thetableshavetabled

[thetableshavetabled]

One of my favorite tweets about Kevin & Jean

[thetableshavetabled]

uhhh

[thetableshavetabled]

What do you think went wrong between the original trilogy and what we're getting now? I've been asking myself that for a while and I truly can't figure it out. Nora can clearly write well, but there's more complexity & depth in just the foxhole court than there is in both the sunshine court & the golden raven, so why didn't she write them just as well?

I'm glad you mentioned the representation. I appreciate the diversity in the book, but it feels more like a caricature when all these diverse characters mean little to nothing to the actual story. You could remove them, and very little would change. To be honest, you could potentially even remove Cat & Laila, and you wouldn't really feel their absence because they offer so little other than - like you said - comic relief.

It's just so disappointing. And it's only serving to make me more interested in the original characters' stories. Especially Neil because many characteristics of Jean are kinda stolen from him in a way that I suppose is meant to make him a parallel to Neil ("I'm fine"/"I will endure", Jean repeating Neil's 'pop' line, etc), but these just remind me Neil exists and that (personally I think) these characteristics were more interesting/original/written-better when they were Neil's. And that, I'd probably rather be reading a book about him/from his POV instead.

If it were any other author I would chalk it up to capitalism, but it doesn’t really fit considering she earns relatively little from these books.

What does fit is how the original trilogy was written with nothing to lose. No traditional publishing constraints, no profit expectations, no fame-seeking, not even advertising. She simply had a powerful story and wrote it exactly as she envisioned.

That original work occupied a unique space between genres. It’s not YA, sports fiction, thriller, nor romance exclusively. This genre-defying quality created unpredictability that captivated readers. The new books commit firmly to contemporary romance conventions, sacrificing the narrative freedom that made the originals so compelling.

While financial pressure may not be a factor, the established fanbase certainly is.

Her close relationship with the fandom has fundamentally altered her creative approach. She clearly doesn't want to disappoint her readers.

She has a devoted following now, and every creative choice becomes weighted with potential disappointment. As the fandom grew, it likely came to include readers with different preferences. The author may be attempting to accommodate a broader audience by creating work that's more accessible and less challenging, sacrificing depth for breadth of appeal.

She is well aware of the fandom’s distaste for Thea and Nicky for example, and maybe she aims to avoid similar issues. There is no characters to actually discuss here, every one of them can be easily categorized into good or evil which makes them extremely boring.

In the end, Occams Razor. The simplest explanation might be the most accurate: she's simply not as personally invested in these new characters. The original trilogy reads like it was written by someone compelled to tell that specific story. These new works feel commissioned by fan demand rather than creative necessity.

Ironically, in an effort to avoid repeating herself she may have overcorrected by removing not just similar plot elements but also the narrative techniques that made her writing so compelling in the first place.

[thetableshavetabled]

What do you think went wrong between the original trilogy and what we're getting now? I've been asking myself that for a while and I truly can't figure it out. Nora can clearly write well, but there's more complexity & depth in just the foxhole court than there is in both the sunshine court & the golden raven, so why didn't she write them just as well?

I'm glad you mentioned the representation. I appreciate the diversity in the book, but it feels more like a caricature when all these diverse characters mean little to nothing to the actual story. You could remove them, and very little would change. To be honest, you could potentially even remove Cat & Laila, and you wouldn't really feel their absence because they offer so little other than - like you said - comic relief.

It's just so disappointing. And it's only serving to make me more interested in the original characters' stories. Especially Neil because many characteristics of Jean are kinda stolen from him in a way that I suppose is meant to make him a parallel to Neil ("I'm fine"/"I will endure", Jean repeating Neil's 'pop' line, etc), but these just remind me Neil exists and that (personally I think) these characteristics were more interesting/original/written-better when they were Neil's. And that, I'd probably rather be reading a book about him/from his POV instead.

If it were any other author I would chalk it up to capitalism, but it doesn’t really fit considering she earns relatively little from these books.

What does fit is how the original trilogy was written with nothing to lose. No traditional publishing constraints, no profit expectations, no fame-seeking, not even advertising. She simply had a powerful story and wrote it exactly as she envisioned.

That original work occupied a unique space between genres. It’s not YA, sports fiction, thriller, nor romance exclusively. This genre-defying quality created unpredictability that captivated readers. The new books commit firmly to contemporary romance conventions, sacrificing the narrative freedom that made the originals so compelling.

While financial pressure may not be a factor, the established fanbase certainly is.

Her close relationship with the fandom has fundamentally altered her creative approach. She clearly doesn't want to disappoint her readers.

She has a devoted following now, and every creative choice becomes weighted with potential disappointment. As the fandom grew, it likely came to include readers with different preferences. The author may be attempting to accommodate a broader audience by creating work that's more accessible and less challenging, sacrificing depth for breadth of appeal.

She is well aware of the fandom’s distaste for Thea and Nicky for example, and maybe she aims to avoid similar issues. There is no characters to actually discuss here, every one of them can be easily categorized into good or evil which makes them extremely boring.

In the end, Occams Razor. The simplest explanation might be the most accurate: she's simply not as personally invested in these new characters. The original trilogy reads like it was written by someone compelled to tell that specific story. These new works feel commissioned by fan demand rather than creative necessity.

Ironically, in an effort to avoid repeating herself she may have overcorrected by removing not just similar plot elements but also the narrative techniques that made her writing so compelling in the first place.

[thetableshavetabled]

people who think that kevin was justifying what happened to jean with the "16 is the age of consent in west virginia" line really hate reading comprehension don't they

[thetableshavetabled]

I think one of the biggest ways people get Andrew wrong in fanon, especially with fics from his pov, is when he helps people just for the sake of it. Or out of the good of his heart, I suppose. It makes him out to be kinder than he is in canon, where all his deals for example are on some level self-serving. Andrew didn't offer to make the deal with Neil because he cared about or his situation. He was bored & Andrew fully expected Neil to either disappear or die at the end of it.

Anyway, do you have any other thoughts on TSC/TGR? It doesn't seem like you're a fan xD and personally I'm not either.

Andrew is a difficult character to write. He definitely didn't make the deal with Neil out of the kindness of his heart, but was it just because Neil was interesting, or because of Kevin, like Andrew claims? And the deal with Kevin has even more layers—interest, usefulness, Kevin's promise. Aaron's deal, though, that's the most complicated of all. I wish this didn't get watered down so often.

On TSC & TGR... I'm underwhelmed.

You have Jean who we all know and love, now one half of a dual pov with Jeremy who's... there. And I like Jeremy. A gay ex drug addict with a savior complex and crushing guilt over his brother's rooftop dive during a coke-fueled sex party, financially chained to the same homophobic family that blames him for Noah's death while he pastes on a smile and captains the Trojans? That's compelling material I would absolutely devour if the author wasn't shelving crucial elements with all the subtlety of a brick through a window.

Jeremy could complement Jean beautifully, but instead throughout the entire first book he is relegated to being Jean's narrative counterweight and remains frustratingly underdeveloped. Why make him a POV character only to drip-feed his actual story?

The second book do offer glimpses of promise, Zane, the Kevin/Jean interview, and Lucas processing Grayson's death—those had the buildup I crave. And it's not all doom and gloom; some scenes are genuinely well-crafted, which makes the overall flatness even more disappointing.

Any potential innovation gets suffocated beneath formulaic storytelling that prioritizes meeting genre expectations over delivering something actually interesting. Where's the intricate conflict, the genuine stakes, the narrative risk and the twists that keep you guessing? I'd settle for any character development that doesn't feel plucked from a template.

29 Trojans and we only have three that approach interesting: Jeremy, Jean and Lucas. Yes, there are loads of great representation. There is a lot of potential, but without any actual arcs its all window dressing. The Trojans' uniform virtue renders them forgettable, while every antagonist is cartoonishly cruel. Only the Foxes and Jean offer dynamics with any nuance whatsoever. I like slice-of-life scenes as much as the next person, but without anything engaging in between they just highlight the plot's thinness while ticking off every BookTok trope. For readers who appreciated the original trilogy's complex characters, emotional depth, and unpredictability, this feels like a photocopy of a photocopy.

I can map the entire emotional journey without turning another page: Jeremy-Jean will have their ineviatable romance, Jean and Kevin will have their requisite heart to heart so Jean can move on, the comic relief lesbians will continue being exactly as flat as the rest of the one-note Trojans who conveniently fulfill whatever narrative function is required to keep this plot inching forward. Jean's separation anxiety will be resolved through the dog (really? a dog?), Jeremy's family will maintain their antagonistic presence until Jeremy finally applies to himself the same standards he preaches to Jean about deserving better treatment. We'll witness Jeremy and Jean working through hypersexuality and sexual trauma via the "sunshine character with hidden darkness" and "grumpy character with a heart of gold" dynamic that's been done to death and beyond.

The most shocking moment—the house fire—only highlights how desperately this story needs genuine surprises and stakes. At this point, I'd even welcome a character resurrection (typically a cheap narrative sin) just to disrupt this procession of convenient coincidences and expository dialogue.

While the trial's portrayal remains uncertain, the outcome doesn't: Jean will recognize that both he and Elodie deserved better, rebuff his parents and the Ravens, reconcile with Jeremy, fully integrate with the Trojans, and continue his trauma recovery. With every beat so plainly telegraphed, I'm left wondering what's supposed to keep me invested in this story.

[thetableshavetabled]

So I like your takes I was wondering what you thought about Jeremy's backstory?

All I really have to say about it is that if the only way you can build suspense is to deliberately and repeatedly withhold what the viewpoint character already knows then the story itself probably isn’t all that interesting.

[thetableshavetabled]

I saw a comment u made on another post about andrew drugging neil and I thought one thing u said was rlly interesting -

it was about Roland's and andrews relationship, I'm paraphrasing but I think u said something like Roland wouldn't get the 'yes or no' that Neil does because andrew 1) doesn't rlly care about Roland personally & 2) Andrew has no promise to protect Roland

I agree completely, but I've never seen anybody else say it! Andrew often gets portrayed by fans like he would always ask for consent this way, and I never rlly agreed. I don't think he would ignore Roland telling him to stop or anything, but I don't think he'd be considerate or careful like he is with neil.

If u have anymore thoughts on their relationship or andrew or roland in general, I'd love to hear it :)

Thanks for giving me an excuse to dig into this! To talk about Roland I first want to talk about the fandom's misconceptions of Andrew.

The way some fans try to retroactively frame Andrew's handling of Neil as a universal consent practice completely misses why it exists specifically with Neil. This comes up especially now that AFTG has reached platforms like TikTok, where I often see claims like "Andrew wouldn't have drugged people, he cares about consent" or the Allison incident or even, most insane to me, how Andrew shouldn't have kissed Neil that first time on the rooftop without asking first. These interpretations fundamentally misunderstand Andrew's character.

Frankly, I don't understand why you would bother to advcate that a character is acting out of character in the canon material. That just means you don't like the character, which is fine. "The monsters were never redeemed" (which was the original post where I left my comment) is much more textually accurate and a much better take than trying to sanitize Andrew's actions.

Understanding why Andrew and the other Monsters act as they do isn't the same as justifying their actions and people should be a lot more comfortabe enjoying morally gray characters, or, even better, just admit you don't like them. Fans do that with Kevin, Aaron and Nicky all the time, but with Andrew they struggle because they love this cute little gay ship with their soft kisses and touch him and die trope. The desire to ship Andreil seems to create this pressure to soften and force Andrew into a romance booktok mold when the real beauty of their relationship lies in how they accept each other's sharp edges and scars.

Take Andrew drugging Neil, for instance. We can understand the strategic reasoning (keeping Neil from running, maintaining control, protecting Kevin) while still recognizing it as a violation. The same goes for his violence toward Allison or his blowout at Katelyn or how he treats Aaron. Understanding that these actions stem from Andrew's trauma, his protection mechanisms, and his "nothing" philosophy doesn't require us to retroactively frame them as morally acceptable.

We are repeatedly shown that Andrew is not a character who cares about others' boundaries. From the moment we meet him and right until the end he shows this. Andrew is not a good person, and he is not mentally well. He's complex, traumatized, and his actions make sense within his characterization, even when, or maybe especially when they're morally questionable.

This brings us to Roland. With Roland, Andrew has a pragmatic arrangement that lets him focus on his own needs without managing someone else's trauma or emotions. Their dynamic works because:

Roland is experienced and emotionally self-sufficient.

Andrew doesn't have to manage his emotional state or trauma responses.

There's an established history that makes Roland a "safe" option.

Neil was always going to be different. The combination of Andrew's promise to protect him, Neil's extensive trauma history, and his complete inexperience with intimacy shattered every one of Andrew's patterns. Where others fit into clear categories - threat, asset, occasional outlet - Neil defied classification from the beginning. With Roland, it's pragmatic: they both know what they want and can handle themselves accordingly. With Neil's inexperience and extensive trauma and the deepness of the relationship it shakes up everything. If Roland had shown the kind of ambiguous consent that Neil does on the rooftop Andrew would never have pushed through or done anything but stop immediately, but he wouldn't have worked through it either. He would just simply not have approached Roland again.

It is less about "yes or no" even though i initally used that phrase and most about "I won't be like them. I won't let you let me be." It exists specifically because of Neil's circumstances and Andrew's promise to protect him. It's not a universal approach to consent, it's about their unique dynamic and mutual understanding of trauma.

This ties into a larger discussion of how Andrew sometimes gets "fanon-ized" in ways that smooth over his complexities and contradictions. He is not someone who is conventionally "good" or mentally well, but whose actions make sense within his own internal logic and experiences. The Andrew who shows careful consideration for Neil's boundaries, who gets in the shower fully clothed, who asks 'yes or no', is the same Andrew who drugged Neil, nearly stabbed Nicky, and almost killed Allison. Not to mention driving under the influence and, of course, literal manslaughter.

This is not to say Andrew doesn't evolve as a character, of course, but not in a conventional redemptive way. Without turning this into a full character analysis I will sum it up like this: Andrew's character arc is about him going from nothing to something.

[thetableshavetabled]

Three..?

The one thing I despise about aftg is that it made me love not one, not two but three men with a face tattoo.

And one of them is named Kevin...

[thetableshavetabled]

The issue isn't really about the 3-year age gap, but rather about Jean's severely stunted emotional and social development due to his trauma at the Nest.

While Jeremy has had normal experiences like dating, hooking up, partying and drinking, developing independence, making autonomous choices, having consensual intimate experiences, building friendships, discovering his own identity Jean, in contrast, has experienced systematic abuse and control, no autonomy over his body or choices, no opportunity for normal social development, no chance to explore relationships or sexuality on his terms (rather he was directly punished for it), no space to develop his own identity separate from what Riko demanded.

This creates an inherent power imbalance that goes beyond age. It’s part of it, but between the years, the imbalance in experiences and Jeremy’s captaincy….

Jeremy, despite his good intentions, risks becoming a crutch or replacement authority figure rather than an equal partner.

Jean needs time to learn who he is outside of abuse, develop his own preferences and boundaries, experience relationships (romantic or platonic) on his terms, learn healthy intimacy at his own pace and most of all build an identity not defined by trauma.

The concern isn't that they couldn't eventually be compatible, but that Jean needs space to develop as an individual before he can be a true equal partner in any relationship. Jeremy's natural protective instincts could easily slip into infantilization or inadvertent control, even with the best intentions.

It's not that they couldn't work long-term, but Jean needs time to become his own person first. Otherwise, there's a risk of him transferring his dependent patterns from the Ravens to Jeremy, just in a gentler form.

Saw someone say Jean being 19 and Jeremy being 22 was weird.

Bestie, idk how to break it to you, but in college, you can befriend like 28 year olds when you’re 18 and that’s normal. That’s a three year difference where both of them are legally old enough to pay taxes and vote. They’re a senior and a 5th year senior. It’s okay. I promise.

Jean may have been sheltered from normal people, but he isn’t immature at all.

[thetableshavetabled]

they need to bring back homophobic yaoi

[thetableshavetabled]

[thetableshavetabled]

[thetableshavetabled]

This meme is inescapable on French insta so I'm posting it here for all to enjoy

[thetableshavetabled]

cmon child safety lid you know it's me

[thetableshavetabled]

the stethoscope is on the knob

[thetableshavetabled]

We’re the SAME AGE