Twilight discussion

Who cares, it is PULP!

Tayyeba wrote: "On a slightly different tangent, it seemed to me as if a big part of a woman's worth in twilight was her ability to have children. It was a big part of almost all of the female character’s personalities; Leah, Esme, Rosalie, Bella... Not every woman wants to be a mother and this was not represented."

We've actually had a discussion about this before on this thread. Women that cannot have children are allowed to mourn that, and since female vampires and female werewolves are sterile, it would stand to reason that there would be some sadness from not having the choice to decide to have children or not.

Actually, Bella was perfectly fine with the idea of never having children. Remember when Bella and Edward were discussing Charlie's reaction to their engagement? Charlie's first thought was that Bella was pregnant, and Edward remarked that he was sorry that he couldn't get her pregnant (because they thought he was sterile as well). Bella shrugged it off. Meyer isn't showing it as a uniquely feminine concern, but one that both sexes deal with. I think it's common that when a person (man or woman) finds out they are physically unable to have children, it can be a loss for them, even if they don't want them.

I don't get why people usually ignore the supernatural elements of the story and the fact that Edward is a vampire . It affects so much of the story's dynamic and how the characters behave.

I'm not saying that this excuses that problematic aspects of the novel, but it certainly should be put into consideration. I think judging Edward and Bella's relationship only outside that context of their supernatural situation is unfair.

Their relationship had a lot of flaws. And even after Edward gave up some of that control and started to make compromises, it still wasn't the picture of a healthy human relationship. But that is to be expected since a.) It was Edward's and Bella's first romantic relationship, they're bound to make mistakes b.) Edward has to deal with his vampiric nature.

Vampires have a different psychology. Once vamps fall in love that feeling never fades, once they set their sights on revenge they don't stop until they attain it, etc. etc... that sort of thing. They're much more intense than humans. It is unclear to what extent they can control these things (if they can control it at all).

I think once Bella was turned into a vampire, they are more on the same wavelength. They still have things to work on, and thankfully they have an eternity to do that.

This is a grey area.

One one hand, feminism is really about personal choice and everything that Bella got herself into was her own decision. Stupid and self-destructive might be more appt to the situation.

On the other, after Edward leaves, it is shown to us that she is unable to live without a man. She throws everything to the wind without concern in a selfish and childish hissy fit.

Can we all at least agree that their relationship is unhealthy and it's strange when young girls claim that the Edward is the perfect man?

twilight no and yes at the same time

I consider myself an "equalist" and not a "feminist" because the definition of feminism is so warped among everyone. Most people on this discussion believe that to be feminist is to want an equality of the sexes (something that I and any woman can agree with.) The definition of feminism that I have heard in my life is the belief that woman can exist as a complete separate entity away from men. Which is why I consider myself an "equalist," of course I'm happy that the law is fair to men and women, however, just because the establishment says so doesn't make it so. There are still HUGE issues regarding sexism even in America.
Edward is a controlling @ss, but that doesn't make Bella "anti-feminist." Many don't really grasp that Bella is human, and I think its her humanity that puts her in these "inferior" positions, not that she is a woman. If any woman found herself in love with a vampire (like that's gonna happen..) and was constantly surrounded by vampires I doubt that she could pretend to herself that she's just as strong as they are. She isn't. The same could be said for a man in love with a vampire.
The book is unrealistic but all books are. Bella was never supposed to be a role model, she's a fictional character. I wouldn't want to get married or have a baby at 18, lucky for me I don't have to make that choice. Bella is in a completely different situation and she made her choices according to what she wanted to do. Were her choices "right" or "wrong"? I don't know, she did what she wanted for herself and good for her! You can criticize her choices but really it's difficult to tag her as "anti-feminist." The term "feminist" is somewhat ambiguous and her character is put in an unlikely situation that our society cannot grasp perfectly. (None of us have ever fallen in love with or been surrounded by sparkling vampires.)

Gaby wrote: "Bella is completely dependant on Edward and feels helpless when he's not around. In fact when he does leave, she curls up in the foetal position for six months then throws herself off a cliff. Sh..."

I just have a lot of concerns regarding how popular Twilight is with such an amibivalent (even lost) character like Bella who appears to be so easily controlled. Why aren't there more YA novels where the powerful, dynamic, and transgressive character is the teen GIRL? Where the female lead runs the show, dictates the rules, suffers the consequences, but is PROUD of the fact that she's the star of her own life, naysayers be damned? In a word: GUTS. That's the book I want to read. Suggestions?

Diane wrote: "Gaby wrote: "Bella is completely dependant on Edward and feels helpless when he's not around. In fact when he does leave, she curls up in the foetal position for six months then throws herself off..."

you might would like katniss from the hunger games

Crystal wrote: "I think that's just Bella... Twilight also has strong female characters..."

I agree. Plus, he is just as pathetic without her as she is without him.

Oh and she is not meant to be a role model. She is simply a character on a book.

I think the major problem with Bella is not that she chooses her guy, sets her sights and literally dies for him, but that it has to happen Edward's way. i.e. They have to get married before he'll turn her/sleep with her.
Bella only gets married (if I remember correctly) because Edward says so. I think this is very manipulative of him, and it sort of compromises the "Bella made her own choice" message that some Twilight fans argue for. She does, in a sense, but it is hugely modified by what Edward wants, not what Bella wants. I'm not saying that Bella should be manipulative, too, but I think it is an issue that Bella, who doesn't really care about marriage or kids is forced into a marriage in order to get what SHE wants, because Edward says so. As far as I'm concerned, Bella did not completely get her choice to be a vampire, because Edward had so many specific conditions and rules, which Bella never even debated, only said, "Sure let's get married." This really offended me, especially since I seem to remember Bella initially not wanting the domestic dream at all.
The other major issue in these books is that most of the women are simply shown as caretakers and such. In the end, the message seemed to be that the only worth a women has is her ability to have kids, or take care of kids. Which also offended me.
So, yes, I believe twilight at least gives messages about women that are not positive.
I'd even say it IS anti feminist.
Or, that's what I think anyway.

1luvbooks wrote: "I think the major problem with Bella is not that she chooses her guy, sets her sights and literally dies for him, but that it has to happen Edward's way. i.e. They have to get married before he'll ..."

So what about Bella's decision to be changed into a vampire? Edward doesn't want her to do that. It's funny how everyone is more offended by her choice to get married than giving up her mortality. And she said the major reason why she didn't want to get married was because she was worried what other people would think and she didn't want to be the center of attention. (Not the commitment.)
"The other major issue in these books is that most of the women are simply shown as caretakers and such. In the end, the message seemed to be that the only worth a women has is her ability to have kids, or take care of kids. Which also offended me." Really? That was the message you took from it? How about Jane or Alice or Sue Clearwater? Only Bella, Rosalie, and Esme are the more maternal characters... At first Edward wanted to give Bella a child, Bella said she didn't even care for kids. They're all worthy of their peers and it's not because of their ability to take care of children.

Nazzy wrote: "1luvbooks wrote: "I think the major problem with Bella is not that she chooses her guy, sets her sights and literally dies for him, but that it has to happen Edward's way. i.e. They have to get mar..."

well said! I would only also point out that the marriage, sex, and transformation decisions were negotiated by edward and bella- no one made anyone do anything. and, even after that, edward caved and told bella she could have the sex and the transformation (done by him) w/o having to wait or marry him...but she decided she wanted to anyway.

Sorry...I haven't read the books for like 3 years..it's all I could remember.
@Nazzy
My point (though I'm not sure it was clear) was that, yes, Bella makes her own choice to become immortal, good for her. BUT she makes it on Edward's terms.
That's all.

1luvbooks wrote: "I think the major problem with Bella is not that she chooses her guy, sets her sights and literally dies for him, but that it has to happen Edward's way. i.e. They have to get married before he'll ..."
I guess I saw the marriage condition as him saying, "if you choose a life with me I want marriage". I do not think most people would fault a woman if she said I do not want to have sex or live with you without marriage.

Mickey wrote: "I would have personally preferred the thread 'Is feminism anti-woman?'

Feminism has decided to only value women who act like traditional men, thus limiting our choices. (Must we be strong to be ..."

i wanted to give you a high five after reading your thoughts!

Delphina wrote: "Oh and she is not meant to be a role model. She is simply a character on a book.
"

Well, Mrs. Meyer thinks Bella is a role model. So, it's hard to argue that Bella was not meant to be a role model.

Huh. I wonder if the author's Mormon faith has anything to do with the passivity of her female character...I'm sure there's been a lot written about that already.

Diane wrote: "Huh. I wonder if the author's Mormon faith has anything to do with the passivity of her female character...I'm sure there's been a lot written about that already."

Being the fact that Meyer belongs to this cult, I'm sure it does.

In the book, Bella makes the decision to sacrifice her happiness for her mother, in the same way Edward's 'family' is sacrificing for each other.

In the movies, Bella comes across as a kind of nothing, which deflates the drama of the movies.

But in the first book, she's a stronger character.

Bill

Valerie wrote: "Yes.

For the reasons you said, and more.

For example, the situation with Leah and her inability to bear children... it blatantly says she isn't "as female as she should be" and that's why she..."

I should probably add a quick warning that there are plenty of spoilers incase anyone hasnt read the whole series.. Now!

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with so many things..

First off, could it be that the Leah wanted to contribute to her tribe, so the role of wolf was given to her in loo of being able to bear children? That seems fair and equal to me, everyone, male or female, gets to contribute to their tribe in any ways they can, we can't deny that the men can't produce kids so they're given a different, (eqaul.. [I've never given birth so maybe even easier]) role, which can then go onto the girls too.

Next, Im slightly offend by your opinion that "Meyer has an inability to create truely strong female characters, since they all depend on men in one way or another...". Being in a relationship doesnt show lack of strength as a woman, who's to say that Carlise doesnt depend on Esme's extreme ability to love as much as she depends on his extreme compassion, in what way does Esme being with Carlies make her weak? Being in a relationship means taking on the life of another person while also dealing with your own, that means the good and the bad. To me this does show strenght. Anyways, we also find strong single women; Zafrina, of the amazons, and maggie, of the irish coven from breaking dawn are pretty impressive, not to mention Sue Clearwater goes through the death of her husband, as well as her two children turning into wearwolves. That's a lot to take on, but she seems to do it stride.

I'll admit that I haven't recently read Rosalie's back story, but I know when I did that I in no way came out thinking that it was her fault..

And as for Bellas baddass-ness?! She accepts people into her life who most shy away from, she looks past what they are (a pretty brave thing to do when your looking into the eyes of a wearwolf or a vampire) and goes by WHO they are. A few examples of when she was badass could be when she puts herself in danger because she believes it'll save her mother in twilight, when she offers to sit in the middle of the new born battle if it will help in Eclipse, in Breaking Dawn she bears a child which is strong enough to break her bones, she goes through the writhing agony of turning into a vampire quietly so as not to hurt edward, she takes on her newborn life as a vampire with ease, and in the end she kicks ass by pushing herself to master her gift (in a pretty short time) so that she can help save her friends, and the day.. pretty bad friggin bad ass if you ask me.

I think people are so focus on the love story of edward and bella that they look passed bella's true character.

Paul wrote: "Delphina wrote: "Oh and she is not meant to be a role model. She is simply a character on a book.
"

Well, Mrs. Meyer thinks Bella is a role model. So, it's hard to argue that Bella was not meant ..."She must have changed on this because I have seen her say she isn't. She must have been getting too much backlash and pressure about it.

I found Twilight to be anti feminist, yes. Because, yes, Bella makes her own choice. Good for her, she should have the right to decide to be a total subservient woman, if that's what she wants. The problem is, though, not only is Bella obsessed with Edward (every thought/feeling she has relates to him, and whenever she feels something she wonders how it will effect him) she has no sense of self apart from him. This is not healthy, to be so dependent on a guy that you don't even have a sense of self.This sort of perpetuates the whole "women are only valuable in relation to men" idea which IS a very antifeminist message (and it's not the only time this message appears in the twilight saga.) Honestly, every woman in the series is some how tied to a man/subservient to a man. However, the men in the series' value is not bound to the women. So, even though Bella does make her own choice, the book is still anitfeminist in the way that womanhood is portrayed.

Yes. Read most of the top reviews for the book and you'll see why. The general portrayal of women who are single is that they're either unhappy or bitches.

P.S. Some comments here justify feminism as what it is but others have a completely ignorant or false view of what it truly is. Feminism is not against femininity and is NOT solely exhibited by women with masculine characteristics. Twilight is anti-feminist for a HUGE amount of reasons. It'd take a LOT to put ALL the reasons in just one comment.

Delphina wrote: "Paul wrote: "Delphina wrote: "Oh and she is not meant to be a role model. She is simply a character on a book.
"

Well, Mrs. Meyer thinks Bella is a role model. So, it's hard to argue that Bella w..."
I have heard her say she did not. I guess she felt the pressure and/or changed her mind on that point.

Nazzy wrote: "I consider myself an "equalist" and not a "feminist" because the definition of feminism is so warped among everyone. Most people on this discussion believe that to be feminist is to want an equalit..."

I love that- I think that equalist is a much better term than feminist! :)

Bookworm wrote: "The general portrayal of women who are single is that they're either unhappy or b*tches."

Again, I think there is a tendency to single out women only in this discussion. Single men are also portrayed as generally unhappy as well. (ex: Jacob, Edward pre-Bella) I would say it has more to do with the romantic view that Meyer has of love. The only people that seem to escape are, oddly enough, the single adults. But, possibly, there just isn't enough focus on them.


Bookworm wrote: "Feminism is not against femininity and is NOT solely exhibited by women with masculine characteristics."

So, do you think we would be having this discussion if Meyer had given Bella the traditionally masculine ideal traits of physical strength and emotional independence? You don't think feminists make any sort of distinction between characteristics and value some more than others?

"Bella is a very weak main character from a literary standpoint. She develops little, has little personality,"

Interesting that Natalie points this out. Meyers did this intentionally so that the reader can slip right on in and become Bella. Please note that her descriptions are intentially left sparse too. This was a brilliant strategy. It obviously worked.

1luvbooks wrote: "Sorry...I haven't read the books for like 3 years..it's all I could remember.
@Nazzy
My point (though I'm not sure it was clear) was that, yes, Bella makes her own choice to become immortal, good f..."

I think that's more of a compromise then? Every healthy marriage or relationship for that matter exists based on compromise. Though Bella and Edward's case is really too different for our society to fully grasp because no one's ever experienced it!

Mickey wrote: "Bookworm wrote: "The general portrayal of women who are single is that they're either unhappy or b*tches."

Again, I think there is a tendency to single out women only in this discussion. Single ..."

True. It's more the portrayal of love that's messed up. And no, I don't think feminism values some characteristics more than others. But in all honesty, that's just me. Feminism is an extremely relative term that compromises different theories and is perceived differently by different people.

Bookworm wrote: "It's more the portrayal of love that's messed up."

Personally, I don't have a problem with the idea that love is a state of mutual emotional dependence. That's fairly realtistic. I do think feminists portray love as uniquely damaging to the female partner's independence, though, and I find that to be utter nonsense.

*thread bump*

Mickey wrote: "I do think feminists portray love as uniquely damaging to the female partner's independence, though, and I find that to be utter nonsense."

I wonder where that idea comes from?
I've read a lot of feminist texts and never once have come upon one in which the writer was opposed to the ideal of love. What they are usually opposed to is marital ritual and law - which has nothing whatsoever to do with love.

Yes, most feminists I would suppose to dislike the idea of emotional dependency - on the same grounds they are against economic dependency.

Marina wrote: "Mickey wrote: "I would have personally preferred the thread 'Is feminism anti-woman?'

Feminism has decided to only value women who act like traditional men, thus limiting our choices. (Must we be ..."

Well, compared to other heroines of our time, Bella doesn't do much to deserve the title "heroine". She's not heroic at all, she lets everyone else do the saving and most of the time she's in the background being miserable and depressed. She also lets other people push her around a lot and doesn't know when to put her foot down when it comes to certain things.

Jesse wrote: "She's not heroic at all, she lets everyone else do the saving and most of the time she's in the background being miserable and depressed. She also lets other people push her around a lot and doesn't know when to put her foot down when it comes to certain things."

What about the instances when she does the saving, such as in New Moon and Breaking Dawn? And lets people push her around? She got most of what she wanted and when she couldn't get it immediately, she continued advocating for it (becoming a vampire, seeing Jacob, keeping the baby). I actually think it wasn't until Eclipse that we see her actually engage in real compromising. The idea that she "lets other people push her around a lot" is something you'll have to explain.

Mickey wrote:What about the instances when she does the saving, such as in New Moon and Breaking Dawn?

My answer to this is VERY long winded and may seem like it ran off into an irrelevant tangent, but I do have a point.

I can only reply to the New Moon one you brought up, since I've yet to read Breaking Dawn. Because I wanted to make my opinion as educated as I could, I reread that whole sequence from New Moon and took some time to research all that I wanted to say.

I want to first state that I am all for having artistic license when it comes to authors doing what they want when they write. However, I do believe that rules must be applied and that even though it's fiction, it must make sense, it must have a set list of rules to follow so that the reader can more enjoy the story so that it's more believable to the reader. I know that fiction is all about escapism, but my enjoyment while reading is more heightened when I can more enjoy what I'm reading, not stopping every few seconds because what the author had wrote made no sense to me and thus is throwing me out of the world that they created because I can't believe that what happened can actually happen, even in the world the author made.

As such, my enjoyment of New Moon vastly dwindled because Meyer did no research when writing her story. When I first read New Moon I was ignorant to some things and how they actually worked. I was younger then than I am now and didn't really care about how the world (ours, that is) worked enough to actually look into some of the things that I now have a problem with.

The thing that I had a problem with when reading this story, that irked me but I couldn't figure out why until I looked it up, was when Alice bribed the guard in New Moon to be allowed access into the city when only tour buses were allowed. She gave the man a wad of money and what could be seen from the wad was a thousand dollar bill. After looking for a while, it seems that the last time a thousand dollar bill was printed was in 1964. these bills are very rare, and are worth more to collectors -worth more as a collector's item- , more so than to a guard working a city gate. It's highly unlikely that people, no matter how rich, could just have one (or several, since Alice hands the man a wad of money) on hand to bribe people with. I understand suspense of disbelief when it comes reading any work of fiction, I understand that the family has been alive well before the use of the bill was discontinued, but there's only so far that I can suspend my disbelief before I fall off a cliff.

As such, it's hard for me to believe that Alice had these bills handy for such an occasion or could've gotten them from a bank, seeing as the highest bill you can get from a bank is a hundred dollar bill. On top of that, the American bill is worth less in euros. I'm going on a bit of a tangent, but to me it would just make more sense if Alice had the money converted into euros.

As such, Bella and Alice shouldn't have been able to get into the city because this bribe is essentially useless, and this irked me. It irked me because to me, using the thousand dollar bill(s) to bribe the man is essentially like going to a store and using a dollar coin or a fifty cent coin to buy something. That is how useless those bills were in that situation. A thousand dollar bill sounds like big business, but aren't actually much of anything in that scene.

All in all, yes, it was nice that Bella did the saving for once, but it's just not really believable for me. the situation and the events surrounding her saving him were just too improbable for me to actually enjoy Bella not being a background character to her story when she's the main character.

Mickey wrote:The idea that she "lets other people push her around a lot" is something you'll have to explain.

To me, Bella let people push her around. She let Edward do it to her, which isn't cool to me. When I said that she lets people push her around, I connected it with her not putting her foot down on a lot of situations. What I'm referring to is her inability to just say no to things she doesn't want to happen. Like in the first book, Twilight, Bella is very uncomfortable with Eric, Tyler, and Mike constantly asking her to the girls ask dance. She instead lets this awkward tango go on for quiet some time until she goes to Port Angeles. She keeps giving the excuse that she'll be away on the day of the event. She never says no because she doesn't want to go with them, she says no because she says she'll be away. She never firmly let them know that she just didn't want to go, so much so that she leaves Tyler with the sense that he can ask again when prom comes around.

If I were Bella I would've been very much annoyed that three guys didn't understand the concept of Girls Ask, that there had to be a special dance designated to giving girls the permission to ask when they didn't need it, and that people just kept asking when I said no in the first place. By the time Tyler came to ask her I think I would've exploded. So yes, I see what Edward does to her, and what happens early on in the series as Bella letting people push her around and see it as her never putting her foot down when it came to certain situations.

I appreciate your thoroughness, Jesse, but I'm a little mystified by your response. I don't know why you are discussing money. We are talking about specific things: saving and letting people push her around.

It is rather a handicap not to be able to discuss the whole series, and I don't want to be a spoiler any more than I have been, but I don't understand how you can say she "lets everyone else do the saving" when you know of instances where she saves as well. People in fantasy worlds often get saved, Bella is no different. Look at Luke Skywalker, who spent most of the first three original Star Wars movies being saved by everyone, including the big finale where he does not defeat The Emperor in a test of strength and skill, but simulateously is saved and saves through belief and faith in another. (I'm trying to be really vague in case you haven't seen it.) Or look at Harry Potter, he is also saved by many characters and freak occurences throughout series. I won't go into the ending, but it was not really a show of power. These "savings" do not invalidate these heroes, and I think, unfortunately, the great difference is because of gender. There's a unwritten rule where a girl should not have to be saved and, if she does, she's weak and contemptible and "anti-feminist". This means that there will be less range for female characters because they are judged more harshly.

I was expecting more examples of Bella being pushed around by Edward, so it was strange to me to have you focus on the dance. I took her reluctance to say no to mean she didn't have a lot of experience with being asked out before and she didn't know how to go about it without hurting their feelings. That she would be out of town that day was a way of letting the boys down easy.

There are many examples of Bella not taking Edward's preferences into consideration during their relationship. Some big decisions were whether to be turned into a vampire or not. Bella wanted it and Edward didn't. In fact, at the end of New Moon, she had the Cullen family vote on it, going over Edward's head. There's the decision to visit Jacob, who, as a new werewolf, was likely to lose control and hurt her. She went to see him anyway and, later on, Edward even drove her there himself. There are other decisions that I could use, but they would spoil Breaking Dawn for you.

Mickey wrote: "I appreciate your thoroughness, Jesse, but I'm a little mystified by your response. I don't know why you are discussing money."

As I said, My reply was very long winded and may seem like it went off to an irrelevant tangent, but it had a point. Bringing up the bribery scene was just an example. My main point was, and I stated it in my reply, was that all in all, yes, it was nice that Bella did the saving for once, but it's just not really believable for me. the situation and the events surrounding her saving him were just too improbable for me to actually enjoy Bella not being a background character to her story when she's the main character.

Mickey wrote: "It is rather a handicap not to be able to discuss the whole series, and I don't want to be a spoiler any more than I have been, but I don't understand how you can say she "lets everyone else do the saving" when you know of instances where she saves as well."

It's not exactly a handicap for me when I know of the instance you referred to from Breaking Dawn, I just choose not to give my opinion because what I know of it is hearsay. You would not be spoiling anything for me when it comes to this series.

Also, just because she has instances where she has done the saving doesn't mean that she didn't let people push her around. Personally, it felt as if Bella was letting everything happen around her instead of choosing to be in it, doing something. It could be the way Meyer wrote, but that's just how it felt for me.

Mickey wrote: "These "savings" do not invalidate these heroes, and I think, unfortunately, the great difference is because of gender. There's a unwritten rule where a girl should not have to be saved and, if she does, she's weak and contemptible and "anti-feminist". This means that there will be less range for female characters because they are judged more harshly. "

While I do see that the difference is gender, I still feel that Bella had more instances of being an invalid and letting everyone else do everything while she was just there, instead of her doing something. Her acts of heroics are greatly outweighed by the times when she had to be saved from a situation or where someone did the saving for her.

Mickey wrote: "I was expecting more examples of Bella being pushed around by Edward, so it was strange to me to have you focus on the dance."

I brought up the dance because I am not just saying that she is being pushed around by Edward. I think that Bella is simply just a pushover. There are of course multiple instance where she lets herself be pushed around by Edward and I would love to bring them up but they have 1) been talked about to hell and back and 2) I've seen you make a rebuttal for them all. Either you or someone else who disagreed that it was an act of Edward pushing her around. I simply rather not get into a battle to the death over interpretations. Yes, that can be seen as me not backing up my opinion, but I don't feel like engaging in a heated discussion when our opinions are so different and that it seems like you or I are hard set on them.

Mickey wrote: "I took her reluctance to say no to mean she didn't have a lot of experience with being asked out before and she didn't know how to go about it without hurting their feelings. That she would be out of town that day was a way of letting the boys down easy."

I can very easily relate with Bella on that. I know how hard it is to say no and make no the final answer to someone's persistence. The thing is that Bella has no problem doing in her head and even laughs about their poor attempts to woo her with Edward. She has absolutely no problem being crude- nearly rude- about them when it's just her or her and Edward. Even Mike, who she thought was the nicest person she met on her first day to school quickly became the butt of her rudeness when it was undeserving and unwarranted. I don't see how having no experience with being asked out would interfere with her letting them know that she wasn't interested. Yes, I can understand that it's overwhelming to be a wall flower and have what seems like everyone at once wanting you or to be around you, but that to me doesn't excuse her inability just say no and put her foot down on the situation.

Mickey wrote: "There are many examples of Bella not taking Edward's preferences into consideration during their relationship."

And I am well aware of them, truly I am. It still doesn't shake me of the notion that overall she allows him to make the final decisions whether she likes the final decision or not. A lot of it comes from her being the inferior in the relationship. She's human, he's a vampire, she can't do much when he's hell bent on something going his way. For example, back in the first book when Bella wanted to go home on her own rather than letting Edward take her home. I wouldn't exactly say he threatens her but it was close to it. He tells her that he can easily drag her back, that she has no choice but to get in the car with him and let him take her home. She was well enough to drive herself home but Edward steam rolled over her decision and forced her to let him take her home. So yes, she has said no to Edward when he wanted to do things his way, but it just seems like he was the main decision maker in their relationship. It's hard to recall many instances of her doing the decision making when the majority of the time Edward is a mood-swinging powerhouse.

If you want to bring in Breaking dawn, I know of them already. Like the fact that Bella wanted to keep the baby and that Edward pimped out Bella's uterus to Jacob if Jacob got rid of Nessie. I know. She stills seems like a pushover to me.

Jesse wrote: "My main point was, and I stated it in my reply, was that all in all, yes, it was nice that Bella did the saving for once, but it's just not really believable for me. the situation and the events surrounding her saving him were just too improbable for me to actually enjoy Bella not being a background character to her story when she's the main character."

See, what I don't get about this is that you said in your first post that she "lets everyone else do the saving", which is implying that she doesn't save as well. If you knew that she has, why put it like that? The problem with that is that there are many posters on here who have never read the books, and when you say something that is not factually true, you are perpetuating a misconception. Whether or not she saved someone isn't a matter of interpretation. You can't really say,'to me, because Alice used thousand dollar bills as bribes, Bella did not save Edward'.

Jesse wrote: "While I do see that the difference is gender, I still feel that Bella had more instances of being an invalid and letting everyone else do everything while she was just there, instead of her doing something. Her acts of heroics are greatly outweighed by the times when she had to be saved from a situation or where someone did the saving for her."

As I've said before, both Star Wars and Harry Potter has main characters who needed far more saving than Bella did.

As far as you not going over old ground to validate your assertion that Bella is a pushover, I appreciate that. I get bored with the same conversations, too. So, in the spirit of keeping Edward out of the conversation, we can talk about whether she was a pushover with other people. She was planning to tell her father off at the end of New Moon when he forbade Edward to enter his house. That's hardly the behavior of a pushover. There were several instances where he made his preference for Jacob known, but she wasn't swayed by that. Jacob spent most of Eclipse pleading his case to her and she said no many times. She even punched him in the face once. That's not being a pushover.

Jesse wrote: "I can very easily relate with Bella on that. I know how hard it is to say no and make no the final answer to someone's persistence. The thing is that Bella has no problem doing in her head and even laughs about their poor attempts to woo her with Edward. She has absolutely no problem being crude- nearly rude- about them when it's just her or her and Edward. Even Mike, who she thought was the nicest person she met on her first day to school quickly became the butt of her rudeness when it was undeserving and unwarranted. I don't see how having no experience with being asked out would interfere with her letting them know that she wasn't interested. Yes, I can understand that it's overwhelming to be a wall flower and have what seems like everyone at once wanting you or to be around you, but that to me doesn't excuse her inability just say no and put her foot down on the situation."

I think it's pretty standard to discuss other people with your significant other in a way that you would not do with others. Thinking in your own head is usually even more honest. I don't know how you can fault somebody for that and I don't know what that has to do with being a pushover.

I think her not having much experience with turning boys down will be a big factor in her discomfort at saying no. Also the fact that she is not used to being pursued is going to change her perception of the events. I thought the entire situation was well-written. I enjoyed her disbelief and irritation at finding herself pursued so doggedly.
Jesse wrote: "It still doesn't shake me of the notion that overall she allows him to make the final decisions whether she likes the final decision or not. A lot of it comes from her being the inferior in the relationship. She's human, he's a vampire, she can't do much when he's hell bent on something going his way... but it just seems like he was the main decision maker in their relationship. It's hard to recall many instances of her doing the decision making "

There are so many more instances where Bella makes the decisions instead of Edward, especially on the big things. Who decided on the major things in their relationship, such as her vampire status and whether she would have the baby? We know that Bella made those decisions because we know what each wanted. If Edward's wishes were followed, Bella would've stayed human and she would have aborted the baby.

The idea that someone could make a case for Edward being the main decision maker is an intriguing one, because I don't think I've ever seen it happen. I've heard dozens of times people make the assertion, but they can't back it up with enough evidence from the books in order to make it believable.

Jesse wrote: "Edward pimped out Bella's uterus to Jacob if Jacob got rid of Nessie. I know. She stills seems like a pushover to me."

Wow. Whoever has been feeding you what happened didn't do a very good job. Pimped out her uterus to Jacob? What a ridiculous misrepresentation. I really have to wonder at people who come up with this stuff.

Bella's no pushover. No one has ever made a convincing case that I've seen that says otherwise.

Mickey wrote: "See, what I don't get about this is that you said in your first post that she "lets everyone else do the saving", which is implying that she doesn't save as well. If you knew that she has, why put it like that?"

Because that's simply how I worded it and also how I saw Bella.

Mickey wrote: "You can't really say,'to me, because Alice used thousand dollar bills as bribes, Bella did not save Edward'. "

I know I can't, which is why I didn't say that. I said that her save wasn't believable because it wasn't satisfying for me because everything else before it ruined her 'heroic save' with all the illogical fallacies. It ruined it, it was not enjoyable because it was unbelievable within the world that Meyer created. I said this before.

Mickey wrote: "As I've said before, both Star Wars and Harry Potter has main characters who needed far more saving than Bella did. "

I don't care for Star Wars, so I won't try to make a rebuttal. Harry Potter however, why do you think Harry needed saving? From what I remember he was always apart of the saving group.

Mickey wrote: "As far as you not going over old ground to validate your assertion that Bella is a pushover, I appreciate that. I get bored with the same conversations, too. So, in the spirit of keeping Edward out of the conversation, we can talk about whether she was a pushover with other people. She was planning to tell her father off at the end of New Moon when he forbade Edward to enter his house. That's hardly the behavior of a pushover. There were several instances where he made his preference for Jacob known, but she wasn't swayed by that. Jacob spent most of Eclipse pleading his case to her and she said no many times. She even punched him in the face once. That's not being a pushover. "

And I appreciate that. I know of others who would vehemently go up against me simply because I don't feel like treading old grounds.

She may have, and I don't remember if she did, but she would've been wrong for planning to tell him off. In fact, I think her whole behavior towards her father was wrong and disrespectful. This is the second time that his daughter came back from a leave with Edward and was very hurt. She has no right to be mad at her father, so I can't see that as whether she was being a pushover or not because I can't stand it when people are disrespectful to their parents. In this instance, I'm too biased to actually tell you whether I think she was standing up for herself and not being a pushover.

As for the situation with Jacob, I agree, she wasn't allowing herself to be easily swayed to something she didn't want.

As it stands and I think I said this before, I mostly felt that Bella was a pushover when it came to Edward and seeing as he's off the table, it's very easy to say that other times she was not a pushover

Mickey wrote: "I think it's pretty standard to discuss other people with your significant other in a way that you would not do with others. Thinking in your own head is usually even more honest. I don't know how you can fault somebody for that and I don't know what that has to do with being a pushover. "

Because to me it seemed that she was perfectly fine doing it any other time that wasn't the opportune time, which I didn't understand. Even if they are her 'friends', very loosely using the term, she had no problem being rude about what she thought of them so I didn't understand why she simply didn't say as such to their face, instead of making a pushover out of her.

Mickey wrote: "I think her not having much experience with turning boys down will be a big factor in her discomfort at saying no. Also the fact that she is not used to being pursued is going to change her perception of the events. I thought the entire situation was well-written. I enjoyed her disbelief and irritation at finding herself pursued so doggedly. "

I would've enjoyed it as well if everyone and the teacher were not lusting after her. It was completely unrealistic and irritated me. It made her seem like such a Mary Sue to me.

Mickey wrote: "There are so many more instances where Bella makes the decisions instead of Edward, especially on the big things. Who decided on the major things in their relationship, such as her vampire status and whether she would have the baby? We know that Bella made those decisions because we know what each wanted. If Edward's wishes were followed, Bella would've stayed human and she would have aborted the baby. "

I have to say that as irritated Bella made me, I never did say she didn't grow as a character. She stopped being a pushover, sure, but that doesn't mean to me that she never was one. I may have not liked how she handled the compromise that came from her being a vampire, and I may not have agreed with how the baby came to be, but I do think that she eventually stopped being a pushover.


Mickey wrote: "Wow. Whoever has been feeding you what happened didn't do a very good job. Pimped out her uterus to Jacob? What a ridiculous misrepresentation. I really have to wonder at people who come up with this stuff."

Those are my own words. I may not have read the whole book, but I did read that scene. That's basically how it happened. He couldn't bare seeing Bella slowly die from the baby killing her and he didn't want to try to kill the baby itself and lose the affection of Bella, so he went to Jacob and told him that if he aborted the baby that Jacob could have a baby with Bella. It happens in chapter 9.

Jesse wrote: "Because that's simply how I worded it and also how I saw Bella."

But you know she saved as well, so why say that she didn't? You have to know when you say something that's demonstrably false, people are going to look at that and assume you haven't read the books and are just repeating what you saw someone else say.

In reading New Moon, you "saw" Bella save Edward. This isn't a matter of interpretation, but something from the books.

Jesse wrote: "I know I can't, which is why I didn't say that. I said that her save wasn't believable because it wasn't satisfying for me because everything else before it ruined her 'heroic save' with all the illogical fallacies. It ruined it, it was not enjoyable because it was unbelievable within the world that Meyer created. I said this before."

She saved Edward, that's a fact. To say that it didn't count, so I can say she didn't save is illogical. Because it wasn't believable to you doesn't mean that it didn't happen in the story. It happened in the story.

Jesse wrote: "Harry Potter however, why do you think Harry needed saving? From what I remember he was always apart of the saving group."

Voldemort was constantly harping about how Harry's continued survival was a consequence of other people saving him and luck.

Being "part of the saving party" would also apply to Bella, too. If that's your threshold, then that's easily met.

Jesse wrote: "She may have, and I don't remember if she did, but she would've been wrong for planning to tell him off. In fact, I think her whole behavior towards her father was wrong and disrespectful."

I doesn't matter if it's wrong or disrespectful, it's showing that she has her own point of view and brings it across. It's not a good rebuttal to a discussion to say things in the book "don't count" because you don't approve of them wholeheartedly for other reasons. You can't read books like that.

Also, do you really want to widen the discussion. I think we should stick to whether Bella saved and whether she is a pushover. Why go into whether she is a good daughter?

Jesse wrote: "Because to me it seemed that she was perfectly fine doing it any other time that wasn't the opportune time, which I didn't understand. Even if they are her 'friends', very loosely using the term, she had no problem being rude about what she thought of them so I didn't understand why she simply didn't say as such to their face, instead of making a pushover out of her."

I don't know of ONE person who tells people all the impressions they have of them to their face. It doesn't make you rude to think unflatteringly of another. It would be rude to tell them about it, because you would be discounting their feelings. For instance, if she said to a classmate, "You have terrible acne", this is different than noticing that he does. Bella's behavior is normal in this instance.

Jesse wrote: "I would've enjoyed it as well if everyone and the teacher were not lusting after her. It was completely unrealistic and irritated me. It made her seem like such a Mary Sue to me."

Bella's interpretation is what makes it so comical, because she also believes that's it's over the top and doesn't attribute it to her beauty or charm, but to being the new girl. Her not taking it seriously and being uncomfortable with it was a large part of the charm of the situation. It's too bad you didn't enjoy it.

Jesse wrote: "I have to say that as irritated Bella made me, I never did say she didn't grow as a character. She stopped being a pushover, sure, but that doesn't mean to me that she never was one. I may have not liked how she handled the compromise that came from her being a vampire, and I may not have agreed with how the baby came to be, but I do think that she eventually stopped being a pushover."

Then I don't know why you didn't say this in your first post instead of saying 'she lets others push her around'. I haven't found enough evidence of her being a pushover.

Jesse wrote: "As it stands and I think I said this before, I mostly felt that Bella was a pushover when it came to Edward and seeing as he's off the table, it's very easy to say that other times she was not a pushover"

You put him off the table, you want him back on, go ahead. Although I've had this conversation before.

Jesse wrote: "Those are my own words. I may not have read the whole book, but I did read that scene. That's basically how it happened. He couldn't bare seeing Bella slowly die from the baby killing her and he didn't want to try to kill the baby itself and lose the affection of Bella, so he went to Jacob and told him that if he aborted the baby that Jacob could have a baby with Bella. It happens in chapter 9."

Your longer description fits better than saying that Edward "pimped out her uterus to Jacob". That implies that they made a separate deal that did not require Bella's consent, which, if you've read the scene, is absolutely false. Edward was grasping at straws to save Bella, and offered Bella, not Jacob a compromise. Bella could have children with Jacob if she would get rid of the baby that he thought would kill her. If there's one area which shows which person makes the decisions in the relationship, this is it. Edward is offering anything he can think of to change Bella's mind, because what Bella decides is what ultimately will happen. She's the one that makes the final decisions. She rejected the compromise and kept the baby. She made that decision, no one else.

Mickey wrote: "She saved Edward, that's a fact. To say that it didn't count, so I can say she didn't save is illogical. Because it wasn't believable to you doesn't mean that it didn't happen in the story. It happened in the story. "

I didn't say that because it didn't come to my standards that it didn't happen. I just said that because it didn't come to my standards that I couldn't enjoy it, not that it didn't happen.

Mickey wrote: "I doesn't matter if it's wrong or disrespectful, it's showing that she has her own point of view and brings it across. It's not a good rebuttal to a discussion to say things in the book "don't count" because you don't approve of them wholeheartedly for other reasons. You can't read books like that.

And her own POV was wrong. Also, I can read books how ever I want. I can read a book upside down if I want. Your interpretation is no more right than mine. Bella would've been wrong if she told her father off on the topic of Edward. That would not have been her showing how much of a push over she was not, that would've been her being a horrible daughter to not even see things from Charlie's POV. She doesn't have to agree, but to just see it from his POV and understand where he's coming from.

Mickey wrote: "Also, do you really want to widen the discussion. I think we should stick to whether Bella saved and whether she is a pushover. Why go into whether she is a good daughter? "

I wasn't trying to go into whether she's a good daughter. I was stating that that instance wouldn't in my opinion be a show of her not being a pushover because she would've been wrong if she followed through with her action to tell her father off about Edward.

Mickey wrote: "I don't know of ONE person who tells people all the impressions they have of them to their face. It doesn't make you rude to think unflatteringly of another. It would be rude to tell them about it, because you would be discounting their feelings. For instance, if she said to a classmate, "You have terrible acne", this is different than noticing that he does. Bella's behavior is normal in this instance. "

Bella still should've said something instead of letting them go over her opinion in the matter. She has no problem doing it when it comes to Edward. She let them have complete control of that conversation and went around telling them no, instead telling them not right now. She let them push her around when it came to that situation because she just couldn't say no.

Mickey wrote: "Bella's interpretation is what makes it so comical, because she also believes that's it's over the top and doesn't attribute it to her beauty or charm, but to being the new girl. Her not taking it seriously and being uncomfortable with it was a large part of the charm of the situation. It's too bad you didn't enjoy it. "

It wasn't just Bella's interpretation that everyone was all over her. Edward says it as well, confirms that everyone in the school wanted her or wanted to be her. Its not funny, it's irritating.

Mickey wrote: "Then I don't know why you didn't say this in your first post instead of saying 'she lets others push her around'. I haven't found enough evidence of her being a pushover.

You put him off the table, you want him back on, go ahead. Although I've had this conversation before."

Because its as I said, that was simply how I worded it. You haven't found enough evidence because you don't see the situation that way. Others do, I do. If you don't see it and the instances I show you doesn't seem to you as her being a pushover, then you'll never see it.

I don't want to put him back on the table. I was stating that I saw her as a pushover when Edward is involved. As I said, if you don't see it and are hard set on it, then showing you my interpretation of the situation wouldn't sway your opinion.

Mickey wrote: "Your longer description fits better than saying that Edward "pimped out her uterus to Jacob". That implies that they made a separate deal that did not require Bella's consent, which, if you've read the scene, is absolutely false. Edward was grasping at straws to save Bella, and offered Bella, not Jacob a compromise. Bella could have children with Jacob if she would get rid of the baby that he thought would kill her. If there's one area which shows which person makes the decisions in the relationship, this is it. Edward is offering anything he can think of to change Bella's mind, because what Bella decides is what ultimately will happen. She's the one that makes the final decisions. She rejected the compromise and kept the baby. She made that decision, no one else.

They did make a separate deal without Bella's consent or knowledge. Edward never took the idea to Bella because he knew that she'd reject the idea immediately. In that chapter he went directly to Jacob with the idea of aborting the baby and having Jacob give Bella a baby. Edward completely misunderstood the situation. Bella didn't want a baby, she never did and it wasn't till Nessie made contact with her through the womb that she changed her mind. She wanted the baby because it was a part of Edward in her. As I said, it happens in chapter nine and chapter nine is Jacob's point of view. Edward was talking to Jacob, not Bella. He proposed the idea to Jacob, not Bella. He was an asshole and made the horrible proposal to Jacob, not to Bella. He knew Bella would at least listen to Jacob so he proposed the idea to Jacob. Bella was never a part of it, he never told Bella about it and then said he was going to ask Jacob to do it.

Mickey wrote: "I doesn't matter if it's wrong or disrespectful, it's showing that she has her own point of view and brings it across. It's not a good rebuttal to a discussion to say things in the book "don't count" because you don't approve of them wholeheartedly for other reasons. You can't read books like that.

Jesse wrote:
And her own POV was wrong. Also, I can read books how ever I want. I can read a book upside down if I want. Your interpretation is no more right than mine. Bella would've been wrong if she told her father off on the topic of Edward. That would not have been her showing how much of a push over she was not, that would've been her being a horrible daughter to not even see things from Charlie's POV. She doesn't have to agree, but to just see it from his POV and understand where he's coming from.
"

What I believe Mickey ment when she said "You can't read books like that" is you cant read a book and just because it wasn't believable to you negates the fact it happened in the story. I mean you can read books like that if you want to, but you've also negated yourself into saying anything about that story since you read the "special" version.

Heidi wrote: "What I believe Mickey meant when she said "You can't read books like that" is you cant read a book and just because it wasn't believable to you negates the fact it happened in the story. I mean you can read books like that if you want to, but you've also negated yourself into saying anything about that story since you read the "special" version. "

Make no mistake, I never said that because it wasn't believable to me that it never happened. I just said that it didn't hold the same meaning to me than to Mickey. It was a let down to me. Yeah, she saved him, go her, but I couldn't enjoy it as much as some one else could have.

Jesse wrote: "Make no mistake, I never said that because it wasn't believable to me that it never happened. I just said that it didn't hold the same meaning to me than to Mickey. It was a let down to me. Yeah, she saved him, go her, but I couldn't enjoy it as much as some one else could have. "

Yeah, I didn't see you imply that , that being- because you didn't believe it , it didn't happen in the story. I was mostly responding to clarify her original post and your response to her saying you cant read books that way. Maybe your response was sarcastic. But it didn't seem like you had gotten the point of her post with your response.

Bella is who she is, if she constantly needs Edward...whats the big deal? I don't think Stephanie's was trying to voice her feminist views, she was just creating her characters. From personal experience we can all agree that people aren't perfect so why should Bella be?

Jesse wrote: "Make no mistake, I never said that because it wasn't believable to me that it never happened. I just said that it didn't hold the same meaning to me than to Mickey. It was a let down to me. Yeah, she saved him, go her, but I couldn't enjoy it as much as some one else could have."

I don't understand how this jives with your earlier statement that she "lets everyone else do the saving". That implies that she does not save herself, but lets others do it. (A scenario where there is a shared rescuing duties is hardly unusual. I can't think of a character that is always the saver and never the rescued from within the Twilight series or without.)

I don't think the discussion should be so much about your personal feelings (I mean, does it really matter that "it didn't mean much to you"?). It's easier to stick with the text and facts.

On a related note, one of my favorite books (George Eliot's The Mill on the Floss) is famous for having an ending where two main characters drown in a way that is not physically possible as she describes it. In Charles Dickens's Bleak House, there is a character who spontaneously combusts, and most people think that it is not scientifically possible for a human to suddenly burst into flames without introducing fire. Both of these are examples of authors stretching credibility in much more direct ways than Meyer did with the thousand dollar bill. Is it a defensible position for me to say that these characters did not die? No, authors make mistakes all the time, even the great ones. It's sad if it pulls you out of a story to the point that you can't enjoy it anymore. That's a significant loss for you.

yes. i hate twilight and think that bella needs to pick her sry butt up off the ground and act think a REAL girl!

Mickey wrote: "I don't understand how this jives with your earlier statement that she "lets everyone else do the saving". That implies that she does not save herself, but lets others do it. (A scenario where there is a shared rescuing duties is hardly unusual. I can't think of a character that is always the saver and never the rescued from within the Twilight series or without.)
"

Its simple, I changed my statement after going over the material.

Mickey wrote: "I don't think the discussion should be so much about your personal feelings (I mean, does it really matter that "it didn't mean much to you"?). It's easier to stick with the text and facts. "

Of which I conceded with. I never said that she didn't save him and I changed the original statement I made, you should keep up. I simply said that I didn't like it because it wasn't believable within the context of the story. Ive been saying that for a good three posts now and never implied otherwise.

Mickey wrote: "On a related note, one of my favorite books (George Eliot's The Mill on the Floss) is famous for having an ending where two main characters drown in a way that is not physically possible as she describes it. In Charles Dickens's Bleak House, there is a character who spontaneously combusts, and most people think that it is not scientifically possible for a human to suddenly burst into flames without introducing fire. Both of these are examples of authors stretching credibility in much more direct ways than Meyer did with the thousand dollar bill. Is it a defensible position for me to say that these characters did not die? No, authors make mistakes all the time, even the great ones. It's sad if it pulls you out of a story to the point that you can't enjoy it anymore. That's a significant loss for you. "

It is possible to burst into flames without fire. I once saw a man drink gasoline and a cop tasered him and he burst into flames. Regardless, it's not a loss on me, it's a loss on Meyer's part because it means that she failed as a writer, not that I failed as the reader. It's one thing to suspend my disbelief, it's a whole different thing that I suspend it so far that I fall into a plot hole. I do believe I said something similar to this. It's also no loss for me because I did not like the book in the first place.

Jesse wrote: "Its simple, I changed my statement after going over the material...I never said that she didn't save him and I changed the original statement I made, you should keep up. I simply said that I didn't like it because it wasn't believable within the context of the story. Ive been saying that for a good three posts now and never implied otherwise."

If you concede a point, you should say something. Not many people go back to someone's original post and rereads them to see if they've changed them. And not to be pedantic, but you did say in your original post that she "lets everyone else do the saving" (which would be implying otherwise).

Believable is a subjective term. I think the scenario was entirely believable. We are talking about a book that has vampires and werewolves in it. I'm not sure how thousand dollar bills (which do exist) are such a sticking point with you. But everyone has a limit somewhere. I'm just letting you know that if such a small thing is enough to pull you out of a story, you'll have a rough time with literature in general. My examples were much more extreme.

Jesse wrote: "It is possible to burst into flames without fire. I once saw a man drink gasoline and a cop tasered him and he burst into flames."

That has a point of origin and a cause. I think spontaneous combustion is when there is nothing around that would cause a reaction like that.

Jesse wrote: "it's not a loss on me, it's a loss on Meyer's part because it means that she failed as a writer, not that I failed as the reader."

By your criteria, then every author has failed. There is not a book that is universally beloved. And the fault most definitely rests on you. I liked Twilight. Millions of others did as well.

It really depends on what you think books are for. If they are to enjoy, then it's your loss, because you didn't enjoy it. I'm sure Meyer enjoyed it. I enjoyed it. You're the one leaving here dissatisfied.

Mickey wrote: "If you concede a point, you should say something. Not many people go back to someone's original post and rereads them to see if they've changed them. And not to be pedantic, but you did say in your original post that she "lets everyone else do the saving" (which would be implying otherwise). "

And as I've said BEFORE, I changed my opinion on that. You just agreed that I conceded to that point, why bring up my original statement when you and I agreed that I changed it? That's meaningless. I'm getting real tired of telling you that I changed my view on that, why do you keep referring to it? It literally has no meaning at this point because you have proved to me that she can occasionally save the day when she wants, and I agreed. Why do we have to refer to a statement I made that I changed?

Mickey wrote: "Believable is a subjective term. I think the scenario was entirely believable. We are talking about a book that has vampires and werewolves in it. I'm not sure how thousand dollar bills (which do exist) are such a sticking point with you. "

Why do I have to keep repeating myself? I already said that and acknowledged that such things like believability and enjoyment are subjective. You believe that the scenario was able to happen, I didn't, why are we splitting hairs on that when its beyond obvious at this point?

Also, just because it has supernatural creatures in it doesn't mean that believability gets thrown out the window.

Mickey wrote: "But everyone has a limit somewhere. I'm just letting you know that if such a small thing is enough to pull you out of a story, you'll have a rough time with literature in general. My examples were much more extreme. "

I don't have a problem with literature, I have a problem with Meyer and her inability to write well.

Mickey wrote: "By your criteria, then every author has failed. There is not a book that is universally beloved. And the fault most definitely rests on you. I liked Twilight. Millions of others did as well."

What criteria did I present that you interpreted from my posts that makes you believe that every author would fail by it? The one where Authors have to do research, that they have to understand what their writing to be able to write about it, that they in general have to write well for me to enjoy it? Oh yeah, sure, every author fails at that.

Really? By my criteria, every author doesn't fail. You don't even know what my criteria, so how can you base anything on it?

Mickey wrote: "It really depends on what you think books are for. If they are to enjoy, then it's your loss, because you didn't enjoy it. I'm sure Meyer enjoyed it. I enjoyed it. You're the one leaving here dissatisfied. "

Yes, I do think books are to be enjoyed. I also think books are to be analyzed and studied. Of course I didn't enjoy it, it just means that I didn't enjoy it. The only thing I lost was my time and patience. Meyer is still the one that lost because she failed as a writer. Your personal enjoyment doesn't come into play when her ability to write is questioned.