Hollows Read-along to AMERICAN DEMON discussion

Knowing what we know now about the repercussions of leaving Piscary alive and how it directly leads to the death of Kisten *sob* at the end of A Few Demons More, does it change your perspective on Rachel's decision to let Piscary live at the end of Every Which Way but Dead? Should she should have killed him, or did she still make the right choice (moral or otherwise) in letting him live?

I think killing Piscary would have changed Rachel too much (plus she would have been in jail). As much as I loved Kisten and still dread rereading the end of this book, I think he had to die. His death changes Rachel (and Ivy) so much and is a really big part of Rachel being forced to "grow up".

Miranda wrote: "I think killing Piscary would have changed Rachel too much (plus she would have been in jail). As much as I loved Kisten and still dread rereading the end of this book, I think he had to die. His d..."

My thoughts too...Rachel made (makes) so many positive changes from this point forward that killing Piscary back then would have denied her this growth.

I don’t think Rachel would have been emotionally ok if she’d killed Piscary. She does her best not to kill anyone. Even when Lee tried to sell her to Al, she didn’t try to kill him (even though that would have gone badly for her). It was better that Skimmer did it.

As much as I dislike Piscary and hurt over the death of Kisten, he was integral to Rachel and Ivy's growth. It would have been really hard for Rachel to get over and I don't feel there would have been as much growth in Ivy and Rachel's relationship.

I think Rachel grew and gained more in the long run by NOT killing Piscary and Ivy definitely. Although it was really bad for Ivy a few times it also helped her evolve.

I understand wanting to kill him earlier, but I think Ivy wasn’t ready to survive without him, as twisted as he was. I think it’s kind of ironic that her gaining the strength to defy him was what he wanted in the first place, but it’s also important for her to be able to survive without him. Also, we know from future books that (view spoiler)[ Rynn Cornell chose to become the vampire of the city partially because of Rachael and Ivy. They relationship needed time to develop, or he wouldn’t have been attracted to the city. And I think he’s important for future freedoms. He still an undead vampire and that makes him a bastard, but he’s the best one they were going to get. (hide spoiler)]

I think she should have killed him and regretted it when Kisten died.

NO! Rachel does NOT kill people. Even undead nasties like Piscary. That is why she would work for Trent. He did kill people and it wasn't in her. There is always another way, even if it is so much harder with graver consequences. Rachel doesn't kill.

I agree with you, Pansy. Rachel has proven, over and over, that she is willing to take the lumps for making other choices rather than killing someone/thing.

I think if she had killed Piscary, there would have been a power-vacuum effect and the vampires of the Hollows could end up with a Master Vampire as bad as him, or worse. Kisten and Ivy wouldn't necessarily go through the same trauma if Rachel got rid of their tormentor, but they'd definitely be going through SOMETHING bad-- vampire culture just isn't a nice thing to be a part of.

It's interesting to me that while we learn more about the races that at first seem evil (Elves, fairies) and eventually see them in a different light, vampire culture just seems more and more toxic the more we learn about it. It's why I think Rachel and Kisten would never have worked long-term even if he was never murdered, because he pretty much accepts vampire culture as it is, and she can't tolerate a system that abuses people like that.

I think you all make fantastic points, but I LOVE playing devil's advocate, so I'm going to pose a follow-up quandary...

Would anyone argue that Rachel and Ivy DO NOT benefit from the death of Piscary at the end of book 5?

The reason I ask is:
- I find the conference room scene in book 5 to be one of the most compelling of the entire series. The moment Rachel believes she has lost literally everyone she loves (excepting her blood family) and recedes under the conference table to sacrifice herself is fully engrossing.
- Skimmer killing Piscary is the only action that prevents Rachel from losing Ivy to transitioning to the undead. I still find it fascinating that the law in the world of the Hollows counts Skimmer's action as murder, but if Piscary had succeeded with Ivy it would not have counted as murder because she would have been re-born.
- As such, Rachel directly benefits from someone else murdering Piscary, and if no one had murdered Piscary, I think we can infer that it would have only led to more negative consequences for our major characters, especially Rachel.

This is why I feel this issue gets gray. What are people's thoughts regarding the fact that Rachel has no problem benefitting from someone else committing the action (in this case, murdering Piscary) that she refuses to do herself? And I ask because it's far from the only time in the series that Rachel benefits from other characters committing murder that ultimately leads to her protection or benefit.