Prophecy and Fate: Can Destiny Be Rewritten in Born of Blood and Ash?

Defining the Thematic Claim

In Born of Blood and Ash, Jennifer L. Armentrout weaves a complex meditation on whether the future is a fixed thread or a malleable web. The prophecy of the Primal of Blood and Ash dominates every character’s horizon, yet the novel consistently questions whether destiny is absolute. The central claim is this: prophecy sets a trajectory, but individual agency, love, and sacrifice can alter its course—though never without cost. The characters face the terrifying possibility that the Fates themselves are pulling strings, yet they also discover that small choices and defiant acts can snip old threads and weave new ones.

Tracing the Theme Across the Plot

1. Eythos’s Failed Attempt to Circumvent Prophecy

The foundation of the theme appears in Sera's conversation with Keella. Keella explains that Eythos, Nyktos’s father, once tried to outmaneuver the prophecy by placing Sotoria’s soul in Sera’s bloodline. He hoped Sotoria would be reborn with the embers of life, allowing her to stop Kolis and make way for Nyktos as the true Primal of Death—and prevent Sotoria from rising as the Primal of Blood and Bone. Keella states this plan should have worked “except for that”—meaning except for the intervention of the Fates, who prevented Sotoria’s rebirth. This moment establishes that even a Primal’s careful scheming can be undone by forces beyond mortal or divine control. The prophecy is not simply a prediction; it is a living dream of the Ancients, and the Fates expect it to unfold completely.

2. Sera’s Decision to Hide the Future

Immediately after learning the full scope of the prophecy—including the Harbinger and Bringer of Death and Destruction—Sera makes a deeply personal choice. She builds “a wall of shadowstone and Ancient bone” in her mind to hide the knowledge from Ash. She then makes herself forget what she learned, keeping it buried until she needs it. This act is a direct rebellion against the prophecy’s weight: by shouldering the burden alone, Sera attempts to protect Ash from the timeline they may be fated to walk. Yet the very act of hiding is itself a kind of foresight, a paradox that the novel never resolves. It shows that even deliberate ignorance can be part of a larger design—or a way to bend the design.

3. The Eruption at the Battle of Masadonia

The most visceral confrontation with fate occurs in Chapter 41, when Sera, after killing the Primal Embris, declares, “I am the One who is born of Blood and Ash, the Light and the Fire, and the Brightest Moon, the true Primal of Life and the Queen of the Gods.” In this moment, she fully inhabits the prophecy’s language—not as a passive vessel, but as an active force. The land is devastated: mountains crumble, a tsunami rises, and a blood-drenched forest springs from the soil. Sera’s rage transforms the prophecy’s words into reality, yet she later reflects that this destruction was not inevitable—it was born from her choice to exact vengeance. The line between fulfilling fate and creating it becomes indistinguishable.

4. Living in the Aftermath: Choosing the Present

In the novel’s final chapter, two months after Kolis’s defeat, Sera attends a celebration. Despite the prophecy that looms over her—and the knowledge that Sotoria’s soul remains in The Star—she chooses “to embrace the present with Ash and their loved ones.” This is not denial; it is an active decision to live in the moment rather than be consumed by the future. The thematic claim holds: the prophecy is not abolished, but it is set aside through will. Sera and Ash dance, play games, and laugh, enacting a small but powerful rebellion against the Fates’ grand design.

Character and Symbol Connections

The theme of prophecy and fate intimately connects to several characters and symbols.

• Sera embodies the struggle between destiny and choice. She is both the “bearer of two crowns” and the one who must decide whether to follow the prophecy’s path or carve her own.
• Nyktos (Ash) represents the other half of the prophecy—the future King who must trust Sera’s instincts even when she hides the truth. His belief in her agency affirms that love can rewrite fate.
• Kolis is the false Primal who misreads the prophecy as his own glorification, demonstrating how self-serving interpretation leads to ruin.
• Sotoria is the soul of the Harbinger and Bringer, whose fate remains uncertain. The novel leaves her story open-ended, questioning whether her rebirth would repeat history or break it.
• Keella and Penellaphe serve as oracles and interpreters, showing that even immortal knowledge is incomplete.
• Aydun (the Fate) and Holland (the Fate in disguise) walk a “fine line of interference,” illustrating that even the beings who see the threads cannot touch them without risk.

Symbols reinforce the theme:

• Shadowstone is used to build walls—both literal and metaphorical—to hide knowledge and block fate.
• Eather is the living essence that reacts to choices; it can destroy a Fate who crosses the line, showing that the universe enforces its own rules.
• Nota (the beast) represents the primal, untamed power that Sera learns to wield—a reminder that fate is not always rational.

Complexity and Contradiction

The novel does not offer a simple answer. On one hand, the prophecy seems inescapable: every major event—the awakening of the Primal of Blood and Bone, the fall of mountains, the rise of the Harbinger—comes to pass in some form. On the other hand, characters constantly act against it: Eythos tries to reroute the prophecy, Sera hides its full meaning, and Holland (a Fate) admits he does not know if the future is already written. The Fates themselves disagree: Aydun tells Sera that “small choices can alter the outcome,” yet he also warns that some events are “inevitable.” The novel’s final chapters deliberately leave ambiguity—Sera is pregnant with twins, Sotoria’s soul may be freed, and the Ancients may or may not awaken. The story ends not with a clear victory over fate, but with a pause in the battle. This suggests that the struggle between destiny and free will is ongoing, and that perhaps the two are not opposites but intertwined.

Study Questions and Answers

Q1: How does Eythos’s plan to circumvent the prophecy reflect the novel’s stance on fate?

A1: Eythos believed he could prevent the rise of the Primal of Blood and Bone by placing Sotoria’s soul in Sera’s bloodline, hoping love would stop the prophecy. The plan failed because the Fates intervened, implying that even Primals cannot fully outmaneuver destiny. Yet the attempt itself shows that fate is not blindly followed—it can be challenged.

Q2: Why does Sera choose to hide the full prophecy from Ash?

A2: Sera builds a mental wall of shadowstone to forget the prophecy’s darkest parts, wanting to protect Ash from the knowledge that they may face even greater threats later. This decision illustrates her agency: she takes control of what information shapes their actions, even if it means carrying the burden alone.

Q3: In what way does the destruction at Masadonia both fulfill and contradict the prophecy?

A3: When Sera declares herself the Primal of Blood and Ash and kills Embris, she enacts the prophecy’s language—mountains fall, a forest rises from blood. Yet her motivation is personal rage, not destiny. The scene shows that prophecy can be a self-fulfilling prophecy when characters choose to embody its words.

Q4: What role do the Fates play in the theme of destiny?

A4: The Fates are revealed as ancient beings who dream prophecies and can intervene, but they are also constrained by the essence. Holland warns Sera that crossing a line could destroy him. This creates a paradox: the Fates both shape destiny and are bound by it, blurring the line between creator and created.

Q5: Does the novel ultimately argue that fate is fixed or malleable?

A5: The novel remains deliberately ambiguous. The prophecy’s major beats occur, but characters’ choices—especially Sera’s decision to live in the present—prove that the future is not written in stone. Armentrout seems to suggest that fate is a framework, not a prison; what matters is how individuals respond within that framework.