Aeris_1357

Wow! An absolute gem! It had me laughing so hard I was crying! It was a unique take on several tropes - transmigrating into a book, task systems, mind-read FL, changing fate, etc. In addition to being gut busting I also found the story incredibly touching and inspiring. There was also something exceptionally beautiful about the conclusion - satisfying, but also leaving you craving for more. 100% worth the coins! Read it, you won’t regret it!

The meaning of the saying is that if a dog bit you, you wouldn’t reason with the dog and demand compensation from it - you’d look for a human owner or authority to resolve the problem. Humans instinctively avoid things that caused them harm in the past, so usually hurting the dog is self-defense not revenge. Provoking a dog to attack by harming it first is an entirely different matter. Unless you’re really ruthless with terrible morals, the vast majority of people would not put the dog down personally. They’d look for Animal Control if it’s stray, and demand compensation (which might include putting the dog down) if it’s owned. Rather then revenge, putting a dog down is always a matter of circumstance and personal safety.

This line took me a while to figure out since it doesn’t translate well. Lu Huaiyu is making a pun here. In Chinese, Ning Li’s name is written 寧璃. Ning - 寧 meaning “peaceful”, and Li - 璃 meaning “glass”. In the Li character (璃) is the lí character (离) which is used to measure the relative difference of 近 jìn (close) or 远 yuǎn (distant). Lu Huaiyu is saying that “Li” decides if two people are close or not. Therefore, Ning “Li” just defined their relationship as close by wanting to coax him.

“Dazzling queen” I see what you did there Yu Xiheng 🤫

This isn’t quite right. The average person can live about 3 weeks without food, about 3 days without water, and roughly 3 minutes without oxygen. I guess if it’s a torture punishment, going a week without food, in total darkness, tied up like a dumpling, hung upside down, while occasionally getting beaten like a piñata, would deteriorate his willpower to live past that week. But that’s psychological willpower not physiological endurance.

A three-legged frog is a symbol of wealth and good fortune. Statues of three-legged frogs are decorative ornaments commonly used in feng shui to gather and safeguard wealth while warding off bad luck. It’s similar to the “lucky cat” statues of Japan. Three-legged frogs do appear in nature by birth, not just injury. So natural three-legged frogs are hard to find.

A Rolls Royce Phantom is in no way a sports car. It’s a luxury sedan.

This is a very unfair portrayal. Tibetan Mastiffs are known as “gentle giants”. They are traditionally used as herd dogs and are capable of fending off wolves and snow leopards - so yes, they do have high combat ability. However, they are very protective of their pack (owners), super loving, and require large spaces to run around in. Hailing from high Himalayan mountain ranges protecting Buddhist temples and livestock communities from predators and bandits, the breed is instinctively wary of “outsiders” - especially at night. Domestic family-owned Mastiffs require obedience and socialization training to cope in heavily populated areas, but like any domestic animal they are unlikely to act up or attack unless provoked, threatened, or kept cooped up with inadequate exercise. All domestic animals warn non-prey first before attacking (i.e., growling, baring teeth, hunching shoulders, flattening ears). Failing to heed that warning is the fault of the human, not the animal. If a dog, stray or owned, attacks humans indiscriminately it is much more likely that it is a victim of human abuse or rabies, rather than the dog’s breed. There are no bad doggies, only bad owners.

It shouldn’t be there. The “Lorem Ipsum” phrase is nonsense Latin traditionally used by typographers to showcase fonts. It’s sometimes used as a placeholder for text, and most likely someone just forgot to delete it.

I feel super disappointed. I knew Vladimir wasn’t a “good guy” - he’s a murderous mobster so a dark side is expected - but I really thought he was a protective person with a soft spot for the abused and those under his protection. I thought he was a good ruler, a good Alpha. If he’s actually a manipulative little bastard who looks down on Audrey like everyone else but still wants to use her for his own selfish goals while planning to either ignore or breed her, that makes me rather disgusted. I might drop this if something doesn’t change soon. It’s also super confusing plot/writing wise. From his own internal monologue we know that he both respects and wants the mate bond - it’s not the most important but he’d never reject it. He’s put in a lot of time and effort to help Audrey heal, constantly thinking that Audrey is stronger than she thinks and the “Luna they need”. But suddenly he’s saying that it’s a hassle to deal with her and that he agrees with his family that she’s not suitable for the Luna position. Caring for and loving his mate is suddenly something to just “get it over with” and “avoid a fuss”. If this is the real Vladimir it isn’t clever “author misdirection”, it’s blatant contradiction. But if it really is the real Vladimir then I hope Audrey gets her super strong wolf soon so she can rip his throat out.