Either way, it still requires you the reader to pull off the full affect. It would have been more of a risk and may not have had the same longing for romance that this has. The book may have been more powerful had we fallen in love with a man who was a little bit rough, a little bit forceful, a little bit cruel and yet Gemma depended on him for her survival.

If you like a man's man and have no patience for weak men, the book won't work for you. If you're the type of girl who'd want to protect a broken spirit then you'll fall right into the trap that is Ty's charm. That's brilliant.ĮTA: I have several friends who didn't like the book and it's made me think about why this works so well for some and not for others. She makes you consider Stockholm syndrome from the inside. You see what Christopher does? She makes you, the reader, experience Stockholm syndrome, so that by the end you're as conflicted as Gemma about the outcome and about your own feelings of Gemma's resistance and Ty's culpability. He had a sad life and has such a vulnerable quality and if only Gemma would love him it would make him all better. From the beginning, you want Gemma to get over it and like Ty. Ty is a kidnapper and has a temper, but he's a kind, likable kidnapper. Ty and Gemma are basically the only characters in the book, so you want them to end up together. She realizes this power, that as an author, she can direct you in what you're supposed to want, who you're supposed to like, and what ending you're supposed to root for.

I remember thinking 'it's just a movie you're supposed to want that,' because I had wanted it.Ĭhristopher is a smart woman. My dad, trying to keep the morality of four teenage girls intact, complained about movies always doing that, making you root for something you didn't believe in. When I was a teenager, I remember watching a movie with my family and the couple onscreen kissed for the first time and of course five seconds later were sleeping together.

Stolen by lucy christopher