Patricia Briggs Fans discussion

I love the series and I am currently re-reading the Alpha and Omega books. And during the re-read I noticed something strange:

Submissve werewolves are treated very inconsistently. I would even go as far as to say that there is a latent contempt towards them by nearly all shown persons.

Why do I think that?


1)
First time I noticed something off, was here in this group in the "Alpha/Omage, Submissive/Dominant concepts". Many people answered, but most answered they're alpha or omega (despite family and friends disagreeing in some cases). And those who did answer submissive added words like "sadly". Thankfully, there were some voices who quickly pointed out that "submissive" is nothing bad.

2)
The second time I noticed something strange, was when I read frequent mentions in this and other forums that Leo was so bad, because he made Anna think she was submissive. Not the rapes. Not the beatings. But that he made her "submissive". And while some obviously meant the abuse, some definitely put the empasis on the "submissive" thing.

What in the book made the readers think that it's something not really good to be a submissive?

I turned to "On the Prowl":

"Submissive," she said. "The lowest of the low." And because his eyes were still closed she added, "Useless."
-> Yeah, that's what she was thought. What all wolves in her pack believed.
We all already know that she isn't useless. But the thing is: Her usefulness should have nothing to do with her nature. And that little thing never gets adressed in "On the Prowl".

Case in point near the end:
"Dead," he [Boyd] grunted. "Served her right for forgetting you aren't just another submissive werewolf who has to listen to her."
-> Right. This is a bit out of context, because Anna's ability to ignore orders was important - but this was the last time submissves were mentioned in this story.

An oversight maybe. In "Cry Wolf" submissives are mentioned 24 times.

First mention is during Anna's moving: "She supposed it was more than what could be expected of a submissive wolf. But that didn't stop her from holding it against him either."
-> Just as a reminder: No one in the pack helped her. Even the Alphas who were supposed to feel a desire to protect her. Thomas probably literally wasn't able to help her and Anna is still angry (and probably still indoctrinated by submissive = useless).
Okay, I led it slide.

But a short while later:
"Omega and valued, not submissive and worthless"
-> Anna's thoughts. Yep, still indoctrinated.

Again pages later, Asil finally offers us an explanation of the terms. And that explanation is very interesting:
"A submissive werewolve is not incapable of protecting himself: He can fight, he can kill as readily as any other. But a submissive doesn't feel the need to fight - not the way dominant does. They are a treasure in a pack. A source of purpose and of balance."
-> Sounds positive right?

But Asil destroys it a few sentences later, when Charles points out he doesn't feel tranquil all the time around Anna:
"Why would you want to be around someones who emasculated you that way all the time? Turn you from a dominant to a submissive by her very presence?"
-> So... a submissive isn't a "man"? Because he doesn't feel the need to fight (=kill) all the time?

Needless to mention, that the conversation leads on to point out that Omegas are (of course) Alphas with "all the protective instincts [...] but none of the violent tendencies".

Near the end of the book Charles learns what it feels like to HAVE to obey and mentions his "respect for the submissives in his father's pack had gone up another couple of notches."
-> Right. Not that I had gotten the feeling so far that he had respected them much.

Hunting Ground:

Anna calls herself "über-submissive" and mentions in the next sentence: "Omega, not submissive at all".

"The dominant werewolves could... relax around her because they knew she would never challenge them - not because she couldn't challenge them, but because she wouldn't."
-> Again it's pointed out that submissive is weak. Means no challenge. And that they are *also* less worthy in terms of "relaxation" than an Omega.

Charles adds then:
It's "the privilege of the dominants to protect the submissive ones, the heart of the packs. [...] An Omega calls to us strongest of all."
-> So in conclusion, Omega is better than submissive.

Thankfully we then meet a competent submissive: Alan Choo, a healer, who is not cowed or afraid. Even though there are very dominant and agitated wolves in the room.
-> Positive example.

A bit later we also meet Ric, the Italian's Omega. He's been treated well. He's confident, if a bit annoyed by his pack's lack of explanations.
The thing is, in the ensueing conversation with Anna the main point is: You are not a submissive.
Ric says here, "The submissives, they are no threat. They need to be taken care of, a pat to the head. A reassuring touch is necessary for them."
This is not Ric's own view, but how he describes that other werewolves see him. Submissives are reduced to children.

Anna then explains Alpha/Submissives and makes sure to give the submissives a few positive points. Like killing "is not their first answer to every problem".
-> Sounds actually like a huge improvement to say every other werewolve featured so far.

And then again: "Omega is an Alpha wolf."

As expected, Ric reacts with anger to his current treatment. Because he's a Zen Wolf, he says.

Submissives are forbidden from joining the treasure hunt later for their own "protection". (Another sign that they're considered weak. I wonder who decided that.) And Ric wants to make a point out of joining. To show he isn't weak / submissive.

And suddenly - the whole conversation turns around:
Ric points out that withholding information is a bad way to protect "even the submissive ones. They are no children - they're werewolves." And wents on to say, "We're like submissive one who do not protect."
-> So... suddenly you are NOT Alphas? What Ric did here with a few words went nearly against all what we've hear before.

Which is interesting after, because this is the last time this was discussed in this book *and* in the next one. In Fair Game there are zero mentions of submissives.

EDIT: In Dead Heat were two interesting mentions of submissives.

"Omegas aren't submissives," Charles told Maggie. "Some of them even have a sense of humour and tease well-meaning people who worry about them when they hanging around big bad werewolves. [...]"
-> Charles thought Maggie was worried for Anna. Anna thinks later Maggie was just jealous. Whatever was the case, it is interesting here that Charles pointed out that there is no need for concern, because Anna is not submissive. It made me think, that what if she were a submissive? What then?

The more interesting tidbit came later, though. Through a memory of Charles. In it Bran says this:
"He is needed - we have so few submissives wolves. He will stabilize his brother's pack, stabilize his brother, too, and that will save dozens of wolves."
-> It's made all the more significant that this submissive was the ONLY wolf Bran thought of as "needed" enough to turn him with the help of magic. It shows that submissive are essential for a functioning pack.

What about they Mercy Thompson books?

In the Mercy Thompson novels we have submissive: Peter, mated to Honey a very dominant female.
(Just as a sidenote, we have 3 submissives so far - all are male.)

Adam likens him once to a precious ruby, because they're so rare. In fact Peter is his only submissive of the whole pact.
Also, we learn an interesting information: Peter is old, and many submissive live for a lot longer than the rest. Not so surprising if the number one killer are dominance fights.
And last: Peter can fight. With a sword to, which is all shades of cool.

EDIT: In Frost Burned there are two mentions of submissive. Not surprisingly, after all Peter is killed.
"Jones had killed Peter, [...]killed the heart of the pack, our sole submissive wolf, Honey's mate."
"Submissive wolves, rare, precious as rubies, were not driven to the top, so they could be trusted absolutely - cherished and protect from all harm."
-> Clearly, Peter was loved and needed as a submissive.

To my surprise, Nightbroken introduced us to a new submissive werewolf - Zack. And with it we learn a few new interesting things.

"Submissive werewolves also got to travel because no Alpha would turn down a submissive werewolf."
-> Wow, that's a whole new appriciation of submissives. They have more rights. And as is implied here, they can change packs a lot more easier.

"Submissive wolves usually do fine in pack politics, because, like Christy, no one wants to hurt them."
-> That's certainly news and stands in stark contrast to Anna's experiences.

It is made clear very fast that while Peter hadn't been afraid of anyone, that Zack IS afraid. And there are hints of abuse.
And to make it clear that a submissive is not usually abused, we later have this:

"Submissive wolves don't go around cringing. Peter [...] had been a good fighter. Submissive means a wolf has no desire to be in charge."
-> A repeat of Asil's statement above, but without the retracting later on.

The new books have changed a bit my outlook:

I now think that in the Mercy Thompson universe submissive werewolves are often seen as weak, and treated like children, even though they definitely aren't. There is bias, which is within many characters but not shared by all (Adam, Mercy and Bran). Many might not conscious of that bias (like Asil or Anna).

Werewolves are killers and submissives are too, no doubt. But they don't HAVE to kill.
This goes so far that if you torture a submissive, that all you're left with is the human. This goes a long way to hint at, that within submissive wolves the human IS a lot stronger than the wolf.

Conclusion:

In my opinion submissives are simply werewolves who had managed to remain human at their core. They just have to obey to the alphas, because the "dominance" IS also part magic.

But beyond that, submissives are probably the ideal wolves. In control. Clear thinking. And they do give their pack these gifts too.

In short: Time to celebrate the submissives. Hearts of the packs. The human among wolves.

Wow Geli--you did a lot of work on this. I hadn't really thought about it much, I'd just taken the whole, "Submissives are the heart of the pack" at face value.

I think that the reason that the people who said that they were submissives on this forum are not happy about it because we are human. Human submissives are not treated well, especially if they are around a lot of bully types. (And no, I don't think that bullies are alphas--they are just bullies.)

Leo was bad because of what he did to Anna and to the rest of his pack. He killed the other females and their mates, he abused the only submissive in the pack. And we won't even mention what he was doing in creating new were-wolves. He wasn't evil "just" because of what he did to Anna. And Charles and I believe Bran both mention that part of the reason that Leo had Anna raped and beaten was to force her to submit, since she wasn't a natural submissive. If you've ever been abused,--or have worked with those who were abused--you can understand this in ways that those who haven't been through it can never know. And remember--we are seeing the A&O series through Anna's eyes. And to her submissive is bad because of what she went through.

I'm still of the opinion that if you have to be a werewolf in the Mercy/A&O university you are better off being submissive or Omega than Alpha. But then--I'm not a fighter. And I'd rather live a long, long time than die young in a dominance fight.

I had a similar feeling in the books, and it has almost ruined the Alpha and Omega series for me.

My issue is that Anna, being Omega, has the power to calm dominant wolves into not fighting each other, a very useful skill. Submissives seem to have nothing. Sure, submissives are valued, but Omegas are better for that reason. Submissives are supposedly the glue that keep a pack together, give purpose, etc... But your pack benefit is just not being feisty. Why not just have humans in your pack then...?

Having Omegas totally ruins any idea that being a submissive might be a good role for you in a pack. I mean, it sounds like a pack could just have all dominants and just one Omega and be alright. Omegas have all the perks of submissives and none of the flaws, and special abilities on top of that like an Alpha.

If Patricia Briggs maybe delved into submissives a little bit more and developed them a bit more, I might not feel this way. It's never really explained why submissives are important to a pack other than they don't challenge the pack structure.

I'd like to chime in on the possible reasons why those on the forum might add things like 'sadly' when they say they're submissives. Our society has a bad habit of equating submissive to doormat. Get into any discussions with genuine members of the kink community and you'll find that is so far from the truth as to be laughable. I don't mean online forums where the so-called 'Doms' treat anyone who isn't dominant like crap and talks down to them. They're not Doms. They're what we, in the kink community, call Assholes in Leather. They're wannabe doms who think what they see in bad porn is what a Dom is. When society tells you that being submissive means you're weak then people tend to feel ashamed of that. Its even worse for men.

As for the books, you're right, there were a lot of inconsistencies, however, in regards to the Chicago pack and Leo, he was unbalanced, to an extent, and willing to do anything to keep his mate alive. When you look at the mate bond, and how it affects a couple, it can make sense that he would be a bit unhinged as well, and as a result he made sure his entire pack made Anna believe that submissive was bad and weak. Leo killed off the more dominant wolves in his pack, so even though those who were left were dominant, it was only to a small extent so he could keep them in line as well.

Sparrowings wrote: "I had a similar feeling in the books, and it has almost ruined the Alpha and Omega series for me.

My issue is that Anna, being Omega, has the power to calm dominant wolves into not fighting each ..."

You really missed some important aspects if you think a human can do the same thing a submissive wolf can. Think of it as yin and yang. A pack of all dominants would have nothing to balance it. That's why the average lifespan for werewolves is ten years, because the younger ones cannot control their need to fight. A submissive wolf can balance that out because they are content in the pack and help, via the pack bonds, to keep their pack members more balanced. A human cannot be a part of the pack. They can be a spouse or a mate, but never pack. The magic would not work with them and as such they would do nothing for the pack balance. Packs like the Chicago one, without a submissive, could become unbalanced if the alpha is unbalanced. A submissive can help with that, to an extent. An Omega is both submissive and Dominant, they're the perfect switch, because their natural calm comes from a submissive nature, but their desire to protect comes from a dominant nature. They are the embodiment of yin and yang but because of that they're even more rare than the yang, the submissive. As it was pointed out by Charles, it takes an insane wolf to attack a human with the qualities of an Omega, and you have to HOPE they survive the change once they're attacked. It was implied that Anna wasn't the first human Omega that Leo sent Justin after, she was simply the only one to survive the attack. You are suggesting that all werewolf packs should have at least one insane wolf so they can kill multiple people until they finally find one human Omega who survives the change. Or did you not catch that in 200 years Charles has only ever met two other Omegas prior to meeting Anna?

Ann aka Iftcan wrote: "Wow Geli--you did a lot of work on this. I hadn't really thought about it much, I'd just taken the whole, "Submissives are the heart of the pack" at face value.

I think that the reason that the p..."


One minor correction. Leo didn't kill the females in the pack, that was Isabel, because she was insane and jealous of them. The only reason she didn't feel threatened by Anna was because she was so broken by their abuse that Isabel knew none of the males would lust after Anna the way they would her.

I absolutely agree that the A&O series is through Anna's eyes and her abuse gave her a less than positive view of submissives as a result. And I'd have to agree, I'd rather be a submissive wolf or Omega and live a long, long life too! Of course, I'm a submissive person so if werewolves were real and I became one, that's what I would be anyway.

My opinion is based on my observations of animal behavior and my experience in animal health.

Animals like dogs and wolves are wired for a pack dynamic. Everyone has their place in the pack. You cannot alter or usurp that without disturbing the whole function of the pack. Submissives exist just like dominants. They work together well. A submissive contributes to peace in a pack. If all dogs/wolves were dominant, they would kill each other. If all wolves were submissive, then they could not make decisions to keep the pack together and strong.

I have no issues with Briggs' concept of the Omega. It actually makes sense. I think that is maybe where the human aspect of werewolves come in. There are people who are neither submissive or dominant, and I think it's very fair to call them omegas.

Just my two cents.

Interesting discussion.