It doesn't sound like it since you go on to say that the wolves chose for both of them. If Bran didn't have a choice about marrying her because of the wolf, then she didn't have a choice about marrying him, again because of her wolf. (Or vice-versa.)
Bran does say (when his sons or Mercy point out how horrible his relationship with Leah is) that he tried everything he could to give her what she wants.
Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. If I'm supposed to believe that Mercy's an unreliable narrator (which I really don't, by the way, but for argument's sake) then I can believe that Bran is too. So maybe he wasn't an awesome or particularly accommodating as a hubby.
Stop assuming Leah is all in this innocently.
Why shouldn't I cut her some slack since the narrative isn't going to? The author clearly doesn't want the reader to like her which, conversely, tends to make me be less hard on that particular character.
Bran as the Marrock gives Leah as his mate pretty much the Queen Bitch in Charge powers over all other werewolves
This is problematic. Leah should have her own power and authority.
The wolf-aspect of them is still very much animalistic and used to fighting for dominance, so that was a huge bonus for her, even before she knew about the fact he wouldn't ever love her.
I admit, I'm not an expert on wolves but as I understand it, they're family units in the wild. This sounds more like that zoo experiment with a pack of wolves who didn't know each other all thrown into a small living space.
So she didn't know it was a real marriage before she was in too deep to get out? Poor Leah. And, if this isn't a marriage between equals, there's no guarantee that she has access to his cash. She might be on an allowance or something equally restrictive.
Samuel and Charles were full-grown adults when Leah came into the picture. There was no raising of kids (or having real ones).
But you said somewhere that Leah's evil lack of love for Mercy marked Mercy and prevented her from ever making female friends, or some such. While I strongly disagree with this general premise, that implies that Leah had to raise at least one child - Mercy - whether she wanted to or not.
Now, I'm not saying that sex has nothing to do with it. Part of the bonding process involves sex, but it wasn't at all that he needed a hole for his dick.
...This doesn't exactly answer my question regarding whether or not Leah consented, or even continues to consent, to sex with Bran. He has other options, I won't disagree with that because everyone does, but that doesn't mean that he's exercising them. And that doesn't mean that she was initially consent... or that she is still consent.
....And yes, despite not knowing anything about this Leah character, I'm totally going to side with her. Partially because I refuse to hate her on the grounds of Authorial Bias. And partially because, well, Devil's Advocate, so why not?
no subject
It doesn't sound like it since you go on to say that the wolves chose for both of them. If Bran didn't have a choice about marrying her because of the wolf, then she didn't have a choice about marrying him, again because of her wolf. (Or vice-versa.)
Bran does say (when his sons or Mercy point out how horrible his relationship with Leah is) that he tried everything he could to give her what she wants.
Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. If I'm supposed to believe that Mercy's an unreliable narrator (which I really don't, by the way, but for argument's sake) then I can believe that Bran is too. So maybe he wasn't an awesome or particularly accommodating as a hubby.
Stop assuming Leah is all in this innocently.
Why shouldn't I cut her some slack since the narrative isn't going to? The author clearly doesn't want the reader to like her which, conversely, tends to make me be less hard on that particular character.
Bran as the Marrock gives Leah as his mate pretty much the Queen Bitch in Charge powers over all other werewolves
This is problematic. Leah should have her own power and authority.
The wolf-aspect of them is still very much animalistic and used to fighting for dominance, so that was a huge bonus for her, even before she knew about the fact he wouldn't ever love her.
I admit, I'm not an expert on wolves but as I understand it, they're family units in the wild. This sounds more like that zoo experiment with a pack of wolves who didn't know each other all thrown into a small living space.
So she didn't know it was a real marriage before she was in too deep to get out? Poor Leah. And, if this isn't a marriage between equals, there's no guarantee that she has access to his cash. She might be on an allowance or something equally restrictive.
Samuel and Charles were full-grown adults when Leah came into the picture. There was no raising of kids (or having real ones).
But you said somewhere that Leah's evil lack of love for Mercy marked Mercy and prevented her from ever making female friends, or some such. While I strongly disagree with this general premise, that implies that Leah had to raise at least one child - Mercy - whether she wanted to or not.
Now, I'm not saying that sex has nothing to do with it. Part of the bonding process involves sex, but it wasn't at all that he needed a hole for his dick.
...This doesn't exactly answer my question regarding whether or not Leah consented, or even continues to consent, to sex with Bran. He has other options, I won't disagree with that because everyone does, but that doesn't mean that he's exercising them. And that doesn't mean that she was initially consent... or that she is still consent.
....And yes, despite not knowing anything about this Leah character, I'm totally going to side with her. Partially because I refuse to hate her on the grounds of Authorial Bias. And partially because, well, Devil's Advocate, so why not?