Twilight
discussion
Are people who dislike Twilight "obsessed" with Twilight?
If you have already done this, forgive me for asking again....but could you please give some examples of how some of the main Twilight female characters were passive?
Well, when she's sitting around with Alice and Jasper while Edward and Emmett are dealing with James, she whines on and on and on how she wishes she could help. That's passive. My personal definition of passive in literature is when a character whines about it, rather than actively doing something about it. And being brave and stupid at the same time does not count as active for me, because it usually results in some stupid Deus Ex Machina plot device to solve the problem, rather than the main character using his/her own intelligence and abilities to figure a way out. Which in this case is definitely true...Bella does "actively" go after James, but in the end, it's Edward who finishes the job, and all Bella does is complicate the situation simply to give way to her savior.
Leah, while being significantly better than Bella in terms of being active/passive, inflicts negative thoughts on the rest of her pack. I consider that to be whining instead of doing something about solving her dumping problem.
I know the "Bella is weak only because she's human" has come up before...but it's possible to be weaker than the rest and still persevere. Have you ever read the Lord of the Rings? The main character, Frodo, is not physically powerful either. In fact, I would go so far to say that he is the physically weakest character in the entire novel. Yet he still actively tries to solve the problem.
The next thing I'm going to say here I'm going to hide under a spoiler, because if you haven't read LotR and are planning to I don't want to ruin it.
(view spoiler)
As for being a simpering weakling who goes crazy when they are dumped...I'll give you that even though it really only happened that way to one character, Bella. Leah didn't actually go crazy and she didn't become a simpering weakling. She did became bitter, though. Esme suffered abuse and trauma. I guess you can also make a case for Victoria as crazy for becoming so vengeful after losing James.
Even if Bella WAS the only one, that would be enough for me as antifeminist, seeing as she's the main character.
But there are also many other ways of portraying characters in literature. While Esme's situation is understandable...do you see this situation happening to any males in Twilight? It's always the women who suffer traumatic experiences or overreact to a breakup. The plot points and pasts, as well as the people associated with them, DO matter, because it's part of the way characters and gender roles and anything else associated with them are depicted.
So we have Bella, Leah, Victoria, and Esme. If you want to expand into lesser characters we can include Irina and the female vampire that attacks the Quiiliute village in the legend told at the tribe council meeting. I guess you are right in that so much of the strife among the Twilight women seems to revolve around a lost love.....but it is a romance novel.
I really do understand where the anti-feminist critique applies here, but I also don't think it is entirely fair to critique a book for having elements of it's intended genre. It's like calling a murder mystery too violent because people get murdered in it.
Not really. Most of the feminists who criticize Twilight for being antifeminist focus on the portrayal of women. If we're talking about the maybe-abusive relationship in this series, that's another thing. Depiction of women's weakness doesn't really have anything to do with the genre, unless it's about Meyer romanticizing it.
As an aside, I think someone also pointed this out, but the supernatural creatures in Twilight have heightened sense of emotions and because of that, typical romantic unions in the Twilight vampire/wolfpack world are depicted as being much stronger and much more passionate than human ones.
Fair enough, I guess I should cut Leah some slack. But Bella was human when she pulled her suicide stunts, as was Esme. I don't really see how the intense emotions of the vampire side of the relationship completely affects the human side, but I guess it's a matter of perspective for this one.
Fair enough, I can understand that. I am re-reading Wuthering Heights at the moment and I don't feel sorry for Cathy or Heathcliff at all. I hate them both. The reasons why don't have anything to do with any political ideologies that I subcribe to, I just don't like them as characters.
Exactly. A lot of times when I read a book I KNOW I'm supposed to sympathize with them...but I just don't, because I can't find it in myself. A lot of times I was willing Bella to find a fire to die in at her earliest convenience...and the fact that it was written in first person, which meant I had to spend 100% of the time in her cesspool of a brain.
Well, when she's sitting around with Alice and Jasper while Edward and Emmett are dealing with James, she whines on and on and on how she wishes she could help. That's passive. My personal definition of passive in literature is when a character whines about it, rather than actively doing something about it. And being brave and stupid at the same time does not count as active for me, because it usually results in some stupid Deus Ex Machina plot device to solve the problem, rather than the main character using his/her own intelligence and abilities to figure a way out. Which in this case is definitely true...Bella does "actively" go after James, but in the end, it's Edward who finishes the job, and all Bella does is complicate the situation simply to give way to her savior.
Leah, while being significantly better than Bella in terms of being active/passive, inflicts negative thoughts on the rest of her pack. I consider that to be whining instead of doing something about solving her dumping problem.
I know the "Bella is weak only because she's human" has come up before...but it's possible to be weaker than the rest and still persevere. Have you ever read the Lord of the Rings? The main character, Frodo, is not physically powerful either. In fact, I would go so far to say that he is the physically weakest character in the entire novel. Yet he still actively tries to solve the problem.
The next thing I'm going to say here I'm going to hide under a spoiler, because if you haven't read LotR and are planning to I don't want to ruin it.
(view spoiler)
As for being a simpering weakling who goes crazy when they are dumped...I'll give you that even though it really only happened that way to one character, Bella. Leah didn't actually go crazy and she didn't become a simpering weakling. She did became bitter, though. Esme suffered abuse and trauma. I guess you can also make a case for Victoria as crazy for becoming so vengeful after losing James.
Even if Bella WAS the only one, that would be enough for me as antifeminist, seeing as she's the main character.
But there are also many other ways of portraying characters in literature. While Esme's situation is understandable...do you see this situation happening to any males in Twilight? It's always the women who suffer traumatic experiences or overreact to a breakup. The plot points and pasts, as well as the people associated with them, DO matter, because it's part of the way characters and gender roles and anything else associated with them are depicted.
So we have Bella, Leah, Victoria, and Esme. If you want to expand into lesser characters we can include Irina and the female vampire that attacks the Quiiliute village in the legend told at the tribe council meeting. I guess you are right in that so much of the strife among the Twilight women seems to revolve around a lost love.....but it is a romance novel.
I really do understand where the anti-feminist critique applies here, but I also don't think it is entirely fair to critique a book for having elements of it's intended genre. It's like calling a murder mystery too violent because people get murdered in it.
Not really. Most of the feminists who criticize Twilight for being antifeminist focus on the portrayal of women. If we're talking about the maybe-abusive relationship in this series, that's another thing. Depiction of women's weakness doesn't really have anything to do with the genre, unless it's about Meyer romanticizing it.
As an aside, I think someone also pointed this out, but the supernatural creatures in Twilight have heightened sense of emotions and because of that, typical romantic unions in the Twilight vampire/wolfpack world are depicted as being much stronger and much more passionate than human ones.
Fair enough, I guess I should cut Leah some slack. But Bella was human when she pulled her suicide stunts, as was Esme. I don't really see how the intense emotions of the vampire side of the relationship completely affects the human side, but I guess it's a matter of perspective for this one.
Fair enough, I can understand that. I am re-reading Wuthering Heights at the moment and I don't feel sorry for Cathy or Heathcliff at all. I hate them both. The reasons why don't have anything to do with any political ideologies that I subcribe to, I just don't like them as characters.
Exactly. A lot of times when I read a book I KNOW I'm supposed to sympathize with them...but I just don't, because I can't find it in myself. A lot of times I was willing Bella to find a fire to die in at her earliest convenience...and the fact that it was written in first person, which meant I had to spend 100% of the time in her cesspool of a brain.
Jocelyn wrote: "Not completely, but your focus is to a much farther extent on individuals that Mocha's focus is, which I think why you guys keep clashing together. "I definitely believe in individual moral responsibility and the need for an individual to define themselves within society, but I also think that, ideologically speaking politics and political power working on a far broader scale. One can speak of the lower class demographic or the female demographic because there are spheres of influence that have an affect upon them as a whole (the upper class, males etc).
I wouldn't say that my focus is on one rather than the other particularly - I do think it's important to realise that people can make a difference through the choices that they make, though.
Tolkien loved The Hobbits becaause of their inner strength despite the fact that they weren't heroes or born great.. That's a good comparison J, LOTR was one of my main inspirations at a young age and as much as I loved the heroics or wisdom of Aragorn, Legolas, Gandalf et al I always admired Frodo and the way he managed to bear such a heavy burden alone. One thing he never does is whine or try to throw himself off a cliff or get others to take the burden from him.I can't imagine being "inspired" by Twilight. Ugh.
Jocelyn wrote: "Well, when she's sitting around with Alice and Jasper while Edward and Emmett are dealing with James, she whines on and on and on how she wishes she could help. That's passive. My personal definition of passive in literature is when a character whines about it, rather than actively doing something about it. And being brave and stupid at the same time does not count as active for me, because it usually results in some stupid Deus Ex Machina plot device to solve the problem, rather than the main character using his/her own intelligence and abilities to figure a way out. Which in this case is definitely true...Bella does "actively" go after James, but in the end, it's Edward who finishes the job, and all Bella does is complicate the situation simply to give way to her savior."There's a huge flaw in this argument--you're choosing to disregard that she took action because you don't like it or because it was used as a plot device. Regardless of why you don't like it, it was a fact in the book that she did not just whine. She did do something about it. Just because you don't like the way it came about doesn't mean it didn't happen. You're twisting the facts of the book around to fit your view.
But there are also many other ways of portraying characters in literature. While Esme's situation is understandable...do you see this situation happening to any males in Twilight? It's always the women who suffer traumatic experiences or overreact to a breakup. The plot points and pasts, as well as the people associated with them, DO matter, because it's part of the way characters and gender roles and anything else associated with them are depicted.
I'm confused. Are you saying that it wasn't traumatic for Emmett when he was mauled by a bear? Or that Jasper wasn't emotionally scarred from all the lives he had to take, feeling the emotions as he was taking them? It was also mentioned that Sam hated himself for what he had done to Leah, so I think he was pretty traumatized by that situation as well. I'm wondering how all of this managed to escape your attention.
But Bella was human when she pulled her suicide stunts, as was Esme. I don't really see how the intense emotions of the vampire side of the relationship completely affects the human side, but I guess it's a matter of perspective for this one.
You're using an opinion to back up your argument here. It was never stated in the book that Bella jumped off the cliff in an attempt to commit suicide. I will concede, though, that Bella was human when she jumped off the cliff. We do see eye to eye on that.
Angie wrote: "There's a huge flaw in this argument--you're choosing to disregard that she took action because you don't like it or because it was used as a plot device. Regardless of why you don't like it, it was a fact in the book that she did not just whine. She did do something about it. Just because you don't like the way it came about doesn't mean it didn't happen. You're twisting the facts of the book around to fit your view.
I'm aware of that--which is why I personally consider it not to be active.
What I'm saying, though, is that I don't consider it to be truly active unless there's some results to go along with it. They should not only try to achieve something, but ACTUALLY achieve something. It's okay if they fail over and over again and THEN achieve it, but they should reach some point when they accomplish what they set out to do. Results are part of character depiction. That is why I, PERSONALLY, do not consider it to be active. If you consider it to be active, that's great, I'm glad you found more enjoyment in Bella's character than I did.
I'm confused. Are you saying that it wasn't traumatic for Emmett when he was mauled by a bear? Or that Jasper wasn't emotionally scarred from all the lives he had to take, feeling the emotions as he was taking them? It was also mentioned that Sam hated himself for what he had done to Leah, so I think he was pretty traumatized by that situation as well. I'm wondering how all of this managed to escape your attention.
Good point Angie, I'd never thought of that.
But on the other hand, there's also with how they deal with the emotional stress. Emmett and Jasper didn't try to commit suicide.
You're using an opinion to back up your argument here. It was never stated in the book that Bella jumped off the cliff in an attempt to commit suicide. I will concede, though, that Bella was human when she jumped off the cliff. We do see eye to eye on that.
I know that, which is why I said that it was a matter of perspective.
I'm aware of that--which is why I personally consider it not to be active.
What I'm saying, though, is that I don't consider it to be truly active unless there's some results to go along with it. They should not only try to achieve something, but ACTUALLY achieve something. It's okay if they fail over and over again and THEN achieve it, but they should reach some point when they accomplish what they set out to do. Results are part of character depiction. That is why I, PERSONALLY, do not consider it to be active. If you consider it to be active, that's great, I'm glad you found more enjoyment in Bella's character than I did.
I'm confused. Are you saying that it wasn't traumatic for Emmett when he was mauled by a bear? Or that Jasper wasn't emotionally scarred from all the lives he had to take, feeling the emotions as he was taking them? It was also mentioned that Sam hated himself for what he had done to Leah, so I think he was pretty traumatized by that situation as well. I'm wondering how all of this managed to escape your attention.
Good point Angie, I'd never thought of that.
But on the other hand, there's also with how they deal with the emotional stress. Emmett and Jasper didn't try to commit suicide.
You're using an opinion to back up your argument here. It was never stated in the book that Bella jumped off the cliff in an attempt to commit suicide. I will concede, though, that Bella was human when she jumped off the cliff. We do see eye to eye on that.
I know that, which is why I said that it was a matter of perspective.
Tolkien loved The Hobbits becaause of their inner strength despite the fact that they weren't heroes or born great.. That's a good comparison J, LOTR was one of my main inspirations at a young age and as much as I loved the heroics or wisdom of Aragorn, Legolas, Gandalf et al I always admired Frodo and the way he managed to bear such a heavy burden alone. One thing he never does is whine or try to throw himself off a cliff or get others to take the burden from him.
Yeah, Frodo was awesome. Even if LotR was plot-driven, I found the characters to be three-dimensional and easy to cheer for.
That's true--the main idea of LotR is that anyone can make a difference in this world, even three-foot-high hobbits with hairy feet. In the end, the most heroic thing in the novel is not the rest of the Fellowship fighting battles, it's Frodo's quiet resistance to the One Ring.
I can't imagine being "inspired" by Twilight. Ugh.
Welcome to Fifty Shades of Grey, Alex. ~_^
I mean no offense to any Twilight fans...I'm not exactly inspired by Twilight either. To be fair, though, Stephenie Meyer didn't really try to inspire anyone with her "messages."
Yeah, Frodo was awesome. Even if LotR was plot-driven, I found the characters to be three-dimensional and easy to cheer for.
That's true--the main idea of LotR is that anyone can make a difference in this world, even three-foot-high hobbits with hairy feet. In the end, the most heroic thing in the novel is not the rest of the Fellowship fighting battles, it's Frodo's quiet resistance to the One Ring.
I can't imagine being "inspired" by Twilight. Ugh.
Welcome to Fifty Shades of Grey, Alex. ~_^
I mean no offense to any Twilight fans...I'm not exactly inspired by Twilight either. To be fair, though, Stephenie Meyer didn't really try to inspire anyone with her "messages."
Jocelyn wrote: Well, when she's sitting around with Alice and Jasper while Edward and Emmett are dealing with James, she whines on and on and on how she wishes she could help. That's passive. My personal definition of passive in literature is when a character whines about it, rather than actively doing something about it. And being brave and stupid at the same time does not count as active for me, because it usually results in some stupid Deus Ex Machina plot device to solve the problem, rather than the main character using his/her own intelligence and abilities to figure a way out. Which in this case is definitely true...Bella does "actively" go after James, but in the end, it's Edward who finishes the job, and all Bella does is complicate the situation simply to give way to her savior.
It really isn't fair to redefine a word to suit your needs or discount a characters ACTIONS because it wasn't a good choice in your opinion. Bella's supposed passivity isn't the real problem here. You just didn't like her choice. You didn't like the fact that she went after James on her own. Btw, she doesn't really whine here. She feels responsible for what happened and she's worried. There is a huge difference, imo but I can see how someone would reduce it simple whining if they don't like what they are hearing/reading anyway. I also don't see how Edward saving her was a Deus ex Machina plot device (assuming that is specifically what you are referring to...and even then I'm not sure. Is it saving her from James or from his bite or both?) Either way, it really isn't because he always had the power and ability to save her.
Leah, while being significantly better than Bella in terms of being active/passive, inflicts negative thoughts on the rest of her pack. I consider that to be whining instead of doing something about solving her dumping problem..
Leah does wallow in her own misery alot but she doesn't inflict her negative thoughts on the pack intentionally. It is only because all of the members of the pack are connected and can hear each others thoughts. Leah is another instance where you need to read all of the books to better understand her character. She does actually decide to do something. In Breaking Dawn, she leaves Sam's pack to join Jacob's. Her reasons are not completely altuistic (1) it gets her away from sam and perhaps she can make a fresh start for herself 2) she won't be able to hear their thoughts anymore 3) she feels the need to protect her younger brother 4) deep down she doesn't agree with Sam's decision to kill the baby.
I know the "Bella is weak only because she's human" has come up before...but it's possible to be weaker than the rest and still persevere. Have you ever read the Lord of the Rings? The main character, Frodo, is not physically powerful either. In fact, I would go so far to say that he is the physically weakest character in the entire novel. Yet he still actively tries to solve the problem..
Yes, I have read it and The Hobbitt. I didn't really like them all that much. Tolkien is clearly a wonderful fantasy writer....but honestly, he spent a great deal of time describing things that I didn't really care about. I felt like a finished with a Ph.D in "Shiredom and Hobbitry". I did like the movies, though and I will probably see The Hobbitt when it is released. But you are absolutely right about Frodo's character.
But there are also many other ways of portraying characters in literature. While Esme's situation is understandable...do you see this situation happening to any males in Twilight? It's always the women who suffer traumatic experiences or overreact to a breakup. The plot points and pasts, as well as the people associated with them, DO matter, because it's part of the way characters and gender roles and anything else associated with them are depicted. .
Carlisle actually suffered severe trauma when he was turned. He was attacked by a vampire and left for dead. He had to go through the change (which in itself is very traumatic) on his own and he also suffered immmensely from the isolation of being a vampire. So much so, that he tried to commit suicide several times. Jasper was traumatized by his experiences with Maria and lives as a "savage" until he finds Alice. Edward tries to commit suicide when he thinks Bella is dead. Your assessment of how much better the men deal isn't correct at all.
Not really. Most of the feminists who criticize Twilight for being antifeminist focus on the portrayal of women. If we're talking about the maybe-abusive relationship in this series, that's another thing. Depiction of women's weakness doesn't really have anything to do with genre.
I still think they pick and choose and see what they want to see in the book. It's easy to say Bella is weak and pathetic and passive. Then when someone points out that she may start out that way but her character develops over time and she shows bravery and strength here, it's dismissed because it is deemed a foolish act and therefore doesn't count. That is only seeing only what you want to see.
It really isn't fair to redefine a word to suit your needs or discount a characters ACTIONS because it wasn't a good choice in your opinion. Bella's supposed passivity isn't the real problem here. You just didn't like her choice. You didn't like the fact that she went after James on her own. Btw, she doesn't really whine here. She feels responsible for what happened and she's worried. There is a huge difference, imo but I can see how someone would reduce it simple whining if they don't like what they are hearing/reading anyway. I also don't see how Edward saving her was a Deus ex Machina plot device (assuming that is specifically what you are referring to...and even then I'm not sure. Is it saving her from James or from his bite or both?) Either way, it really isn't because he always had the power and ability to save her.
I know part of it's personal preference, I admitted that in my response to Angie's...you're right, I really don't like Bella's decision to go after him alone. For characters to be active, there should be some results to go along with it too. It's part of how authors depict their characters. That's my view. That's why I think it is passive, which goes all the way back to my original response to Kirby's question: why is Twilight antifeminist? And it's basically my perspective. I'm not trying to impress this view of active/passive characters on anyone.
For the Deus Ex Machina...yes, I mean both saving her from the bite and James. I consider it to be Deus Ex Machina because it was very sudden, which is a typical trait among most cases of it. For the saving-her-from-the-bite, it's just randomly unexplained. Edward (rather predictably) manages to control his blood lust by the "power of his true love." If Edward had almost given in--say, he sucked a little too much blood and Bella was beginning to die a bit--and pulled back at the last minute, I wouldn't consider it Deus Ex Machina. But that's not what happened. He just was randomly able to do it.
I don't agree that he's always been able to do it...he's tasting Bella's blood for the first time. He has experience with smelling it, but not tasting it. Those are totally different things. He's resisted it so far...and now with the chance to suck her blood, he could almost give in.
Leah does wallow in her own misery alot but she doesn't inflict her negative thoughts on the pack intentionally. It is only because all of the members of the pack are connected and can hear each others thoughts. Leah is another instance where you need to read all of the books to better understand her character. She does actually decide to do something. In Breaking Dawn, she leaves Sam's pack to join Jacob's. Her reasons are not completely altuistic (1) it gets her away from sam and perhaps she can make a fresh start for herself 2) she won't be able to hear their thoughts anymore 3) she feels the need to protect her younger brother 4) deep down she doesn't agree with Sam's decision to kill the baby.
Fair enough, I didn't think of that.
Your assessment of how the men deal isn't entirely correct. Carlisle actually suffered severe trauma when he was turned. He was attacked by a vampire and left for dead. He had to go through the change (which in itself is very traumatic) on his own and he also suffered immmensely from the isolation of being a vampire. So much so, that he tried to commit suicide several times. Jasper was traumatized by his experiences with Maria and lives as a "savage" until he finds Alice. Edward tries to commit suicide when he thinks Bella is dead. Your assessment of how much better the men deal isn't correct at all.
I know that, I admitted I was wrong a couple of posts before, that there are men who suffer the trauma as well. But now it boils down to how they deal with it. All of the guys dealt with it without going crazy or catatonic or anything, and without hurting anyone else.
I still think they pick and choose and see what they want to see in the book. It's easy to say Bella is weak and pathetic and passive. Then when someone points out that she may start out that way but her character develops over time and she shows bravery and strength here, it's dismissed because it is deemed a foolish act and therefore doesn't count. That is only seeing only what you want to see.
That's true that we dismiss it...but we dismiss it BECAUSE it is a foolish act, not in spite of it. Stupidity isn't really much better than weakness, IMO. And she doesn't really learn from her stupidity...she "heals" her breakup with Edward by reuniting with him, rather than figuring out a way on her own, which besides being unhealthy, defeats the entire point of her being dumped. Or at least it's a HUGE missed opportunity on some character development.
I know part of it's personal preference, I admitted that in my response to Angie's...you're right, I really don't like Bella's decision to go after him alone. For characters to be active, there should be some results to go along with it too. It's part of how authors depict their characters. That's my view. That's why I think it is passive, which goes all the way back to my original response to Kirby's question: why is Twilight antifeminist? And it's basically my perspective. I'm not trying to impress this view of active/passive characters on anyone.
For the Deus Ex Machina...yes, I mean both saving her from the bite and James. I consider it to be Deus Ex Machina because it was very sudden, which is a typical trait among most cases of it. For the saving-her-from-the-bite, it's just randomly unexplained. Edward (rather predictably) manages to control his blood lust by the "power of his true love." If Edward had almost given in--say, he sucked a little too much blood and Bella was beginning to die a bit--and pulled back at the last minute, I wouldn't consider it Deus Ex Machina. But that's not what happened. He just was randomly able to do it.
I don't agree that he's always been able to do it...he's tasting Bella's blood for the first time. He has experience with smelling it, but not tasting it. Those are totally different things. He's resisted it so far...and now with the chance to suck her blood, he could almost give in.
Leah does wallow in her own misery alot but she doesn't inflict her negative thoughts on the pack intentionally. It is only because all of the members of the pack are connected and can hear each others thoughts. Leah is another instance where you need to read all of the books to better understand her character. She does actually decide to do something. In Breaking Dawn, she leaves Sam's pack to join Jacob's. Her reasons are not completely altuistic (1) it gets her away from sam and perhaps she can make a fresh start for herself 2) she won't be able to hear their thoughts anymore 3) she feels the need to protect her younger brother 4) deep down she doesn't agree with Sam's decision to kill the baby.
Fair enough, I didn't think of that.
Your assessment of how the men deal isn't entirely correct. Carlisle actually suffered severe trauma when he was turned. He was attacked by a vampire and left for dead. He had to go through the change (which in itself is very traumatic) on his own and he also suffered immmensely from the isolation of being a vampire. So much so, that he tried to commit suicide several times. Jasper was traumatized by his experiences with Maria and lives as a "savage" until he finds Alice. Edward tries to commit suicide when he thinks Bella is dead. Your assessment of how much better the men deal isn't correct at all.
I know that, I admitted I was wrong a couple of posts before, that there are men who suffer the trauma as well. But now it boils down to how they deal with it. All of the guys dealt with it without going crazy or catatonic or anything, and without hurting anyone else.
I still think they pick and choose and see what they want to see in the book. It's easy to say Bella is weak and pathetic and passive. Then when someone points out that she may start out that way but her character develops over time and she shows bravery and strength here, it's dismissed because it is deemed a foolish act and therefore doesn't count. That is only seeing only what you want to see.
That's true that we dismiss it...but we dismiss it BECAUSE it is a foolish act, not in spite of it. Stupidity isn't really much better than weakness, IMO. And she doesn't really learn from her stupidity...she "heals" her breakup with Edward by reuniting with him, rather than figuring out a way on her own, which besides being unhealthy, defeats the entire point of her being dumped. Or at least it's a HUGE missed opportunity on some character development.
For the Deus Ex Machina...yes, I mean both saving her from the bite and James. I consider it to be Deus Ex Machina because it was very sudden, which is a typical trait among most cases of it. For the saving-her-from-the-bite, it's just randomly unexplained. Edward (rather predictably) manages to control his blood lust by the "power of his twoo wuv." If Edward had almost given in--say, he sucked a little too much blood and Bella was beginning to die a bit--and pulled back at the last minute, I wouldn't consider it Deus Ex Machina. But that's not what happened. He just was randomly able to do it.I hate to sound rude, but the 'twoo wuv' bit really has no place in an adult conversation.
I know that, I admitted I was wrong a couple of posts before, that there are men who suffer the trauma as well. But now it boils down to how they deal with it. All of the guys dealt with it without going crazy or catatonic or anything, and without hurting anyone else.
I have to wonder if you even read the response. Jasper went savage. He fed on humans and left a trail of bodies behind him. How does that equate with no one getting hurt?
And Carlisle tried to commit suicide. If Esme's suicide attempt carries so much weight with you, then shouldn't Carlisle's as well? Why are you able to dismiss his so easily, but you're so hung up on Esme's?
That's true that we dismiss it...but we dismiss it BECAUSE it is a foolish act, not in spite of it. Stupidity isn't really much better than weakness, IMO. And she doesn't really learn from her stupidity...she "heals" her breakup with Edward by reuniting with him, rather than figuring out a way on her own, which besides being unhealthy, defeats the entire point of her being dumped. Or at least it's a HUGE missed opportunity on some character development.
If you're dismissing actual facts from a book because you have decided you don't like them, then you're forming opinions based on what you've rewritten the book to be in your head. This makes absolutely no sense to me.
Jocelyn wrote: know part of it's personal preference, I admitted that in my response to Angie's...you're right, I really don't like Bella's decision to go after him alone. For characters to be active, there should be some results to go along with it too. It's part of how authors depict their characters. That's my view. That's why I think it is passive, which goes all the way back to my original response to Kirby's question: why is Twilight antifeminist? And it's basically my perspective. I'm not trying to impress this view of active/passive characters on anyone.There are results. They get James. I don't think they would have had Bella not gone to meet him. But you are right. You are entitled to your perspective.
For the Deus Ex Machina...yes, I mean both saving her from the bite and James. I consider it to be Deus Ex Machina because it was very sudden, which is a typical trait among most cases of it. For the saving-her-from-the-bite, it's just randomly unexplained. Edward (rather predictably) manages to control his blood lust by the "power of his twoo wuv." If Edward had almost given in--say, he sucked a little too much blood and Bella was beginning to die a bit--and pulled back at the last minute, I wouldn't consider it Deus Ex Machina. But that's not what happened. He just was randomly able to do it.
It wasn't random at all. Part of Edward's internal struggle throughout the book was mastering the ability to control his bloodlust where Bella is concerned.
In any event, they did write the movie version just the way you wanted it.
I know that, I admitted I was wrong a couple of posts before, that there are men who suffer the trauma as well. But now it boils down to how they deal with it. All of the guys dealt with it without going crazy or catatonic or anything, and without hurting anyone else.
Bella was catatonic.
Edward tries to commit suicide.
Carlisle tries to commit suicide.
Jasper lives like a savage.
Jacob runs away.
I'd say they all went crazy in some way. I don't think any of these reactions is any better than another.
That's true that we dismiss it...but we dismiss it BECAUSE it is a foolish act, not in spite of it. Stupidity isn't really much better than weakness, IMO. And she doesn't really learn from her stupidity...she "heals" her breakup with Edward by reuniting with him, rather than figuring out a way on her own, which besides being unhealthy, defeats the entire point of her being dumped. Or at least it's a HUGE missed opportunity on some character development.
There was character development. It just didn't develop in the direction you wanted it to. True, Bella doesn't learn to be without Edward....but they do learn how to be together. (which is exactly what she wanted all along.) They had a doomed from the start relationship and they figured out a way to make it work. Like it or not, that is a typical plot development for many romance novels, which Twilight is.
Angie wrote: "I hate to sound rude, but the 'twoo wuv' bit really has no place in an adult conversation."
I apologize for that, it was meant to be sarcastic. I'll edit it out of my comment.
I have to wonder if you even read the response. Jasper went savage. He fed on humans and left a trail of bodies behind him. How does that equate with no one getting hurt?
And Carlisle tried to commit suicide. If Esme's suicide attempt carries so much weight with you, then shouldn't Carlisle's as well? Why are you able to dismiss his so easily, but you're so hung up on Esme's?
Fair enough, I'd forgotten some of those plot points.
What I meant with getting hurt, though, was emotionally hurting people, not physically. As in manipulating the people they love. For example, the thing with Jacob...in New Moon Bella kind of takes advantage of him. She also hurts Charlie by refusing to interact with him or try to communicate with him to solve her problem.
If you're dismissing actual facts from a book because you have decided you don't like them, then you're forming opinions on what you've rewritten the book to be in your head. This makes absolutely no sense to me.
I mentioned the missed opportunity on character development because of Mocha saying that Bella developed. I didn't mean to come across as "rewriting" it in my head. Mocha said that people pointed out Bella growing and developing into a stronger woman. The point of that character development statement was that Bella did not grow into a stronger woman.
I know it's an opinion, that's what I said, right?
What I say is part of personal preference, as I've admitted multiple times already. This was, if you remember, a response to Kirby's question: why is Twilight antifeminist? And I gave her my personal interpretation of Twilight. It's not anything I'm trying to impress on anyone, or me trying to disguise my opinions as facts.
I apologize for that, it was meant to be sarcastic. I'll edit it out of my comment.
I have to wonder if you even read the response. Jasper went savage. He fed on humans and left a trail of bodies behind him. How does that equate with no one getting hurt?
And Carlisle tried to commit suicide. If Esme's suicide attempt carries so much weight with you, then shouldn't Carlisle's as well? Why are you able to dismiss his so easily, but you're so hung up on Esme's?
Fair enough, I'd forgotten some of those plot points.
What I meant with getting hurt, though, was emotionally hurting people, not physically. As in manipulating the people they love. For example, the thing with Jacob...in New Moon Bella kind of takes advantage of him. She also hurts Charlie by refusing to interact with him or try to communicate with him to solve her problem.
If you're dismissing actual facts from a book because you have decided you don't like them, then you're forming opinions on what you've rewritten the book to be in your head. This makes absolutely no sense to me.
I mentioned the missed opportunity on character development because of Mocha saying that Bella developed. I didn't mean to come across as "rewriting" it in my head. Mocha said that people pointed out Bella growing and developing into a stronger woman. The point of that character development statement was that Bella did not grow into a stronger woman.
I know it's an opinion, that's what I said, right?
What I say is part of personal preference, as I've admitted multiple times already. This was, if you remember, a response to Kirby's question: why is Twilight antifeminist? And I gave her my personal interpretation of Twilight. It's not anything I'm trying to impress on anyone, or me trying to disguise my opinions as facts.
What I meant with getting hurt, though, was emotionally hurting people, not physically. As in manipulating the people they love. For example, the thing with Jacob...in New Moon Bella kind of takes advantage of him. She also hurts Charlie by refusing to interact with him or try to communicate with him to solve her problem.I'm not going to go into specifics, because we've all read the books. There were several instances in which Jacob manipulated or took advantage of Bella, but I see that again, the only thing being seen is what proves your point.
I'm curious. How many 17 year olds do you know that turn to their parents when they have issues they are trying to solve? In my experience teenagers tend to either hold things in, or they seek advice from their peers.
I know it's an opinion, that's what I said, right?
What I say is part of personal preference, as I've admitted multiple times already. This was, if you remember, a response to Kirby's question: why is Twilight antifeminist? And I gave her my personal interpretation of Twilight. It's not anything I'm trying to impress on anyone, or me trying to disguise my opinions as facts.
I think you missed my point entirely. The problem isn't that you have an opinion; we all do. The problem is you're forming your opinions on a draft of the book that the rest of us haven't read.
There are results. They get James. I don't think they would have had Bella not gone to meet him. But you are right. You are entitled to your perspective.
Edward got James. Bella didn't get him. Edward was the one who made it possible.
I know Bella was a human and all...but, she could have done other things. She could have organized the Cullens to go after James as one group. Or she could have just brought Alice and Jasper with her, since they'd already split up. Or something.
It wasn't random at all. Part of Edward's internal struggle throughout the book was mastering the ability to control his bloodlust where Bella is concerned.
I still think there should have been a reason for it, though. Especially, like I said, it's his first time actually tasting Bella's blood, rather than just smelling it...which makes it a lot easier than his struggle throughout the rest of the book to give in to his bloodlust.
In any event, they did write the movie version just the way you wanted it.
I didn't "want" it to be that way, it was just a suggestion, a single option among an infinite possible alternatives.
Bella was catatonic.
Edward tries to commit suicide.
Carlisle tries to commit suicide.
Jasper lives like a savage.
Jacob runs away.
I'd say they all went crazy in some way. I don't think any of these reactions is any better than another.
As I can see you've posted this almost the same time I answered Angie's post...well, anyway, I admitted I was wrong in that, since I'd forgotten some of the plot points.
There was character development. It just didn't develop in the direction you wanted it to. True, Bella doesn't learn to be without Edward....but they do learn how to be together. (which is exactly what she wanted all along.) They had a doomed from the start relationship and they figured out a way to make it work. Like it or not, that is a typical plot development for many romance novels, which Twilight is.
I'm not sure if "learning to be together" is character development. Being together is easy...spending time apart is hard. That was the main conflict in New Moon--the internal struggle to handle life without your soul mate, right? In the end, it turned out to be pointless. Bella did not learn to cope, Bella did not learn anything from her mistakes.
I mean, I can kinda see where you're coming from, and I admit I've gotten a lot of stuff wrong, as both you and Angie pointed out. But New Moon's main conflict wasn't really star-crossed lovers trying to be together, it was more of lovers learning how to function properly while being apart. Which is why Edward dumped Bella. For her safety.
So one would think that the resolution of this conflict would be that the lovers would learn eventually that they have the ability to stay sane after being apart. Because that's the main conflict, the problem that needs to be resolved. In the end, it was just pointless. They didn't learn how to function properly while apart.
Edward got James. Bella didn't get him. Edward was the one who made it possible.
I know Bella was a human and all...but, she could have done other things. She could have organized the Cullens to go after James as one group. Or she could have just brought Alice and Jasper with her, since they'd already split up. Or something.
It wasn't random at all. Part of Edward's internal struggle throughout the book was mastering the ability to control his bloodlust where Bella is concerned.
I still think there should have been a reason for it, though. Especially, like I said, it's his first time actually tasting Bella's blood, rather than just smelling it...which makes it a lot easier than his struggle throughout the rest of the book to give in to his bloodlust.
In any event, they did write the movie version just the way you wanted it.
I didn't "want" it to be that way, it was just a suggestion, a single option among an infinite possible alternatives.
Bella was catatonic.
Edward tries to commit suicide.
Carlisle tries to commit suicide.
Jasper lives like a savage.
Jacob runs away.
I'd say they all went crazy in some way. I don't think any of these reactions is any better than another.
As I can see you've posted this almost the same time I answered Angie's post...well, anyway, I admitted I was wrong in that, since I'd forgotten some of the plot points.
There was character development. It just didn't develop in the direction you wanted it to. True, Bella doesn't learn to be without Edward....but they do learn how to be together. (which is exactly what she wanted all along.) They had a doomed from the start relationship and they figured out a way to make it work. Like it or not, that is a typical plot development for many romance novels, which Twilight is.
I'm not sure if "learning to be together" is character development. Being together is easy...spending time apart is hard. That was the main conflict in New Moon--the internal struggle to handle life without your soul mate, right? In the end, it turned out to be pointless. Bella did not learn to cope, Bella did not learn anything from her mistakes.
I mean, I can kinda see where you're coming from, and I admit I've gotten a lot of stuff wrong, as both you and Angie pointed out. But New Moon's main conflict wasn't really star-crossed lovers trying to be together, it was more of lovers learning how to function properly while being apart. Which is why Edward dumped Bella. For her safety.
So one would think that the resolution of this conflict would be that the lovers would learn eventually that they have the ability to stay sane after being apart. Because that's the main conflict, the problem that needs to be resolved. In the end, it was just pointless. They didn't learn how to function properly while apart.
I'm curious. How many 17 year olds do you know that turn to their parents when they have issues they are trying to solve? In my experience teenagers tend to either hold things in, or they seek advice from their peers.
I never said that it was necessarily bad that Bella didn't seek help. Mostly it's just that CHARLIE tries to initiate communication, and Bella refuses it. Not that Bella refused to actively seek help with her dad.
(btw, I'm not trying to argue that Bella is a weak protagonist here, the point of that statement was to clarify what I said.)
I think you missed my point entirely. The problem isn't that you have an opinion; we all do. The problem is you're forming your opinions on a draft of the book that the rest of us haven't read.
Like I said, it was a suggestion, not a "rewrite" of the book I was making up in my head. It's one alternative out of infinity.
I'm not sure if you got my point entirely either. I wasn't trying to defend the fact that I was allowed to have an opinion...I was trying to say that the reason I "dismiss" the facts, as you put it in your last post, is simply because of how I classify things in literature. Which is why your and my arguments aren't sitting well together--because you see it as an badly founded opinion I try to use to justify my points, and I see it as just my personal way of doing things.
You're right, though...now that I reread my post, it really does look like I'm using something the rest of you haven't read to justify my points. Apologies for that, I was wrong to do so.
Maybe we should all just agree to disagree, like always?
I never said that it was necessarily bad that Bella didn't seek help. Mostly it's just that CHARLIE tries to initiate communication, and Bella refuses it. Not that Bella refused to actively seek help with her dad.
(btw, I'm not trying to argue that Bella is a weak protagonist here, the point of that statement was to clarify what I said.)
I think you missed my point entirely. The problem isn't that you have an opinion; we all do. The problem is you're forming your opinions on a draft of the book that the rest of us haven't read.
Like I said, it was a suggestion, not a "rewrite" of the book I was making up in my head. It's one alternative out of infinity.
I'm not sure if you got my point entirely either. I wasn't trying to defend the fact that I was allowed to have an opinion...I was trying to say that the reason I "dismiss" the facts, as you put it in your last post, is simply because of how I classify things in literature. Which is why your and my arguments aren't sitting well together--because you see it as an badly founded opinion I try to use to justify my points, and I see it as just my personal way of doing things.
You're right, though...now that I reread my post, it really does look like I'm using something the rest of you haven't read to justify my points. Apologies for that, I was wrong to do so.
Maybe we should all just agree to disagree, like always?
Jocelyn wrote: Edward got James. Bella didn't get him. Edward was the one who made it possible.I know Bella was a human and all...but, she could have done other things. She could have organized the Cullens to go after James as one group. Or she could have just brought Alice and Jasper with her, since they'd already split up. Or something.
The fact that she could have done other things doesn't make her passive, though. It only means that you think she made a poor choice.
Imo, It was stupid to go after James alone. But here is when empathy for a situation kicks in for me. She thought James had her mother and he told her to come alone or he would kill her. She knew that Alice and Jasper would never let her go alone if they knew. I don't know if I would have done what she did....but if you asked me, "would you do something completely crazy if you thought that it might save your mother or someone that you love?" That answer to that is yes. I don't condone her choice....but I think that I do understand how it is plausible that someone in that situation would choose to do that.
I still think there should have been a reason for it, though. Especially, like I said, it's his first time actually tasting Bella's blood, rather than just smelling it...which makes it a lot easier than his struggle throughout the rest of the book to give in to his bloodlust.
You probably won't like this answer at all, but there was a reason for it. He loved her and wanted to save her life. To save her life, he had to be able to control himself and make himself stop. He was able to do it because he loved her. Romance novel....I understand that the idea that "love conquers all" may not fit into the feminist agenda...but Twilight is a romance novel.
I'm not sure if "learning to be together" is character development. Being together is easy...spending time apart is hard. That was the main conflict in New Moon--the internal struggle to handle life without your soul mate, right? In the end, it turned out to be pointless. Bella did not learn to cope, Bella did not learn anything from her mistakes.
I mean, I can kinda see where you're coming from, and I admit I've gotten a lot of stuff wrong, as both you and Angie pointed out. But New Moon's main conflict wasn't really star-crossed lovers trying to be together, it was more of lovers learning how to function properly while being apart. Which is why Edward dumped Bella. For her safety.
So one would think that the resolution of this conflict would be that the lovers would learn eventually that they have the ability to stay sane after being apart. Because that's the main conflict, the problem that needs to be resolved. In the end, it was just pointless. They didn't learn how to function properly while apart.
Exactly. It's not the lesson that you want for them, but the point of their ROMANCE is that they know and realize that don't really want to be apart....even though they think that they probably should be. So much so that even when they try, it doesn't work.
There have been tons of songs about this concept. Luther Vandross' "I'd Rather". Eminem's "Love the Way You Lie", Lady Gaga's "Bad Romance" instantly come to mind. I know that there are more. Again, not liking what the characters discover about themselves is not the same as "they didn't learn anything" from it.
It's ironic that I am here defending New Moon because it was my least favorite book of the series. I only gave it a high rating because it is part of series that I really liked.
It seems that you are picking apart Twilight because it is a romance novel and romance in general just doesn't fit into the "narrow" (imo) feminist agenda that you've chosen to subscribe to. I don't think that is fair to Twilight.
Btw, I liked Pride and Prejudice, too. Elizabeth and Darcy were idiots, though. They spent so much time denying their true feelings out of foolish pride and misguided prejudice that they wasted the majority of the book.
Mocha Spresso wrote: "Btw, I liked Pride and Prejudice, too. Elizabeth and Darcy were idiots, though. They spent so much time denying their true feelings out of foolish pride and misguided prejudice that they wasted the majority of the book. "Kind of the point of P&P right there...
The fact that she could have done other things doesn't make her passive, though. It only means that you think she made a poor choice.
Imo, It was stupid to go after James alone. But here is when empathy for a situation kicks in for me. She thought James had her mother and he told her to come alone or he would kill her. She knew that Alice and Jasper would never let her go alone if they knew. I don't know if I would have done what she did....but if you asked me, "would you do something completely crazy if you thought that it might save your mother or someone that you love?" That answer to that is yes. I don't condone her choice....but I think that I do understand how it is plausible that someone in that situation would choose to do that.
I think the question is more like: "Would you do something completely crazy that obviously will not work to save someone you love?"
You're right, though, that it's only that I think Bella made a poor choice. Thanks for pointing that out. I don't think it makes her any less stupid, though...and she doesn't seem to get smarter as the series progresses whether she's with Edward or not, and some of those times can't be completely excused by her love for someone else. (Like in Eclipse, she asked Edward to stay with her during the fight...)
You probably won't like this answer at all, but there was a reason for it. He loved her and wanted to save her life. To save her life, he had to be able to control himself and make himself stop. He was able to do it because he loved her. Romance novel....I understand that the idea that "love conquers all" may not fit into the feminist agenda...but Twilight is a romance novel.
The part I didn't like about it was that I found it implausible. I don't think a book's genre is a sufficient excuse for implausibility. Romance can still be plausible.
(Do you just want to end this part of the conversation? Because I did unintentionally derail it...)
Exactly. It's not the lesson that you want for them, but the point of their ROMANCE is that they know and realize that don't really want to be apart....even though they think that they probably should be. So much so that even when they try, it doesn't work.
Good point, I'd missed that.
It seems that you are picking apart Twilight because it is a romance novel and romance in general just doesn't fit into the "narrow" (imo) feminist agenda that you've chosen to subscribe to.
I don't think a book's genre can always be the excuse for everything. If the real reason Edward saved Bella was his love, for example--and this is just IMO--it feels like Twilight is following some kind of template, and that immediately excuses it from being...well, anything negative people might say about it, really. And I'm not sure if romance doesn't fit into my "narrow feminist agenda." The way you say it makes it sound like romance will almost always be inevitably "antifeminist." I didn't think Pride and Prejudice was antifeminist. Or Wuthering Heights. Or Jane Eyre. You're right, though, that I'm not too fond of the romance genre in general.
Btw, I liked Pride and Prejudice, too. Elizabeth and Darcy were idiots, though. They spent so much time denying their true feelings out of foolish pride and misguided prejudice that they wasted the majority of the book.
Like Carina said, that was kind of the point...I think what sets P&P apart from other romances is that instead of jumping through hoops to be together, they had to grow up as characters to be together. They had to get the hell over their stupidity so they could see each other differently. You're right in that they're foolish, but they're depicted as foolish, right? And by the end of the book they're not stupid anymore.
Anyway, I don't want to run onto another tangent about P&P, so feel free to ignore that.
Imo, It was stupid to go after James alone. But here is when empathy for a situation kicks in for me. She thought James had her mother and he told her to come alone or he would kill her. She knew that Alice and Jasper would never let her go alone if they knew. I don't know if I would have done what she did....but if you asked me, "would you do something completely crazy if you thought that it might save your mother or someone that you love?" That answer to that is yes. I don't condone her choice....but I think that I do understand how it is plausible that someone in that situation would choose to do that.
I think the question is more like: "Would you do something completely crazy that obviously will not work to save someone you love?"
You're right, though, that it's only that I think Bella made a poor choice. Thanks for pointing that out. I don't think it makes her any less stupid, though...and she doesn't seem to get smarter as the series progresses whether she's with Edward or not, and some of those times can't be completely excused by her love for someone else. (Like in Eclipse, she asked Edward to stay with her during the fight...)
You probably won't like this answer at all, but there was a reason for it. He loved her and wanted to save her life. To save her life, he had to be able to control himself and make himself stop. He was able to do it because he loved her. Romance novel....I understand that the idea that "love conquers all" may not fit into the feminist agenda...but Twilight is a romance novel.
The part I didn't like about it was that I found it implausible. I don't think a book's genre is a sufficient excuse for implausibility. Romance can still be plausible.
(Do you just want to end this part of the conversation? Because I did unintentionally derail it...)
Exactly. It's not the lesson that you want for them, but the point of their ROMANCE is that they know and realize that don't really want to be apart....even though they think that they probably should be. So much so that even when they try, it doesn't work.
Good point, I'd missed that.
It seems that you are picking apart Twilight because it is a romance novel and romance in general just doesn't fit into the "narrow" (imo) feminist agenda that you've chosen to subscribe to.
I don't think a book's genre can always be the excuse for everything. If the real reason Edward saved Bella was his love, for example--and this is just IMO--it feels like Twilight is following some kind of template, and that immediately excuses it from being...well, anything negative people might say about it, really. And I'm not sure if romance doesn't fit into my "narrow feminist agenda." The way you say it makes it sound like romance will almost always be inevitably "antifeminist." I didn't think Pride and Prejudice was antifeminist. Or Wuthering Heights. Or Jane Eyre. You're right, though, that I'm not too fond of the romance genre in general.
Btw, I liked Pride and Prejudice, too. Elizabeth and Darcy were idiots, though. They spent so much time denying their true feelings out of foolish pride and misguided prejudice that they wasted the majority of the book.
Like Carina said, that was kind of the point...I think what sets P&P apart from other romances is that instead of jumping through hoops to be together, they had to grow up as characters to be together. They had to get the hell over their stupidity so they could see each other differently. You're right in that they're foolish, but they're depicted as foolish, right? And by the end of the book they're not stupid anymore.
Anyway, I don't want to run onto another tangent about P&P, so feel free to ignore that.
It appears that the side conversation has died down. Anyone interested in discussing the topic?
Peace wrote: "Mickey wrote: "It appears that the side conversation has died down. Anyone interested in discussing the topic?"
nope"
LOL Peace.
nope"
LOL Peace.
Mickey wrote: "It appears that the side conversation has died down. Anyone interested in discussing the topic?"Which topic? The original one of this post?
I forgot where we stopped discussing it and started with the usual arguments.
Most people who talk about Twi are people who hate it o.OThat's the same with anything though, i saw a vid the other day of Metalheads against JB fans, so what they like different music doesn't mean you have to hate on either, same for Twi.
Mickey wrote: "It appears that the side conversation has died down. Anyone interested in discussing the topic?"I'd be interested to know others' opinion about that reasoning with vampires blog, where the woman has spent over two years picking apart every sentence of the book...does that only seem obsessive to mickey and I?
Kirby wrote: "I'd be interested to know others' opinion about that reasoning with vampires blog, where the woman has spent over two years picking apart every sentence of the book...does that only seem obsessive to mickey and I?"I would agree that that behaviour is obsessive. I also think it demonstrates what is obsessive and what isn't more succintly than a lot of arguments on here.
I agree with you, people want to use the hype around Twilight and criticize it to look cool or something.And there are others who have been fans of twilight before, but after hearing all the criticisms and discovering other vampire stories which are better they too join the trend and start criticizing.
And I say this as someone who has been obsessed with twilight. But the truth is all those other vampire books and YA twilight rip-offs are popular only because of the trend which Twilight started.
I think you can extend the "obsessive" tag to the people that follow that blog. The blogger may have just found a vehicle in which to gain followers, which a lot of bloggers do. They try to find an issue that will get people reading their blogs. From what I've seen, when people ask the blogger about why she is picking apart Twilight, she has two answers: one flippant and the other about how personally offensive she finds the fact that it's popular because it doesn't meet her standards. But I wonder at the ratio of these reasons and the plain fact that there's such a market in Twilight-bashing. People will follow a blog about it. People will buy T-shirts about it. People will spend hours on the internet discussing their hatred of it. It's a franchise and a lucrative off-shoot of the books. In a market-driven system, someone is going to fill the niche.
I've talked about the level of arguments from haters before and how I think, in the nearly two years I've been here, I've noticed a downward trend as far as correlation to the books. I've likened it to the game "Telephone", where there's a big circle of people. A phrase or sentence is whispered around the circle and the actual wording becomes more and more garbled and nonsensical as it's passed around from mouth to ear. It seems like the this blog is one of the stations in that process (although not the only one, I'm sure).
This blog gives people who can't think for themselves ammunition to use against fans, the books, the author. The only problem has to do with the way she goes about it, which doesn't translate to overall critiquing very well. Her focus on the minutiae (it's literally sentence by sentence sometimes) is different from discussing an entire book, so when haters who read the blog come here and say things like "Meyer is a terrible writer because she described Bella's mom by comparing her to Bella before describing Bella," it sounds a little histrionic. A writer's skill is not heavily dependent on whether she describes characters, but now we have people arguing this point.
At the end of the day, despite what haters believe are their altruistic motives (I'm ridding the world of sexist literature or I'm for "good" literature), it's really about saying that their hatred makes them better than fans.
Samina wrote: "But the truth is all those other vampire books and YA twilight rip-offs are popular only because of the trend which Twilight started. "I agree in so far as Twilight has began a trend of low quality mass produced 'vampire' novels - but the genre has been popular for years before Twilight came around.
Mickey wrote: I think you can extend the "obsessive" tag to the people that follow that blog - if the blog was exclusively about how terrible Twilight was then yes, if it did talk about other things then no.
Mickey wrote: At the end of the day, despite what haters believe are their altruistic motives (I'm ridding the world of sexist literature or I'm for "good" literature), it's really about saying that their hatred makes them better than fans.
You can also say that a large number of fans think they are better than the 'haters' and those of us who DISLIKE the book merely be being fans - it goes both ways.
Carina wrote: "Samina wrote: "But the truth is all those other vampire books and YA twilight rip-offs are popular only because of the trend which Twilight started. "I agree in so far as Twilight has began a tre..."
I never said this genre was not popular before, but you're underestimating the effect Twilight has had. Books like The Vampire Diaries gained real popularity after Twilight was released, even though they came much before. At least that's what I observed. Just my opinion. :)
Kirby wrote: "Mickey wrote: "It appears that the side conversation has died down. Anyone interested in discussing the topic?"I'd be interested to know others' opinion about that reasoning with vampires blog, w..."
Obsessive, and quite frankly petty.
Kirby wrote: "Mickey wrote: "It appears that the side conversation has died down. Anyone interested in discussing the topic?"I'd be interested to know others' opinion about that reasoning with vampires blog, w..."
That is not only obsessive but destructively psychotic that she would spend so long only picking and pulling apart a story which loads of peopel have lovingly put together and tended to a movie franchise, it's plain trolling.
Mickey wrote: "I think you can extend the "obsessive" tag to the people that follow that blog..."I think we can extent that to the people that even know that such a blog exists. :D
Like really, I read the first couple posts, some of which manage to make a fair point, and then forgot all about it. You can tell that whoever writes that blog ran out of actual arguments pretty fast and then decided to argue stylistic choices.
Jocelyn wrote: "Like Alex said, though, I do prefer being objective than being on SOLELY one side of the argument, which is why I may dance around from time to time. I would agree with this but disagree with that, blah blah blah. Etc. "I didn't mean to imply you were one-sided. In fact, I don't see anything wrong with supporting one side. My advice was that you can defend your opinion more thoroughly and confidently if you know what you're arguing from all sides. Though, I'm with you; I tend to fall somewhere in the middle on a lot of topics.
I want to be clear that what Alex insinuated about my comment is untrue. I was in no way trying to dismiss your intelligence. I was merely giving you some friendly advice that took me a while to figure out. You were struggling with having and opinion and voicing it confidently, and seeing the other side was something I found incredibly helpful. I hope you know I do not think of you as incapable of reasoned debate and that I enjoy our conversations.
"I mean, look at Alex's posts. He's done the exact opposite I've done; while I constantly take such lengths to make sure no one is offended, he brazenly defends his opinion without seeming to care."
Alex is not a good example to pull from. People were not offended by him defending his opinion. They were offended by his insults, his allusions to others not being in his intellectual bracket because they don't see life the way he does.
I wholeheartedly disagree with the assumption that housewives are "inauthentic" because their idea of "more" doesn't match up with a career. And the generalization does upset me to same extent that saying illegal immigrants are lazy freeloaders or drug dealers would upset me. It's misinformed and puts all people of one common string into one box. But, again, what offended me was not his opinion so much as the way he went about trying to prove it. There's a way to be strong in your beliefs without bulldozing over those arguing against you.
Anywho, my best advice for someone saying, "You've offended me!" is to look at what they were offended by, really think about if there's a reason they should be offended, then either apologize or defend yourself accordingly. If they don't give you enough information about why they are offended, ask. I don't know how many times I've said something along the lines of, "I'm sorry I came across that way. Now, about the point I was trying to make...." Apologizing for something doesn't mean you have to backtrack your opinion.
Btw, hi, everyone! I've been caught up in the election for the past few weeks, lol. Now it's time for some catch up.
Dorothy wrote: "Alex is not a good example to pull from"This is just a wild unsupported assumption on your part. You don't know. I could be an amazing example to choose from. I could be exactly the example that you needed in your life and never had. If more people followed my example maybe all of the wars of the world might have been averted. Maybe the holocaust, the cold war, 9/11 ... these things could all be just a bad nightmare if people had followed my example.
Personally I think that I'm an amazing example. I think my example is the example to end all examples. I am like Socrates only totally better looking (some say that I sparkle in the sun but I don't want to brag). People want to put me in prison and poison me to death because they are scared of my example. Are you trying to oppress free thinking and staggering intellect Dorothy, is that what you're trying to do here? What a low blow!
Jocelyn wrote: "Congrats on the analogy, despite the fact that Alex proved it to be inaccurate I still very much liked it. *applauds*"Alex didn't prove it to be inaccurate. He said it was inaccurate. It's actually a pretty good analogy. It equates the situation to something simpler but holds the same context of the original. I can elaborate if you wish, but I thought the analogy was fairly self-explanatory.
"it's the simple fact that he doesn't like housewifery I find to be trivial, not the reasons he chooses to support it. Then I could understand taking offense. Most of the "I was offended" comments were in response to something Alex said that I clearly remembered started with the word "personally."
Also: I think it's the choice of housewifery that Alex personally dislikes, not the women who make that choice. If he thought less of the character of the people who made that choice, that would be seriously lame. But he doesn't, as far as I can see."
I don't like the choice people make to do drugs. It doesn't mean I dislike the people who do drugs, but it does mean I look down on them in some form. I can't see Alex making statements like "layabout mothers" being anything other than looking down on their character. As for the offense, I'll say again that Alex's insults were at the forefront of those remarks. And while him disliking housewivery is trivial, him using his personal dislike to argue the larger theme of feminism is not trivial.
"Actually, I think it was hypothetical. It's not an authentic choice IF they make that choice without being fully aware. Therefore women should put in some extra consideration while making that choice. He's not saying, "if you're a housewife, you're automatically a dumbass." Because now THAT would be really stupid."
I agree. It would be stupid. And while you clarified your stance to anyone not making an informed decision being the wrong decision, Alex did not. It think he tried at one point, but he has a tendency to backtrack and negate any progress he's made in his argument.
Dorothy wrote: "I agree. It would be stupid. And while you clarified your stance to anyone not making an informed decision being the wrong decision, Alex did not"Wait, I think that was one of my (many) arguments right there. I made that. That was me! Me Me Me Me meeeeeeee.
Did I backtrack on that? Sorry. Bad habit.
Mocha Spresso wrote: "Yes, I am fine. Thank you. I don't live in an area that is vulnerable to flooding. The storm damage was mainly because of downed trees here. Other parts of Long Island have not been so lucky, though. I tried to go out yesterday and it was terrible. Entire neighborhoods are cut off and there is traffic everywhere. Everyone is scrambling to find an open store, a working atm and/or an open gas station. I've lived on Long Island for most of my life and this is the worst storm that I have ever experienced.btw, you don't have to hide. I can accept critique when I goof. My apologies."
No apologies necessary. Grammar problems don't really bother me on message boards. That one just stares at me, though, lol.
I'm really glad you're okay. The aftermath of the storm is devastating to watch from here on the west coast. I can only imagine what it's like to be there.
Mocha Spresso wrote: "JThe reason I ask is because I find that sometimes, teens think they know it all and that they definitely know better than most adults. It is very easy to say "when I grow up, I'm going to...." But it is harder when you are actually out in the real world and find that so many things do not always go according to plan. "
Kind of off topic, but I actually caught myself saying, "When I was a kid..." the other day. I swore to myself when I was young I would NEVER say things like that. I just about died when I realized I had. Ugh. :P
Jocelyn wrote: "The main one for me is that many of the women in Twilight seem unable to be happy without a man."Renee was actually unhappy with her man, Charlie. She was fine on her own with Bella until just before the start of the book when she marries Phil.
Emmett makes things better for Rosalie, but her inhumanity is what causes her unhappiness. She even said that if she could choose humanity over Emmett, she would do so.
Alice and Esme give no indication whether they'll be distraught over Jasper and Carlisle, though if they were it would only be normal. These are their husbands after all.
Leah's wounds are extremely fresh. Sam had just turned in the first book, making his breakup with Leah about that time. I find her annoying, but I don't think it's unreasonable for her to be a raging harpy when she's stuck hearing the loving thoughts her ex has for her cousin.
Jessica and Angela have boyfriends (some of the time), but they hardly devote their lives to them. In fact, Jessica completely dismisses Mike at one point.
Tanya, Irena, and Kate are succubi. They are happy with lots and lots of men ;). But they don't need a man to be happy. Well, Irena goes a bit overboard. Stupid tattling idiot.
I also want to reiterate what Kirby said about the men being just as unhappy without their women, if not more so. I agree with her that it does a big disservice to women when they are put under a larger microscope than male characters.
Dorothy wrote: "Alex didn't prove it to be inaccurate. He said it was inaccurate. It's actually a pretty good analogy. It equates the situation to something simpler but holds the same context of the original. I can elaborate if you wish, but I thought the analogy was fairly self-explanatory."Personally I'd like you to elaborate. I'm keen to know how choosing between being a Doctor, lawyer or Hosuewife is akin to choosing your favourite sweet or dessert.
Does choosing ice-cream give you a different status in society as a result? Does it give you more money and therefore more choice and opportunity to buy more things (more ice-cream, presumably)? Does choosing one or the other tie you into a particular routine every single day of your life? Is one choice more intellectually difficult than the other, as in taking 7 years worth of study and exam? Is it supposed that everyone has the choice to choose ice cream or chocolate ... and not that some people are never going to be able to choose one or the other due to their background or inability to make some choices? Is ice cream or chocolate a choice that is sometimes thrust upon you (oh no the condom broke, I *had* to choose chocolate or I'd be a murderer?)
Sorry, having thought that through, is there any way you can see in which this works as an analogy? I'm not pointing this out to be an arse, I'm pointing it out because I think it's a very incorrect analogy. Your "simplification" misses just about all of the points that are involved in this argument.
I liked the comment about me being a narcissist Angie, you shouldn't delete it. Don't backtrack, OWN YOUR OPINIONS GIRL!!!!!!
Dorothy wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "The main one for me is that many of the women in Twilight seem unable to be happy without a man."
Renee was actually unhappy with her man, Charlie. She was fine on her own with Bel..."
Hey Dorothy...I already dropped the conversation...I'll end this by saying that in many ways you guys ARE right, but I still don't like Twilight's portrayal of women.
Agree to disagree, as always. That's quickly becoming my motto, I say it so often...haha.
Renee was actually unhappy with her man, Charlie. She was fine on her own with Bel..."
Hey Dorothy...I already dropped the conversation...I'll end this by saying that in many ways you guys ARE right, but I still don't like Twilight's portrayal of women.
Agree to disagree, as always. That's quickly becoming my motto, I say it so often...haha.
Alex wrote: "Dorothy wrote: "Alex didn't prove it to be inaccurate. He said it was inaccurate. It's actually a pretty good analogy. It equates the situation to something simpler but holds the same context of th..."
Both of you have very entertaining takes on that analogy, guys. It had me laughing my head off.
Both of you have very entertaining takes on that analogy, guys. It had me laughing my head off.
Angie wrote: "It has nothing to do with backtracking, Alex. I own that I made the comment, and based on your posts, I fully believe it. If I had to wager a guess, I would say it's fact, not opinion."You'd "guess" that it's a "fact". Do you even have a remote grasp of the language you're using to insult me? I'm "guessing" not.
Otherwise no, I show no signs of narcissism whatsoever. I'm also "guessing" that you have no idea what that actually entails. What you really mean to say is that you find me arrogant, overbearing and rude.
I think the recent conversation that just ended about Twilight women highlights the limitations of fan/hater interaction and why I think that fans need to branch out from "defending" Twilight and work towards building a site that works toward satisfying fans' needs as well. It goes without saying that this wasn't the first conversation about the portrayal of women in Twilight. There have been many of them in the past and, despite attempts to use reason and the many examples from the book, as well as spending a lot of time, the result is the same. This would be fine if everyone's needs were met, however, I don't think this is happening.
There is a fundamental difference in the makeup of a fan and a hater, despite assertions that they are the same. A fan wants to explore the intricacies of the product. Haters use the product as a vehicle to 1) say something about themselves, 2) gain attention, or 3) troll. (That's probably not an exhaustive list, but those are the three that come to mind.) This means that the way interactions go on these threads satisfy haters, but not fans, which is why there are not as many fans on this site as Cassie pointed out in the first post.
I think it's up to fans to change how things run on this board, because we are the ones getting the short end of the stick. The "how" is up for discussion.
Lets put it this way in every thing in life there are lovers and haters. Haters always get more attention as they are always going on and on about it and drown out those who love. For the haters to be drowned out or minimised to a lesser amount those who love need to stand up for what they love and not let the haters scare them away from these discussions by saying things that can be rude and out right nasty. If you hate it you hate it so just shut up about. If you hate something it doesn't mean the whole world has to hate it as well people have the right to their own opinion. I mean can be a pretty opinionated person but if I don't like something I don't go around yelling it at the top of my lungs I actually try to ignor it as much as possible. All these haters on sites like this are just pick easy targets to hate on so they can get some attention. If you ask me I would say their all pains in the butts with nothing better to do.
Alex wrote: "I am like Socrates only totally better looking (some say that I sparkle in the sun but I don't want to brag)."Ah, finally we unearth the truth - you dislike twilight because you fear the competition. :D
Mickey wrote: "There is a fundamental difference in the makeup of a fan and a hater, despite assertions that they are the same."
I don't recall any assertions being made about fans and haters being the same - I think it's only been said that it's _obsessed_ fans/twilight fanatics that equal haters. :)
Gerd wrote: "I don't recall any assertions being made about fans and haters being the same - I think it's only been said that it's _obsessed_ fans/twilight fanatics that equal haters."Post 926: You can also say that a large number of fans think they are better than the 'haters' and those of us who DISLIKE the book merely be being fans - it goes both ways.
Post 177: Now that I think of it, being a "hater" isn't too much different from being a fan. We're both passionate and insistent on what we're arguing. The only difference is that we're on opposite sides.
Alex wrote: "Angie wrote: "It has nothing to do with backtracking, Alex. I own that I made the comment, and based on your posts, I fully believe it. If I had to wager a guess, I would say it's fact, not opinion..."I'm deleting my comments, Alex. This conversation has no place here. It was in very poor taste to start it and even worse to continue it. My apologies.
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)
Feminist semantics? I think my point was pretty clear. I'm troubled that you can't see it. There's a difference between caring deeply for another person and living your life through that person.
What's a "natural human condition?" Is that like a cancer?
Forgive me for being obtuse...but which is it? Folks say that there is nothing wrong with a woman choosing to marry and/or have children...but then when she actually does it, it is also criticized as act of submission to male dominance, an acceptance of patriarchy and deemed as not progressive enough for some. Which is it? Stop trying to be pc or whatever it is that you are doing.
I've made arguments and statements regarding what I feel about marriage, children, housewife ad infinitum. Have you still not understood my viewpoint or do you just like trying to take the argument back to square one?
Am I *trying* to be PC now. I thought I just *was* PC. I've spoken about inauthentic decisions and what I feel is a good way to live your life quite a lot - what exactly are you not understanding about my argument?
Don't tell a woman that you don't see anything wrong with making that choice and then turn around and criticize a fictional character for doing it. That criticism makes it clear that you do actually see something wrong with it."
Oh wait, didn't we address this as well, the way that the messages in literature influence society. Yes, I think I wrote a reasonably detailed post on that one - maybe one or two pages back.