Twilight (Twilight, #1) Twilight discussion


275 views
Are people being a bit too hard on Twilight?

Comments (showing 1-50 of 233) (233 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1 3 4 5

message 1: by [deleted user] (new)

I hate Twilight with a passion, in fact my review on it is practically a rant, but it's supposed to be a form of escapist fiction. You read it by shutting down your brain and rolling through it. Yes, there are bad messages in it, the writing looks like mine in fourth grade, but it does disturb me how so many people can hate this while overlooking some of the same problems in the Hunger Games (bad writing, Deus Ex Machina plotting, characters that are more of archetypes than real characters).


Carina Twilight was a lot more popular than Hunger Games though which is why I think it has had so much more flak.

I have not yet read Hunger Games but I have often overlooked issues with writing/plot in other books if I have enjoyed them. Twilight just had too many things wrong with it (in my opinion) for them to be overlooked.


message 3: by Cassie (last edited Oct 06, 2012 03:35PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Cassie Yes, I think people are way too hard on it.
I think many people, for some reason, choose to take the Twilight series very seriously. I've even seen argument where people say "It's not even possible for someone to live off a diet of only blood" or "Charlie didn't even sign a permission slip so Bella can do blood testing in class." (Does Stephenie Meyer really need to walk us through every single bit of paperwork Charlie signs? These are the same people who complain that there are too many "insignificant details" in the series.)

There are the other factually inaccurate arguments that are surprisingly common such as saying it was not possible for rosalie's father to successfully work at a bank during the Great Depression, or that it's impossible for Edward to orgasm because he can't get erections, or that it was impossible for Alice to give the guard a $1,000 bill in Italy, or saying Renesmee should have Down's Syndrome, or saying that Stephenie Meyer didn't know the difference between Brazilian werewolves and Brazilian vampires. (I'll elaborate on any of these if requested).

That brings me to the personal attacks on Stephenie's character. Putting her down for sometimes charging for autographs (conveniently forgetting how common this is within the celebrity community) or saying she never donates to charity.

I don't care if people dislike Twilight or not, but the majority of reasons I hear are beyond moronic.


message 4: by Carina (last edited Oct 06, 2012 03:55PM) (new) - rated it 2 stars

Carina I have heard about a lot of thise complaints and I agree a lot of them are about the small bits of life which we never pay any attention to - however I have never heard the Brazilian one! (Though again the orgasm and the way it is written is kind of an important plot point because otherwise how would they have their child but again a lot of vampire books never address this issue so....)


message 5: by Cassie (last edited Oct 06, 2012 03:44PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Cassie No. Men don't need erections to orgasm. It's a scientific fact.
http://loveandhealth.ifriends.net/Art...
Men also don't even need to orgasm to ejaculate.


Carina Notice that is the point I never really cared about... so many vampire novels never address that fact that they lack blood flow and thus viable sperm.. but anyway as I said previously that is a point that is often skipped over along with a lot of everyday details.


Cassie That reply had nothing to do with satisfying anyone's interest. It's just that you said "orgasm kind of is an important plot point", when it's really not.

It's just something I'm inclined to correct.
(Note that I said nothing about sperm or semen. I have my own theory on that and I don't expect many to agree, so I don't usually go into it. I was talking about the lack of blood flow and erections. Thay're not necessary.)


Carina Jocelyn wrote: "Cassie wrote: "Yes, I think people are way too hard on it.
I think many people, for some reason, choose to take the Twilight series very seriously. I've even seen argument where people say "It's n..."


Precisely. I never pay much attention to the way authors act so cannot comment there but the rest of your points are valid.

I do wonder though if Twilight did not have the raging popularity that it has as to whether it would be so criticised - to take the often used example of Harry Potter which was just as popular you never see such criticism as Twilight has...


Cassie Jocelyn wrote: "I do have to disagree with you in the fact that the reasons for disliking Twilight are moronic. People take it seriously because Twilight fans take it seriously. You, luckily, are smart enough not to dump body glitter on your boyfriend (if you have one) like a lot of Twitards, or try to convert antis into Twilight fans. The reasons for disliking Twilight are in fact very legitimate. The messages are beyond offensive and make feminists very uncomfortable while reading it. Bella is a Mary Sue, and a horrible one at that, while overdesribing Edward every opportunity she has. The writing is horrible and badly edited, infested with purple prose, repetitive phrases, and thesaurus rape bad enough to make anyone cringe."

You see, right there. These types of comment bother me. Not the comments themselves, but the attitude behind them.
When people reiterate things like this, they always say it as if it's sooo obvious and anyone who doesn't see it just isn't very smart.
Where people see anti feminism, I see a girl who is mature enough to not complain about doing chores. (Because a real feminist wouldn't put up with having to cook dinner or do laundry, right?)
I don't see any Mary Sues. I don't even believe in the concept of Mary Sues. They just seem like regular characters to me.
People love to mention "its many plot holes", but I can honestly only think of three or four (and I HAVE successfully debunked the common accusations in the past).

I actually believe that people have to intentionally decide to view it that way in order to actually pick up on it.

People do tend to look down on me for not seeing it the same way they do. Really, the same way people look down on Twilight fans for trying to "convert" antis, or whatever.


I also find it offensive when people tell me that I'm some kind of unique butterfly for being a fan and maintaining the ability to express my thoughts in an orderly fashion, as if it's rare. It's just insulting to all fans of Twilight, intelligent or otherwise. To suggest that a book attracts stupid people is offensive to everyone it attracts.
I know people think they're being complimentary when they say this, but just think about it.


message 10: by Angie Elle (last edited Oct 07, 2012 11:08AM) (new) - added it

Angie Elle I think so. People tear this book apart as if it's a 'How-to' manual when it was clearly written for entertainment purposes.

And I agree with you about THG. People take that book way too seriously. I liked the book when I first read it. But again, I read it for entertainment. I realize there are bigger themes there, but at the end of the day, the book is fiction.


message 11: by [deleted user] (last edited Oct 07, 2012 11:28AM) (new)

Cassie wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "I do have to disagree with you in the fact that the reasons for disliking Twilight are moronic. People take it seriously because Twilight fans take it seriously. You, luckily, are s..."

Well, I certainly didn't mean to insult you. I actually have Twilight fans for friends. It's just that from MY point of view, since I've been attacked a lot for my views, you seem pretty unique. I can understand how you find that insulting, and if I offended you, I apologize for that, I really regret it if you did feel insulted, because no one should feel that way. Like you said, it's a matter of perspective. I just happened to have the luck to have people attack me for stating my opinions. If I didn't I probably wouldn't have told you that.

Just to clarify, I do not think that Twilight attracts idiots. I can see how it can be addictive and moving, despite its flaws. I can see the appeal. I can understand why people would like it. People who missed its flaws are not stupid, it just means that they enjoyed it enough to overlook them. Like I said, I have friends who are Twilight fans, and I'm perfectly fine with that. I agree with you in that Twilight fans are not as stereotypical as people paint them to be, I guess it's that the rabid fans overshadow the more mature and understanding ones. Again, I'm sorry if I offended you, it's just my luck that I've met a lot of people who feel the need to personally attack me for my opinions. I do understand that antis can be just as bad as the rabid Twilight fans, and in some cases even worse. Thanks for clarifying that you didn't like the attitude, not the arguments themselves.

For the topic of antifeminism, I can totally see where you're coming from. In many ways Bella is quite mature. It's basically just the idea that Bella is throwing away her entire family and friends for a boyfriend she barely knows that bothers so many people. I do kind of agree on the Mary Sue thing. Mary Sues are more of a standard than an element that specifically makes a book bad. Whenever a Mary Sue pops up, people immediately point at it and yell MARY SUE!!!! without really looking past that and seeing what other depth the character may have. While I dislike Bella, I do at least slightly agree that she is a bit of an underrated character.

For me personally, anyone who knows how to disagree with someone without ranting is rare. For someone else, perhaps it isn't. It's just my view. Thanks for clarifying how you felt about my comments, I really appreciate that.


message 12: by Ellie (last edited Oct 07, 2012 11:43AM) (new) - rated it 2 stars

Ellie Huxter Being a massive fan of the Twilight series myself, I can completely understand why it is so loved, and hated around the world.

I personally hate the first book - I think Bella is whiny and depressing and boring - more boring than she is in the rest of the series. Bella is easy to relate to I guess - although she doesn't do normal things that average teenagers do - use the internet regularly, see friends, listen to music, etc. She just seems to sit alone doing homework and reading dry, boring ancient British literature. I think the first Twilight novel is written very badly, but I like the rest of the books.

People always whine about how Bella never really gets off her butt and does anything of value - but if you think about it, she does. (Obviously this is counting out Breaking Dawn as she does quite a bit in that one). In New Moon, it is her presence that saves Edward from himself, if Alice had just been there he probably would have still sacrificed himself. She also saves him in Eclipse when he is about to be killed by vengeful Victoria and Riley.

Bella seems to also have been labelled as a 'Mary-Sue'. I completely agree that it is pretty ridiculous to let a boy cause you to completely abandon your family and "friends". Bella just doesn't seem to give a damn anymore about Charlie or Renee when Edward shows up, she seems to have not much interest in them or their lives whatsoever. I also think what is strange is how distant Bella is from her parents - she would rather keep them out of the picture and not tell about the Cullens, which suggests she doesn't trust them or care about how they would feel. I and a lot of teenagers I know would never do that - I trust my parents with my life.

But I have to say I'm not as much of a fan as I used to be - I think it's the movies I like better than the books. Apart from Breaking Dawn.

I don't think everyone rants and raves about Twilight anymore - people that do are now in the minority in my opinion. It seems to be the people ripping it apart as if their life depends on it that seem to be the majority.

For me personally, the Twilight series is a beautiful series of books with a beautiful love story in it. That's all it is. Nothing to get angry or have a panic attack about.


message 13: by Angie Elle (last edited Oct 07, 2012 12:03PM) (new) - added it

Angie Elle Also, in Twilight she was adamant about not leaving her father to fend for himself after James attacked her, and she was willing to sacrifice herself when she thought her mother's life was in danger.


Cassie Ellie wrote: " I also think what is strange is how distant Bella is from her parents - she would rather keep them out of the picture and not tell about the Cullens, which suggests she doesn't trust them or care about how they would feel. I and a lot of teenagers I know would never do that - I trust my parents with my life."

Hmm.. I can't agree with that. Bella didn't tell her parents the Cullens were vampires because it's against the rules. She and Edward were just really lucky when Aro found out about Bella knowing.
I don't think it had anything to do with trust. She was glad when Charlie found about Jacob, after all. And she does plan for her father to draw his own conclusions as a loophole in Breaking Dawn. I think if she didn't trust charlie, she would have just ran away after the honeymoon or birth and never came back.


message 15: by [deleted user] (new)

Wow, you guys have really good points. I like that. Very thought-provoking.

I can see where you're coming from. Bella does do some things of value. I think a lot of antis, which I'll admit includes me, ignore it because the stupid things she DOES pull off simply overshadows it. For example, jumping off a cliff to hear Edward's voice. Yeah...not too heroic. And the fact that she is willing to steal cars just so she can reunite with him. The first time it was an emergency, so it was at least kind of acceptable, but the second time was definitely not okay.

I also agree that it was very noble of Bella to be willing to sacrifice herself for her mom. But of course, once again, the stupid things she does overshadows it. She confronts James on her own, which in itself is extremely idiotic, because what the heck in her brain makes her think James would spare her mother? Not to mention that she also has seven vampires on her side, and James is only one. Force vs. leverage at least kind of balances it out, yet Bella never thinks of this. It's another case of "i didn't do that because otherwise there wouldn't be a story." Then, like I said, Twilight is a form of escapist fiction, so it's acceptable.

Cassie has a really good point with Charlie. I think it's the way it's written, combined with the narration and the torture of listening to Bella's whininess for the previous parts of the book, that makes Bella come off as selfish when she doesn't tell her father. Not necessarily the character of Bella herself. I actually still think Bella is quite selfish, but, like I said, only because of the narration. The book constantly insists that Charlie is a stupid nuisance that should get the hell out of Bella's life, and why this concerns people is because that's a pretty bad example for girls to follow today. It does compensate, like Cassie said, when Bella does let her father know about it in Breaking Dawn.


Ellie Huxter That's true, I didn't think of that Cassie! I love this, it's so thought-provoking.


Ellie Huxter I love Edward though, and will always love him. He is just so far away from the average boyfriend - such a fantasy, but that's why I love him. A bit overprotective and has stalker tendencies but apart from that, I love him. But I feel like his temporary absence in New Moon was a little late. Surely he should have realised him and Bella should not be together after the whole James debacle?


message 18: by Angie Elle (new) - added it

Angie Elle Jocelyn wrote: "Wow, you guys have really good points. I like that. Very thought-provoking.

I can see where you're coming from. Bella does do some things of value. I think a lot of antis, which I'll admit include..."


I think it would have been more unrealistic if she'd had a clear head, to be honest. She's only seventeen years old, and she thinks her mom's life is in danger. That part of the book took place in a span of a few hours, not really giving her adequate time to formulate a well-thought out plan. (That sentence might be a bit redundant.)

The fact that she was able to get away from Alice and Jasper was quite a feat in itself.


Kirby Angie wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "Wow, you guys have really good points. I like that. Very thought-provoking.

I can see where you're coming from. Bella does do some things of value. I think a lot of antis, which I'..."


I agree, angie. and, even if you discount the clouded thoughts, I don't see it as any more idiotic than parents who decide to pay the ransom for a kidnapped child rather than calling the police. maybe they DO make the wrong choice, maybe they should have gotten help- but maybe doing anything else would have disastrous consequences. I've never been in that situation, so I don't know what I would do and I can't judge the choices of others.


message 20: by [deleted user] (last edited Oct 07, 2012 02:30PM) (new)

Good points. But again, I guess it's that antis, including me, were so annoyed at Bella's melodramatic bitching for the previous parts of the story that they saw it as another sign of sheer stupidity. And the fact that the narration acts like Bella is very smart. She's the first one in nearly a century to discover the vampires, even though the vampires suck pretty badly at hiding their identities. She was able to figure this entire thing out and almost never had a thought of, "Gee, what am I thinking, vampires are real?" she pretty much just accepted that. So if she was acting like a normal teenager, well, she doesn't act like a normal teenager for the rest of the book. But to each their own. It's more of a matter of perspective to think that Bella had an out of character moment.

Getting away from Alice and Jasper...well, I'm not sure. Vampires have supernatural senses, right? Then they should have been able to hear Bella speaking on the phone to James. Plot hole much? I guess it was too convenient for my taste. I'm not sure if this is a matter of Twilight's status as escapist fiction now, though. If she didn't have a clear head, then she probably would have messed up in some way to let Alice and Jasper accidentally figure out what she was planning.


message 21: by Cassie (last edited Oct 07, 2012 02:34PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Cassie Jocelyn wrote: "She's the first one in nearly a century to discover the vampires, even though the vampires suck pretty badly at hiding their identities. "

Bella didn't "discover" vampires. Edward wanted her to know, so he fed her hint after hint until it became too obvious to not figure out. That's probably why it looks like they "suck pretty badly at hiding their identities". He wasn't hiding his identity from Bella. He was doing the opposite. Plus, Jacob helped a lot, and he was close to being an inside source at the time. It's not as if she figures out all on her own.


message 22: by Olivia (new) - added it

Olivia Cassie wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "She's the first one in nearly a century to discover the vampires, even though the vampires suck pretty badly at hiding their identities. "

Bella didn't "discover" vampires. Edward ..."


in someways he did told her,their whole family are vam he was quite dangerous from before,but his faamily is bit diff from him.


message 23: by Olivia (new) - added it

Olivia that why jake was the best for her, in some ways.


message 24: by [deleted user] (new)

Cassie wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "She's the first one in nearly a century to discover the vampires, even though the vampires suck pretty badly at hiding their identities. "

Bella didn't "discover" vampires. Edward ..."


Actually, in my opinion anyway, she did. She's the first person ever to figure it out, and in Midnight Sun Edward comments on how Bella was the first person to notice his eye color change, which was before they even started their relationship. Even without the deliberate hints, though, they still suck at going undercover. At least some people would notice the eye color change, most people would notice the anti-aging aspects of the Cullens, their superhuman beauty, etc. And why would he be so coy about revealing the info? If he wanted Bella to know, he would flat out tell her, "I'm a vampire." Not drop hints like, oh, I skipped the blood typing class, I'm super not-mysterious, I ditched class on random days. If he did intend to be coy about it, well, isn't that a bit abusive, if not already? He's hiding info from Bella because it amuses him. That's just...well, I'm sorry, it just rubs me the wrong way. They're literally deceiving and toying her for virtually no reason.

But then again, it's just a matter of perspective. It's mostly the narration itself that convinces me that the story wants Bella to be the exception to everything, and narration is always debatable.


Cassie Abusive? I wouldn't say that at all. I don't see how hinting at something is abusive. I feel like people throw that around way too frequently, to the point where it minimizes what abuse really is.

I don't think it said anywhere that he was giving hints for his own entertainment. I don't think it really explained why he was hinting at it.

What information did he hide, exactly? Not that he was a vampire, since he was telling her.


message 26: by Olivia (new) - added it

Olivia Jocelyn wrote: "Cassie wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "She's the first one in nearly a century to discover the vampires, even though the vampires suck pretty badly at hiding their identities. "

Bella didn't "discover" va..."


yea. that is quite true there.


message 27: by Olivia (new) - added it

Olivia eveything already its been said.


Kirby Cassie wrote: "Abusive? I wouldn't say that at all. I don't see how hinting at something is abusive. I feel like people throw that around way too frequently, to the point where it minimizes what abuse really is.
..."


I very much agree with that.


Kirby Jocelyn wrote: " At least some people would notice the eye color change, most people would notice the anti-aging aspects of the Cullens, their superhuman beauty, etc"

this actually was something that stuck in my craw- I couldn't swallow the idea that no other forksonians (?) noticed these very obvious physical characteristics...especially since the cullens didn't even claim to be related.


message 30: by Olivia (new) - added it

Olivia Kirby wrote: "Cassie wrote: "Abusive? I wouldn't say that at all. I don't see how hinting at something is abusive. I feel like people throw that around way too frequently, to the point where it minimizes what ab..."

yea


message 31: by Olivia (new) - added it

Olivia what the point? some ppl like and some others don't like it at all?


Sandrine Genier Carina wrote: "I have heard about a lot of thise complaints and I agree a lot of them are about the small bits of life which we never pay any attention to - however I have never heard the Brazilian one! (Though a..."

It's called sloppy writing. Period.


message 33: by Angie Elle (new) - added it

Angie Elle Jocelyn wrote: "Cassie wrote: "Abusive? I wouldn't say that at all. I don't see how hinting at something is abusive. I feel like people throw that around way too frequently, to the point where it minimizes what ab..."

I'm confused. Since when is wanting to wait until you are married to have sex abusive? I thought it was very much a reflection of the time period he was brought up in.


Eris Vianney Eh, I don't think waiting until marriage to have sex is abusive. That's just ducky in my books, as I believe the same thing, and me telling my future-boyfriend that I don't want to have sex right now wouldn't be abusive to him. No, Edward is an abusive, manipulative creeper in other ways.


message 35: by Olivia (new) - added it

Olivia Eris ~ Time Lord Unvictorious wrote: "Eh, I don't think waiting until marriage to have sex is abusive. That's just ducky in my books, as I believe the same thing, and me telling my future-boyfriend that I don't want to have sex right n..."

yea, but not all the time, in some ways.


message 36: by Olivia (new) - added it

Olivia cause he was there,2 protect her until she was change 2 be like him..


Kirby Jocelyn wrote: "Waiting until marriage to have sex isn't abusive in general. I'm talking about the conflict between Bella and Edward in terms of sex. Bella wants it, Edward doesn't. Edward wants to marry, Bella do..."

you're leaving out the very important point that edward changed his mind and told bella she could have whatever she wanted, no strings attached. she decided to marry him b/c she wanted to. and- even if that weren't the case- I hardly see how negotiation between two partners comes anywhere near abuse.


message 38: by Olivia (new) - added it

Olivia Jocelyn wrote: "Waiting until marriage to have sex isn't abusive in general. I'm talking about the conflict between Bella and Edward in terms of sex. Bella wants it, Edward doesn't. Edward wants to marry, Bella do..."
nope not cool at all.


message 39: by Olivia (new) - added it

Olivia why does edward always have 2 control her, 2 get what he want belll 2 for him, instead she can do things for self?


message 40: by Angie Elle (last edited Oct 07, 2012 08:21PM) (new) - added it

Angie Elle Jocelyn wrote: "Waiting until marriage to have sex isn't abusive in general. I'm talking about the conflict between Bella and Edward in terms of sex. Bella wants it, Edward doesn't. Edward wants to marry, Bella do..."

I don't agree with that at all. It's a huge assumption saying that he only withheld sex to bribe her, as we never get Edward's POV.

I realize that in this day and age, casual sex has become commonplace, but that wasn't the case when Edward was being raised. I think the fact that he is 109 and hasn't had sex yet attests to the fact that this is a moral issue for him and not just a way to manipulate her. If he had had sex prior to his relationship with Bella and told her that he wasn't going to have sex with her until they were married, I might be inclined to agree with you. But his remaining a virgin all this time speaks volumes to me.

This is, of course my opinion, but if one person wants to wait until they are married to have sex, either you respect that or you move on. I think pressuring someone into having sex is much more manipulative than saying, "I'm sorry, but I want to wait."


message 41: by Olivia (new) - added it

Olivia Angie wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "Waiting until marriage to have sex isn't abusive in general. I'm talking about the conflict between Bella and Edward in terms of sex. Bella wants it, Edward doesn't. Edward wants to..."

yea.


message 42: by [deleted user] (new)

How about in Breaking Dawn, though? Bella turns into some kind of sex addict, and Edward has complete and utter control over their sex routines. No matter how much Bella wants it, Edward only lets her have it when HE wants to, instead of working out a compromise. Maybe it is a moral issue for him, but he's placing his own judgement over Bella's desires. He does not, like I said, see her as an equal. He wants to control her because he doesn't trust her.

Heck, how about the situation in New Moon? Edward lies to her, emotionally hurting her by telling her he doesn't love her, then after they reunite he blames HER for believing him and jumping off the cliff. This is inexcusable. Again, he doesn't trust her. If he did trust her he would have told her the truth, the motives for his actions, and Bella in turn would say yes, I can understand where you're coming from. Edward looks down on Bella. He sees her as a little child that must be monitored. He even admits his mistake in leaving her because Bella went mentally unstable. This is simply not okay for any boyfriend or husband to do.


message 43: by Olivia (new) - added it

Olivia but why does he want do that for? did they get married 1st type of thing?


message 44: by Angie Elle (new) - added it

Angie Elle Jocelyn wrote: "How about in Breaking Dawn, though? Bella turns into some kind of sex addict, and Edward has complete and utter control over their sex routines. No matter how much Bella wants it, Edward only lets ..."

Do you think, then, that someone should compromise their morals for someone else?


Kirby Jocelyn wrote: "How about in Breaking Dawn, though? Bella turns into some kind of sex addict, and Edward has complete and utter control over their sex routines. No matter how much Bella wants it, Edward only lets ..."

are you referring to how he was so horrified and disgusted at the bruises covering bella's body that he couldn't bring himself to make love to her again? how he resisted until she broke down sobbing over it, and then they had sex when and wherever she wanted?

that still does say distrustful, manipulative, or abusive to me.


message 46: by [deleted user] (last edited Oct 07, 2012 08:34PM) (new)

My point is that Edward disregards Bella's side of the argument, simply overriding it with his own judgement. What if Bella has morals as well? How is it moral to disregard someone else's happiness for the sake of your own judgement? Morality is ambiguous. It may seem selfless of Edward, but to me it is not because he clearly doesn't care about what Bella thinks, he only cares about what HE thinks. I will repeat, again, that he does not see Bella as an equal, and I will also repeat that this is not okay in any relationship. Edward is much stronger than Bella. It's very easy to forget, in that circumstance, that your morals are not the only one that matters. Your partner's opinions matter as well.

As for all those bruises, well, Edward seemed perfectly fine with dumping Bella and all those crazy stunts. He even freaking blamed her for believing his rather pathetic lie that he didn't love her.


message 47: by Angie Elle (new) - added it

Angie Elle Jocelyn wrote: "How about in Breaking Dawn, though? Bella turns into some kind of sex addict, and Edward has complete and utter control over their sex routines. No matter how much Bella wants it, Edward only lets ..."

I don't remember that happening in BD, but it's been a while since I read it, so I can't speak to that.

As for New Moon, to me, his intention says it all. He thought he was keeping her safe. He didn't tell her that he didn't love her to hurt her; he truly thought it was for her well-being. He had no way of knowing the despair this would bring upon her. He had no way of knowing she would 'go mentally unstable.' Edward was just as inexperienced with matters of the heart as she was.

And again, I guess it's a matter of perception of whether or not he was blaming her. I thought he merely was expressing his surprise at how willing she was to doubt his feelings for her. I never thought he was casting blame.


message 48: by Olivia (new) - added it

Olivia Jocelyn wrote: "My point is that Edward disregards Bella's side of the argument, simply overriding it with his own judgement. What if Bella has morals as well? How is it moral to disregard someone else's happiness..."

yea would think so.


message 49: by Olivia (new) - added it

Olivia then what the whole point, in that in the 1st place? she could have been with jake, which is lot better, and heathy.


message 50: by Angie Elle (new) - added it

Angie Elle Jocelyn wrote: "My point is that Edward disregards Bella's side of the argument, simply overriding it with his own judgement. What if Bella has morals as well? How is it moral to disregard someone else's happiness..."

If it was the male pressuring the female to have sex, would you think the same thing?


« previous 1 3 4 5
back to top