Thirst No. 1 discussion

Sina was risqué, edgy, and cryptic, she was a total badass, and in the second book you got a very new side of her... but then she dies at the very end. i mean sure they could've continued with her niece and friends taking over and defeating the bad guys i could respect that, but bringing her back? Come on pike! why? she was ready, she claimed it, and let death claim her, why drag it out? i was disappointed, i was also disappointed when he made it seem like she didn't cure him of aids and they'd never met... all in all i fell in love with the series, but the last book? i couldn't even finish it. that NEVER happens i at least TRY but it was too disappointing... was i the only one? i mean don't get me wrong, i love Christopher Pike, i love his books, but i was just let down that he tried to drag it out.. i think it was because of how famous the other ones were and he wanted the last one to be a BIG SURPRISE... but it just seemed too post plotted... i don't know, maybe it's just me..

I think they should have stopped before two. They should have stopped before one. Haha. Okay, I'm being cruel. I wasn't a fan of the first one at all, in fact, it's in my list of abandoned books. I absolutely hated it. But that's just my opinion. I thought Sina was cold, heartless, boring, self-centered, and completely delusional. More so, I did not find her to be a badass what-so-ever. I think my definition of a badass is doing crazy shit for the morally right reasons. Once that line get's crossed, I think instead of badass it's more like- selfish and sadistic. I literally hated her so I could not finish the books. Whether she changes or not, I don't think I could ever finish it or pick it up again. And I BOUGHT it so I'm so mad for not finishing it. Again, just my opinion. :)

that has happened to me before, but i always considered vampires to BE selfish and sadistic so i didnt mind that she was.. and i bout the third book and got the fourth for my birthday, so i wasnt too happy about that either

True, I guess since I read other vamp books I thought they had some morals, but you're right. Some people portray vamps differently. I guess I just didn't like the way the author did it. And I think he's a guy, and I don't like women POV written by men. But that stinks!!

True that on the guys writing girls POV that was a bit of a turn off too, but i do value him as a writer some of his other books are very well done. and yeah dually noted it did suck XD

I think the first 6 original "The Last Vampire" saga was EPIC! I'm still trying to slowly wade through the new ones...
And is it just me, or do they read slightly differently than the originals? But I love having Sita back kicking ass & taking names, so I can't say I'm upset

Lexee I think you might have missed a key point in the books. She never cured him of AIDS because they never met. Sita was projecting her thoughts to him, inspiring him, she was his muse. Seymour was a writer & wrote the first 6 books of Sita's story via her inspiration. In the original series that first came out back when I was in high-school there were only 6 books & it did stop there. Only recently has Pike continued the series. So the first two "Thirst" books are really all six of the original 1990s "the Last Vampire" saga which were & still are amazing.
Like I said I'm in the midst of trying to read the third "Thirst" installment but I am finding it a tad weird

Nikki, i'm not sure what book you read but you're WAY off in left field somewhere, lol. EVERYTHING Sita did was for morally right reasons. And I'm sorry but what vampire books have you read where you thought they should be fluffy bunnies? Twilight??
Sita is one of the most well written vampires in the history of vampire books & falls in line with Lestat & Dracula.
You really need to give this series another shot because it's very deep, emotional & complex. I'd like to step up & apologize for whoever wrote the synopsis on the back of the first "Thirst" book because it is very misleading & makes it sound like some kind of crappy twilight love story when in fact it's nothing like it & was written years before this new fluffy-cuddly vampire craze began.

Jessica, I was un-aware of the previous novels and i really appreciate you telling me about them, that makes so much sense! and i completely agree with the synopsis on the back, my uncle gave me the first book and told me not to even read the back and to just get into the real stuff so i did. i am sure if i read the original stories then i would like the transitions better.
the thing about the twilight stories, i read the first book to the twilight series and it was a good book but i just didnt even count the Cullens as vampires, it was too soft and shiny. but these are just my opinions, :)

NO!

Jessica wrote: "Nikki, i'm not sure what book you read but you're WAY off in left field somewhere, lol. EVERYTHING Sita did was for morally right reasons. And I'm sorry but what vampire books have you read where y..."

Besides the fact that I do not think vampires should be considered 'fluffy bunnies', I also do not think this book was anywhere near deep, emotional, or complex. I understand that vampires aren't portrayed well in Twilight and I don't expect them to run around handing people lollipops instead of killing them or drinking their blood, but this book was just whack and stupid and I loathed Sita more than I have any character I've ever read. I get the whole, 'I'm an evil vampire' deal, but she totally contradicts herself throughout the whole book! She feels bad for some of the things she does, but she just continues to do them. Besides the vampire history (yawn) and the horrid excuse of a main character, I didn't like the plot itself. I thought it was so incredibly boring. And I thought since it was written by a man, Sita was portrayed as a cold hearted-bitch and not because she's a vampire but because that's how some men view hot women.

& sorry, but I cannot try to finish it. I think my eyes will bleed. Haha. I'm not trying to bag on anyone who likes it, hell I have weird things I like too that some people don't. I'm just saying my honest opinion. Not my cup of tea.

Jessica wrote: "Nikki, i'm not sure what book you read but you're WAY off in left field somewhere, lol. EVERYTHING Sita did was for morally right reasons. And I'm sorry but what vampire books have you read where y..."

Thanks for that apology :p. The first books were amazing, I'll always love them. To be honest, I don't really like Terri so although I'm glad to have Sita back, it's not the same experience it was back in the good old 90's when vampires were still a bit of an alternative thing to read about.

Hannah wrote: "NO!"

what is the 'NO' to exactly, I'm curious

I enjoyed the whole series so my opinion is no

I preferred the first two as a stand alone story, but the others are just as good!

I enjoyed it too

I'm not sure. I just finished thirst 2 and I want to read the third one but I have a long list of books to get to before I do. And I have read better vampire books.