/

Depends on how you interpret Senna's actions and just how much the trouble she got into was her own fault. It also depends on how you personally interpret Senna, who is a controversial character, obviously. You, as you say, strongly dislike Senna, while at least a few people here seem to love her. Personally, I find Senna very interesting as an amoral neutral character only interested in herself, or as an evil Jerkass Woobie with redeeming traits, and I was rather disappointed that she became a straight-up villain and the primary antagonist towards the end. I think the author Wasted A Perfectly Good Character in not exploring Senna further.

Regardless of whether she's a Magnificent Bastard or Smug Snake, Senna has always struck me as a character who didn't care if she made mistakes or stirred up trouble while she was operating in Everworld. Her goal was never to control every minute aspect of the situation and to keep herself in control at all times; rather, her plan was more along the lines of "Stir up the Waters to catch a Fish." She wanted to cause chaos and disorder and problems in Everworld, and use the core four to her advantage, and was willing to deal with the problems that might arise for her. She was always more inclined to use Xanatos Speed Chess than play Chessmaster and try to control every aspect of a situation. She said as much herself in Inside the Illusion, something to the effect of, "For this plan, you needed less of an ability to see many moves ahead, more of an ability to adapt quickly and consider the effects of human free will." She ended up in a lot of dangerous and comprimising situations, but it's worth noting that before Mystify the Magician, she always managed to wiggle her way out of them somehow. Even in cases where she was helped by the core four, she obviously had helped herself to a degree as well. Even during the "Hel incident" for example, Senna was the one who convinced Hel to spare her at first, keeping herself alive long enough for David and the others to arrive.

The problem with justifying her actions in Book 11 as being in-character is that we never see her reasons. If the, "Wow! I have power now! Let's abuse it!" explanation was explicit in the books, fine, but it never was. Sure, you could argue, "This is what Senna was thinking and this is why she did this," but if that isn't in the books, than it's just speculation. Really, that goes for all of the books; except for Inside the Illusion, we never see Senna's thought process or plans, and you could argue endlessly on whether Senna intended to do this or foresaw this or made a mistake here or failed at this. If someone didn't personally see Senna as going off the deep end by the time book eleven started, than from their point of view, she suddenly became much more evil for no apparent reason.

As for Senna's evil in the last book, it may or may not have been Character Derailment, but it was definitely Jumping Off The Slippery Slope. Maybe it's just personal opinion, but she never really seemed "sadistic" to me. Rather, she was more like a Knight Templar or Well Intentioned Extremist who was amoral in the pursuit of her "destiny" and merciless in her revenge, which she honestly thought was right and justified. She says this herself somewhere in Book 9, that she was not a sadist and did not enjoy punishing those who wronged her, but she would do whatever she had to in the name of her destiny, and woe onto anyone who got in her way. What I'm trying to say is that (prior to the eleventh book), no matter what Senna did or how evil she was, there always seemed to be a reason why she did what she did. She never maimed or killed or manipulated just because she liked doing it.

That seemed to me to be the case with the Sennites to. It was clear that she didn't recruit them because she agreed with their policies and thought they were ideal people; she treated them as a means to an end and disposable Elite Mooks. Heck, in the ninth book, Senna herself admitted that she thought Keith and the others were a bunch of sick, messed up creeps and psychos. In the eleventh book, however, she seemed to have embraced their policies completely, right down to seeming to honestly believe that she was a god, while two books previously, she admitted that she wasn't, and only used the "Great One" as a puppet, distinct from her own identity, to make the Sennites think they were serving a higher cause.

Anyway, I didn't mean to write such a point-by-point essay of Senna's motives. What I mean to say is, basically, Your Mileage May Vary. Senna is a very ambiguous character, as we don't see most of her motives and thoughts, and can be interpreted several ways. I don't think that she fits cleanly into being either a Magnificent Bastard or a Smug Snake, and if you think she's one or the other and have your own personal interpretation to make sense of it all, than good for you. Like I said, I personally find her to be more of a character who was wasted to resolve the plot quickly than a "good" character who was "derailed" into acting evil, though I would still contend that her actions in Mystify the Magician were way over the top.

Except she did kill and manipulate beforehand for fun. It's the entire reason she brought April into Everworld: she needed Christopher, David, and Jalil, but dragging April along was pure sadism on her part. So's most of the stuff she said to April in the past. I mean, "your dad is mine now?" The Gollum incident? That's just mean-spirited nastiness. So's her using David's past and Jalil's OCD against him. She may claim that she doesn't enjoy it, but seeing as she's a bit of an Unreliable Narrator I'm not sure that really holds much water. Besides, what better excuse for cruelty than "I did what I had to do"? I don't think Senna was ever neutral. She was evil from the start; it's just that next to psychos like the various Everworld gods she doesn't look nearly as bad, being a sociopath among psychopaths. Her convincing Hel to spare her didn't seem all that impressive to me either (actually none of her god-manipulating did; kind of like taking candy from a Psychopathic Manchild), if only because, hey, Hel's into torture anyway, and she still needed the others to pull a Big Damn Heroes in order to save her. Heck, if it weren't for the kids needing her to get home, they probably would have dumped her a long time ago, which says a lot about how good her manipulative ability actually was. It's not that she isn't good, it's just that she often overestimates herself, especially were Jalil is concerned, although even David surprises her a couple of times.

As for the finale, it never seemed like a waste to me, since it appeared that she'd been planning the whole "bring Keith and his whack-jobs into Everworld" thing since Book 9 at least, and there's really not much other than a war that she could have been planning with them. I can't really imagine Keith as a diplomat. I also admit that the whole Jerkass Woobie thing never seemed really true to me; maybe it's just that as a victim of bullying I have little time for characters like Senna, espcially ones who've flat out stated that they want to Take Over The World (which she does say again, and again). Her decent into psychosis in the last book actually felt very real to me, and like a fitting conclusion to her character arc: Senna gets the power she wanted, overestimates herself again, and this time doesn't have anyone to bail her out. I'm not saying she's not a good character mind you, or even that she's a true Smug Snake; it's just that she came off as too nasty (and at times too pathetic) to me, and made too many mistakes for true magnificent bastardry.

Anyway, thanks for the response, and I don't mind the essay format. It's nice to talk with reasonable people online for once (the arguments I used to get into on You Tube, dear god). The whole reason I posted the original comment (and why I've started to make some changes to the page) was that the original thing kind of read like "The Senna Wales Fanclub" to me. I quite liked the core four, and especially respected Jalil for repeatedly seeing through Senna. Heck, I even liked David, for attempting to break free of her control, and trying so hard to be the leader, no matter how bad he was at it. I don't want to turn it into the anti-Senna page either, it's just that I'd like it to be more neutral, which is why I've been directing people to this discussion so they can figure out for themselves which one she is, and how nasty or nice she really was.

Thanks again for the response,

Ambar Son of Deshar

You are very welcome. I kind of enjoy intelligent discussions like this as well. I can probably do so civilly because, while I enjoyed Senna as a character and was disappointed at her end, I'm not a fanboy of hers or anything.

I'd like to point out that Senna did not take April into Everworld out of "pure sadism." She said herself, "I had chosen April to be the peacemaker." That is, she knew that the other three wouldn't stay together, and choose her half-sister to be The Heart and keep them together, which April did in the second and third books. The idea that Senna just wanted to torment April was a misinformed comment that Christopher made in the eleventh book.

I'd also like to mention that the core four never "needed" Senna for anything. After she died in the eleventh book, they could have gone back to their own world and left Everworld behind. In fact, getting Senna killed early on would have solved all of their problems. The idea that they needed her was a misconception among the core four that Senna herself deliberately led them to believe, for the express purpose of making them think that they needed her and to ensure they wouldn't betray her anytime soon, and it worked for a long time. Senna was never avoiding trouble just because she was important, she was avoiding it because she tricked them into thinking she was more important than she was.

Again, you could say that Senna is an Unreliable Narrator, and she was really doing it for The Real Reasons X, Y, and Z, but that's speculation and non-literal interpretation. From the same reasoning, I could say that Senna was really a self-sacrificing Noble Demon who put up the facade of a nasty manipulator and brought the Sennites over because she knew that the only way to unite the Jerkass Gods and save both worlds from total destruction by Ka Anor was to give them a dangerous enemy to fight, and she was willing to give her life in the process. And then I could make up theories and alternate interpretations of Senna's character to support that and justify why she did this or that. Sure, it's totally contradicted by the motives that Senna states inside her own private thoughts and probably not what the author intended, but hey, Unreliable Narrator, right?

I agree about the neutrality; these pages were kind of like a "Senna Wales Fan Club" at first. That's probably because the original entry was pretty small (Everworld is not exactly a bestselling series, and most people have never heard of it), and it got most of its content and wicks from a small group of active tropers to whom Senna was a Draco In Leather Pants, so it's not surprising that quite of few tropes contained rather glowing opinions of her.

I'd like the articles relating to Everworld to be more neutral as well, and I agree with you "making changes to the Senna Wales Fanclub Page", but it seems to me that a lot of the recent changes to Everworld-related pages have begun to lean more towards discussions than corrections. Now, I hope I'm not sounding too critical or priggish, but if an article is biased and gushes out, "Senna is the most awesomest character ever!" than it doesn't make things any better to put on the same entry, "No, I don't think that's the case and here's why" or make small anti-Senna comments. Articles in main aren't supposed to have discussion, and adding them just takes the article farther away from any semblance of neutrality, and makes a bigger mess that takes more work to be cleaned up to actually make the article tastefully "neutral."

Anyhow, I don't mean to criticize, just to point out that if this whole business with Senna is to be made more neutral on this wiki, than we should simply correct any comments that are too strongly pro-Senna or anti-Senna, and limit how much of an influence our personal opinions have.

That's no problem. Like I said above, I'm not trying to turn it into the anti-Senna page either. In the past attempts at deleting or altering lines by me have just led to their being returned (typically by the same person) a few days later. It's why I was adding discussion instead. I figured that as long as it stayed short, it wouldn't be too much of a problem. Besides, given my own hate for Senna I don't trust myself to write a neutral article. I'd rather attract the attention of someone who can; hence the other reason for the discussion.

As far as the Unreliable Narrator thing goes, fair enough. I guess my problem with "Inside the Illusion" has been is that even when talking about how she thinks she can improve Everworld etc, Senna always came off as so damn arrogant to me, that I had trouble believing or sympathising with her. It came off to me like she was justifying things to herself (and the reader, and god do I hate it when a character does that), instead of really telling the truth. Not to mention that she was so unfailingly nasty to everyone that it was hard for me not to by into Christopher's argument, and believe that sadism was at least a secondary goal of hers. I probably would have liked her better if she had said her objective was to take over the world or something outlandish like that; at least I wouldn't have suspected she was trying to sucker me as well as the kids. The main thing for me about Senna though, is largely her personality. I have trouble accepting someone as a Magnificent Bastard, or even a truly impressive villain, unless they have something grandiose about them. Senna's arrogance and constant dog-kicking, more or less killed any chance of my buying into her greatness for me, and "Inside the Illusion" actually made it worse. Her Mommy Issues, insulting comments about everyone else, and belief in her own superiority only worsened my already poor opinion of her, which is likely why her acts in the final book didn't seem that out of character to me. Keep in mind that calling a character a Smug Snake doesn't necessarily imply that they're stupid (given that, depending on how you look at it both Light Yagami, Cutler Beckett and many other bright villains can fall into it), simply that they aren't as smart as they think they are and that their plans get derailed due to underestimating their opponents. I guess it's a question of if you classify someone as impressive on the basis of what they do, or how they act. For me, Senna's a decent Manipulative Bastard, but lacks the panache for true Magnificence.

Anyway, I'll keep it off the main page though, since that's all a matter of personal interpretation anyway. I don't have a problem with people thinking Senna was a Well Intentioned Extremist, or a Complete Monster or anything in-between, or Jesus for all I care; it just bothered me that the original article seemed to assume that everyone felt the same way about her. Now that it reads more neutrally most of my problems with it are gone. What this page needs now is more links.

Thanks for discussion, it's been fun.

I think what really separates a Magnificent Bastard from a Smug Snake is the reader's individual respect. If you actually have respect for what a character can do and accomplish, then they can qualify as a Magnificent Bastard even if they are somewhat arrogant or make a few tactical mistakes. If you hate a character and have nothing but contempt for them, it's much more likely you will only see them as pathetic and arrogant, and thus they will seem like a Smug Snake. That's something that varies from reader to reader.

Originally, I personally never thought of Senna as a Magnificent Bastard myself. I originally thought of her as a particularly successful Manipulative Bastard, though I definitely never thought of her as a Smug Snake. I was a bit surprised when she was first cited as a Magnificent Bastard, but I thought that fitted fairly well and went with it. Mainly because she repeated encountered and then escaped or defeated the other manipulators in Everworld, such as Loki, Hel, Anica, and even Merlin the first few times.

But anyway, I enjoyed the discussion as well. I don't think I realized beforehand that I enjoyed discussing characters like this in such detail.

Dawkins is the High Priest of the "Great One" who organizes and leads the Sennites in the Old World, and speaks directly to Senna when she crosses over. He can be seen in "Inside the Illusion" when Senna crosses over to Earth briefly, and he gives her a report on how the troops are progressing and how many weapons they have, and receives orders directly from her.

Thanks.

I'm as confused as you are. I thought the two of them had a few moments (especially in Book 8) but that she and Christopher had almost as many. Chances are it's some statement from the author that they got together in the future, in which case, meh. Not exactly a big deal.

I certainly can't remember anything definite in the books, and I don't think K.A. Applegate said anything either. I searched online for anything she said about the series after I first read the books, and I never found her saying anything about what the core four did after the events of "Entertain the End."

The second thing largely happened as a reaction to the first. It's hard not to overreact when someone turns the page into the Senna Wales fanclub. As someone who a) never like her much, and b) never believed she got derailed, I admit I added a large number of very negative entries about her, which someone else (AHEM 13133) to whom I'm very grateful later rewrote to be more neutral. I'm not sure which entries your referring to now though. I've added one or two new entries recently, as has someone else, but I don't think either of us claimed she was a Magnificent Bastard or a Complete Monster (much as I'd like to accuse her of the last one, she's not even close). Which entries were you referring to?

And know, there's not a lot of people who aren't divided on Senna. She's a Base Breaker, and it's because she's so involved in the story. Also, the Draco In Leather Pants of the first article caused some (including once again myself) to go a little overboard when we tried to fix it, and that hasn't helped. Still, it's not like there's much of an Edit War going on anymore. A little while ago sure, but I don't think there really is one now.

I see, that clears quite a few things up. The issue for me seems to be whenever anything new about Senna is added to this page or others, it is either extremely anti-Senna from the start, or later has something added to make Senna look worse or add a Take That to her, even if it is outright wrong. The original entry on No Man Of Woman Born made it look like Senna was the one claiming that no man could kill her (which was incorrect), the one on Hannibal Lecture went out of its way to note how Jalil gets back at her (which had nothing to do with the described trope), and Everworld's entry on Bastard Bastard was especially bad, reading more like a rant against her. It just seems like a lot of entries and information seem to conspicuously drip with obvious hatred and contempt for this character. Not that all of those are that recent, as the problem seems to be going down, but it still seems like editing is necessary just to keep things somewhat neutral.

Now, I'm not some crazed Senna fan or a determined Senna-basher myself. I read the article before I read the series, so my first impression was the one that the Senna fans painted. When I read the series for myself, however, it became more clear to me that she was a villain, and I enjoyed her as a character on that level. She was very complex and entertaining, and Inside the Illusion was a great read, but that doesn't mean I want to jump her bones or vehemently hate her, so the extreme opinions here confused me a bit.