In Death Wiki


Specifics And Fun Facts About Eve[]

Does Eve have a birthdate?[]

"I assume that the system gave Eve a birthdate, just for record purposes." - February 16, 2003[1]

Why doesn't Eve have a "Texas Twang"?[]

"Eve was bounced around the country by her slimeball father until she was eight. The next several years she bounced around the system. I don't think any regional accent would stick." - June 10, 2005[2]

On whether we'll see another of Eve's formers:[]

"Eve didn't socialize as much as Roarke, being the all-about-the-job girl, but if the story calls for an appearance of one of her ex-lovers, we'll see him." - January 28, 2005[3]

Will we find out if Eve has any "good relatives" like Roarke has?[]

"Eve doesn't--at least to my knowledge thus far--have any `nice' relatives." - September 21, 2006[4]

When asked if Eve ever read Animal Farm after the mention of it in Reunion:[]

"I think if Eve ever sat down to read Animal Farm it would freak her out. She's already worried about cows." - January 20, 2004[5]

On whether the color of THIS DRESS is what she envisioned for Eve's wedding gown:[]

"Hillary's dress is definitely the color I envisioned for Eve, and close to the shape. I think Eve's was likely a higher neck--wedding and all that. Great looking dress." - March 10, 2005[6]

When asked how she feels about Eve being the epitome of the "Bombshell Heroine":[]

"Actually, I'm wondering how Eve would feel about being considered a bombshell. LOL." - January 26, 2005[7]

Does Eve wear a bra?[]

"Does Eve wear a bra or a tank? LOL! Okay, you guys really think about this stuff more than I do, that's for sure. If the outfit or occasion calls for a bra, she'd wear one. She's a lean machine with smallish breasts, so most of the time, a tank would do the job." - April 21, 2004[8]

On Eve's underwear:[]

"I'd say cotton for Eve--except for the lingerie Roarke buys her." - February 3, 2005[9]

How would Eve bet at the Kentucky Derby?[]

"I think Eve might, initially at least, bet by the horse's name." - May 11, 2005[10]

On when Eve has time to shave her legs:[]

"Though it really doesn't take that long to shave your legs--and God knows Eve takes enough showers--I imagine they have something that simplifies this little chore by then." - October 5, 2004[11]

On what scent Eve wears:[]

"Eve would, most usually, wear soap." - November 9, 2004[12]

On what size jeans Eve wears:[]

"Well, it depends. Does Eve wear girl jeans or boy jeans, or have jeans become completely unisex by the middle of the century? These are things I haven't given any thought to as yet. I'll figure it out if it ever comes into play." - December 7, 2006[13]

On what the deal is with all those Kansas references:[]

"Kansas--or Iowa, Nebraska--would be one of Eve's ideas of hell. Personally, I have some pals in Kansas, and love shopping in Kansas City when I'm out that way." - June 28, 2005[14]

Is Eve headed toward being a "dirty cop" since she "bends" the rules occasionally?:[]

"Only one objection/comment. The only definition of a dirty cop that I know is one who breaks the law/procedure for money or personal gain. For a sympathetic dirty cop take the character of Remy from The Big Easy. (But please, let me have him first) He's a good guy, a smart cop, but he's routinely taking money, and allowing other cops under and over his authority to do so with their 'Widows and Orphans Fund'. He's dirty. His motivations, his background, his mentor have all played into the why he does this until he comes to his own understanding of why it's wrong, and there's redemption, justice and happy ending.

In basic cop parlance, in the accepted meaning of the term, Eve is not a dirty cop, nor in danger of becoming one. Object to the bending of the rules, the sliding outside the pages of the book she's done and will certainly do again--no problem. But I strongly believe the term dirty cop applied to her is a misstatement." - May 30, 2006[15]

On whether she'd put her Robb fans in the books to work with Eve[]

"I think Eve would object to working with a group of civilians. <g>. And really, you get to meet Roarke and see their house anytime you read one of the books." - December 21, 2009[16]

On Eve's Past[]

On whether there will ever be a scenario in which Eve finds out that her father isn't "really" her father, and if Roarke could find her real one[]

"Roarke can't find Eve's real parents, in that her father--and yes, yes, yes, he WAS her real father is dead. Really quite sincerely dead. She killed him. He deserved it.

She is, imo, only more valiant, strong and admirable to have come from such horrible people, to have survived such a nightmarish childhood, and made herself into the woman she is. To make it all a mistake and give her a nice family would diminish what she's done, and who she is." - December 7, 2002[17]

Whether we'd see anything from Eve's "growing up" years, after she has left her father's clutches. Nora said:[]

(This question was asked before Memory in Death was published.)

"I don't know how much of Eve's growing up years we might see in the series. Something would have to apply to the now for her, I'd think, to make it sensible to include."-February 24, 2002[18]

Will we learn about how Eve and Feeney met or how he became her trainer?:[]

"We'd only see or go into something like that with Eve and Feeney if it pertained to a storyline. It's history." - September 26, 2008[19]

On knowing the specifics of Eve's life pre-Roarke:[]

"I know some of the basics of Eve's life from the time she was brought into the system and the time she joined the Academy. If pieces of this play into a story, I'll use them." - October 3, 2002[20]

On Eve's mother:[]

"I couldn't say if Eve's mother is still alive. We'll all find out if and when it becomes salient to a storyline." - December 22, 2004[21]

If the teenager who gave Eve a ride on his air board in Memory in Death will come up again:[]

"Air board guy would only appear in another book if he had something to do with the story. Otherwise, he's just a memory." - January 17 2008[22]

On whether Mavis knows about Eve's past:[]

"I think Eve's and Mavis's friendship means Eve tells Mavis personal things." - December 7, 2004[23]

"Mavis, being Eve's first and for a long time only real friend, knows what Eve's childhood was like. Eve would have trusted her with it." - May 19, 2003[24]

On how Eve "deals" with her past in regards to sex, and how she could be receptive to sex, even with a man like Roarke:[]

"I don't think Eve equates sex with what was done to her. Rape isn't about sex, it's about violence and control--and that's something she would have worked out for herself, then had it reaffirmed by her police training." - March 9, 2006[25]

On who else might find out about Eve's past:[]

"I'm not sure who will know how much of Eve's past as the series progresses. She will, as time goes on, remember some other things." - August 20, 2002[26]

On whether Roarke should have gone after the HSO agents in Divided in Death (some believe he should have done it no matter what Eve thought):[]

"If Roarke had gone through with his plans, done what he wanted, even what he felt was right and just (and many would agree with him) he would have shattered the woman he loved. What point was there--as he said when he broke the disc? The single person who mattered, the one who'd been victimized and abused, was already suffering at the thought of his pursuing/punishing the bastards who'd ignored what was happening all those years before. He may have been right, and certainly he was justified to move against them. Not to do so didn't make him whipped, imo. It meant he loved her more than he needed vengeance, or justice." - August 4, 2005[27]

"My goodness, that's a lot to expect or demand from one man--one flawed, fictional character. To commit murder, against the innate needs and the wishes of his wife--in order to stand up for humanity.

I wouldn't claim that either choice he had, the one he took or had he taken the other, would make him a hero.

He did what he did (or didn't do what he didn't do) for his own reasons--and in his way, if we're going to use the soldier anology (which I wouldn't) he protected his homefront.

Right or wrong is certainly up for interpretation. Every reader brings his or own sensibilities and values, judgments and opinions into a story and into the characters in it. But, as a writer and a reader, I'd contend that when the characters' actions don't mesh with my sensibilities etc, it doesn't make these characters wrong or weak or even whipped. It just means they didn't do what I believe I would have done, or wanted done.

I don't aspire to change anyone's mind on this issue--again it's all about reader opinion, sensibilites and so on. I'd only say that from my standpoint when writing this, I saw this dynamically opposed viewpoint and these visceral needs dividing the characters. It was meant to. It was meant to be a hard line between them. Stepping back from that need to punish (or to exact justice if you prefer) was brutally difficult for Roarke. Eve understood exactly what it cost him, understood he did so for her, for them. So to her his actions were heroic.

Whether or not they were within the reality of the story, or whether or not they were for some of the readers, the action was what I felt needed to be." - May 30, 2006[28]

Why are the HSO Bad Guys for ignoring a crime, and Roarke a Good Guy for doing the same?[]

Me, me! I'll answer! Pick me!

Okay. HSO, a gov't agency--law enforcement--ignored a crime, and worse, a crime in progress. One they could--we'll assume--have stopped. Bad, bad, HSO!

Twenty years later, Roarke--a private citizen--finds evidence of this. A private citizen does not then have the right to hunt down those he believes responsible and exact his personal form of justice. This is why we have laws, and a system. Would it be satisfying on a purely human (and reader) level to see him do so. Bet your ass. Would it be more just--in a legal and moral sense--for him (and Eve) to have said okay, let's take this evidence in, pursue this through the system, take this to the wall and have our day in court! Let's get us a whole buncha shark lawyers and have an HSO feeding frenzy! Maybe so, but that's not what I wanted to write, nor what fit the characters.

But his personal pursuit and personal punishment of the HSO would be vigilantism. Something I'm not always opposed to--in fiction. (Love Batman, after all) However, I can't possibly argue that NOT chosing the vigilante route makes someone the bad guy, or whipped or weak.

In addition, the ultimate choice not to pursue those he believed responsible was to protect the woman that victimized child had become from more trauma and pain.

You can say Roarke is whipped--or as guilty as the HSO--for ignoring the crime. I can't. He wasn't there to stop it, they were.

I can say he's the good guy because he ultimately sacrificed his own needs rather than forcing them onto the victim of the crime. And we could get more philosophical and say that forcing your needs onto someone against their wishes could be construed as a form of rape. Emotionally speaking.

And on another level, HSO put the case first--ignoring the human element. Roarke, by setting aside his personal needs, but that human element first.

Maybe not black/bad--white/good. Because there are lots of shades of gray in there. But it's what worked for me--and the book." - June 8, 2006[29]

"Okay, interesting. And as you might suspect, I've given the HSO guys thought over time. There have always been lots of what ifs in my head--none of which may ever come into play. But what if one of the agents wanted to intervene, but was prevented? His demand, even attempt were never put on record. But Roarke hunts down and kills/ruins this man who was unable--not unwilling--to save a child.

Or we have Boarke, who wrestled with the morality, and took the wrong road (imo). But later, he's haunted by what happened. Confesses to his priest, quits the agency or tries to work within it for the greater good, for truth, justice and the American way, does good deeds--tries to find the kid (we can make him a bubblehead for not being able to, doesn't matter). He devotes much of his life to saving abused children, adopts small broken puppies and lives the best life he can with his pretty, blameless wife and six kids. But he did what he did when he did it. Roarke hunts him down, kills/ruins him.

All sorts of variations of these are viable, from the screw the kid, we've got to make the case, to what are we doing! I'm going in!

Now we could continue on, say that as Roarke hunts, he gathers information on the individuals. Does he then decide, well, this one tried, or this one has truly redeemed himself, or gee, this one has a sick wife and an angelic 12-year-old who are totally dependent on him, but THIS one's an sob? Does he take extenuating circumstances into the mix or just paint all with the same brush?

Tough call all around. Big issues--morality, justice, the few or the many, duty and honor. But again, for Eve and Roarke, very personal, very intimate.

In my world the HSO is a corrupt organization, but any organization is made of people and people are varied. The shades of gray. Regardless, should Roarke devote his time, his money, his energies to taking it down? Well, even Roarke has his limits, and this would--unless he just blew the whistle, sacrificing Eve to the public eye, perhaps jeopardizing her career, which defines her in many way--take years of covert ops, infiltrations, and very likely bloody murder.

Just not the kind of series I'm writing here. It could be a good one, actually. One man, using all his resources, all his skills to topple a corrupt government agency, and strike back at those who allowed a child to be abused to the point where she took a life to save her own. What will he risk, what will he learn, what will be sacrified along the way, what will be gained?

But I'm a little too busy now to take this one on." - May 31, 2006[30]

"I will say that this statement ... His decision was based on what *he* might lose. That makes him selfish, that makes him whipped, that makes him a lot darker shade of grey ... doesn't work for me because his decision--which I certainly tried to make clear in dialogue, in internalization, in plot points--was based on what Eve (the victim) would suffer if he went forward. Now a reader is free to perceive this as making him selfish, whipped, whatever, but hopefully gets the decision was never about what Roarke would lose, but what Eve would then be forced to endure.

Also, he WASN'T at the listening post. He can't be put there 20 years in the past. There's a difference between preventing and avenging--they are not synonomous. Disagree with his decision, feel strongly it was wrong, but it just doesn't work to substitute avenging with preventing." - June 9, 2006[31]

"Justice should be served--most certainly. But I can't agree that two seconds or twenty years is one in the same. For the crime, yes, for the victim, very possibly. I can't agree that it's a man's responsibility to exact justice--of his own choosing, without due process--for the good of humanity, or anyone else. Do I see shades of gray there? Certainly, I do--as do the characters in the series.

On one hand you consider Eve a `dirty cop', or on her way to becoming one, because she bends rules. But you feel Roarke has failed as a human being because he didn't seen revenge against those who stood by while Eve was abused (and while she killed) twenty years before. Which is it? Bend rules, bad? Seek personal revenge in the name of justice, right? It's hard to reconcile both views.

Now, say Roarke refused to give way here for Eve's sake. Say he went after these men--two decades after their crime. Men who probably have families now. Kill them, destroy their lives, ruin them financially--dealer's choice. And screw the collateral damage to their spouses, children. Innocents we could assume. But that's okay because it's justice--a crime was committed. Tough break for the wife and kids, but what can you do?

I can't see it that clearly. I see the line as blurred, as lines often are. When you talk of old crimes coming to light, and the perpetrators punished, you're talking about punished by the law--and blackened by the media. In order to do that here, Eve's past, her abuse, the fact that she killed--self-defense sure--her father would have to come out. Who wins? Is that justice for her when it would damage her so deeply?

Justice isn't always clear cut--in reality or fiction. It was not Roarke's place, nor was it ever my intent to depict his place, to seek justice or revenge on these men for the greater good. It's personal, it's intimate, and to me that's much more powerful a statement." - May 31, 2006[32]


  1. Roberts, N. (February 16, 2003). Stoopid Questions for Nora, Part VII!. A Day Without French Fries Message Board. Retrieved March 2009 from ADWOFF
  10. ADWOFF
  11. ADWOFF
  12. ADWOFF
  13. ADWOFF
  14. ADWOFF
  15. ADWOFF
  16. Roberts, N. (December 21, 2009). SQ XXVII for Nora. A Day Without French Fries Message Board. Retrieved April 6, 2010 from ADWOFF
  17. ADWOFF
  18. ADWOFF
  19. Roberts, N. (September 26, 2008). SQ XXV for Nora. A Day Without French Fries Message Board. Retrieved May 14, 2010 from ADWOFF
  20. ADWOFF
  21. ADWOFF
  22. ADWOFF
  23. ADWOFF
  24. ADWOFF
  25. ADWOFF
  26. ADWOFF
  27. Roberts, N. (August 4, 2005). Don't Hate Me for Being New II. A Day Without French Fries Message Board. Retrieved April 6, 2010 from ADWOFF
  28. Roberts, N. (May 30, 2006). Don't Hate Me for Being New II. A Day Without French Fries Message Board. Retrieved April 6, 2010 from ADWOFF
  29. ADWOFF
  30. Roberts, N. (May 31, 2006). Don't Hate Me for Being New II. A Day Without French Fries Message Board. Retrieved April 6, 2010 from ADWOFF
  31. Roberts, N. (June 9, 2006). Don't Hate Me for Being New II. A Day Without French Fries Message Board. Retrieved April 6, 2010 from ADWOFF
  32. Roberts, N. (May 31, 2006). Don't Hate Me for Being New II. A Day Without French Fries Message Board. Retrieved April 6, 2010 from ADWOFF