Are people who dislike Twilight "obsessed" with Twilight?

[7709Rosie]

sorry I mean they might NOT get the concept

[Alex]

I think that what Jocelyn is trying to say is that Bella is a heroine and it's traditional, in genre fiction, for readers to want to read about a hero or heroine who is extraordinary in some way. Readers tend to put themselves in the shoes of the hero/heroine of this type of novel and take inspiration from the way they act and respond in certain situations. It's not uncommon for people to act more courageously, more intelligently, more skilfully etc

A good genre novel(as opposed to a realist one) has a protagonist - a hero or heroine - who has to face adversity and overcome it. It provides tension and drama in the narrative and gives the reader something to buy into when they read it.

I think that the problem Jocelyn has with this novel is that she doesn't want to project herself - who she'd like to be - onto someone who whines when the going gets tough. She'd like to see someone in that scenario who grits her teeth and gets on with the job, overcoming the odds with style and panache. Yes, it's more likely that someone would actually swoon if their lover is in danger but this isn't a piece of realistic fiction. Twilight is not trying to portray how a romance between two lovers would actually be (I don't think the guy would actually sparkle for starters) so why couldn't Meyer write Bella as brave in the face of adversity, why did she make her into a whiner?

The troublesome part is - if, in a work of genre fiction such as this, genders were switched and Bella had been a man, would Meyer have written him as "whining"? Does she write Ed Cullen as whiny?

[Heidi]

Jocelyn wrote: "That's not overcoming the conflict, that's complicating the conflict."

The conflict was that she didn't want Edward to get hurt and she wanted to save her mom. So to her it was a win win. In Edwards eyes it was something different.

You cant have it both ways. You cant fault her for being "passive" because she didn't convince Alice and Jasper to help Edward. And then fault her when she does act and goes off on her own. (that's not very passive if you ask me)

[[deleted user]]

Alex wrote: "I think that what Jocelyn is trying to say is that Bella is a heroine and it's traditional, in genre fiction, for readers to want to read about a hero or heroine who is extraordinary in some way. ..."

Yes, Alex. That's exactly what I'm trying to say. Thanks for clarifying my point.

That's a really interesting question, if the genders were switched. Edward Cullen does whine quite a lot in Midnight Sun (he whines about Bella being freaking born, in fact)...BUT the point of his angst is obviously to make the reader sympathize with him, rather than be annoyed at him, of course. Interestingly enough, despite the fact that Edward is supposed to be an anti-hero, he comes off as a gigantic douchebag. Which is a common problem when authors write anti-heroes; instead of coming across as people genuinely striving to overcome their lack of humanity, they come across as a douchebag. He whines, but he is portrayed as someone to sympathize with, instead of a cowardly passive person.

Personally, I think Bella whines because Meyer still feels the need to romanticize their relationship. In her eyes, a damsel in distress plus the knight in shining armor equals the most romantic thing ever. She makes Bella whine and be a passive coward for no reason other than for her to give way to her savior. At least as far as I can see at least, I can't find any other purpose for Bella's generic "flaw" of being clumsy, or the fact that she has the intelligence of a plank of wood.

[[deleted user]]

Heidi wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "That's not overcoming the conflict, that's complicating the conflict."

The conflict was that she didn't want Edward to get hurt and she wanted to save her mom. So to her it was a w..."

I didn't fault her for not telling Jasper and Alice to go after James, it was just a suggestion and recommendation on what she COULD have done to help.

Going after James is certainly pretty active of her, I'll give you that. But how does she actually overcome the conflict in the end? Is it through her bravery, her perseverance, her heart, her love for her family and soul mate?

...Nope.

Instead of letting Bella overcome it on her own, Meyer pulls the lazy Deus Ex Machina and has Edward save her butt. She does not figure things through, she does not have an important point when she goes through a massive amount of development in very little time like all good fictional climaxes should be, she freaking faints and has EDWARD fly in like Superman to save her.

What a strong and brave heroine! I want to be a passive, whiny coward when I grow up, just like Bella!

[Heidi]

Your right she does faint. How dare her. LOL I've just realized how crazy you are. I hope you never have to faint from losing blood and having broken bones. You are truly an amazing spin dr.

[[deleted user]]

Heidi wrote: "Your right she does faint. How dare her. LOL I've just realized how crazy you are. I hope you never have to faint from losing blood and having broken bones. You are truly an amazing spin dr."

The fainting has nothing to do with her weakness. What I'm saying is that it feels like a plot device JUST so Meyer can use her Deus Ex Machina. That's contrived, forced, and a very, very, very weak climax. Also, it feels like a convenient cop-out so Meyer won't have to actually put in some real effort to narrate the scene. Fainting during a climax is really, really stupid, ESPECIALLY if the book is written in first person POV.

[Heidi]

Funny, I never said any of your conclusions. I just think any sort of credibility you had is long gone.

[[deleted user]]

I'm simply clarifying what I'm trying to say, because you seem to constantly misunderstand exactly what kind of point I try to get across. You acted like I thought the fainting was a sign of weakness, so I decided to clarify it. Is that wrong?

[Kirby]

Jocelyn wrote: "What a strong and brave heroine! I want to be a passive, whiny coward when I grow up, just like Bella! "

oh, damn- I guess I'm just one fucked up person, seeing as how I must want to be just like the main character in any book that I love. I'm so glad that this was brought to my attention before the next dexter book made me go kill someone.

[[deleted user]]

Kirby wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "What a strong and brave heroine! I want to be a passive, whiny coward when I grow up, just like Bella! "

oh, damn- I guess I'm just one fucked up person, seeing as how I must want ..."

Kirby, it's just my opinion. Just because I think that Bella is weak doesn't mean you have to either.

[[deleted user]]

So, I've been looking around and rereading the past posts of this discussion topic, and I've been thinking lately a bit more on the topic at hand: are people who dislike Twilight obsessed with Twilight?

I can't speak for other anti-Twilighters here, but personally, in a way, yes, I am obsessed with Twilight. I think it's really easy for a fan, or anyone for that matter, to look at people rating books one or two stars and think, "man, that person must really hate books!" There was this thing Mickey said that struck a chord. She said that when she can tell someone loves books, she feels a kinship with them. Conversely she also said that she doesnt consider people who spend time hating something to be real readers. A lot of other fans on this site seem to imply that as well. I think it's that anti-Twilighters come off as having a really negative perspective of the world, and fans are like, "Chill out, it's just a book!" And the anti-Twilighters are like, "An offensive and stupid book."

For me, it's precisely that I love books and, more importantly, the fantasy genre, that compels me to place much harsher judgement on fantasy authors. It's because I love it that I view something so critically, not because I hate it. Personally--and this is not an attack on any Twilgiht fans--but I dislike this series because it took everything I'd come to love about fantasy and passed it through a filter. A strong hero/heroine striving to overcome the odds? Gone. Fantastic adventures to keep me turning the pages? Gone. Heartracing tension, high stakes, and horrible possibility that the villain might win? Gone. I'm not saying that if a book does not contain these elements, it means that it's not fantasy, but this is, essentially, what has helped separate fantasy as a genre, and the substitutes Meyer decided to use just didn't satisfy me.

SO, that is why I'm "obsessed" with Twilight. Not because I just hate books and look to hate books, but because I love them. I guess it's a bit ironic. Besides, of course, what I personally found offensive or insulting in the books. Twilight stood out in the fantasy genre, and not in a good way.

I notice that the overall tone of the comments Twilight fans put on here is kind of...bitter. Maybe that's too harsh a word...perhaps annoyed? This isn't meant as a slight on fans, but they seem to take everything so LITERALLY. Sometimes I don't think about that one teensy comment I made, then a fan comes out to me and says, "that was offensive," and I'm just like, "Whoa, I completely forgot I even wrote that!" or "that wasn't the point of my comment!" This also might seem a little hypocritical of me since I took a lot of stuff literally in this discussion, but I felt that there was still a difference. Sometimes it felt like fans didn't get the overall gist of what we anti-Twilighters were trying to say, instead they picked on minor details that the poster of the comments most likely missed or forgot or unconsciously made. I'm not picking on anyone here, and this is not meant as an insult, so PLEASE do not take it as one (I've unintentionally insulted enough people on here to last a lifetime, thank you very much). It's just that no matter how hard I try to be civil, there's always SOMETHING rude and wrong with what I say, then I tend to get a little frustrated, because the people on here sometimes don't interpret what I say in the way I want them to.

[Dorothy]

Starhyphen wrote: "Meh, if I join a discussion about how I didn't really like Twilight, for me, it's actually debating practice. Thinking of being a lawyer and knowing both sides of the argument and being able to ref..."

It doesn't make you feel ridiculous? Having debated topics like global warming, abortion, gay marriage, and religious influences in government, it always makes me feel a little foolish to argue over why Edward being sparkly is not blasphemous to the origins of vampirism, lol.

[Dorothy]

Jocelyn wrote: "Leah refuses to get a life, instead being kicked around in a pointless love triangle between Emily and Sam."

Actually, Leah is bound by duty to her pack, which is why she can't move on, but the second another option is available (Jacob breaking off and forming a second pack), she takes it. I did not like Leah's character, mostly because people liked to call her a strong woman for her bitchy, bitter actions, but I did respect her some when she found a way around her circumstances.

[Mickey]

Dorothy wrote: "It doesn't make you feel ridiculous? Having debated topics like global warming, abortion, gay marriage, and religious influences in government, it always makes me feel a little foolish to argue over why Edward being sparkly is not blasphemous to the origins of vampirism, lol."

This made me laugh. Thank you!

[Pratiksha]

Its not so much the book than the movies that has turned Twilight shallow and meaningless.
When I read the book, I found it vaguely interesting. Though I never could understand the appeal of a "sparkling" vampire. For me vampires are creature of the dark like Lestat in Queen of the damned. I too have felt that sense of loathing when someone says "Oh my god! Edward is so great and Jacob is so hot!". I am sure Stephenie Meyer never meant it to turn into such utter crap.
Without doubt I lovedthe Host by Meyer. Twilight just took the hit coz of the ridiculously stupid film.

[Carina]

Heidi wrote: And this is the part where I ask, when in the books did Bella whine- OUT LOUD to anyone? ...

This may have already been addressed but...

To me and I think to others on this whining does not have to be out loud, from what you have posted it appears to me that you believe whining only occurs if it is outloud and to someone else - that's fine it is your opinion but it is also our opinion that Bella is a supreme whiner.

Heidi wrote:I think its abnormal. It's all a matter of opionon. It also depends on the cirumstances. Who cares if it is abnormal. Whats abnormal to me, maybe perfectly fine to you.

I quoted this more in relation to the previous quote I have taken from you - you find not finishing books to be normal behaviour for SOME people whilst others, myself included, think it very odd to start a book and not finish. As you say what is abnormal to you is fine for others - same goes for Bellas whinyness.

[Carina]

Dorothy wrote: "It doesn't make you feel ridiculous? Having debated topics like global warming, abortion, gay marriage, and religious influences in government, it always makes me feel a little foolish to argue over why Edward being sparkly is not blasphemous to the origins of vampirism, lol. "

I do kind of agree. I have stated in another thread that the sparkly vampires is something I dislike because I prefer the more traditional vampire (I believe I said something along the lines of them being more funny than scary)- but as time goes on literature evolves.

I liken the 'sparkle' vampires to Disney movies - Disney take a number of stories from the Brother Grimm (who took them from various other places) and neatened them up - Meyer has done the same thing as Disney - removed the goryness and the scaryness. Do I personally dislike it - yes, but it is not the worst thing about these books.

TBH though if you debate topics like global warming, abortion, gay marriage, and religious influences in government there aren't going to be many topics that aren't foolish in comparison.

[Carina]

Pratiksha wrote: "Though I never could understand the appeal of a "sparkling" vampire. For me vampires are creature of the dark like Lestat in Queen of the damned. "

I totally agree.

[Mickey]

With all this discussion about trashing a character for being whiny in her head, isn't it interesting that, in the same breath, those people claim a right to not only waste their own time by reading a book they dislike, but have to come here and whine about it?

Perhaps there is some deep psychological forces at work when people spend many hours obsessively denigrating "obsessive fans" and complaining constantly about a character's complaints.

When can we get back to the actual topic? If you want to talk about her whininess, go to the thread that deals with that topic or create a new one. I don't know why we have to hear about it here.

[Dorothy]

Alex wrote: "I'm not here to make judgement on whether or not you are educated , and what books you might or might not have read."

Mmm, but you did. As stated in the very next line of your post.

"I took a guess that you hadn't read many because you're unable to respond to what I'm saying except through anything other than anger and I don't think that anger facilitates very good debate."

You're right. I let my anger get the best of me. I try not to let that happen as a general rule, but I'm a passionate person and when someone insults me:

"Didn't really understand that? Ok, go away and read some books on it before taking offense at something you clearly have no knowledge about whatsoever."

It has a tendency to rub me the wrong way.

"You don't really understand why feminists think that Twilight is an anti-feminist novel because you're completely unwilling to try and understand what feminists think and how they view the world."

I'm so glad you have such a solid grasp of who I am as a person that you can, after extremely limited interaction, lay out what I think, am not, and don't know.

I understand what Feminism is about and what it's trying to achieve. I support that fight to its fullest. I do not, however, agree that taking an extreme approach and condemning women who don't fit into your version of what is right does any good.

"I'm not going to reiterate the same point ad infinitum for you to ignore, tell me I'm wrong and then tell me you're angry without you even trying to actually rebut everything that I've said."

You mean, this?

"What it's about, on a deeper level, is understanding that it's the power structures implicit within the patriarchal system that inhibit women's right to choose what they want to be."

Is this the point you say I ignored, claimed was wrong, and did not say anything worthwhile to rebut? This point that you followed up by insulting my intelligence (twice if you count the barb you closed with)? This point which is the same thing I said, "Feminism is about a woman's right to be whatever she chooses to be," but on, as you said, a deeper level?

I did not take issue with your definition, only with how that definition relates to your opinion of women and myself.

"What I thought was reprehensible was that women are brought up to believe that their best/most natural/correct option in life was to become a stay-at-home mother."

But that is not all that you said:

"if you want to help teach the next generation of women to be stayathome layabouts with no ambition beyond reproducing themselves, then by all means keep giving them Twilight to read"

"Please, don't let me stop you from living the patriarchal dream. Don't educate yourself, don't have a career, spend your entire life cleaning and organising a house for your man and child. I would hate to be accused of being unfeminist so I'll gladly support your right to do that, but in return I think you should allow my right to think that's a little bit sad and to maybe be allowed to tell other people that I think they should have aspirations and goals in life. Deal?"

Changing the way women are brought up to view themselves is an entirely different concept than saying a stay-at-home mother or housewife is an uneducated layabout.

I disagree with Amy, who sparked the former response from you, that some girls just don't want to try and so why not become a housewife. But you perpetuated and broadened her opinion to include the entirety of the stay-at-home community. You generalized an entire group of people, people I respect (my father being one of them), into mindless lumps.

In the latter excerpt, you look down on Cassie for not necessarily wanting a career and equate her wanting to make a good home to giving up on bettering herself. Cleaning and organizing the house would bring her happiness, so that would lend to the theory she is doing it for herself, and not solely for her husband and child. There's also no edict saying a woman who chooses to spend her time at home will give up on education. I'm not in school and yet I learn things every day through books and conversation. A housewife can (and in most cases does) do the same thing.

"I have a lot of personal experience of this as it happens, having come through the comprehensive system in England (I'm a working class kid) and seen first hand the lack of aspiration and education that the working classes generally have (though it's by no means limited to one class). I've seen in my life over and over a dominant attitude that says men can be x y z (insert career choice here) whereas women can be maybe z but really what we wanna know is when are you gonna have kids? ... Believe it or not, I have as much experience regarding men, women and relationships as you do. It was these experiences that led me to want to read up on and to understand a topic, so I could get a better understanding of what was happening, how and why it was wrong."

And that is so awesome! Honestly, I'm not being sarcastic here. I think it's absolutely fantastic that you've joined the fight for women's rights. Women fighting for women is wonderful, but it takes a combined effort between genders to get things done.

"I'm sorry if it sounds arrogant to you but the evidence of this conversation says to me that you're blatantly not interested in finding out about the issue, which I think is really sad, personally."

I'm really glad I took a day to calm down after reading this post because the first time I read this I took major offense. I was infuriated that you could think you know the plights of women. And the truth is you don't, at least not the way a woman knows them. You may have as much experience as I do, but it is an entirely different experience, one that will never live in the soles of my shoes.

You act as if I can't know about the feminist struggle because I haven't read about it (though I have, btw, read about it). But, being a woman, I don't need to read about it.

If Mitt Romney gets elected as president here, the chances of Roe v. Wade being overturned are astronomical. That means women are no longer in control of their own bodies. Women get paid cents on the dollar for the same work a man does. My own brother thinks this is fair because "a woman can't do what I do." Did you know that if you're "legitimately raped," you can't get pregnant? A man running for Senate in Missouri actually believes this. He then called the female incumbent Senator a dog who went out and played fetch. Hillary Clinton, at her rallies to get elected for the democratic ticket as president, put up with signs saying, "Go iron a shirt!"

In my personal life, I've been told not to lift heavy things because I'm a woman. Let the men do it, even though I have experience with heavy equipment. I've been told I'm unnatural, because I want to adopt and not have any children of "my own." I've been told I'm a terrible driver, all women are, even though I was taught by a former race-car driver, who is the epitome of safety. I've been passed over for promotions, even though I was the most qualified. I've been scolded for being too outspoken. I've been in a number of situations I shouldn't have had to put up with, merely because I was born without a penis.

So, your insistence that I couldn't possibly understand what I'm talking about is offensive. You disagreed with my rather vehement opinion by insulting me, and you insulted others as well. As someone who admits to becoming heated in responding to you, perhaps you can turn your gaze on yourself and see where you might have gone wrong.

And because I hate people telling me what to do, especially in relation to my opinions...

In regards to the idea that a woman must have a career to lead a fulfilled life, and that a woman who stays home with the kids or the dog or the dust mites is less than any other woman, strictly because it's not what you want her to do: "THAT is anti-feminism."

[Dorothy]

Heidi wrote: "I think its abnormal. It's all a matter of opionon. It also depends on the cirumstances. Who cares if it is abnormal. Whats abnormal to me, maybe perfectly fine to you. "

Eh. We are all abnormal. And in our abnormalities, we are all normal; for with all of us being abnormal, abnormal becomes normal, negating what makes us abnormal in the first place. *grin*

[[deleted user]]

Mickey wrote: "With all this discussion about trashing a character for being whiny in her head, isn't it interesting that, in the same breath, those people claim a right to not only waste their own time by readin..."

It's because Twilight fans have always been questioning: why do antis spend so much time hating a book? And antis on this thread are trying to say, "this is why, these are the number of reasons, does that clarify anything?" Remember the last few pages of this thread...I think it was around pages 8-11? Call it whining if you will. I call it clarifying. I think the purpose of this thread--this is pure guesswork on my part, I can't speak for Cassie--is to help communication and understanding of both people who dislike Twilight and the people who like it. That is why we have been arguing so long about Bella's craziness, weakness, antifeminism, etc.--so we can better understand both sides and question: are they "obsessed" with Twilight, as Cassie puts it?

[Carina]

Dorothy wrote: "Eh. We are all abnormal. And in our abnormalities, we are all normal; for with all of us being abnormal, abnormal becomes normal, negating what makes us abnormal in the first place"

Nicely put!

[Dorothy]

Jocelyn wrote: "If you try to make fiction into real life, you're going against your own work. Fiction has a separate purpose. Your being hysterical has nothing to do with Bella, because you are in real life, and Bella is fictional."

Art imitates life imitates art. It's perfectly acceptably to compare fiction to reality, because fiction is drawn from reality. Not all comparisons work, however.

[Dorothy]

Jocelyn wrote: "I can't really agree with that. People who dislike Twilight are not secretly obsessed with it, they actually dislike it. Most people anyway. There might be some out there who fit what your ay. But overall, they dislike it for genuine reasons, not because they want to "fit in," like you say. "

I don't think every person who dislikes Twilight is obsessed with it, but I would say the people who can't let it go definitely are. I, myself, obsess over badly written TV. I do not, however, like it. Grr.

[[deleted user]]

Dorothy wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "If you try to make fiction into real life, you're going against your own work. Fiction has a separate purpose. Your being hysterical has nothing to do with Bella, because you are in..."

What I'm trying to say is not that fiction should not be realistic. However, real life has elements in it that are better left out of literature. A lot. Kind of like how people in real life say, "uh..and um," which, when left in dialogue in writing, is a huge red flag of something that needs serious editing. You should try to be realistic, but you shouldn't try to mimic real life.

My point is that--since many people on this thread argue anti-Twilighters' points by saying, "well, in real life, this is how a normal girl would react"--fiction isn't about ordinary people doing ordinary things. In real life, there are no convenient "plot points" to make a steady story to flow continually. Yet in literature, we still have story structures--like the Three Act Structure, or the more common one of rising action, climax and falling action. Literature should realistic, but trying to actually mimic it is disastrous. It isn't using certain elements that makes something realistic, it's HOW you use them that decides how realistic a book or other work can feel.

[Dorothy]

Jocelyn wrote: "The book acts like Bella is brave, strong, and smart, but she comes off as stupid, cowardly, and weak for me."

This is actually my biggest problem with the books. Bella is supposedly this selfless, strong woman, at least that's what Meyer tells you she is, but her actions relate her as a typical angsty teenager.

[Dorothy]

Mickey wrote: "This made me laugh. Thank you! "

Lol, you're welcome ^_^

[Dorothy]

Peace wrote: "in some ways even leah didnt want to stay around jake pack that he had, she had some pov on how she look at diff things here and there. "

Oh, Leah hated having to protect vampires, lol. She didn't like Jake all that much, either. But she had to choose a pack, she couldn't break away because her shifting was too uncontrollable, so she chose the one that would be less of a hardship for her.

[Dorothy]

Pratiksha wrote: "Its not so much the book than the movies that has turned Twilight shallow and meaningless.
When I read the book, I found it vaguely interesting. Though I never could understand the appeal of a "sp..."

You know, it makes me wonder if this feminist argument would be as prominent if Twilight weren't PG. If there were dark tones all over the text, would people be so outraged by it?

[Dorothy]

Carina wrote: "TBH though if you debate topics like global warming, abortion, gay marriage, and religious influences in government there aren't going to be many topics that aren't foolish in comparison. "

Lol, I suppose, but sparkly vamps are a bit more ridiculous than, say, debating whether Riordan's love for Percy and Annabeth is to the detriment of his other characters (an actual conversation I'm having elsewhere).

[[deleted user]]

Dorothy wrote: " If there were dark tones all over the text, would people be so outraged by it?"

I don't know. I think part of the reason why people see this as antifeminist is because it isn't portrayed as what it really is. Edward in my view is abusive, but he is portrayed as the perfect, protective guy. You and I both agreed that Bella was a typical angsty teenager, yet Meyer decides to portray her as smart, selfless and strong despite the fact that her actions contradict that. I think it's mostly a matter of how things are shown in the book and what the narrative interprets it to be. I found the relationship abusive, but the narrative treated it like the most perfect idealistic relationship ever. If their relationship was portrayed as abusive, or Bella shown to be a weak/unintelligent/cowardly as she really is, I highly doubt too many people would have a problem with that. I think it's mostly a matter of how things are shown in the book and what the narrative interprets it to be.

[Carina]

Dorothy wrote: "Lol, I suppose, but sparkly vamps are a bit more ridiculous than, say, debating whether Riordan's love for Percy and Annabeth is to the detriment of his other characters (an actual conversation I'm having elsewhere). "

No idea who they are but fair enough!

If there were dark tones all over the text, would people be so outraged by it?

Actually some comments on here made me think about 'abusive' relationships in other texts - I started a thread about Gone with the Wind about this - I mean it is picked up so much in Twilight (I think the 'abusive' relationship is one of the feminist critiques) but not in others - the gist I have gotten back is due to the basic tone of the book so I think your point is very valid.

[Dorothy]

Carina wrote: "Nicely put! "

Ha. ^_^ Thanks. That's exactly the kind of deep, philosophical discussion my friends and I get into after a few glasses of wine.

[[deleted user]]

Haha Carina :) Percy and Annabeth are from the Percy Jackson series.

[Lindsay]

Forgive me as I haven't read all the posts in here, but I think an important part of reading is reflection. Telling "haters" to leave this alone goes against one of the purposes of reading and reflecting through book clubs or goodreads--dialog and discussion. If everyone here was gushing about how great the book is or the fantastic writing style or how the plot was just so perfect and the weak girl and the abusive vampire just had the most adorable baby--if there was no dissent, no one would learn anything. The discussions would just be "oh, that book was great. I agree. That Edward...just so dreamy." Regardless of liking a book or not, participating in discussions is a way to understand other perspectives and grasp the book in a way you may not have originally envisioned.

[Dorothy]

Jocelyn wrote: "What I'm trying to say is not that fiction should not be realistic. However, real life has elements in it that are better left out of literature. A lot. Kind of like how people in real life say, "uh..and um," which, when left in dialogue in writing, is a huge red flag of something that needs serious editing. You should try to be realistic, but you shouldn't try to mimic real life.

My point is that--since many people on this thread argue anti-Twilighters' points by saying, "well, in real life, this is how a normal girl would react"--fiction isn't about ordinary people doing ordinary things. In real life, there are no convenient "plot points" to make a steady story to flow continually. Yet in literature, we still have story structures--like the Three Act Structure, or the more common one of rising action, climax and falling action. Literature should realistic, but trying to actually mimic it is disastrous. It isn't using certain elements that makes something realistic, it's HOW you use them that decides how realistic a book or other work can feel."

I both agree and disagree. Let me first say that I misunderstood your statement. I thought you were saying you can't use real life examples to justify fiction. As someone who is ridiculously into analogies, I had to speak up ;)

Anywho, when it comes this things like "um" and repeating one's self a million times, those human qualities should be left out of writing unless they add to the character. For instance, "um" for a guy asking a girl out on date would say a lot to how nervous he is without the author having to say, "this character is nervous." Everything must have a purpose.

In relation to "a normal girl reacting," I can see both sides. It may not be very interesting, but it's not abominable. I will concede to it being bad writing in this case, though. Meyer has a great imagination, but her writing skills are terrible.

Jocelyn, do not, under any circumstances, read Prep. Oh, man. If you hated nothing happening in Twilight, this book will drive you up the wall. I reviewed it, if you want to see why I feel this way, but... ugh. Sorry. It's one of the worst books I've ever read. I think it's the only book in which I wanted to sue the author for stealing my time.

[Heidi]

Dorothy wrote: "Eh. We are all abnormal. And in our abnormalities, we are all normal; for with all of us being abnormal, abnormal becomes normal, negating what makes us abnormal in the first place. *grin* "

Aww lol.That was sweet. On a totally off topic note, I love the name Dorothy. My favorite Aunt who passed - her name was Dorothy.

[Dorothy]

Jocelyn wrote: "I don't know. I think part of the reason why people see this as antifeminist is because it isn't portrayed as what it really is. Edward in my view is abusive, but he is portrayed as the perfect, protective guy. You and I both agreed that Bella was a typical angsty teenager, yet Meyer decides to portray her as smart, selfless and strong despite the fact that her actions contradict that. I think it's mostly a matter of how things are shown in the book and what the narrative interprets it to be. I found the relationship abusive, but the narrative treated it like the most perfect idealistic relationship ever. "

The relationship in human terms wasn't all that healthy, but I can't ever view it as abusive. I've been in an abusive relationship before; I've had first hand experience, have read up on the subject, and the psychology behind Edward and Bella is completely different than to that of an abuser and his victim.

However, you are correct that Meyer tries to sell one thing and delivers another. Bella has selfless moments, but she is just as selfish as any other teenager, any other human really.

[Dorothy]

Carina wrote: "Actually some comments on here made me think about 'abusive' relationships in other texts - I started a thread about Gone with the Wind about this - I mean it is picked up so much in Twilight (I think the 'abusive' relationship is one of the feminist critiques) but not in others - the gist I have gotten back is due to the basic tone of the book so I think your point is very valid."

Oh, Gone with the Wind was totally an abusive relationship. It was also a great love story. It's hard to correlate the two, because we're taught that abuse is abuse and there's no excuse. But that's the way things were done back then. Not for every guy, but for a good many. The historical element plays a huge part there.

[[deleted user]]

Dorothy wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "I don't know. I think part of the reason why people see this as antifeminist is because it isn't portrayed as what it really is. Edward in my view is abusive, but he is portrayed as..."

Yeah. I've never been in a relationship, abusive or not, so I'm just making the best judgement I can under that circumstance. Perhaps it's simply that people, including me, find it annoying because Edward's Always Must Be King of the World Syndrome seems to serve no purpose whatsoever except to romanticize their relationship. But, as you can see with so many pages on this thread used to argue whether it was abusive or not, it's really a matter of perspective. I find it abusive, others do not. XD

[Dorothy]

Lindsay wrote: "Forgive me as I haven't read all the posts in here, but I think an important part of reading is reflection. Telling "haters" to leave this alone goes against one of the purposes of reading and ref..."

True, but when I hate a book, or dislike a book, I rant and rave for a few days, even as long as a month sometimes, and then I move on. I let it go. It's hard for me to understand why someone would want such negativity in their life.

That being said, I obsess over badly written TV shows. I watched Secret Life of the American Teenager for a season and a half before I finally called it quits. And every week I was say, "This is what people are calling good? This is TERRIBLE! No one acts like that!" So, I guess I get it. Kind of <.<

[Dorothy]

Heidi wrote: "Aww lol.That was sweet. On a totally off topic note, I love the name Dorothy. My favorite Aunt who passed - her name was Dorothy. "

Awe, thanks ^_^

It took me a long time to come to terms with my name. It was so old-fashioned. Now, I love it. Not many people my age are named Dorothy. It also shaped who I am. How can I not love it? Haha.

[Gerd]

Alex wrote: "One in which you make decisions and create projects free from the restraints and restrictions of others. One in which you define yourself, rather than be defined by the aspirations of other people."

Oh, that's a mouthful - You realize that that first half of your statement can't work in a society, where we will always have to make decisions based on others, for that's the only way a society can work. And how would choosing to raise children, build a home and manage a family not fall into the latter?

Because that's what made me ask, the way you juxtaposed your arguments makes it sound as if you found raising children and caring for another not to be purposeful (or at the least not the most purposeful or meaningful way to spend your life).
But if tending to the very cornerstones of a healthy society is not - then what could possibly be?

Living free of the restraints of others?
How so? Buy some land and build a shack in the Canadian backwoods - live the Walden life?

[Heidi]

Jocelyn wrote: "My point is that--since many people on this thread argue anti-Twilighters' points by saying, "well, in real life, this is how a normal girl would react"--fiction isn't about ordinary people doing ordinary things."

You should always just get to the point instead of trying to explain and having to back track and say thats not what you meant to say or mean. People get lost in the boggle.

For instance, you cant emphasize that someone faints and then back track and say I didn't mean for you to focus on that. How was I not suppose to focus on it? You called her a passive whiny coward - even though she choose to face things alone. She cant be hysterical because thats too realistic, she has to be "whiny".

Fiction can be about ordinary people doing ordinary things. Theres a million TV shows to prove it. Comic strips about ordinary people doing ordinary things. Seinfeld specifically was a TV show about nothing. All books present ordinary people doing ordinary things, like breathing, or being upset or ordinarily reacting to whats happening, or even stammering saying um. (I do recall Harry Potter stammering and introducing himself)

[Dorothy]

Jocelyn wrote: "Yeah. I've never been in a relationship, abusive or not, so I'm just making the best judgement I can under that circumstance. Perhaps it's simply that people, including me, find it annoying because Edward's Always Must Be King of the World Syndrome seems to serve no purpose whatsoever except to romanticize their relationship. But, as you can see with so many pages on this thread used to argue whether it was abusive or not, it's really a matter of perspective. I find it abusive, others do not. XD "

See, this is where having an experienced writer would have done this book so much good. The problem with Edward is that he is over a century old. He has all this knowledge and experience except when it comes to love.

Meyer didn't know how to write Edward's experience vs. inexperience in any effectual manner. He was just as much an angsty teen as Bella, but because Meyer built him up as this mighty and wise boy-man, his jealousy and anxiousness gets lost.

[Dorothy]

Alex wrote: "At the start of the novel Bella is an independent girl until she meets Edward and inexplicable falls in love with him. There's no interaction, character development or anything that makes this happen, she simply falls for him based on his otherworldly good looks, a motivation that is repeated ad infinitum to the end of the book."

And he falls in love with her just as quickly for her... um... ordinariness? Bad writing, not anti-feminism.

"[Bella's] not interested in herself as a project anymore, she's only interested in Ed Cullen. In turn, Ed is interested only in "protecting" her ... for no reason other than he just happens to like her."

You've never been a teenage girl, so I'll forgive you not knowing how obsessed teenage girls can become with boys. Not to mention the supernatural aspect of it all. If there's something odd about someone, something you can't explain away with what you know of humanity, you're telling me you wouldn't be curious?

But honestly, Edward wanting to protect Bella is anti-feminist? Show me a boyfriend that doesn't want to protect his girlfriend and I'll show you someone without a heart. FYI, girls want to protect boys just as much as boys want to protect girls, as shown by Bella's willingness to sacrifice herself to save Edward on numerous occasions.

"This is the most facile and stupid description of love you'll read ..."

Yes! It is! At least I can see how you would take it as such, but that is bad writing, not anti-feminism.

"I find this all far more creepy than Ed spying on Bella when she sleeps (though that's a fascinating incident). I'm surprised that people can't or don't want to see what an unhealthy relationship dynamic this is for women ..."

Vampire. Not human. A human going to watch his obsession sleep is not the same as a vampire going to watch his obsession sleep. I'll give you that it's a little creepy (he does want to kill her, after all), but it is incorrect to look at it in a human context.

"Twilight is such an appalling book for teenagers right now because it's a book that is trying to take male/female relationships back to a simpler time in which men were the protector and women the cared for mother"

Except Edward pushed Bella to go to college, stay human. He wanted her to enjoy life, experience all she could. He protected her because he was supernatural, had brought supernatural dangers into her life, and she was fragile. Not because she was a woman, but because she was human.

The only woman in the series that relates to a housewife is Esme. One female character out of dozens is hardly indication of anti-feminist sympathies.

[Gerd]

Jocelyn wrote: "It's a basic goal for ALL books to have 1) a conflict, and 2) a protagonist who tries to overcome the conflict."

A.) According to whom?
B.) Who says that twilight has no conflict?


Jocelyn wrote: "If a book does not have a protagonist who tries to overcome that conflict...WHAT IS THE FUCKING POINT OF FICTION, THEN???"

To entertain perhaps?
To provide a diversion from life?
To give you something else to read than the list of nutrients at the back of your cereal box?



Alex wrote: "The troublesome part is - if, in a work of genre fiction such as this, genders were switched and Bella had been a man, would Meyer have written him as "whining"? Does she write Ed Cullen as whiny?."

Hell, yes, she does!
C'mon, I mean the guy is constantly whining about his cruel faith and stuff:
Oh noes I have no soul - but I case I still does I will not sleep with you before we are properly wed.

Me is a scary vampire, me has to fight for controlling myself.

Yadda, yadda, whine, whine... :D

I felt he did spend at least half the time he was in the books whining.

New Moon is worst:
Me Bella is dead, me is going to kill me now by sparkling at hapless tourists!

[Heidi]

Dorothy wrote: "Meyer didn't know how to write Edward's experience vs. inexperience in any effectual manner. He was just as much an angsty teen as Bella, but because Meyer built him up as this mighty and wise boy-man, his jealousy and anxiousness gets lost. "

Yeah I will say that is the most unbelievable part of the whole series. This is your first love, and you don't act on your jealousy? You offer to share her? Really? I'm not saying this can't happen, I mean with a older, wiser, more EXPERIENCED person with love -then yeah I'd find that more believeable. I don't know any guy or girl who would be ok with finding out thier lover was kissing another without having a talk about it first.