word.Sin wrote:You can't force people to be your friend. It's a two way street.
This idea that all the characters had to be best friends with her ... I don't get it. I really don't understand what they were supposed to do especially when Tess herself never tried to be friends with them and she didn't want to be friends with them. Sociology doesn't work like that. Like Sin said it's a two way street. Gosh...she wasn't a baby!
Not to mention that regardless if she was friends with people or not she still betrayed even the ones that cared about her (see Kyle and Jim)
So this excuse that they treated her "bad" really doesn't work.
She didn't betray them because they treated her bad.
And frankly i think that knowing the circumstances they treated her very well, they really tried their best when they owed her nothing.
this also is my problem with TEOTW. Tess was selfish and she wouldn't help them without getting Max? Then lets give the toy (aka Max) to the whining child. It's really stupid.
If we want to talk about it Liz sacrificed her happiness and Max's for her, to include her in the group and it was all for nothing.
Sorry but i see the whole "the others weren't friends with her" theory as a way to justify all her actions by blaming the other characters... like if they made her like that. I get the impression that some blame the others because they didn't transform her into a good person, basically.
I think that the point is that you can't change people. Unless they want to change.
I also have the impression that this is another example of people transforming the killer in the victim and the victim(s) in the one to blame. Something that, sadly, happens all the time in real life too.
I feel that you can try to understand a bad person without blaming other people and create justifications that don't exist (and in tess case that justification doesn't even exist because they weren't bad toward her and. again, she betrayed even the ones that cared about her)
*This* is seeing things not in black and white only IMO.
You know the novel "Notre Dame De Paris" by Victor Hugo? They even made a musical about it (that i watched in 3 languages )Now, in that story I like the character of Frollo. He's the antagonist, he's bad, he's obsessed about Esmeralda, he blackmails her and he ultimately is the one that basically kills her, even if not directly. He's everything but a positive character. But I understood his story and why he was like that .. in order to understand him and why he was so insane i don't need to blame Esmeralda saying that since she didn't like him and she wasn't "nice" with him then he was justified to do what he did. He was bad and deserved what happened to him in the end. Now, I can't compare him with Tess especially since Frollo is a well written character and he has a complexity that Tess never had but even a character so complex like him ( where the writer actually cared to show you his POV) can't be justified
when it's about Tess i also noticed that her manipulating and killing Alex is glossed over sometimes. Like if the worst thing she did was coming between M&L and people hate her only for this.
while IMO Nothing of what she did could be more bad than what she did to Alex. It isn't just the fact that she killed him.. it's a combination of things and the fact that she used him like a puppet for months. She stole his life... literally.
I've read people (not here) that even blame ALEX for what had happened because you know he just couldn't accept that he was mindwarped and he went to her and was angry with her. It's ridiculous.
and we're talking about Alex. The nicest guy. He did nothing to her. He wasn't rude with her even at the beginning when she kept interrupting his moments with Isabel (and i disliked her since then because i always felt that she treated him like if he were nothing and Isabel had to give her all the attention).
another thing that i disagree with is the idea that Nacedo made her believe (or she remembered) the past life and how Zan and Ava were happy so it was bad for her to see that Max didn't feel the same and he was in love with another person. This logic is flawed for the simple reason that Tess was supposed to deliver him to the enemy anyway and that deal was made way before she met Max. Why would Nacedo make her believe that in the other life she was happy with Zan and he was a good king? It makes more sense to me that he made her believe the contrary or she knew nothing.
We shouldn't believe in everything she said about antar because she needed to seduce Max. And we can't even know if she actually remembered that life or just heard informations from Nacedo.
If Kivar wasn't her enemy then I have to guess that he wasn't Ava's enemy either. If Tess really saw herself as Ava then it makes sense that she worked for him. Point is that maybe Ava herself didn't have the best opinion of Zan.
In my opinion it was an illusionWhen Tess destroyed the skins at school, did she do it or was it only a mindwarp for the roswellers??
that could explain why Nicholas seemed to die too but then at the summit he was pretty fine. and it's not that we saw him surviving in the scene.. he vanished with the others.
now if you think about it basically Tess didn't kill Nicholas when she got the chance (that scene) and Nicholas didn't kill her when he got the chance (Max in the city) that was weird.. i mean when Max found Tess she was perfectly fine i'm supposed to believe that Nicholas, Lonnie and Rath just left her alone there praying like Kyle without hurting her or use as an hostage in order to blackmail Max and the others? And "apparently" she didn't remember what happened. I don't buy it.
If they were allies then it makes sense why they didn't kill or hurt each other. If Nicholas knew about the deal then he couldn't kill her.