Twilight
discussion
Are people who dislike Twilight "obsessed" with Twilight?
@ Gerd
"A.) According to whom?
B.) Who says that twilight has no conflict?"
It's not technically a rule, but then what else could there be? That's the entire point of a protagonist--a character the reader can cheer for to overcome the odds.
Also--I never said Twilight had no conflict, I said that Twilight does not have a protagonist who works to fight that conflict.
But there IS no conflict. James doesn't count because NOTHING before the climax has been building up to that point. His arrival was never foreshadowed or hinted at. No event in the entire book before his arrival ever clued the reader in about him. It didn't build up to that point, and therefore I do not consider it to be a conflict, because it does not affect Bella for the majority of the book.
Edward's fight not to eat Bella doesn't count either, because he is not the main character. The MC is the character that the most conflict evolves around. This conflict never occurs within or at Bella, so this is not a conflict. If anyone considers this to be a conflict, then it should have been written from Edward's point of view, because the most conflict happens around HIM, not Bella.
"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?"
That's exactly my point. People read fiction to entertain themselves. And to entertain, there should be SOMETHING that resembles a freaking plot. Twilight's plot is absolutely zero for the first 400 pages, because it does not have any conflict. All fiction stories revolve around a protagonist, or number of protagonists, striving to overcome the odds. I can't think of a single fiction book that does not follow this besides Twilight. If a fiction book does not contain a main character that struggles to overcome the main conflict, you have failed to write a book. I'm not saying that if you were entertained by this you're stupid or anything, because that would be pretty presumptuous and arrogant of me, but this is the general layout for any fiction book out there.
"A.) According to whom?
B.) Who says that twilight has no conflict?"
It's not technically a rule, but then what else could there be? That's the entire point of a protagonist--a character the reader can cheer for to overcome the odds.
Also--I never said Twilight had no conflict, I said that Twilight does not have a protagonist who works to fight that conflict.
But there IS no conflict. James doesn't count because NOTHING before the climax has been building up to that point. His arrival was never foreshadowed or hinted at. No event in the entire book before his arrival ever clued the reader in about him. It didn't build up to that point, and therefore I do not consider it to be a conflict, because it does not affect Bella for the majority of the book.
Edward's fight not to eat Bella doesn't count either, because he is not the main character. The MC is the character that the most conflict evolves around. This conflict never occurs within or at Bella, so this is not a conflict. If anyone considers this to be a conflict, then it should have been written from Edward's point of view, because the most conflict happens around HIM, not Bella.
"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?"
That's exactly my point. People read fiction to entertain themselves. And to entertain, there should be SOMETHING that resembles a freaking plot. Twilight's plot is absolutely zero for the first 400 pages, because it does not have any conflict. All fiction stories revolve around a protagonist, or number of protagonists, striving to overcome the odds. I can't think of a single fiction book that does not follow this besides Twilight. If a fiction book does not contain a main character that struggles to overcome the main conflict, you have failed to write a book. I'm not saying that if you were entertained by this you're stupid or anything, because that would be pretty presumptuous and arrogant of me, but this is the general layout for any fiction book out there.
Jocelyn wrote: "That's exactly my point. People read fiction to entertain themselves. And to entertain, there should be SOMETHING that resembles a freaking plot. Twilight's plot is absolutely zero for the first 400 pages, because it does not have any conflict. All fiction stories revolve around a protagonist, or number of protagonists, striving to overcome the odds. I can't think of a single fiction book that does not follow this besides Twilight. If a fiction book does not contain a main character that struggles to overcome the main conflict, you have failed to write a book."Well, everybody defines entertainment differently. For me "twilight" worked fine on that level.
True, the actual conflict in the book is barely scratched at, and Bella is like a passenger in her story - but that's like I feel much of the time about my own life, so I guess that is part of what made me connect with the story. :D
However, I do find that you pose too narrow a view of fiction. The main of a story is to speak to its audience, if it can't do _that_, it really failed. But to say that you can't have no defined conflict, sorry, but can't agree there (although it sure does help to have one, because flowery prose will only get you thus far).
Jocelyn wrote: "As for emphasizing Bella's fainting...are you talking about how I bolded and italicized it? I was being sarcastic. I was being satirical. I was mocking Bella for doing that. "The funny thing is that you constantly think that I didn't get what you were trying to get across. That you think that I'm misunderstanding you. The issue is you don't understand me. You don't understand that your sarcastic response issued my sarcastic response. You were being sarcastic by saying she fainted. And with that response I sarcastically responded back. You also lost me, I could no longer take anything that you ever say seriously.
Dorothy Wrote ... "a lot" I’m not going to get into the tit-for-tat points scoring mode that you’ve tried to start here. You’re clearly very offended by a bunch of things that I’ve said and you’re looking to get one over in some respect by pointing out seemingly minor inconsistencies in a couple of things that I wrote and responding to each one of them would be a waste of time and not serve the larger argument.
I think that part of the problem is that you see this on a very personal level whereas I don’t tend to think – when I’m arguing, that is - in terms of the personal. It’s simply irrelevant to the bigger picture whether x knows a stay-at-home mum or whether so-and-so is uneducated and “doing alright, thanks” If I moved everything into the personal sphere every theoretical argument I ever had would come back to “but x is a nice person” or “but y is happy” and we’d never get anywhere. On a personal level I’m glad that you know a bunch of happy and content people who also happen to be housewives/husbands or whatever but that doesn’t really change my opinion that I’ve outlined in more detail in a bunch of posts that you’ve still somehow managed to ignore.
Regarding whether you know anything about feminism or not is concerned, it’s completely pointless saying to me “I’m educated, thanks” “You know nothing about me” or “I know about feminism” or suchlike. The brutal truth is that I’m going to form my opinion of you based on what you post here on goodreads. I’ve met a lot of people who know about these subjects and they’re very capable of talking the talk. If you talk the talk then I’ll think “hey, she knows about feminism” If you don’t then I’ll think “hey, she doesn’t know about feminism”. It’s quite simple in that regard. You don’t need to care what I think anyway.
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’m glad that Cassie is happy. I’m sure there are lots of happy stay-at-home mums. Thanks for clarifying. I don’t personally recall ever arguing that one person’s personal happiness was what I felt feminism or authenticity was about so I’m not sure what this is supposed to be a rebuttal to.
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.
Being a woman you don’t need to read about it? That’s not only wrong, it’s frighteningly wrong.
Furthermore, seeing as how you’re fighting an educated patriarchy full of males who have systematically criticised women for being less intelligent than them and used that falsehood as a way of stifling them , disallowing them an education, calling them stupid and then concluding that they’re only good to stay at home and be mothers/housewives, I’d say that doubly you should feel that you want an education to be able to argue against this.
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.
It’s painfully inevitable that you were going to state that I can’t understand this issue on some level because I’m not a woman and haven’t had the female experience. It’s such a terrible line of argument because it serves to further divide the male/female population of the planet in irreconcilable ways and plays right into the hands of anti-feminists. “Oooh yes, men and women are different, let’s make a checklist of the differences and pigeon-hole the two accordingly”. It’s very reductive. Another major problem with it is that you can reduce that line of thought down to “Actually, I can’t udnerstand what it’s like to be you - but then, neither can any other woman.” What about all the women out there who haven’t shared your experiences? Upper class women, African women, Asian women... all of the millions and millions of women who have been brought up culturally, educationally, even physically different from you? Have they walked in your shoes? Why Is this about men and women at all, exactly? Is it because you have a vagina and have periods? What about women who have lighter periods than you, or heavier ones? What about women who have gotten preganant and become mothers when you haven’t?
How is your experience as a woman comparable to every other woman’s experience as a woman? What are you taking from that experience and what are you arguing because of it – and what are you stating that I can’t comprehend/understand, exactly?
A further consequence is that you can’t ever talk about males in any meaningful way, so you can’t argue about feminism either because you can’t meaningfully talk about what masculinity means.
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!"
What’s this got to do with anything other than to remind me that the American election is taking place and that American politicians are fucking stupid?
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.
What makes you think I never turn my gaze upon myself? I haven't admitted to being overtly heated in response to you, in fact, your responses haven't angered me in the slightest. Maybe left me scratching my head a little but mostly what you're writing is inline with what I expect from a certain percentage of people when I have conversations about feminism online.
All that you wrote is all very well but it doesn’t particularly show an understanding of Beauvoir, Kristeva, Irigiray, Butler etc etc and honestly, I’m not throwing out names to try and intellectually dazzle you, because I know a ridiculously small amount about these writers as well and a lot of my knowledge about feminism is horribly second hand, but the point I’m trying to make is that your trying to claim that you can know about feminism without reading books and telling me a few personal anecdotes about sexist things that men say just confirms to me that you have basically nothing to say on the subject. You may have read these books (you may simply google them before replying next and say that you know about them), but you don't argue similarly to the people that I've known who have. As I said before, you argue very much in terms of the personal, rather than the Academic. I've never really known a feminist who knew much about feminism to get so upset by the kinds of things that I've said, but y'know, there's a first time for everything.
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."
This is still just a soundbyte, however many times you write it. What’s the argument, exactly. You spent an entire – quite long – post that I’ve spent far too long responding to, telling me that I’m inconsistent on a few points and that you apparently know about feminism (but not arguing about it)
Gerd wrote: "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 ..."What I said was "you need to define yourself, rather than be defined by the aspirations of other people".
What you've just written doesn't follow. I didn't say one should not be considerate towards other people or that one couldn't do things that were beneficial for other people. I think quite the opposite and believe social responsibility should be a priority for everyone.
I am confounded as to how you could miss my point so thoroughly. Yes, my words to you were personal. You insulted me, Alex. That's the long and short of it. You all but called me an idiot for disagreeing with your opinion. Oh, you dressed it up in big words and pretty sentences, but that "tit-for-tat" you refused to acknowledge was a play by play of how you had offended me.Let me dumb it down for you, since any lengthy rebuttal will likely be twisted the same way my last post was.
There is more than one way to fight a battle. While I respect Beauvoir (admittedly the only name on your list with whose work I am familiar), I wholeheartedly disagree with many of her ideas, and I'm surprised you would meet so many feminists with her opinion instead of their own.
Your view (the part I took offense to, not the part I agreed with), as both implied and blatantly stated, is that a woman should strive for more than housewivery or motherhood. You find women who do not seek further fulfillment (or whatever you would like to call it) sad.
My view is that women (all people, really) should choose that which makes them happiest in life. For some women, imparting their wisdom and sharing their love with a child is of the highest order. Not because they don't feel they can reach higher (to a PhD or life-long career), but because being a mother is the biggest accomplishment (above a PhD or life-long career).
Telling a woman what she must do to be thought well of, whether it be pushing out babies or "bettering herself" with a career, is opposite of everything Feminism stands for. When it boils down to it, the basis of every argument, the point of view all feminists have in common, is choice.
Heidi wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "As for emphasizing Bella's fainting...are you talking about how I bolded and italicized it? I was being sarcastic. I was being satirical. I was mocking Bella for doing that. "
The ..."
Whatever, then. Thanks for clarifying. Yes, I mistook you, because I thought you were taking it literally. Now we understand each other better.
As for not taking me seriously...*shrug* I couldn't care less. We'll just have to agree to disagree. My favorite word of the day: "Whatever."
The ..."
Whatever, then. Thanks for clarifying. Yes, I mistook you, because I thought you were taking it literally. Now we understand each other better.
As for not taking me seriously...*shrug* I couldn't care less. We'll just have to agree to disagree. My favorite word of the day: "Whatever."
Dorothy wrote: "I am confounded as to how you could miss my point so thoroughly. Yes, my words to you were personal. You insulted me, Alex. That's the long and short of it. You all but called me an idiot for disagreeing with your opinion. Oh, you dressed it up in big words and pretty sentences, but that "tit-for-tat" you refused to acknowledge was a play by play of how you had offended me."Fair enough, after multiple pages of Mickey being ...Mickey, I probably jumped on you far too harshly for stepping in and expressing your opinion. I apologise unreservedly for the comments regarding your education which could probably stand in for my calling you an idiot. You didn't deserve that.
However, I think you've taken other comments far too personally and read offense into them where there really is none to be found. I don't think that you're reading the intent or message of many of my posts very clearly, in truth, and you're assuming that I'm saying women "must" do x,y,z when I'm trying to say women must have the opportunity to do x,y,z because to lead a life under someone else's dictation is inauthentic. You might disagree, but I don't think you've got cause to be personally insulted because I argued that women should strive to be more than mothers and housewives.
Gerd wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "That's exactly my point. People read fiction to entertain themselves. And to entertain, there should be SOMETHING that resembles a freaking plot. Twilight's plot is absolutely zero ..."
Literature is ambiguous, but it still must have some kind of structure. There has to be some kind of thing building up to the climax. Without structure, the entire book collapses.
Yes, I do believe that every book must have a defined conflict. Otherwise...what's the point? You know that little chart you get in fourth grade or so in school? It's a really basic requirement that every book MUST have a conflict. That's the entire purpose of fiction. In general, readers want to read about something fantastic, something beyond our world, like an exaggerated version, perhaps you could say. It's fine if the conflict is internal or external. Either one doesn't matter as long as you have ONE. Without a conflict, the author has failed to write a book. I mean, come on--even those short story assignments you get in elementary school have conflicts, internal or external. It's such a basic requirement (and yes, it IS a requirement), because otherwise, you have an incredibly weak plot, if you can even call it a plot. This is something that is drilled into any student's head in any English class from elementary school. Every story MUST have a conflict.
But, like always, we'll have to agree to disagree. In my opinion a story without structure, or a book without a story, is a failed attempt at writing a book. You enjoyed Twilight just fine and probably would either way. *shake hands?*
Literature is ambiguous, but it still must have some kind of structure. There has to be some kind of thing building up to the climax. Without structure, the entire book collapses.
Yes, I do believe that every book must have a defined conflict. Otherwise...what's the point? You know that little chart you get in fourth grade or so in school? It's a really basic requirement that every book MUST have a conflict. That's the entire purpose of fiction. In general, readers want to read about something fantastic, something beyond our world, like an exaggerated version, perhaps you could say. It's fine if the conflict is internal or external. Either one doesn't matter as long as you have ONE. Without a conflict, the author has failed to write a book. I mean, come on--even those short story assignments you get in elementary school have conflicts, internal or external. It's such a basic requirement (and yes, it IS a requirement), because otherwise, you have an incredibly weak plot, if you can even call it a plot. This is something that is drilled into any student's head in any English class from elementary school. Every story MUST have a conflict.
But, like always, we'll have to agree to disagree. In my opinion a story without structure, or a book without a story, is a failed attempt at writing a book. You enjoyed Twilight just fine and probably would either way. *shake hands?*
Jocelyn wrote: Yeah, I agree. Feminists just find Twilight....offensive. Like, "WTF is this, insulting my intelligence????" The gender roles are very....old-fashioned, I guess you could say, pushed way back into the 1800s. Almost every single female character in the book is either 1) pathetically devoted to her man, 2) a stay-at-home mom with no ambitions in life, or 3) both. Even Leah Clearwater, who I personally deemed the female character with the most potential, hangs onto Sam and refuses to get over it. There are existing women who do not pine after the "love of their lives" 100% of the time, which Meyer doesn't really seem to get. And, since feminists had worked for a really long time to fight for their rights and instill a sense of equality in America that a woman can do more than stay at home and raise kids, they get annoyed when they read Twilight.This is the biggest problem that I have with so-called "feminism". I don't like the assumption that a stay at home mom has no ambitions in life. Women make this decision for their families for various reasons and most of the time, it has nothing to do with ambition or any lack thereof. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a woman making that choice for her family. That line of thinking does feminism a disservice, imo.
As for Twilight, it is not a stand alone book. More information and insight is given to many of the characters as each of the novels progress. All of the female vampires in Twilight are actually quite accomplished, hold multiple degrees and actively pursue their own interests and hobbies. Also, being fiercely loyal is not necessarily the same as "pathetically devoted".
Regarding Leah and Sam, people need to remember that she is actually a young girl. She's only 18 or 19 years old and her break-up occured before Bella came to Forks...so she was only 16 or 17 at the time. I think it is rather silly that readers are upset that a teenaged character doesn't act like a grown woman in a novel.
Perhaps, grown women should give the Twilight books back to their tween daughters and stop trying to analyze them so harshly?
Mocha Spresso wrote: "This is the biggest problem that I have with so-called "feminism". I don't like the assumption that a stay at home mom has no ambitions in life. Women make this decision for their families for various reasons and most of the time, it has nothing to do with ambition or any lack thereof. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a woman making that choice for her family. That line of thinking does feminism a disservice, imo."The problem I have with people who have a problem with feminism, is that they take the opinions of one person and then use them as a straw man for "feminism". You don't agree with me, then fine... I'm a feminist I'm not feminism Feminism is a broad term that deals with the concept of equality for women. Some other person's idea of equality for women might gel with you more than mine does.
Mocha Spresso wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: Yeah, I agree. Feminists just find Twilight....offensive. Like, "WTF is this, insulting my intelligence????" The gender roles are very....old-fashioned, I guess you could say, pushed..."
I don't think stay at home moms don't have ambitions. When feminists who criticize Twilight say stay at home moms, they're talking about they don't seem to have any ambitions beyond that, not simply the fact that there are so many stay at home moms.
When I said "pathetically devoted" I meant that they don't seem to have any view of the world beyond their boyfriend. Like, jumping off cliffs and motorcycles, for example. I think there is a very fine line between fiercely loyal and pathetically devoted, and that line can be pretty debatable.
I don't think stay at home moms don't have ambitions. When feminists who criticize Twilight say stay at home moms, they're talking about they don't seem to have any ambitions beyond that, not simply the fact that there are so many stay at home moms.
When I said "pathetically devoted" I meant that they don't seem to have any view of the world beyond their boyfriend. Like, jumping off cliffs and motorcycles, for example. I think there is a very fine line between fiercely loyal and pathetically devoted, and that line can be pretty debatable.
Jocelyn wrote: I don't think stay at home moms don't have ambitions. When feminists who criticize Twilight say stay at home moms, they're talking about they don't seem to have any ambitions beyond that, not simply the fact that there are so many stay at home moms. When I said "pathetically devoted" I meant that they don't seem to have any view of the world beyond their boyfriend. Like, jumping off cliffs and motorcycles, for example. I think there is a very fine line between fiercely loyal and pathetically devoted, and that line can be pretty debatable."
"They don't seem to have any ambitions beyond that." Who are you refering to here....real life stay at home moms are Twilight moms? If real life....How would you know? Why do you assume this? Why place more value on one type of ambition over another? (ie...career ambitions vs. family ambitions) If Twilight....Who exactly is the stay at home Mom that you are referring to? The only mom's in the story were Bella's Mom and Esme. Neither of which is technically a stay at home mom. The closest thing to a stay at home mom in the Twilight novels is probably Emily.
The only character in Twilight that was "pathetically devoted" in the way that you are describing was Bella....but that diminshes in the subsequent novels.
Mocha Spresso wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: I don't think stay at home moms don't have ambitions. When feminists who criticize Twilight say stay at home moms, they're talking about they don't seem to have any ambitions beyond ..."
It was a broad statement, not my personal opinion. I mean...it IS my personal opinion that they don't seem to have any ambitions, but I won't get into that. Jennifer Reese of Entertainment Weekly said: "You may wish she had loftier goals and a mind of her own, but these are fairy tales, and as a steadfast lover in the Disney princess mold, Bella has a certain saccharine appeal"--among many others who agree. It was a general statement, not a topic for debate I was suggesting.
It was a broad statement, not my personal opinion. I mean...it IS my personal opinion that they don't seem to have any ambitions, but I won't get into that. Jennifer Reese of Entertainment Weekly said: "You may wish she had loftier goals and a mind of her own, but these are fairy tales, and as a steadfast lover in the Disney princess mold, Bella has a certain saccharine appeal"--among many others who agree. It was a general statement, not a topic for debate I was suggesting.
Dorothy wrote: "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 ;)"
Haha ;) My fault for being unclear. It's pretty easy to confuse what I'm trying to say, like, "okay, you should be realistic...but it's bad to mimic real life...but what?" So sorry for that.
"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."
I know. That's what I was trying to say, because you should definitely leave out the "ums" and "uhs" unless, like you said, they 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."
True. I felt like Bella had to be whiny just so Meyer could use her Deus Ex Machina plot device, a.k.a. Edward, otherwise it wouldn't be ~*romantic*~. It felt too contrived, forced, and downright lazy to me. And yes, that definitely is a case of bad writing. I guess for whether it's abominable or not is a matter of personal preference.
"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."
Makes me want to read it even more!
LOL I'm just trolling. I guess I'll have to draw my own conclusions for that, though. ^.^
Haha ;) My fault for being unclear. It's pretty easy to confuse what I'm trying to say, like, "okay, you should be realistic...but it's bad to mimic real life...but what?" So sorry for that.
"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."
I know. That's what I was trying to say, because you should definitely leave out the "ums" and "uhs" unless, like you said, they 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."
True. I felt like Bella had to be whiny just so Meyer could use her Deus Ex Machina plot device, a.k.a. Edward, otherwise it wouldn't be ~*romantic*~. It felt too contrived, forced, and downright lazy to me. And yes, that definitely is a case of bad writing. I guess for whether it's abominable or not is a matter of personal preference.
"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."
Makes me want to read it even more!
LOL I'm just trolling. I guess I'll have to draw my own conclusions for that, though. ^.^
Jocelyn wrote: It was a broad statement, not my personal opinion. I mean...it IS my personal opinion that they don't seem to have any ambitions, but I won't get into that. Jennifer Reese of Entertainment Weekly said: "You may wish she had loftier goals and a mind of her own, but these are fairy tales, and as a steadfast lover in the Disney princess mold, Bella has a certain saccharine appeal"--among many others who agree. It was a general statement, not a topic for debate I was suggesting."I agree that in the beginning Bella's only goal is to become a vampire so that she can be with Edward forever. But that changes toward then end. Later on her goals revolve around protecting her family and loved ones.
:) As I always say: agree to disagree.
Jocelyn wrote: "Kirby, it's just my opinion. Just because I think that Bella is weak doesn't mean you have to either."ah, sorry. I guess I let sarcasm cloud my point. I was referring to what is, in my opinion, the ludicrous notion that just b/c someone enjoyed a book, they aspire to be the main character (or, actually, even like the main character).
@AlexI'll admit to being slightly more emotional than was warranted at first, which added to the situation. As I said before, I'm an incredibly passionate person and I'm not always able to control that part of myself. Thank you for your apology. It truly means a lot. And I apologize for the part I played in our less-than-cordial disagreement.
Alex wrote: "I don't think that you're reading the intent or message of many of my posts very clearly, in truth, and you're assuming that I'm saying women "must" do x,y,z when I'm trying to say women must have the opportunity to do x,y,z because to lead a life under someone else's dictation is inauthentic."
I do understand what you are saying here, and I saw you say it in your previous posts. In essence, we agree. What I did not agree with was your generalization of all women who choose the stay-at-home lifestyle being sad and lazy and uninspired.
I understand that your comments stemmed from Amy's post that some women didn't want to do anything worthwhile in life. To be honest, I groaned aloud when I read it because it is a misrepresentation of what it means to be a stay-at-home mother and wife in modern times to most women. When you perpetuated her statement into being a truth to base your argument, my haunches went up. I should not have jumped the gun.
The other point of yours I took issue with, and still do, is your use of the word "inauthentic." To lead a life under another's dictation is, indeed, a sad and terrible thing. But to say that this person's life is ultimately worthless, a lie, a weak projection what was not and would never be, tears apart my soul.
How many women have lived under a man's thumb? How many slaves have spent their lives in servitude? How many peoples have suffered tyrannic government? And all these people are inauthentic? These people are the roots of progress. They are a warning against repetition. But most importantly, they are each and every one of them a person.
Perhaps I'm reading more into your words than you meant by them, but this is what I think about. Even today, when a woman stays at home with the children without making the choice to have done so, I cannot see her life as inauthentic. She makes of herself what she can, even if it's more limited than what you and I would want for her. She believes that is her place, but that does not make her complacent. She has a mind. She has a spirit. Her life is as genuine as any other person's because it is hers.
What a discussion. I didn't even like Bella's character in Twilight. I thought she was an annoying, angsty, whiny teen. I liked her better in Breaking Dawn. She's annoying, but that doesn't make her the psuedo-poster girl for ani-feminism. I don't understand why some want to harp on only certain character traits while ignoring others and want to disregard the fact that the character actually changes a great deal as the series progresses.
Jocelyn wrote: "True. I felt like Bella had to be whiny just so Meyer could use her Deus Ex Machina plot device, a.k.a. Edward, otherwise it wouldn't be ~*romantic*~. It felt too contrived, forced, and downright lazy to me. And yes, that definitely is a case of bad writing. I guess for whether it's abominable or not is a matter of personal preference."Mmm, I'm not sure this would qualify as Deus Ex Machina. I'm not an expert (don't tell that to my author or she'll never let me live it down!), but isn't that where the ending is wrapped up by some ridiculous happenstance?
I completely agree that it was contrived, but the area in which it was contrived was more the conflict than the resolution.
--It made no sense that Edward couldn't leave with Bella before James got to the field because he would smell the human, but he couldn't smell her when she was standing right there?
--It made no sense for a 7 vampire coven to split up against a 3 (and then 2) vampire coven.
--It made no sense for Bella to go off by herself to face a vampire.
It did, however, make sense for Edward to face off against James to protect Bella.
Again, not an expert, but I think I remember reading that Deus Ex Machina is a convenient happy ending.
"Makes me want to read it even more!
LOL I'm just trolling. I guess I'll have to draw my own conclusions for that, though. ^.^ "
Omg, if you must! Lol. It's actually good to start, but there's absolutely no progress. The main character stays the same for the entire book. Even in the epilogue she's still this miserable, insecure woman that we met on page one.
Alex wrote: The problem I have with people who have a problem with feminism, is that they take the opinions of one person and then use them as a straw man for "feminism". You don't agree with me, then fine... I'm a feminist I'm not feminism Feminism is a broad term that deals with the concept of equality for women. Some other person's idea of equality for women might gel with you more than mine does..."If feminism is a broad term that deals with the concept of equality for women, shouldn't all women (regardless of the choices that they make for themselves and their families) actually be viewed as equals? It seems to me that GENUINE feminism should be more focused on valuing choice. GENUINVE feminism should be championing all women....not trying to put down certain women because of the choices they make. Feminism should not be valuing one choice over another. It's all so silly. Career women think stay at home moms have no ambition. Stay at home moms think that career moms are horrible and cruel mothers for leaving their children in their most formative years. Neither one of them are right. In general, I cannot stand the empty rhetoric of the so-called feminist movements.....but I do value the freedom that I have to choose.
As much as I disliked Bella in Twilight....the one thing that I agreed with her on was that her future was her choice. Not Edward's, not Jacob's, not Charlie's. Some may not agree w/ the decisions she made or the rationale and motivations behind them....but throughout the novels, she was fighting for her ability and right to choose her own destiny. It was always her choice whether to become a vampire or not.
Mocha Spresso wrote: "If feminism is a broad term that deals with the concept of equality for women, shouldn't all women (regardless of the choices that they make for themselves and their families) actually be viewed as equals? It seems to me that GENUINE feminism should be more focused on valuing choice. "I think Alex wrote on one of the last pages somewhere that what he meant was that women are often presented as having no other options but to be housewives and this is what Alex was criticising.
You're right in that Bella does, ultimately, make the final decisions about her life... even if some of them are not understandable by some of the readers - so in that respect I guess she is a 'good' role model.
Carina wrote: "I think Alex wrote on one of the last pages somewhere that what he meant was that women are often presented as having no other options but to be housewives and this is what Alex was criticising."Yep.
Feminism is not (or should not be) against women's decision to be carers or housewives, but against ideologies and economic structures that leave/offer women no other choice than to choose the role of caring mother and housewife.
Kirby wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "Kirby, it's just my opinion. Just because I think that Bella is weak doesn't mean you have to either."
ah, sorry. I guess I let sarcasm cloud my point. I was referring to what is..."
Haha, yeah. It was a joke. I never try to pattern my life after books I read, because that's just stupid.
ah, sorry. I guess I let sarcasm cloud my point. I was referring to what is..."
Haha, yeah. It was a joke. I never try to pattern my life after books I read, because that's just stupid.
@ all comments who mention feminism
All of this is really interesting. Antis are like, "Bella is such a weak stupid girl," etc.etc., and fans are like, "she made the choice, she actually has a mind of her own," etc.etc.
These are just my personal thoughts :)
Feminism for me has never been about choices. It's been about believing in a female's worth, that she can do just as much as a man. Some people talk about gender equality...but what's the point if women don't believe in themselves? I have no problem with people becoming housewives IF they make the conscious decision to do so while knowing all of their options, instead of being a housewife out of blind devotion to their husband/boyfriend. The opposite of believing in one's worth--the belief that all people with vaginas are instantly inferior weaklings--has actually been one of the main reasons women have gotten so little respect in history up until the point when the women's movement started. Because they were viewed as weak.
And that's exactly what Bella thinks of herself--weak. The main reason I believe she is antifeminist is not because she IS weak (though that is one reason)--it's because she truly believes she is weak until she becomes a vampire. If her attitude was more like, "okay, I'm human among all these powerful vampires, but I can still be strong." Or if her attitude evolved into something like that, it doesn't have to be there from the start. There were many chances for Bella to show her strength--she's constantly surrounded by people who want to suck the blood out of her, and she reacts by crying and clinging to Edward and just...ugh. She could at least stand her ground by refusing to back down. She doesn't have to be physically strong. It's possible for a woman to be strong without being a total badass. It's been done before, and maybe that was what Meyer was trying to go for--a Jane Austen type of heroine, except now in a vampire-ish setting. For me, she failed to do that.
All of this is really interesting. Antis are like, "Bella is such a weak stupid girl," etc.etc., and fans are like, "she made the choice, she actually has a mind of her own," etc.etc.
These are just my personal thoughts :)
Feminism for me has never been about choices. It's been about believing in a female's worth, that she can do just as much as a man. Some people talk about gender equality...but what's the point if women don't believe in themselves? I have no problem with people becoming housewives IF they make the conscious decision to do so while knowing all of their options, instead of being a housewife out of blind devotion to their husband/boyfriend. The opposite of believing in one's worth--the belief that all people with vaginas are instantly inferior weaklings--has actually been one of the main reasons women have gotten so little respect in history up until the point when the women's movement started. Because they were viewed as weak.
And that's exactly what Bella thinks of herself--weak. The main reason I believe she is antifeminist is not because she IS weak (though that is one reason)--it's because she truly believes she is weak until she becomes a vampire. If her attitude was more like, "okay, I'm human among all these powerful vampires, but I can still be strong." Or if her attitude evolved into something like that, it doesn't have to be there from the start. There were many chances for Bella to show her strength--she's constantly surrounded by people who want to suck the blood out of her, and she reacts by crying and clinging to Edward and just...ugh. She could at least stand her ground by refusing to back down. She doesn't have to be physically strong. It's possible for a woman to be strong without being a total badass. It's been done before, and maybe that was what Meyer was trying to go for--a Jane Austen type of heroine, except now in a vampire-ish setting. For me, she failed to do that.
Jocelyn wrote: "The main reason I believe she is antifeminist is not because she IS weak (though that is one reason)--it's because she truly believes she is weak until she becomes a vampire...."Isn't that just insecurity? Is insecurity a sign of anti feminism?
She could at least stand her ground by refusing to back down.
I thought that was exactly what sye did? What did she ever back down from?
Cassie wrote: "Isn't that just insecurity? Is insecurity a sign of anti feminism?"
Insecurity isn't a sign of antifeminism. But Bella doesn't seem to be making any effort to overcome that insecurity, nor does she come to the realization that she has the potential to be just as strong, in her own way, as the vampires that surround her. She only achieves emotional security through becoming a vampire, a.k.a. becoming stunningly beautiful, amazingly strong, uniquely powerful, etc., as if a woman's worth is only measured by her "romantic" traits. Anyway, these are just my personal thoughts, I'm not trying to argue with anyone.
"I thought that was exactly what sye did? What did she ever back down from?"
She didn't back down from anything, but the way she deals with events when they get tough is kind of...sad. I mean, I'm sorry to say it--again, this is just my personal opinion--but she could at least handle things with some dignity, or learn to handle things with dignity along the way. Like all things, those "strong" traits don't have to be there from the start, she can develop them as she goes along. She only develops her self-respect through becoming a vampire, not through self-realization or anything else to make her realize that she does actually have the potential to be strong.
Insecurity isn't a sign of antifeminism. But Bella doesn't seem to be making any effort to overcome that insecurity, nor does she come to the realization that she has the potential to be just as strong, in her own way, as the vampires that surround her. She only achieves emotional security through becoming a vampire, a.k.a. becoming stunningly beautiful, amazingly strong, uniquely powerful, etc., as if a woman's worth is only measured by her "romantic" traits. Anyway, these are just my personal thoughts, I'm not trying to argue with anyone.
"I thought that was exactly what sye did? What did she ever back down from?"
She didn't back down from anything, but the way she deals with events when they get tough is kind of...sad. I mean, I'm sorry to say it--again, this is just my personal opinion--but she could at least handle things with some dignity, or learn to handle things with dignity along the way. Like all things, those "strong" traits don't have to be there from the start, she can develop them as she goes along. She only develops her self-respect through becoming a vampire, not through self-realization or anything else to make her realize that she does actually have the potential to be strong.
Dorothy wrote: "I'm not an expert (don't tell that to my author or she'll never let me live it down!), but isn't that where the ending is wrapped up by some ridiculous happenstance?"
Yes, that's exactly what it is, though it doesn't only apply to the ending--it can apply to anywhere in the book as well, as long as there's a problem or conflict that needs to be solved. Its cousin is plot convenience, when some random plot element just HAPPENS to be there (for lame reasons, or for no reason at all) to solve the problem. I guess I'm really picky--it seems that almost all YA books are infested with cases of Deus Ex Machina, and it really grates on me, so when even ONE case pops up, I start groaning.
Yes, that's exactly what it is, though it doesn't only apply to the ending--it can apply to anywhere in the book as well, as long as there's a problem or conflict that needs to be solved. Its cousin is plot convenience, when some random plot element just HAPPENS to be there (for lame reasons, or for no reason at all) to solve the problem. I guess I'm really picky--it seems that almost all YA books are infested with cases of Deus Ex Machina, and it really grates on me, so when even ONE case pops up, I start groaning.
Jocelyn wrote: "@ all comments who mention feminismAll of this is really interesting. Antis are like, "Bella is such a weak stupid girl," etc.etc., and fans are like, "she made the choice, she actually has a min..."
I can agree with most of that. I just took offense to someone automatically assuming that a woman who makes the choice to be a housewife is doing it because she has no ambition or out of blind devotion to her spouse. Actually, are there still men out there who make their wives stay home? I actually haven't encountered one of those. I'm fairly confident that most women in 2012 probably know that they don't have to stay home if they don't want to. Most women make that choice because they think it is the best thing for their families.
On Bella being weak.....you are right, but only to a certain extent. She is highly insecure and does believe that she is inferior to Edward....but I don't think it has anything to do with assumed male/female gender roles. The vampires are immortal and almost indestructable. As a human, she is physically inferior. I also disagree that she never steps up to show signs of strength. She knowingly had a romantic relationship with a vampire. She knew what the Cullens were and went into a house full of vampires anyway. When the James thing started, Edward wanted to run and hide her immediately, but she refused to go until she was certain Charlie would be safe. She also went to face James alone. I know people view those choices as foolish and stupid, myself included, but that doesn't discount the fact that they are also very brave things to do.
Mocha Spresso wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "@ all comments who mention feminism
All of this is really interesting. Antis are like, "Bella is such a weak stupid girl," etc.etc., and fans are like, "she made the choice, she ac..."
I guess you're right, if you view it that way. Like you said, those choices ARE quite foolish and stupid. She should never have gone to James on her own or tried to protect Charlie. But yes, she can be strong. It just really irritated me that she never steps back and think, "wow, I'm actually stronger than I thought I was!" until she becomes a vampire. I'm okay with low self-esteem in fiction, but I'm not okay with low self-esteem the persists 100% of the way through. Because what use is being strong if the person doesn't realize she/he is strong? She/he is just defeating him/herself before they even do something. Only when Edward is around or when something has to do with Edward does Bella find the motivation to be strong. I would also be okay with this if this persisted when Edward was not gone--maybe Edward would have inspired her to become stronger, even when he wasn't around--but unfortunately, it didn't happen.
As for gender roles...I don't think you've bothered to slog through twelve pages of comments (come to think of it, who would?) but I'll just say anyway that I admitted that I was wrong. Some of the women in Twilight actually do have ambitions or occupations outside of being a housewife. Either way, I prefer not to get into a gender role discussion. They all kind of taste the same. It usually goes something like:
anti-Twilighters: all de women n twilite r housewivs or pathetic grlfrends, ew
fans: wats rong with being a housewife? den rnt u saying women rnt allowed 2 b housewives? grrrr modern femizm sux
antis: dats nawt wat i meen, i meen ppl hav 2 no all der opshuns...
...and blabbity blah. You're absolutely right, this doesn't really tie into gender roles at all. Sorry for trying to derail the conversation, I won't do that again.
All of this is really interesting. Antis are like, "Bella is such a weak stupid girl," etc.etc., and fans are like, "she made the choice, she ac..."
I guess you're right, if you view it that way. Like you said, those choices ARE quite foolish and stupid. She should never have gone to James on her own or tried to protect Charlie. But yes, she can be strong. It just really irritated me that she never steps back and think, "wow, I'm actually stronger than I thought I was!" until she becomes a vampire. I'm okay with low self-esteem in fiction, but I'm not okay with low self-esteem the persists 100% of the way through. Because what use is being strong if the person doesn't realize she/he is strong? She/he is just defeating him/herself before they even do something. Only when Edward is around or when something has to do with Edward does Bella find the motivation to be strong. I would also be okay with this if this persisted when Edward was not gone--maybe Edward would have inspired her to become stronger, even when he wasn't around--but unfortunately, it didn't happen.
As for gender roles...I don't think you've bothered to slog through twelve pages of comments (come to think of it, who would?) but I'll just say anyway that I admitted that I was wrong. Some of the women in Twilight actually do have ambitions or occupations outside of being a housewife. Either way, I prefer not to get into a gender role discussion. They all kind of taste the same. It usually goes something like:
anti-Twilighters: all de women n twilite r housewivs or pathetic grlfrends, ew
fans: wats rong with being a housewife? den rnt u saying women rnt allowed 2 b housewives? grrrr modern femizm sux
antis: dats nawt wat i meen, i meen ppl hav 2 no all der opshuns...
...and blabbity blah. You're absolutely right, this doesn't really tie into gender roles at all. Sorry for trying to derail the conversation, I won't do that again.
Jocelyn wrote: "Mocha Spresso wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "@ all comments who mention feminismAll of this is really interesting. Antis are like, "Bella is such a weak stupid girl," etc.etc., and fans are like, "she m..."
That wasn't actually a plot hole....James was a tracker, meaning that his special vampire ability was tracking. Once he has focused on hunting her, he could pick up her scent, follow it and track her for miles. She was concerned that her scent might lead him to Charlie's house. So was Edward. That is why he initially said that she couldn't go back home.
Mocha Spresso wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "Mocha Spresso wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "@ all comments who mention feminism
All of this is really interesting. Antis are like, "Bella is such a weak stupid girl," etc.etc., and fans ..."
Fair enough. I'd forgotten that. But it is a minor detail, so I'll just edit it out of my comment.
All of this is really interesting. Antis are like, "Bella is such a weak stupid girl," etc.etc., and fans ..."
Fair enough. I'd forgotten that. But it is a minor detail, so I'll just edit it out of my comment.
Yeah, people who supposedly 'hate' Twilight talk about Twilight more than twi-hards do! It's UNBELIEVABLE!!! They are such hypocrites!(no offense intended)
I have become so ambivalent toward this book series. I love it but I also dislike it. So yeah, I guess you could say I have become obsessed because I continue to talk and read about it in hopes of figuring out how I actually feel lol. I think whether you love it or hate it, this series evokes such strong emotions that we as readers simply cannot help but talk...and talk...and talk about it!
Dorothy wrote: "The other point of yours I took issue with, and still do, is your use of the word "inauthentic." To lead a life under another's dictation is, indeed, a sad and terrible thing. But to say that this person's life is ultimately worthless, a lie, a weak projection what was not and would never be, tears apart my soul."I think, yeah, possibly that you're reading emotional content into words that aren't really asking for it and whilst I think that it's a good thing that you care deeply about people on an emotional level, I also think it's valuable to be able to step away from that and judge things on a more general, detached level. I use the word inauthentic, rather than sad, pathetic, waste of space or whatever to highlight the fact that it's a different thing altogether. It's not really a value judgement or a matter of "worth" regarding these individuals and I certainly more than recognise that they're the cornerstone of our society - why do you think that I think they're worth fighting for and discussing? Because I want ultimately the best thing for them, and that's not to be trodden on by a corporate, capitalist, patriarchy. I want all people to have the same opportunities and privileges that those born into privilege are currently enjoying.
I won't go into the reasons for it but if anyone has led an inauthentic life it's myself. I'm well placed to understand the problems inherent in living one's life through another's desires - it's something we all do and I don't think it's something that involves personal shame or condemnation but I think it's worth realising that everybody could be striving for more most of the times and that everybody could look inwards and ask themselves how they're living their lives and why.
But in a more broad sense we live inauthentic lives because we're chained by capitalism, or the patriarchy and we should always be looking for ways to shift the status quo so that society is more honest, more fair and gives more opportunity for freedoms for people. Ironically I don't think my position is all that different from my own, you've just gotten very caught up in the language that I'm using to express it as offensive.
Mocha Spresso wrote: " Neither one of them are right. In general, I cannot stand the empty rhetoric of the so-called feminist movements.....but I do value the freedom that I have to choose. "If you're determined to see it as rhetoric then there's not a lot that can be done. It's not a rhetorical position, it's an intellectual concept. it may be taken by certain groups of people and used rhetorically, but then that happens with all language and all concepts. The question is purely "do you think that women are equal to men?" - if yes, then you're probably a feminist of some description yourself. Just because other people are arguing about a particular point of detail doesn't mean that you have to conform to x, y, and z It's really just about creating equal opportunity for everyone.
I think the arguments about Twilight are a little more complex for people than they seem to me on the surface, because they involve how literature creates representations of "types" in society and how men have sought to control women by controlling images and representations of women in society over the years. Essentially the "choice" argument we're having is a bit of a sideline, anyway.
There seems to be a lot of confusion as to what's meant by "choice" in this thread. If Bella chooses Edward freely then that's fine, seems to be the argument. Ditto, if a woman freely chooses to be a housewife and she's happy "I want to be a housewife" then what the hell am I arguing against? We all just want to be happy, right?The problem is that what appears to be a freely made choice is not necessarily freely made because society is set up so that we can only make choices within a limited context, depending on how we're brought up to view the world as male or females.
When we're born the very first thing that happens to us is that we're tagged girl or boy. Many parents even have preferences depending on what "type" of person they feel they want to bring up. If you're a girl you'll be wrapped in pink, bought pink clothes. In TV adverts you'll be in pink and the girls onscreen will be handed dolls to play with. Your mum will buy you dolls, tell you that girls should look pretty, put you in dresses, and more importantly that boys are different from you.
And so on and so on. TV imagery of girls is gendered, the toys you play with are gendered the things your parents tell you are gendered. How many times in your life have you heard the phrase in one form or another "girls are different from boys " "He's just being a boy "she's so girly". By the time you you go to school the gender split is massive. Girls gravitate towards girls and boys, boys because you've already been taught by everything in society that you're fundamentally different, so 95% gravitate towards what they recognise and understand.
So choice. What chance do you have of making an informed choice about your life if everything in society is telling you "you're a girl, you'll be a mum and that's a good choice" Your mum tells you this when you're five and younger. Your mum gives you dolls to play with to prep you for the role that you're expected to fall into when you're older. And here's the thing, MOST people DON'T QUESTION ANY OF THIS. There's no getting away from that truth, most mums become mums because that's what they were destined to do on some level by society.
What I'm trying to say is that it's not choice of the scales are tipped towards you making that choice. You might be happy, content, feel like you did the best thing in the world, love your child, not want to change anything. That's all great, but it doesn't change the fact that the patriarchy in control of the world since the year dot set up the role of woman as mother and created a world in which women choose to be mothers based on the idea that women were born to be mothers, caring, gentle, soft, kind ... feminine.
Alex wrote: "There seems to be a lot of confusion as to what's meant by "choice" in this thread. If Bella chooses Edward freely then that's fine, seems to be the argument. Ditto, if a woman freely chooses to ..."
Well said! That's part of the reason why feminism for me has never been about choice. I mean, for centuries, even millennia, people have chosen to look down on women, and women have chosen to accept that, all the way up until the Seneca Falls convention. How is that any different? What's the point?
All of this boils down to one thing: it isn't really a choice if a woman or girl is not aware of all her options, or if she is not aware that she has, in fact, the potential to accomplish as much as any man. I think that's why feminists have problems with Bella, because they feel she makes choices out of blind devotion, because "the scales are tipped towards" her making that choice, as you put it. I think Meyer tried to counteract this argument using Eclipse, using the love triangle to make Bella think it through, but in the end, Bella is hardly any different from who she was before. She still worships the ground Edward walks on, she's still too shallow to see beyond the opportunity of having superpowers and superhuman beauty and superhuman abilities and having sex with Edward forever and ever.
As an addition to what you said: many of the women in Twilight seem to be locked inside a box. I'm not saying that Twilight is antifeminist simply because there are no Hermione Granger-equivalents in it, but people do have to remember: Twilight is supposed to be feminist. Meyer has actually said this herself; she truly views Twilight as a piece of feminist literature. I think she was trying to show that women can be strong without being a total badass, like a Jane Austen heroine, but for me, she spectacularly failed if that was her purpose.
You brought up a really interesting point, Alex, about how girls and boys are raised to view the world in whatever perspective. I'd like to add: if a woman has "masculine" traits, does that make her any less of a female?
Well said! That's part of the reason why feminism for me has never been about choice. I mean, for centuries, even millennia, people have chosen to look down on women, and women have chosen to accept that, all the way up until the Seneca Falls convention. How is that any different? What's the point?
All of this boils down to one thing: it isn't really a choice if a woman or girl is not aware of all her options, or if she is not aware that she has, in fact, the potential to accomplish as much as any man. I think that's why feminists have problems with Bella, because they feel she makes choices out of blind devotion, because "the scales are tipped towards" her making that choice, as you put it. I think Meyer tried to counteract this argument using Eclipse, using the love triangle to make Bella think it through, but in the end, Bella is hardly any different from who she was before. She still worships the ground Edward walks on, she's still too shallow to see beyond the opportunity of having superpowers and superhuman beauty and superhuman abilities and having sex with Edward forever and ever.
As an addition to what you said: many of the women in Twilight seem to be locked inside a box. I'm not saying that Twilight is antifeminist simply because there are no Hermione Granger-equivalents in it, but people do have to remember: Twilight is supposed to be feminist. Meyer has actually said this herself; she truly views Twilight as a piece of feminist literature. I think she was trying to show that women can be strong without being a total badass, like a Jane Austen heroine, but for me, she spectacularly failed if that was her purpose.
You brought up a really interesting point, Alex, about how girls and boys are raised to view the world in whatever perspective. I'd like to add: if a woman has "masculine" traits, does that make her any less of a female?
Alex wrote: "What I'm trying to say is that it's not choice of the scales are tipped towards you making that choice. You might be happy, content, feel like you did the best thing in the world, love your child, not want to change anything. That's all great, but it doesn't change the fact that the patriarchy in control of the world since the year dot set up the role of woman as mother and created a world in which women choose to be mothers based on the idea that women were born to be mothers, caring, gentle, soft, kind ... feminine."Ah, that's a troublesome point.
I mean, apart from a strictly philosophical point of view, does it really matter why you chose what you chose when you are happy with your life as it is?
Gerd wrote: "Ah, that's a troublesome point.I mean, apart from a strictly philosophical point of view, does it really matter why you chose what you chose when you are happy with your life as it is?
I think what's troublesome is trying to reduce feminism to issues of happiness or unhappiness.
Who is happy? How do you know that they're happy? What way are you judging happiness in the context of "the world and all it's problems?" If one woman says to you "Hey, I'm a housewife, I was born to this life and I'm happy in it" what does that mean? Does that mean she was happy in that moment, she's been happy for 10 years - will she be happy in the future? Is she lying and really underneath feels trivial and lonely? There are so many unknown subjective factors in those few questions alone that asking about personal "happiness" is a completely pointless measure.
Then let's move on to how your "happiness" affects someone else's. If you're a mum and you believe your child is destined to be a mother because you were and brings her up accordingly, what happens when that daughter gets self-awareness and says "actually, I don't want this?" That's precisely what happened in the 19th and 20th centuries and these women were told outright by men that they were unable to participate in male spheres of life. Ergo, they would have expressed a measure of unhappiness.
So, are you telling me that a person is not able to tell if they are truly happy with their lot in life, or are you telling me that they shouldn't be on the sole grounds that it is expected of them?
Gerd wrote: "So, are you telling me that a person is not able to tell if they are truly happy with their lot in life, or are you telling me that they shouldn't be on the sole grounds that it is expected of them?"Yeah, you're doing your best to disarm my long paragraphs with snappy one-liners but it's not working and I'm getting bored with typing, so, re-read my arguments if you like or don't. Point scoring arguments are kinda dull.
@ Gerd
Haha :) I'm not bored like Alex is, I like humoring people. Just how I roll. Anyway, this is pure guesswork on my part to interpret precisely what Alex is trying to say.
So, are you telling me that a person is not able to tell if they are truly happy with their lot in life,
I think Alex is trying to say that a person is not able to tell if they are truly happy in life if they are not aware of all their options. He made it pretty clear that what he meant was that sometimes people make choices that aren't really choices because their choice is what society expects of them--not because they really want that choice.
are you telling me that they shouldn't be on the sole grounds that it is expected of them?
Yes, I think that's exactly what Alex is trying to say. You shouldn't be happy because society expects it of you, you should be happy because what you do, you do while you're aware of all the options you have.
Haha :) I'm not bored like Alex is, I like humoring people. Just how I roll. Anyway, this is pure guesswork on my part to interpret precisely what Alex is trying to say.
So, are you telling me that a person is not able to tell if they are truly happy with their lot in life,
I think Alex is trying to say that a person is not able to tell if they are truly happy in life if they are not aware of all their options. He made it pretty clear that what he meant was that sometimes people make choices that aren't really choices because their choice is what society expects of them--not because they really want that choice.
are you telling me that they shouldn't be on the sole grounds that it is expected of them?
Yes, I think that's exactly what Alex is trying to say. You shouldn't be happy because society expects it of you, you should be happy because what you do, you do while you're aware of all the options you have.
Jocelyn wrote: "@ GerdHaha :) I'm not bored like Alex is, I like humoring people. Just how I roll. Anyway, this is pure guesswork on my part to interpret precisely what Alex is trying to say.
So, are you tellin..."
And this is where it gets sticky. Who are you to tell someone what they should base their happiness on, or the yardstick by which they should measure it?
It's like you're telling the world they need to conform to your standards.
Instead of conforming to 'traditionalism' (for lack of a better word) they need to conform to you and your opinion. Where's the rationale in that?
Angie wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "@ Gerd
Haha :) I'm not bored like Alex is, I like humoring people. Just how I roll. Anyway, this is pure guesswork on my part to interpret precisely what Alex is trying to say.
So..."
It's just an opinion, not a fact. That's what debate is for, isn't it? To argue other people's opinions, and support their own, and to try to be clear about their points while they're at it.
Also--I don't think it's telling the world to conform to my or Alex's or anyone else's standards, it's just a suggestion to encourage women to push for something other than being a housewife. If they find that they want to be something more, that's great. If they find that they don't like it and want to be a housewife, that's also great. Just as long as they're aware.
Haha :) I'm not bored like Alex is, I like humoring people. Just how I roll. Anyway, this is pure guesswork on my part to interpret precisely what Alex is trying to say.
So..."
It's just an opinion, not a fact. That's what debate is for, isn't it? To argue other people's opinions, and support their own, and to try to be clear about their points while they're at it.
Also--I don't think it's telling the world to conform to my or Alex's or anyone else's standards, it's just a suggestion to encourage women to push for something other than being a housewife. If they find that they want to be something more, that's great. If they find that they don't like it and want to be a housewife, that's also great. Just as long as they're aware.
Jocelyn wrote: "Angie wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "@ GerdHaha :) I'm not bored like Alex is, I like humoring people. Just how I roll. Anyway, this is pure guesswork on my part to interpret precisely what Alex is tryi..."
So does this hold only to women who want to be housewives or to everyone? If a woman decided she wanted to be a doctor, would you encourage her to be something 'beyond' that? Or is that a great first choice in your opinion, so no follow up is necessary?
When I read your statement, and you phrase it as 'beyond being a housewife,' it sounds to me as though you are demeaning that particular choice.
Angie wrote: "So does this hold only to women who want to be housewives or to everyone?"
It holds to people who want to be housewives.
"If a woman decided she wanted to be a doctor, would you encourage her to be something 'beyond' that? Or is that a great first choice in your opinion, so no follow up is necessary?"
I think the difference between being a doctor and a housewife is much bigger than the difference between being a doctor or any other profession a woman can choose. The reason I put more emphasis on housewives is because for millennia, women have hardly been able to do anything besides being a housewife. That occupation is far, far more prominent in our history for women than any other.
I think it also depends on context. If a woman was from a family of doctors, and she was raised believing that being a doctor was best, I'd still think she should consider more options. Yes, even being a housewife, because she's seen what else there is besides 1) being a doctor, and 2) being a housewife. She knows that she has options, and she knows that she can choose. You're right, that is in my opinion a better choice. However--it's not because I think being a doctor is fantastically better than being a housewife, it's because she's already gotten the encouragement to be something else, so she most likely has a wider perspective.
If a woman was from a family of housewives and wanted to be a doctor, yes, I'd urge her to go for it. Because she's seen both sides. 1) being a housewife, and 2) doing something else.
What I'm saying is--and I know this might not fly with you too well--is that when you decide to be a housewife, you should be a little more careful than the other professions. Because your family or friends or whatever might be egging you on toward that option, or because you're making that decision out of blind devotion.
"When I read your statement, and you phrase it as 'beyond being a housewife,' it sounds to me as though you are demeaning that particular choice."
Eh, sorry about that. But as you can see from the rest of my comment, I'm not demeaning it at all. I wrote:
"If they find that they don't like it and want to be a housewife, that's also great."
But I'll still edit that comment so it doesn't come across that way.
It holds to people who want to be housewives.
"If a woman decided she wanted to be a doctor, would you encourage her to be something 'beyond' that? Or is that a great first choice in your opinion, so no follow up is necessary?"
I think the difference between being a doctor and a housewife is much bigger than the difference between being a doctor or any other profession a woman can choose. The reason I put more emphasis on housewives is because for millennia, women have hardly been able to do anything besides being a housewife. That occupation is far, far more prominent in our history for women than any other.
I think it also depends on context. If a woman was from a family of doctors, and she was raised believing that being a doctor was best, I'd still think she should consider more options. Yes, even being a housewife, because she's seen what else there is besides 1) being a doctor, and 2) being a housewife. She knows that she has options, and she knows that she can choose. You're right, that is in my opinion a better choice. However--it's not because I think being a doctor is fantastically better than being a housewife, it's because she's already gotten the encouragement to be something else, so she most likely has a wider perspective.
If a woman was from a family of housewives and wanted to be a doctor, yes, I'd urge her to go for it. Because she's seen both sides. 1) being a housewife, and 2) doing something else.
What I'm saying is--and I know this might not fly with you too well--is that when you decide to be a housewife, you should be a little more careful than the other professions. Because your family or friends or whatever might be egging you on toward that option, or because you're making that decision out of blind devotion.
"When I read your statement, and you phrase it as 'beyond being a housewife,' it sounds to me as though you are demeaning that particular choice."
Eh, sorry about that. But as you can see from the rest of my comment, I'm not demeaning it at all. I wrote:
"If they find that they don't like it and want to be a housewife, that's also great."
But I'll still edit that comment so it doesn't come across that way.
Alex wrote: There seems to be a lot of confusion as to what's meant by "choice" in this thread. If Bella chooses Edward freely then that's fine, seems to be the argument. Ditto, if a woman freely chooses to be a housewife and she's happy "I want to be a housewife" then what the hell am I arguing against? We all just want to be happy, right?The problem is that what appears to be a freely made choice is not necessarily freely made because society is set up so that we can only make choices within a limited context, depending on how we're brought up to view the world as male or females.
When we're born the very first thing that happens to us is that we're tagged girl or boy. Many parents even have preferences depending on what "type" of person they feel they want to bring up. If you're a girl you'll be wrapped in pink, bought pink clothes. In TV adverts you'll be in pink and the girls onscreen will be handed dolls to play with. Your mum will buy you dolls, tell you that girls should look pretty, put you in dresses, and more importantly that boys are different from you.
And so on and so on. TV imagery of girls is gendered, the toys you play with are gendered the things your parents tell you are gendered. How many times in your life have you heard the phrase in one form or another "girls are different from boys " "He's just being a boy "she's so girly". By the time you you go to school the gender split is massive. Girls gravitate towards girls and boys, boys because you've already been taught by everything in society that you're fundamentally different, so 95% gravitate towards what they recognise and understand.
So choice. What chance do you have of making an informed choice about your life if everything in society is telling you "you're a girl, you'll be a mum and that's a good choice" Your mum tells you this when you're five and younger. Your mum gives you dolls to play with to prep you for the role that you're expected to fall into when you're older. And here's the thing, MOST people DON'T QUESTION ANY OF THIS. There's no getting away from that truth, most mums become mums because that's what they were destined to do on some level by society.
What I'm trying to say is that it's not choice of the scales are tipped towards you making that choice. You might be happy, content, feel like you did the best thing in the world, love your child, not want to change anything. That's all great, but it doesn't change the fact that the patriarchy in control of the world since the year dot set up the role of woman as mother and created a world in which women choose to be mothers based on the idea that women were born to be mothers, caring, gentle, soft, kind ... feminine. "
I love pink. I loved my dolls as a girl and still actually have some of them to this day. I love wearing high heels and lipstick and nail polish and pretty dresses. The why isn't all that important to me, to be honest. I just do and always did. I don't really care whether others think society conditioned me to love those things or not. So what that my brothers were given footballs and I was given dolls? I asked for the dolls and I had no desire to play football or any other sport and I suffered through many a gym class that tried to force me to participate in them. I always knew that I could participate in sports if I really wanted to. I always knew that if I wanted to be good, all I had to do was apply myself and practice. The point was that I didn't want to. I was more interested in music and dance. That is where I wanted to apply myself and practice. Not sports. I took karate for a bit....then I told my mother I'd rather go next door to ballet. I found that I liked it more. I can't imagine someone telling ten year old me that I only like ballet because I've not truly been given an informed choice about the other things that I could possibly do as a girl. It would have made no sense to me since both the ballet class and the karate class were co-ed anyway. Get it? My choosing ballet had nothing to do with me being conditioned to think that ballet is a "girl's activity" because everything I saw around me showed me that both boys and girls do it.
For some women, motherhood and the decision to be a stay at home Mom works pretty much the same way. In this day and age, most women know that they have choice and can do other things if they want. There shouldn't be anything wrong with making that choice. It is not yours or feminism's place to automatically assume that someone is unhappy or is making an uninformed choice for themselves if they make a choice that you can't understand or don't agree with.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Every Other Day (other topics)
The Short Second Life of Bree Tanner (other topics)
Twilight (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
The Master and Margarita (other topics)Every Other Day (other topics)
The Short Second Life of Bree Tanner (other topics)
Twilight (other topics)
Wordiness is my style, Heidi. It may not be yours. This is one of the first times I've gotten into a discussion about fans vs antis with other readers of this book.
As for emphasizing Bella's fainting...are you talking about how I bolded and italicized it? I was being sarcastic. I was being satirical. I was mocking Bella for doing that. It was simply my view that it was stupid. It had nothing to do with her overall weakness as a character. I don't use physical and emotional strengths interchangeably, because that would be quite silly of me.
Fiction has always, for me, been about a hero/heroing striving to overcome the odds, and learning from their mistakes. Bella does not learn from her mistakes. At all. Nor does she strive to overcome the odds. Hell, in Eclipse, she asks Edward to stay with her instead of fighting with his family. What a selfless and brave heroine.
There is still a balance between being realistic and going overboard. They're really is. Like I said--you should try to be realistic, but you should not try to mimic it.
I WOULD be okay if Bella started "whining," but then decided, "Look, I'm not doing enough to help, I'd better get started. I'm scared, but I'll push forward and make it work." Bella does NOTHING but whine until she confronts James, which, instead of making her look like she is actively fighting for her family and friends, looks more like she's being a complete and utter idiot.
I don't watch TV, so I don't know about all those TV shows. But in literature, fiction has been for me about people doing extraordinary things through ordinary means.