in a way that wouldn’t have ended up being embarrassing and in vain—a manufactured, artificial angst factor to garner him sympathy and hampering his romance with Tessa. I’ve always felt that Will for Jem contradicted what Will believed his curse was about. He abandoned his family, kept everyone at the Institute at arm’s length but it was alright to care a lot about Jem, love him, and become parabatai with him while simultaneously acting like a giant asshole to everyone because of The Curse just because Jem was going to die anyway at some point? In what degrees or lengths did Will think his curse then worked if the expected death of Jem was a fine enough reason to get close to him and—whether the narrative wants it or not—directly contradict the very core of the curse? And when Jem would finally die, does Will feel guilt or that his curse had a part in it? Or how come the curse did not suddenly matter because Jem was deathly ill anyway?

The curse also didn’t challenge Will as a character or offer him opportunity for growth. As I have said about Jace, Will’s actions in the light of his curse have no true narrative cost—the cost is only temporary and rests solely on Tessa’s perception of him. It is not something Will needs to overcome or compensate for later on. No damage to undo that is not guaranteed. And as with Jace, Will’s arrogance and trauma do not cause narrative tension as they are in service of coddling him and urging readers and other characters to feel sorry for him, even if the anguish he experiences is self-inflicted. Like Clary, Tessa is built to sympathize Will and her narrative is engulfed by him. Even in The Perfect Storm, Will’s completely self-inflicted harm causes pain for them both and yet we are supposed to feel sorry for him for doing what he did, as if Will’s pain and sadness are enough alone to justify his actions in both cases.

When the curse if finally revealed to have been a lie all along, there is only joy for Will as he realizes that he can confess his feelings to Tessa. And then the other kind of emotional pain begins, but the point is that once the curse is gone, it has no lingering effect on the narrative either. It further services the relationship drama but does not have an effect any further than that.

Here are couple other posts that touch on some of this stuff as well:

Side characters in TID

Tatiana as a villain

Considering what a huge deal the parabatai have become in the series, it’s weird to go back to the first three books of TMI where it held no meaning at all. It almost seemed rare and unimportant because of the way Jace and Alec’s relationship was written. And sure, relative to the entire population of Shadowhunters on Earth having parabatai probably is rare. But like in Bleach, having a bankai is told to be extremely rare but mostly every major character then having it does not present the case in the right perspective, let alone in a credible manner.

It’s a fair assessment that the parabatai as a concept we today know it truly began with Will and Jem. It’s still incomprehensible to me why Clare ignored parabatai for the entirety of the first trilogy, utilizing it only as a measuring stick for Clary’s importance and significance to Jace at the expense of Alec and this supposedly remarkable spiritual bond between them. And now the series can’t get enough of it! I don’t know what else changed other than Clare coming up with characters she actually liked and figuring that she could use the bond as an extra spice in an otherwise done-to-death love triangle. And then repeat its significance in other romance plots as well (Julian/Emma and whateverthefuck James/Cordelia/Matthew was).

Here are some brief and aimless thoughts on the list of Known Parabatai:

Jonathan Shadowhunter and David the Silent — The OGs, not much on them, the bond was split by David’s Silent Brotherhood. You’ve got to start somewhere I guess.

Amicia of Poitiers and Gundred of Meissen — Revealed in Shadowhunter Army June 2020 Newsletter, but this means nothing as we have not heard of them or even seen a statue erected to them in Idris. They are essentially nobodies.

Silas Pangborn and Eloisa Ravenscar — The first male/female parabatai pair mentioned in the timeline. They exists as a warning against other parabatai from falling in love with each other. Their bond was split by Silas killing himself, an act which is entirely related to their forbidden love for each other.

Jem Carstairs and Will Herondale — Their bond was split by Jem's Silent Brotherhood, but the wiki list separately mentions “and Will's death” as the reason. No, no. Just by Jem’s Silent Brotherhood. Their bond was split by that and that’s it, doesn’t matter when Will died thereafter. — The most codependent pair of the list

James Herondale and Matthew Fairchild — Why? I don’t know. Just so that every Herondale worth their name has one?

Lucas Dupont and Sylvain Verlac — Totally got spoiled by reading about this one. Pity, but also what bearing does this have? Probably have to read rest of the Better in Black…

Cordelia Carstairs and Lucie Herondale — Same as with James and Matthew. They don’t even fight together most of the time as their storylines basically isolate them with their respective romantic partners and not that meaningfully with each other that I’d be somehow sold they’d become parabatai eventually?  

Michael Wayland and Robert Lightwood — Has a minor complicated but somewhat ambiguous romantic element? Only same sex pair that has an authentic romantic aspect to them, not a “belief” one that is told Alec has with Jace. Also split by Robert's exile and Michael's death, but it’s sort of dumb that their bond was so weak that Robert didn’t notice Michael dying?? So here Michael’s death being told to be a cause for the split is not the same as Will’s death mentioned above. — Personally the most interesting one of these all

Valentine Morgenstern and Lucian Graymark — Their bond was split by Luke becoming a werewolf. Honestly just another flair for a type of love triangle. They barely have a relationship. They just have history of being affiliated with one another, but no story dealing with their friendship has convinced me of them ever even liking each other or being close enough to become parabatai. It’s like they are former business associates that now dislike each other greatly.

Jace Herondale and Alec Lightwood — Where to even begin with these two. So much has already been said on this blog, and so much has been left unsaid on the pages of the books.

Edward Longford and his unnamed parabatai — I feel like these random people are here just so that we can observe that not only the major characters/main protagonists have parabatai. See! This Edward guy had one! Though they weren’t even given a name (or whether they were male or female for that matter). Just like Jason’s sister. — Their bond was split by the unnamed parabatai becoming one of the Endarkened. Edward killed his parabatai and then himself. Jem pays respects to them later as he doesn’t believe he’d be able to do what Edward did, and I feel once more that Edward and his random companion exist for other purposes, like being used to reflect Jem’s bond with Will. While Edward here is hailed as brave and the end of the pair as devastating, it also seems to be used to prop up Will and Jem. And it’s fine! It brings out different sides to the parabatai bonds and differences to the characters and their capabilities, but these were such momentary and insignificant characters on a larger scale that's a bit silly.

Julian Blackthorn and Emma Carstairs — Their bond was obviously the major component in TDA and also eventually split by heavenly fire when they turned into true Nephilim — Another male/female pair where their love for one another is a major component. Which makes it worthy to note that only the other male/female pairs have had true major romantic components in their relationships. Clare doesn’t even glance at Michael and Robert’s direction with what she’s doing here and with Silas/Eloisa and what Clary and Simon had between them previous to them becoming parabatai.

Julie Beauvale and Beatriz Mendoza — Their bond was split by Julie's death. I don’t remember a Julie, because I have barely read most of the Tales, and I have incredibly poor and also selective memory about TDA. Nothing to see here.

 Clary Fairchild and Simon Lovelace — Ugh. 3/3 male/female parabatai of the known pairs, all that have had romantic relationships between them. Clare has not managed a one man and woman having a parabatai bond without any romance!