Talk:Larissa Kinley/@comment-43696429-20190901212154

I, like many (I assume) find Larissa to be quite an interesting character, with a lot of her past shrouded in mystery. One of the the most interesting things about her, however, is her age.

Or, rather, the complete lack of continuity her age has.

As this article states, the reader is told that Larissa is 20 in 'Battle Lines'. More specifically, we are told that she is "almost 21" in the same sentence. In 'All The Fun Of The Fair' (the chapter from the first book detailing the night Larissa was bitten) Larissa is 17. The date given in that chapter is 24th July 2004. It is stated on more that one occasion during 'Battle Lines' that the events of the book begin a month after Valeri Rusmanov's attack on the Loop. We know that the events of 'The Rising' take place in late January 2010, due to a direct quote from the first Zero Hour Task Force meeting in Chapter 8: '"Zero Hour Task Force convened, January 19th," said Admiral Seward.' We are told on the page before this chapter that there are 90 days to go until Zero Hour (19th April). We are also told when the book 'The Rising' finishes that there are 86 days until Zero Hour. This means that the events of 'The Rising' conclude on 23rd January 2010. The events of 'Battle Lines' begin (as stated in the book) 52 days before Zero Hour (34 days after the events of 'The Rising'). This means that the date at the beginning of 'Battle Lines' (when Jamie is watching Ellison and Morton train) is 26th February 2010. Therefore, if by late February Larissa has still not had her birthday, we know that her birthday is somewhere between late February and late July. As a result of this information, we know that Larissa turns 21 in 2010.

Or so we think. You see, this is where everything becomes a little bit annoying.

As the chapter 'All The Fun Of The Fair' from book 1 tells us, Larissa is 17 on 24th July 2004. This presents us with a problem. If Larissa turns 17 in 2004, that means that at the start of 'Battle Lines' she should be 22 going on 23, contradicting what the book tells us. Now, I read a lot of books. As a result, I suspend my disbelief on a regular basis. If this was the only thing that contradicted the other information we are told about Larissa's age, I wouldn't have given it any real thought, other than "Oh, the author changed his mind about when something happened. That's amusing."

Unfortunately, it doesn't stop at that.

Also in book 1, when Larissa attempts to kill Grey in chapter 31, she says that Grey turned her 4 years ago. This makes absolutely no sense. 'The Rising' takes place in January 2010, 3 months after the events of the first book (this time jump is stated numerous times in 'The Rising'). This means that book 1 takes place in October 2009 (we know the year is 2009 because it takes place 2 years after the death of Julian in the prologue, which occurs in 2007). So, when the group visit Valhalla and meet Grey in the first book, Larissa should have been turned for 5 years and 3 months, not 4 years. This '4 years' statement not only contradicts the information given to us just 3 chapters earlier, but also all of the information that comes in later books. As I mentioned earlier, Larissa is said to turn 21 in 2010. Assuming that she DOES turn 21 in 2010, THAT should be the 4 year mark, not 2009. However, during chapter 48 of 'Battle Lines', we are told that she has only been turned for 3 years, unlike the 4 or 6 (almost 6 now we're in 2010) we have so far been led to believe.

As a result of all of this conflicting information, I am unsure how old Will Hill intended Larissa to be. If anyone has anything to add, please feel free to do so. Plus, if you've read everything I've just written, then thank you. I admire you for being so patient with my rambling.

I should add that this little mystery surrounding Larissa's age in no way stopped me from enjoying the books and it never will (I didn't even think about it much when I was first reading them). I thought that the series was great when I read it, and I still think so. I would also like to mention that I'm aware of how RIDICULOUSLY nitpicky this comment is. I just fancied writing about it, because I've never seen anyone else mention it before (although I'm sure I can't be the only one who's spotted this continuity issue).

So once again, thank you for reading this far.

P.S.

Am I the only one who thought that Larissa's brother Liam should have made a proper appearance, an appearance that potentially could have led to him becoming a regular character? You know, with actual dialogue. It is evident that Larissa still cares about him (this is made clear when she asks for a report on him in 'The Rising' and the way that she thinks about him in her installment of 'The Department 19 Files'), so a conversation between the two of them would have been quite nice, I've always thought. Her parents evidently rejected her after she was turned (this is explicitly stated during both Larissa's installment of 'The Department 19 Files' and 'Battle Lines'), but Liam's reaction to Larissa being turned is never spoken of, so we do not know for sure how he reacted. However, the fact that Larissa clearly misses him (in contrast to how she shows no longing to see her parents again after they rejected her) leads me to believe that he did not shun Larissa after she was turned, allowing a conversation between the two of them to work (as this should put them on speaking terms, despite the fact that she doesn't call him before the attack on Dracula in Zero Hour). Anyone else got any thoughts on this?