Are people who dislike Twilight "obsessed" with Twilight?

[Gerd]

Amy wrote: "But, I also believe the relationships a girl sees at home go much farther than books or media to dictate her idea of relationships."

Quite true that, but literature can help to gain a new viewpoint on things - preferably a better, more positive one than they get shown at home. Also, if both the media one consumes, and life at home, presents the same unhealthy outlook, then the media will only help to underline a believe that this is just the way things have to be instead of encouraging the reader/viewer to question those circumstances.

(Though, if books like twilight are under any obligation to do this, is naturally up to debate. :D)

[Alex]

Amy wrote: "I may not always agree with what you have to say sometimes, but you do bring an intelligent, excellent point to the table. Even though I don't find Edward's treatment of Bella to be abusive or terribly controlling and I don't believe Meyer was trying to create a feminist character, if teens only focus on books/media with women in submissive roles, their perspective would be tainted. But, I also believe the relationships a girl sees at home go much farther than books or media to dictate her idea of relationships. "

Thank you for the compliment :)

The work that you write reflects who you are as an author. Consider if you are a feminist or you are anti-racist or interested in LGBT issues or ..whatever, when you sit down to write a book you don't consciously write and create characters/situations that are the antithesis to what you believe about the world. If you believe that women are strong, independent, free of men etc you will write stories that reflect this. If you have fantasies about men who sweep you off of your feet and look after you, your stories will reflect that. Obviously it's a little bit more complex than that but at base, if I were to write a novel I wouldn't be creating a hero/heroine who were racist and homophobic because both consciously and subconsciously this isn't the kind of person I'd want my readers to root for. The fact that Meyer didn't choose to write a feminist character suggests that her own political viewpoint falls more inline with Mickeys and that she doesn't see female empowerment as much of a concern (nothing in subsequent interviews has made me feel that she does, either).

I actually don't think that Twilight is the worst book out there ever. It's one of many, but the reason feminists are tending to focus on it is because it's particularly popular and has a very wide audience, so it's a great opportunity to open up this debate and ask people if this fantasy really coincides with a reality that would be worth having.

I also have a particular loathing for Twilight because it subverts horror and vampire fiction in such a way as to make it "safe". As a liberal I've always loved horror novels because they tend to subvert conservative norms, they're thought provoking and don't see sexuality as this big scary beast that we mustn't get involved with (except when we get married and have children and a family, of course). Vampire fiction in particular has done a good job of representing liberal or thought provoking issues ... Buffy the Vampire Slayer, of course, Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles are superb, Vampire Knight is a really great manga series and Stoker's Dracula too really pushed sexual boundaries. Twilight takes most of the tropes of Vampire fiction and makes them safe and conservative and a whole lot less fun to boot - and it's a sensation. That's a bit worrying and a bit depressing, I think. It's turned Vampire literature into Mills and Boone and in turn undermined the very heart of it. Buffy is about a girl trying to succeed independently of romantic notions, in part exploring them and discovering them to be false hopes. If she's going to fall in love she needs to find her independence first. Twilight is about a girl who finds her place in an alienating society by meeting a guy and fantasizing about giving up that independence.

The media and government want people to think that a person's life and attitude is dictated through "home" because we live in a world in which the family unit is sacred, and it's all about "the family looking after one another" so that the government are devoid of any kind of responsibility - for anything. Yes, of course this is a massive factor in how a person grows up but what is it that your average family does to raise a child...? shows it adverts on TV, watches movies and cartoons and educational programmes with them, reads books with them and so on and so on. Parents don't consider the impact that the culture it is raised in has on a child. Some things "appear" to be bigger deals than others but general cultural attitudes are always there in the background (the first thing that happens to a baby is that it is branded male or female ... colour coded as blue or pink and told that it's different depending on whether it is a baby carrier or not. Parents perpetuate this message every waking moment of a baby's life, as do adverts on TV, so it's no wonder this massive division between male/female is considered to be so important).

So yeah, I agree that relationships at home are important but I think those relationships at home are defined by broader societal attitudes and popular literature like Twilight is one - very strong - way that those attitudes perpetuate themselves.

[Dermo]

Tina J wrote: "In a nutshell - haters LOVE to hate!"

WOO!
I just saw this as the top post on my page, so I thought I'd step in.The entire premise of this thread is ridiculous. I read Twilight, for my sins. The simple fact of the matter is that it's an absolutely godawful piece of tripe. And that's what kids love. I'm not going to go into the reasons why it's bad, so very bad, as so many of the aforementioned "haters" have probably put forward many arguments, some cogent, some probably incoherent. In the end, you're having an argument with a computer screen. I don't even know why I bothered writing this.

[Mickey]

Carina wrote: "I may be totally faulted for going up against you again but..."

Carina, I guess you didn't recognize the intent of my last post's closing, but that was my 'out'. I don't see any reason to continue re-explaining what I meant or continuing a conversation about whether I read your whole post a page ago. There's nothing of value in that for me.

As a last action, I will re-explain myself: There is a difference between critiquing a book in a certain matter and saying, 'This is a bad book because it does not reinforce my worldview' (faulting a book for not actively espousing your views).

Now, I could talk about my problems with being trained to critique literature this way, it's one of the biggest reasons why I took the bare minimum requirements in English in college. Saying, "Well, this is what we're taught to do in literature classes" doesn't legitimize this practice for me. You're being trained to see literature, which contains so much variety and so many different points of view, and reducing it down to a few pet ideas. (I don't think many literature classes take the time to look at books through many viewpoints. Surely some people who grew up in feminist homes would benefit from learning to critique a book through a non-feminist view, yet I'd be surprised if this actually happened.) But this is an aside...

My point was centered around the idea of what some other posters were saying here and on other threads, that Twilight is antifeminist (as opposed to not feminist) and that it was harmful to people to read it, because it does not correspond to the poster's worldview of how things should be. That's been used as a way to justify rants and as a reason for many hysterical hater comments. (Well, that and the whole 'this is ruining literature/vampire lore' comments). Most people who belong to groups that espouse views that are not mainstream understand that there are other viewpoints and that there is such a thing as a "not" book as opposed to an "anti" book. Feminists have a hard time doing that, because they think every book should reinforce their beliefs, which is something I find completely wrong. I studied Russian in college and was assigned to read many literary critiques from the Soviet Union dating back to when there was a monolithic "right" lens in which to critique literature. There are many parallels in techniques (although not outcomes or severity of consequences, of course).

[Alex]

Mickey wrote: "I don't think many literature classes take the time to look at books through many viewpoints. Surely some people who grew up in feminist homes would benefit from learning to critique a book through a non-feminist view, yet I'd be surprised if this actually happened""

Is that what they taught you in the literature classes you didn't attend?

[Carina]

Mickey, I guess I was being rather biased going off my experience in the last thread we were both commenting on and for that I do apologise - after all if I took in some information from the experience of course you did too.

I guess we come to the normal thing between us - we just happen to look at things in completely different ways. To me taking an English Literature class (in the UK until age 16 if your are top set you have to do this in most schools) teaches you to scrutinise things in different ways - in fact I never was taught to look at things from a feminsit perspective until college and then it was from a sociological perspective and not a literary one. To me if someone wants to examine something in one way then fair play to them as long as they say it is from that perspective.

Alex wrote: "I actually don't think that Twilight is the worst book out there ever. It's one of many, but the reason feminists are tending to focus on it is because it's particularly popular and has a very wide audience, so it's a great opportunity to open up this debate and ask people if this fantasy really coincides with a reality that would be worth having."

I think that really sums up why Twilight, HP etc are more focussed topics of discussion on this site than many others - great post!

[Mickey]

Gerd wrote: "I never said that, I said that some people don't believe that patriachal systems do exist doesn't mean anything.

Same as I came upon some people that don't believe that the Shoa happened, but denial of facts doesn't make them cease to exist.

That feminsits have a different view on those systems than, say, Mormons is out of question for me."

I think putting people who do not believe in a certain tenet of feminist theory in the same category as Holocaust deniers and people who think that men were never on the moon attempts to marginalize such people. I'm telling you, though, it's not unusual to not believe in patriarchial systems.

This reminds me of a section in a PBS series called "Colonial House", where a group of people lived in the same way as colonists did for a few months, while being videotaped. There was a family of devout Christians (the father was a pastor) and the children had never been exposed to people who did not believe in the things that they were raised on. It was interesting to see the reactions and commentary of one of the older girls as she realized that the world was a much bigger place than she originally thought.

Some people live their lives in a very insulated way (with like-minded people), so that the idea that there are people who believe different things is almost unfathomable to them. They have to come up with reasons why other people believe differently- usually that the other people are evil or stupid or some other failing in order to make the believer comfortable again in the rightness of his beliefs. I've seen plenty of them on Goodreads as well, they're pretty easy to spot.

I'm unfamiliar with the term "out of question", so I don't know what you mean by Mormons believing (or not) in patriarchial systems.

Gerd wrote: "Same as the existence of said systems can be verified. The debate is not wether or not these systems do exist, but to what extent they actually influence society."

That interpretation cannot be verified in the same way as the Holocaust or the moonlanding, because it is an interpretation. It's a kind of creation myth for feminists. It's a way of seeing the world and telling a story about it. There are plenty of other interpretations out there. There's Marxist theory and the Nazi theory. They have a different way of looking at world. There's the Hasidic way and the Evangelistic way. Feminism is by no means alone in ways of summing up history and seeing the present. As a feminist, you may believe in a certain interpretation, but it's not universal, Gerd. People who have different ideas are not cranks on the margins of a feminist society.

There most definitely is a debate.

[Gerd]

Mickey wrote: "I'm unfamiliar with the term "out of question", so I don't know what you mean by Mormons believing (or not) in patriarchial systems...."

Meaning it doesn't stand in question, it can be taken as fact.


Mickey wrote: "That interpretation cannot be verified in the same way as the Holocaust or the moonlanding, because it is an interpretation."

It don't think that political systems we see in action in the middle east can be called "mere interpretation", nor can the facts of life in Austens Britain and many other places of that period.
Or the dogma of Mormon faith, for that matter.

[Mochaspresso]

Kyra wrote: "I see hate floating around the Hunger Games/Battle Royale threads, and it peeves me off. The books are not the same so stop comparing them. Stop looking for reasons to claim one's better than the o..."

You really didn't see any similarities between the two? I saw tons.

It's just people stating how they feel. Personally, I happen to agree with those that say that Battle Royale was better than The Hunger Games. The book was better and so was the movie. The only thing that the Hunger Games did better was explaining the background as to WHY the Hunger Games were happening in the first place. Battle Royale's premise as to why was a bit more complicated.

[Mochaspresso]

Alex wrote: "Since women are 50% of the population issues regarding the portrayal of women in fiction are ever-present whether you happen to want them to be or not. You cannot write a book without touching on ..."

But who decides what feminism is or isn't? I think it is very dangerous to take fiction and try to turn it into some sort of feminist or anti-feminist manifesto. Especially when that wasn't the author's intention for their work in the first place.

Btw, the male dominance in Bella and Edward's relationship ended the moment she became a vampire. After that, she became the stronger and more dominant force in their relationship. In fact, that shift started right after they were married and she found out that she was pregnant with Renesmee. One could also look at the other relationships in Twilight. What about the fact that Bella is actually the one who takes care of and protects Charlie? He certainly doesn't see it that way, but she is. Would you characterize Jasper and Alice's relationship as patriachal and anti-feminist? How about Rosalie and Emmet's? Carlisle and Esme? What about Leah's character as a lone female in a male dominated wolf pack?

The point that I'm trying to make is that I think people can see whatever they want to see in a work of fiction. You see anti-feminism and I can see plenty of good examples of it in the same piece of literature.

[Alex]

Mocha Spresso wrote: "But who decides what feminism is or isn't? I think it is very dangerous to take fiction and try to turn it into some sort of feminist or anti-feminist manifesto. Especially when that wasn't the author's intention for their work in the first place.."

No-one gets to decide. There's no all-seeing objective arbiter of right and wrong and I don't recall suggesting that there was. However, as I said in a previous post, it's down to anyone who wants to disengage from a debate to provide a solid reason for doing so beyond saying something like "well, I just don't agree" or "there are other opinions". Feminist interpretations of a text, or any other interpretation are providing a challenge and saying "I think we ought to examine this in a novel... and I think this shows x about the treatment of women" and because feminist ideology is pretty good and persuasive it's become an intellectual movement. Again, nobody really intellectually disagrees with the idea that there is a patriarchy - why would they. Did men control politics throughout the world for several thousand years ...of course they did, there's masses of evidence to support this" but there are plenty of layers of interpretation and conclusions that you're welcome to disagree with.

Btw, the male dominance in Bella and Edward's relationship ended the moment she became a vampire.

I'm happy, at this point, to leave debates about subsequent Twilight novels to those in the know, since life is too short to read them all. Given the tone of Twilight it seems very unlikely that they lurch towards an empowering feminist position but I could be wrong. All I can say on that score is that Twilight itself is not a great model for women imo. Also, this thread was mostly about justifying why I think it's relevant to discuss Twilight negatively so I don't really want to move the conversation in that direction.

"The point that I'm trying to make is that I think people can see whatever they want to see in a work of fiction. You see anti-feminism and I can see plenty of good examples of it in the same piece of literature. "

This point is fundamentally incorrect and something I hear a lot from people who don't like it when I say that a book or movie is sexist or racist or something. people don't "see anything" or "see what they want" in these things, they look at what's there and they attempt to interpret it. Sometimes people interpret things incorrectly, or differently and sometimes interpretations aren't clear (sometimes that's the fun of it!), but it's not a random free-for-all where one sets out with an agenda and finds x in absolutely everything they read or see regardless. The reason a lot of feminists find a lot of misogyny in a lot of books is because ... we have lived and continue to live in a male dominated society.

[Mickey]

Gerd wrote: "It don't think that political systems we see in action in the middle east can be called "mere interpretation", nor can the facts of life in Austens Britain and many other places of that period.
Or the dogma of Mormon faith, for that matter."

It's the interpretation that they can be reduced to "patriarchial systems" that's debatable. It's taking complex things and turning them into some one-dimensional indictment based on what you think should occur. In Jane Austen's lifetime, Catherine the Great was ruling the Russian Empire. Soon after Austen died, Victoria became queen. It's wrong to say, "Women didn't have power." If you look at not even figureheads, but in terms of influence, there were plenty of women who had political power in times that feminists contend they did not. I also have a problem with reducing people to their genders. There were so many questions and contentions in history that are more important and the idea that it can all be boiled down to such a simplistic (and erroneous) viewpoint is just a shortcut to thought. It's a theory, but with all theories, you have to do a lot of ignoring of actual facts to make it "fit".

[Mochaspresso]

I'm happy, at this point, to leave debates about subsequent Twilight novels to those in the know, since life is too short to read them all. Given the tone of Twilight it seems very unlikely that they lurch towards an empowering feminist position but I could be wrong. All I can say on that score is that Twilight itself is not a great model for women imo. Also, this thread was mostly about justifying why I think it's relevant to discuss Twilight negatively so I don't really want to move the conversation in that direction. "

You admit that you haven't read the entire series. That is personal choice. I don't have a problem with that. But do you really think it is fair to take one book from a series and categorize the author as "anti-feminist"? Twilight as an individual novel may not be a great model for women....but Twilight is also about a teenaged girl. In the subsequent novels, the teenaged girl grows up. She becomes a wife and a mother and despite all of her husband's strength, she is the only one that can save her family. She emerges as the protector and the dominant force that has to be reckoned with. She becomes a woman that is very different from the teenaged girl that she started out as. Bella's character does actually evolve signifigantly as the novels in the series progress.

It is only important to diacuss Twilight negatively if that criticism is fair and well thought out.

[Alex]

Mocha Spresso wrote: " You admit that you haven't read the entire series. That is personal choice. I don't have a problem with that. But do you really think it is fair to take one book from a series and categorize the author as "anti-feminist"? Twilight as an individual novel may not be a great model for women....but Twilight is also about a teenaged girl. In the subsequent novels, the teenaged girl grows up. She becomes a wife and a mother. She becomes a woman that is very different from the teenaged girl that she started out as. Bella's character does actually evolve signifigantly as the novels in the series progress. "

I think that one can take a published statement - in this case the single volume novel Twilight of the Twilight series - and say that it expresses ideas that are anti-feminist.

For the other volumes in the series to be feminist they would actually have to subvert the ideas laid out in the first novel, not just progress Bella's story (I hope the story progresses in three volumes. If not they'd be even more boring than the first one). It's possible that Meyer does this, but arguments that Bella becomes "a wife and mother" aren't particularly persuasive. Most women become wives and mothers ... I think that tying up female identity with the notion of wives and mothers is one thing that I find problematic. Women tend to be wives and mothers first (notice in society the title change from Miss to Mrs and the adoption of the husband's surname) and people, with careers or independence second. Men, on the other hand are men first and husbands second... (notice the lack of title change from Mr to Mr...).

In an ideal world I'd read to the end of the series. I make a point of not discussing what I haven't read but I'm quite happy to stand by my opinion of Twilight.

[Alex]

Mickey wrote: "Soon after Austen died, Victoria became queen. It's wrong to say, "Women didn't have power." If you look at not even figureheads, but in terms of influence, there were plenty of women who had political power in times that feminists contend they did not."

My ex spent 4 years full time writing a thesis on history and literature in Victorian England, focusing on what ways and how women were excluded from political debate. You've managed to contradict all of her conclusions in one brilliant, pithy sentence.

I might just send her an email explaining how all that time she was just twisting facts to fit a preconceived notion she had. She's gonna be annoyed by all that time wasted in the British Library.

[Amy]

Alex wrote: "Mocha Spresso wrote: " You admit that you haven't read the entire series. That is personal choice. I don't have a problem with that. But do you really think it is fair to take one book from a serie..."

There was more to it than just "wife and mother." As a vampire, her special power was incredibly powerful - a protective force field that not only kept her family safe from the Volturi's powers but also the vampires who joined the Cullens to help. Alice and Bella were instrumental in the preparations for the battle with the Volturi. On the Voluturi side of things, Jane was their dominant weapon.

I think the shortcomings of Twilight in terms of feminism were made up with the final 2 books where Bella becomes the protector (in the 3rd book, she saves Edward's life against Victoria). I understand your point that Twilight itself may not stand strong for women, but what is wrong in showing a woman who started out as weak but grew up to be a strong person?

I think it is a realistic view. Not every woman is strong and powerful from childhood - some gain strength and independence as life's trials come their way, and I think the series as a whole showed that.

[Mickey]

Ida wrote: "Twilight might not be anti-feminist, but it IS sexist. And comparing it to The Great Gatsby being anti-islamic is a falce equivalence anyway, but that's besides the point."

You'll have to explain your reasoning how you think they are different. Both novels never mention the belief systems they're apparently "against". The anti tag just comes because it doesn't conform to that belief system. I really want an answer on it, because I don't like it when people counter with simply a bald statement that it isn't true. Explain your reasoning.

Ida wrote: "Meyer not subscribing to feminism (as far as I know at least) does not excempt her from having her ideas critisized, which is condoning mysogynistic thinking and are incredible outdated. There is no line of logic that says feminists can only argue with feminists on the points of feminism."

How can Meyer's views be considered outdated when she is a best-selling author? Her popularity isn't from controversy, either. Many people (probably the majority would be women) have no problem with her story.

Twilight is simply not feminist. Feminism is certainly not one of its themes. It's never mentioned. I feel a lot of the hatred coming from feminist corners has to do with the fact that feminism is getting further marginalized (they are the ones that are becoming outdated, in other words). Nobody needs them to tell us what to think of a character or a situation. They certainly don't speak for the majority of women and it's things like this that make that fact obvious.

There are many, many ideas and philosophies that people can ascribe to. Feminism is just one of them. Books are written all the time that have nothing to do with feminism and discussing a young woman and a love relationship is not the exclusive property of feminism.

Ida wrote: "And by the way, I dare you to find a single feminist who argues that Twiligh is sexist because, as you say, the author and the main character are female. I dare you! That is the most gross missrepressentation of feminism I have ever come across..."

This is one of the easiest challenges that I've ever been given:

Deleted member aka Steph wrote:is it tale of a woman who would rather hurl herself off a cliff because a guy tried to leave her and ultimatly putting feminism back 100 years with her submissive behaviour? ... portray the lead character as a woman who couldn't live without a man? ...it annoys me that this kind of person is the centre of a book that teenagers are reading and relating to, when if it was transferred into real life (and the vampire etc were taken away) Bella would ultimately end up being sad and alone!...The reason i feel that this book is anti feminist is not because of house wives or strippers, but because Bella does not seem to function without a man to complete her. Because she is so desperate when she gets dumped that she hurls herself off a cliff, and instead of turning to her friends, she turns to another man, who she knows is in love with her, and uses him to make herself feel better....Bella being unable to be independent from Edward, and in his absence finding another man to lean on give her self worth is the aspect that I think shows anti feministic qualities.

Larissa wrote: While I don't feel like Bella was a submissive character I believe she was often dependent, incapable, and many other traditional gender characteristics of females, making New Moon, and basically the whole Twilight series, a crime against feminism. Also, when looking back on the series Bella seems more like a house wife of the early to mid 1900s than a young adult of the 21st century.


Carly wrote:I would have run away the second I found out he was watching me while I was sleeping (which I'm pretty sure I would have found out somehow much earlier than she did...who doesn't NOTICE that?!)...You can fall in love and be in an amazing relationship without giving up your life (human friends and family) and your dignity whilst letting someone totally dominate you.......when the majority of the female characters are made to be housewives, it's irritating.


Kelly wrote:Crime against feminism. Bella is the antithesis of any modern, strong woman. Meyers should be fined for writing/publishing such trash.


Alannah wrote: then along comes this insanely popular series where the main character falls apart and has panic attacks every time her boyfriend leaves the room. So way to go Meyer in reinforcing social media expectations.

Nora wrote:The entire series seems against femininism. In New Moon Bella risked her life to hear a fake version of her boyfriend yell at her. She was also unable to be happy without her hallucinations or Jacob. Bella could have actually tried to be nice to her friends so she could be happy with them, but I guess that never occurred to her. ...I know. I'm saying that it should be pro friends, but instead it's pro your boyfriend being the reason for you existence. In Twilight Bella even says "it really seemed like my life was about him [Edward]"....are there really that many women and that few men who want to stay at home with their children all day?...


Calla wrote:All four books are completely anti-feminist. Bella is so useless and pathetic and whiny and the romance isn't realistic at all.

Zanna wrote: Bella was WAY too whiny and women do NOT act like that when someone leaves them

This is only a small sampling from the first couple of pages (of a thread about whether the books were a "crime against feminism") and most of these examples are about saying a woman's choices are antifeminist or her characteristics do not fit the ideal of what a woman should be, according to feminists (as if we women are all charged with conforming to this image).

The antifeminist designation comes from the fact that Bella is not the "right kind" of female, according to the feminists who posted. She doesn't make the right choices from keeping her baby instead of aborting it to cooking for her father. If you want those quotes, I can give them to you, too. You need only ask.

[Mickey]

Ida, I disagree that Meyer ever set Bella up as the epitome of femininity and the ideal woman. I actually think that this is part of what makes Twilight so popular, that she is not the usual "role model" character, but a regular person.

In the same way that Gatsby does not portray the ideal Muslim, Twilight does not portray the ideal feminist, that would be a similar parallel. To change it would be something like, Gatsby's hero is a man who does not follow Muslim tenets, the same as Twilight's heroine does not follow feminist ideals. Both of which are okay, because neither espouses those views. If a person says they believe in one thing and acts contrary to that, you could fault them for hypocrisy. To say that all women will be measured by standards they did not sign up for is disempowering. Why can't a woman be sad when the love of her life leaves? You haven't mentioned a problem with Edward's reactions to the breakup, so his must be okay with you. Are you saying women in real life do not go into depressions when a relationship that meant so much to them is suddenly over? Or are you saying that they should not? And who are you to decide that for another woman? Who gave you that authority?

As far as the "right kind of female", I gave several examples from different posters whose charge of anti-feminism was due to the fact that Bella was not the "right kind of female". If feminists are okay with women acting in a way to express their feelings, then why would you have a problem with her being upset when Edward leaves? Why are all the posters in my examples jumping all over her decisions, as if they are not the "right" ones?

I also disagree that in the relationship, Edward is shown as the boss and Bella defers to him. The entire outcome of the story would have been different. Edward wanted Bella to stay human. She wanted to change. Who got their way and who defered? Bella wanted the baby she was carrying and Edward wanted to abort it. What happened? For such a controller, Edward rarely ever got his way. But some people can't see that, because they are so locked in to this mindset of how relationships have to be.

I did do the challenge I was asked. The posters called Twilight antifeminist or a crime against feminism based on Bella. She doesn't exhibit the right characteristics for a female. If she were a male, we would not be having this conversation, would we? I proved my point there.

[[deleted user]]

Okay, I took down my old statement because I had a few personal emails that made me realize how offensive my comments were, requesting that I remove any references to them. I saw what a huge douchebag and idiot I was for doing that in the first place, I apologize for that.

(I'm thirteen years old, so that's a big factor in my immaturity. Childhood is for making stupid mistakes so I won't be an idiot when I'm an adult. (: Keep that in mind when you disagree with my comments, because I can get carried away.)

Anyway, I'd just like to make an observation: as I read through this thread, some of the Twilight fans have a habit of generalizing and labeling anti-Twilighters as, well, stereotypes. Is it just me? Because if it is, then I take that back. Otherwise, I'm getting a bit of the "here we go again, another anti-Twilighter idiot" vibe. I may be misinterpreting people's comments as I do so. I really dislike stereotyping, whether intentional or not.

Either way, if no one else sees what I do, ignore what I'm saying.

[Cassie]

Jocelyn wrote: "Okay, I'd like to make an observation. I've noticed a lot of Twilight fans complaining about how antis are disrespectful, ignorant brats who are trying to get attention. (I'm exaggerating, and this..."

You're doing the same exact thing you're accusing people of doing.

There is no reason to categorize everyone into two distinct groups like this.
There can be fans and non fans/antis, but you just can't say "The fans are like this" or "The antis always do that" or even "The fans think the antis are whatever."
We're all different people, so obviously, we're different. You can be on the same side without being expected to all behave in the same way.



Also, I don't get why so many people take offence to Tina's "hater" comment. If you don't consider yourself to be a "hater", then why on earth would you include yourself in the targeted group? It's not as if she listed a bunch of names and said "These people I mentioned are haters, and haters love to hate"
The comment was very broad, and wasn't singling anyone out, and really didn't list any characteristics that would define a "hater". But for some reason, you want to feel like you're included in the generalization.

[[deleted user]]

Cassie wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "Okay, I'd like to make an observation. I've noticed a lot of Twilight fans complaining about how antis are disrespectful, ignorant brats who are trying to get attention. (I'm exagge..."

Yeah, I'm being a hypocrite. I'm ADHD and I sometimes don't really think about things before I write them. Sorry about that, I'll reword my statement so it makes more sense.

Just to clarify Cassie, I don't want to feel like I'm included in the generalization. I was a bit put off and not in the exact state of mood I would like to have been in, and therefore I can get carried away. I just stated what I felt like.

I don't expect people to behave in the same way. In fact, I acknowledged many times that I respect people's opinions, and I stated that the reasons for both liking and disliking Twilight are legitimate.

[Cassie]

Jocelyn wrote: "I stated that the reasons for both liking and disliking Twilight are legitimate. "

You stating it, and people actually agreeing with it are two different things.

Even though you state it, that does not mean that people now suddenly have to agree with it, or respect your opinion, or take it seriously at all.
When I said, in the other thread, about the reasons being moronic, I was referring to the factually incorrect complaints that I actually listed.
But I still find it ridiculous to consider the story damaging and anti feminist, despite what all these people have said to attempt to prove otherwise.

The same applies for everyone. I think that's why people tend to have the same discussions over and over and over again. Too many people seem to believe that they're going to successfully change someone's mind, or are just trying to "win", when it's not possible. It's an unrealistic goal.
Really, how many people actually change their minds after a long discussion about Twilight?
I always people just discussed Twilight for the fun of it. but after reading all this, that's the furthest theory from my mind.

[Fafa's Book Corner]

Because its still very in.

[Fafa's Book Corner]

Come to think of it it's only in because of the love triangle and the fact that it has vampires.

[[deleted user]]

Cassie wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "I stated that the reasons for both liking and disliking Twilight are legitimate. "

You stating it, and people actually agreeing with it are two different things.

Even though you s..."

Cassie, I do understand that stating it and people actually agreeing with it are two different things. I was just responding to your comment that people don't have to agree with me all time. Nor did I say anyone had to "suddenly agree" with it as you put it. I never said anyone had to give a damn to anything I said. Because honestly, people don't. I'm not marching around demanding that everyone bow down to what I say. I'm okay with people disliking/liking Twilight for different reasons, or liking/disliking it in general.

[Carina]

Cassie wrote: "Really, how many people actually change their minds after a long discussion about Twilight?."

Actually it was following another Twilight discussion that Mickey put forward the notion that Bella is actually more controlling than Edward and backed it up with (what I presume are real) examples from the later books. From that I no longer dislike Twilight on the grounds of Edward being controlling, simply on him being abusive and a stalker. And the plot... but I go off point.

Even though you state it, that does not mean that people now suddenly have to agree with it, or respect your opinion, or take it seriously at all

Okay - the first part of this statement I agree with, after all if no-one had a difference of opinion the discussions would be rather dull. However, and perhaps this is personal, but if someone states something that they have obviously thought about then why on earth shouldn't we take them seriously? To me if you simply take what someone has written as a joke (and I am aware that some users use sarcasm as a tool so obviously I am excluding such posts) then you are doing both them and yourself a great disservice, and even more than that I find it highly rude.

Also, I don't get why so many people take offence to Tina's "hater" comment.

Would you take offence if you were called a Twihard or any of the other rather derogatory terms known for Twilight fans? The same applies for those of us who dislike the book. Just because we dislike it does not make all of us haters, however, what typically happens is that sterotypes form where those people who rate it lowly get grouped in with those who loathe the book - the exact same thing happens with those people who like the book and those people who like it so much they attack and abuse others. To me if anyone called me a hater it would just show me how juvenile they are to have to think and act in such limited terms. But again that is my individual opinion and I am sure others on here would have a different reason for disliking the term.

[Cassie]

I didn't say nobody ever changes their mind after discussing Twilight, it's just rare, from what I've observed.

I don't find the opposite of taking something seriously to be taking it as a joke. I just mean simply disregarding it and just not taking it seriously. That's it. If you choose to not take someone opinion to heart, so be it.

I don't take offence to the term twihard in general. If someone left a broad comment that said "Twitards love to be retarded", I would not take it personally because I am not mentally retarded, so it's obviously not me being addressed. I wouldn't get angry and respond "Don't call me a Twitard! I am not mentally retarded! I have plenty reasons to like Twilight!" It would be unnecessary because nobody called me retarded. If I were to say something, and someone else were directly replying to me, using the term, then I would, because it's clear I'm being called retarded when they have no evidence that it is true.

But again, you jsut said it doesn't make all of you "haters". Well nobody said it does. You're just assuming that she's stereotyping.
But maybe I just prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt.

[Gerd]

Mickey wrote: "It's the interpretation that they can be reduced to "patriarchal systems" that's debatable. "

Well, that's the question of actual influence - which is a whole 'nother matter than saying that those systems do not exist in the first place.

There's plenty of evidence of men trying to control women, up to, I think into the seventies, in France a married Woman was not allowed to hold a bank account in her name without her husbands consent, and he held full control of that account.

In Germany least into the fifties, married women were not allowed to work without their husbands consent - and married women were not allowed to teach at all.

Then there's the whole affair of keeping women from higher educations.

And on, and on, and on... I'd say feminists, even if they may at times go a bit too far, do have a solid case.


Mickey wrote: "I did do the challenge I was asked. The posters called Twilight antifeminist or a crime against feminism based on Bella. She doesn't exhibit the right characteristics for a female. If she were a male, we would not be having this conversation, would we? I proved my point there."

No, then we would have endless discussions over how unmanly Bella was - and perhaps quite a few about what a great rolemodel he was for young boys to aspire to.
Really, guys, soften up it's the 21st century. :D

[Trudy]

I say yes!! People who hate Twilight always find their way to the blogs or just post stupid stuff.. If you hate it then why are you on the sites lol I dont get it!

[Fafa's Book Corner]

Peace wrote: "was it somwhere in the VD there is love triangles as well?"
What do u mean like the vampire diaries?

[Fafa's Book Corner]

And yes there is a love triangle in that except that it's two brothers in love with the same girl.

[Mickey]

Ida wrote: "You're comparison between anti-feminism and anti-islam is a false equivalence because Twilight, even thought it's not meant to be feminist, portrays damaging ideas of gender roles and sexuality as a good thing, these are feminist issues and should be treated as such. The Great Gatsby however does not portray any Islamic issues in any way at all."

"Damaging ideas of gender roles and sexuality" according to whom? I don't think there's anything wrong with either portrayal. According to feminist ideas, there is a problem, but this isn't a feminist book. It has different ideas. Just because the story is about a woman or a relationship does not make it a feminist issue. I think feminists need to learn how to respect other people's boundaries.

The same with Gatsby. It's not accurate to say that it does not deal with Islamic issues. Islam has views on adultery, alcohol consumption, dating, times for prayer, etc. Gatsby has these (or they're completely absent) in the story. Gatsby doesn't conform to proper Islamic practices.

I think, instead of going around, perhaps you'll deal with I think is the central issue: Whether feminists have a right to expect stories about women who are not feminists to conform to their ideas. I think the whole idea is ridiculous, like faulting Gatsby for being anti-Islamic.


Ida wrote: "No one said anything about the women in Twilight not being ideal feminist, what we are disagreeing with is their validity as good role-models and as good people and how they are treated as women by other characters. You are the one yammering about «ideal feminists» no one else."

I presented evidence of feminists calling Twilight antifeminist because of the character of Bella. A female character does not need to be a role model or even a good person. It's sexist to say so, because male characters don't have that expectation put on them. There's nothing wrong with being a realistic girl.

Ida wrote: "One thing I can agree with however is Edward's behaviour after leaving Bella. You're right, he too feels no self worth outside the woman he's attached to, and is ultimately pathetic."

I don't agree that being attached to someone and grieving their loss is pathetic, for either men or women. I'd probably be more concerned with someone who didn't mourn.

But it's funny to me that you can recognize that Bella gets most of the venom and that you recognize that this is because she is a female, yet you rationalize it as saying it is because it's culturally acceptable for women to behave like this (which makes no sense). The true reason is that she doesn't fit into the little template feminists try to put ALL women in (regardless of whether they are feminists or not).

Ida wrote: "Wrong, the things you mention are one of the very few things where Edward didn't get his way. "

Even the things that you mention do not qualify as "getting his way". Watching her while she slept was never a point of contention between them. Both wanted to spend nights together. Bella was friends with Jacob throughout the series. Edward even drove her over there. So how did he "get his way"? The sex while still human was something she wanted, not Edward and he told her before the wedding that she did not have to go through with marrying him, yet he would give her her part of the bargain. Negotiating (which I find to be healthy and something couples do all the time) is hardly controlling. Both parties are free to change terms and ultimately agree to things, which both did.
A few other completely uncontrolling things Edward did, he told her that she had ultimate control over their relationship, that he would leave if she ever wished him to. Also, the only thing necessary for Jacob to kiss Bella without repercussions was her permission. He was not even angry when she kissed Jacob, but tried to comfort her and make her feel better. Most partners have a completely different reaction.

Feminist readers are the ones who are putting women characters in a little box and are obsessed with what women should be like. That's controlling and sexist. Women don't need to follow rules from feminists. If feminists want to police behavior, let them police themselves and leave other women alone. I never voted for feminists to run my life or tell me what to think or how to relate to the people in my life. Any opinion from them is completely illegitimate.

BTW, I didn't twist the meaning of your words, you asked me to prove a point I made, and I did.

[[deleted user]]

Mickey wrote: "Ida wrote: "You're comparison between anti-feminism and anti-islam is a false equivalence because Twilight, even thought it's not meant to be feminist, portrays damaging ideas of gender roles and s..."

Interesting analysis. I do have to disagree with one point, though.

Mickey wrote: I presented evidence of feminists calling Twilight antifeminist because of the character of Bella. A female character does not need to be a role model or even a good person. It's sexist to say so, because male characters don't have that expectation put on them. There's nothing wrong with being a realistic girl.

It's true that the author can do whatever they want with their main character, but I think when antis say that Bella is a bad role model or a sociopath or whatever common insult they use to criticize her, they're saying that protagonists are supposed to be likable. MC's are the characters you root for. The ones you want to win, the ones you genuinely hope will stick it through and triumph in the end. For most antis, I suppose it's just that they started cheering for the villains rather than the main characters, which is something that should never happen in any work of fiction.

Maybe Bella is supposed to be realistic...but is she really? I don't find a teenager with no solid interests, no real personality, no goals and aspirations to be a realistic person. Maybe you can say that she enjoys reading, but she doesn't think or act like someone who reads a lot. I know this because I happen to be a massive bookworm. Readers think about what they read. They reflect on it and hope to learn from it. Bella only reflects on what she reads when Meyer needs to make another contrived comparison of her work to classics like Pride and Prejudice, Wuthering Heights and Romeo and Juliet.

If, however, Bella WAS a realistic character (this is a matter of opinion, btw, I acknowledge that), she still needs to have some kind of redeemability. She's the hero. The protagonist of the story. The person we want to win. When I, personally, read a story, I don't want to read about a normal girl going through the motion in normal ways. I want a person that is unique in some way, with special qualities like bravery, heart, and perseverance, qualities that are either in place from the start or qualities that the MC picks up along the way.

[Alex]

How dare feminists argue for the empowerment of women! How dare they put them in the box of trying to get out of the box. I LIKE IT IN MY BOX LET ME STAY IN MY BOX. LEAVE ME ALONE.

[[deleted user]]

Alex wrote: "How dare feminists argue for the empowerment of women! How dare they put them in the box of trying to get out of the box. I LIKE IT IN MY BOX LET ME STAY IN MY BOX. LEAVE ME ALONE."

^Seconded, Alex. I find the arguments over whether it's antifeminist or not rather silly. It doesn't matter if one person views or argues it differently, it matters that feminists found the books offensive.

[Diane]

I will say that the feminists here don't speak for feminists everywhere. Certainly not for me.

Feminists disagree on a lot of things. Unlike the first wave feminism that all were in agreement that they wanted the right to vote, feminism now is a lot more complicated and opinions clash. Feminists disagree on pornography, body hair, sex work, whether or not masculism is a thing, slutwalk, etc.

So going back to twilight, I'm just gonna go ahead and quote my friend Dion on this:
It’s important for us to always be suspicious of these traditional roles, but it’s not fair to brand anyone who chooses traditionalism as an enemy of feminism. It’s as if they’re saying, “Any woman who chooses to need any man is a victim of the system.” That’s kind of fucked up, you know? I’m sorry that you feel undervalued in the community because of the choices you’ve made as far as your private relationships and sexuality go.

But okay, I recognize that the Edward-Bella relationship may be found unhealthy. But what is the basis here? Edward is a vampire, an inherently problematic supernatural being in most of its incarnations (not only in Twilight).
I think it's unfair to say Bella is anti-feminist just because she chooses to be in a relationship that you find unhealthy (it's detable and people will probably never agree on that because we're talking about fantasy fiction). It's unfair to call her anti-feminist because she makes choices you don't agree with.

[[deleted user]]

Diane, it's not just her and Edward's relationship we find unhealthy that we call her antifeminist. It's that she has no solid interests, no solid personality, no goals or aspirations, no real compelling traits that would make the average reader at least like her a little bit. Her ENTIRE life revolves around Edward. Every single thought she has is about Edward. She can't get out of the stupid situations she puts her stupid self in. She has to have the big strong guys rescue her. No remotely intelligent girl would wander into a city she doesn't know, yet Bella does it. Why? Because Edward needs to save her, of course. And so on.

I know that unhealthy relationships are a matter of opinion...but I have to wonder how anyone could NOT find a girl who deliberately pulls suicide stunts, jumps off a cliff, falls into comas, ditches her friends, ignore her family, and actually suffer PHYSICAL symptoms simply from the absence of her boyfriend, unhealthy. Drug addiction much? It doesn't matter that he's a vampire, or whatever. Being a vampire does not make it okay. It WOULD be okay if it were written in a way that Bella and Edward were overcoming an abusive relationship, but it's not. It's portrayed as idealistic, as if being a vampire suddenly makes it okay.

It's still thoroughly insulting to anyone who has even a smidgen of self-respect. Maybe it's just that I'm a naive teenager and probably pretty stupid by everyone else here's adult standards, but when I read about all of Bella's stupid stunts I literally wanted to spit. It just makes me sick that she's so pathetically devoted to her man, that her life is practically nonexistent without her supposed soul mate.

[Cassie]

Jocelyn wrote: "but I have to wonder how anyone could NOT find a girl who deliberately pulls suicide stunts, jumps off a cliff, falls into comas, ditches her friends, ignore her family, and actually suffer PHYSICAL symptoms simply from the absence of her boyfriend, unhealthy..."

Those are just symptoms of depression. Obviously, depression is unhealthy. I don't think anyone's said Bella was healthy during her low moment in New Moon. It's even mentioned several times in the book how crazy and unhealthy she is.

I can't find it in my heart to fault anyone for becoming depressed over a guy. It happens all the time in real life. I just can;t do it. I can recognize it's unhealthy... because it's depression, but I can never say it's "wrong".
I have too much compassion for depressed people. Even "anti feminist" depression.

I can't say that depression is insulting to self respecting people either.

If you knew a real person who developed depression, would you really want to spit on them and would you call them pathetic?

[[deleted user]]

Maybe it's depression. Maybe Bella reacted, if slightly exaggerated, how a normal girl would act.

But Bella is the hero. She is the one supposed to overcome everything, conquer her inner conflicts, etc. She is the one who is supposed to triumph in the end.

Compare this to Harry Potter. When Ron left Hermione, she broke down too, but she pushed forward and continued looking for the secrets to defeat Voldemort. This shows that true bravery isn't being fearless or tough, it's about overcoming your fears and insecurities in the face of these problems.

Maybe Bella IS in depression. Now, I have never been dumped before, but I have had friends that have been dumped. They did not have trouble breathing, isolate themselves from me or any of their other friends, jump off cliffs and motorcycles, and hook themselves onto another guy to plug up the "hole" in their chests. And even if I didn't make these observations, I still have trouble buying it. I can understand being depressed, maybe even committing suicide. I know that there are girls out there who actually do what Bella did. But I am very, very sure that they did not fall into comas, latch themselves onto another guy to plug up the hole in their chests, wander around in forests where they could be eaten by bears, and show other very disturbing signs of STDs and rape and a bunch of other stuff we probably shouldn't get into. People get over it. They really do. It's psychology. Scientists have actually classified depression after being dumped into a few general stages: 1) they will be angry at their boyfriend/girlfriend. 2) They will be depressed for a couple of weeks, maybe even months. 3) They gradually get over it and move on with life. I probably got a couple of facts wrong there, but that's about right.

If a real person I knew developed depression, no, I would not want to spit on them and call them pathetic. Most of my annoyance at Bella comes from her as a character. Other people may have found her likable and relatable. I did not. I hated her. I found her to be whiny and angsty beyond measure, unintelligent, reckless, arrogant, and weak. That is why I call her pathetic. She's a character in a book. My relationship with her is not cool. If a real person i knew developed depression, I would encourage and comfort them until they got over it. Since I knew that person personally, or she/he is my friend, or whatever, I would care about her. Bella? No. I don't care about her at all. I couldn't wait for her to die, and when she didn't die in Breaking Dawn I was sorely disappointed.

I think the main problem I have with the dumping incident is not that she's depressed, but that she makes no attempt to try to get the hell over it. At first I'll admit I felt a little sympathy for Bella. Then I felt annoyed. Then I felt angry. Then I wanted to reach in and make her die a most painful death over the course of many weeks. When a protagonist is angsty, the author still needs to make the reader understand and sympathize with her. Or at least reward the reader for suffering through the melodramatic crap for, what, 150 pages? That reward, namely, is Bella getting over it. Maybe she could step back and think, dude, what was I doing? If she really loved Edward, she would be thinking about what Edward would have wanted her to do, that Edward would want her to be happy. She only wants to hear Edward's voice. That's it. No concern for how Edward would feel as a person at her stupid stunts, no single thought about being loyal and strong and keeping her promise to Edward not to be an idiot.

It's really personal preference, though, in the case of Bella's un-likable-ness. You probably found her relatable, mature, and likable. I didn't. Maybe that's why I wanted nothing more than to punch her in the face, and you felt a deeper connection to her than I did. My opinion of Bella did significantly influence my opinion of her being pathetic. If I liked her from the beginning, I probably would have found it more understandable. *shrug*

[Cassie]

Everyone copes differently. Your friends didn't become depressed and that's great. I still can't insult people who do.

Bella never went into a coma. And I don't see how she developed STD symptoms either... That seems completely random.

There is no official diagnostic list of the stages of depression. I don't know where you got that from, but no such list exists. That may be someone's professional opinion, but it's not official.

Some people I know who have become depressed have latched themselves onto other people to fill their voids, and one has wandered around the city at night to try and sort out her thoughts in peace. It happens.

I'm also okay with main characters developing depression. It makes them more real to me. to be brave and strong all the time is too unrealistic to me. i don't think most people are that perfect.

[Diane]

@Jocelyn: I don't agree with you about "no solid interests, no solid personality".
She likes reading and cooking. It's not the center of her life but it's certainly something she does. I don't think there needs to be pages of proof. I certainly love reading but I don't read all the time (anymore) or try to relate something in my life to stuff in books on a regular basis. You think that Bella "doesn't think or act like someone who reads a lot", but that's your perception. I don't think there is a specific way a person who reads a lot behaves. And a person need not have specific goals and aspirations to be called a person. Some people can go years and years without knowing what they really want to do with their lives.
To me, Bella seems like a lot of people I know (and me in highschool though I was a lot less read and watched tv shows to occupy my time).

And you said it yourself, Bella suffered PHYSICAL symptoms, clearly not in her control. In agreement with what Cassie said, a lot of her symptoms were symptoms of depression and maybe even something entirely worse (hence the auditory hallucinations).
Not only did Edward leave her. His whole family did.
Edward left her with no trace of him (took all pictures, all remembrances). He left her with no one to confide in.
If she did have the resources to seek therapy there was a hell of a lot of stuff she had to keep secret. So within the confines of the story, there was little she could do. I think writing to Alice was therapeutic but it was obviously not enough.
And no, people don't just "get over it". It takes time, it takes support, it takes therapy, etc. It may take a lot of things for a person to recover from depression or other types of disorder. And even with those, recovery isn't a sure bet.

[[deleted user]]

@ Cassie

The list was general. It's scientists sorting it out as best they can. Of course there will be exceptions. It doesn't apply to everyone. I never said it was official either.

Bella did go into a coma. After Edward abandoned her, she stumbled around the forest and, well, fell into a coma until the others found her. Then those four months on the pages, symbolizing that Bella's life has basically gone...empty. Completely empty. She's turned into a zombie, basically.

It's true that everyone copes differently...but by jumping off motorcycles and cliffs? Is that the kind of heroine we want to cheer for? A heroine that has not proved, at all, that she deserves any respect whatsoever from the reader because of her utter weakness and inability to stay sane when a guy she barely knows dumps her? I'm glad you were able to identify with her more than I did. For me, it was a case of cheering for the villains rather than the MCs, which should never, ever, eveeeeer happen in fiction. Even some of the most passionate Harry Potter haters I know didn't hope for Voldemort to kill Harry in the end. This is an opinion, I'll acknowledge that. It's just my personal experience with Bella.

Maybe I was too vague on the latching-on-to-other-people. I felt that Bella was manipulating Jacob. Jake obviously had a crush on her, and New Moon read a lot like, "Yes, he loves me, I'll take advantage of that to commit suicide! It doesn't matter if it will emotionally hurt him, I'm the only one that matters in the whole wide world!" ...uh. Ahem. Sorry. I guess that just rubbed me the wrong way. Then, Meyer tries to patch up this mistake by Bella saying something like, "I could stake a claim on him." Because it will make him happy. So of course that makes it morally awesome, right? A real, humane, even slightly compassionate person would be honest with Jake and spare him the idea that she could love someone else more than him. Bella is literally calculating the advantages of hooking up with Jacob.

Maybe people do cope with different ways. In fiction, it's a little different. In my opinion, it's the author's job to make sure that the protagonist is worthy of the reader's respect throughout the entire book/series. If you hate the protagonist, you're pretty much screwed. Perhaps some people liked her, which I'm fine with, but personally I don't find someone who rambles on and on and ooooon about the hole in her chest very likable, whether understandable or not. Maybe the reader can sympathize, but the reader must also respect the main character. And this happens by the protagonist proving, even just at least once, that he/she can stick it through the hard times and triumph in the end.

I'll use my Hermione example again. Like I said, a similar situation happens to her. I don't think it's the way she copes that I like better than Bella, it's the simple fact that she was able to get over it and push through and win. I honestly don't care how the character copes, I care that the character triumphs in the end. Hermione was able to do this. And not only was she able to persevere, she managed to help save the wizarding world at the same time while coping with her emotional problems. Whether you dislike Hermione or not, I'm not sure how you feel about her as a character, that's definitely a very selfless act many readers will find easy to cheer for. Bella didn't. She committed a bunch of suicide stunts, then got over it only by reuniting with Edward again.

Like many people say in this thread and others, the main problem antis have with this is that Bella's life doesn't seem complete without a man. Meyer actually goes out of her way to bluntly say this to the reader. I don't have the book with me right now so I can't provide any quotes, but I do remember a line something like, "Life...over." It's okay if Bella doesn't feel complete without a man but later discovers that she can, actually, stay sane without Edward, but it never happened.

Sorry if I got wordy, I can be rather repetitive sometimes and lose track.

[Diane]

I don't think the Hermoine example is the same though.
The only thing similar is they're both women and that there was a breakup.
Two different people and two different situations. Context really matters. As I've mentioned, within the twilight story, there wasn't really much Bella could've done because SMeyer had written her into a situation that was very difficult to seek avenues for recovery.

Did Bella not triumph in the end? Did she not push through depression (or a complicated unnamed grief disorder) to save the man that dumped her. Remember that she didn't know his reasons for leaving and she really believed he didn't love her (she was even prepared to let go of him again after she saved him).

[Cassie]

No, Bella still was not in a coma. She became exhausted and fell asleep in the woods. That's not a coma. A coma is being unconsious for 6 or more hours, and not able to wake up. Bella woke up just fine when Sam was carrying her.
And a catatonic state (catatonic depression) is not a coma either.

Yes, I do want to cheer for protagonists who fall. If you don't want to, if you hate weakness, so be it. Just avoid books where characters have weak moments and you'll be fine.

I am aware of the manipulation. I can still understand it, though. If it's the only way to find comfort, I wouldn't expect her to just stop. Especially since he was enabling her, then suddenly cut her off. From experience, emotional cutoffs are incredibly painful, emotionally and physically. I don't expect her to be 100% logical.

I'm not into regal respect and perfect charaters. IF i did, I'd read more books about kids saving the world and less books about young love. I don't think very many young love books have the type of characters you crave.

I'm gathering that this just simply isn't your genre.

[[deleted user]]

@ Diane

You make a lot of good points, actually. I'd never thought of that.

It's not really the physical symptoms itself that bothers antis though, it's the way Meyer chooses to portray how someone deals with dumping. A lot of authors use exaggeration to put emphasis on something, and here Meyer certainly did. To emphasize...that...you can't live your life without a man.

I also have to disagree again on the reader's thing. Maybe she shouldn't go on for pages and pages, but there is a thing called narration. Your MC's personality has to at least a little resemble how he/she narrates the story, especially if it's in first person. It has to be plausible. I think that this is part opinion, part fact. LIke you said, it may be my perception of her, but logically, wouldn't a reader at least, maybe, 20% of the time think about the books he/she reads? I think this was one of the primary weaknesses I found in Meyer's writing, her inability and lack of skill to effectively manipulate POV and narration. I'm glad you enjoyed Bella as a character more than I did, though.

Perhaps Bella does have some interests, like the ones you pointed out. But how about reactions and interactions with other people? Bella worries that she won't fit in, and when she's instantly popular she proceeds to whine about how torturous it is to have so many friends. Again, maybe it's part opinion and perception, but again, logically, shy people do not act like that. I used to be a shy person. I used to be too shy to go on the Internet. Every time someone was nice to me, I was happy. Bella? The first person that greets her, Eric, she instantly classifies as the "overly helpful, chess club type." Then later, when Mike does the exact same thing, Bella classifies him as nice, because he's better looking. Shy people do not stereotype others. They are not so shallow as to judge people based on their looks. They appreciate it when people are nice whether they are dazzlingly perfect or not. It is part opinion, but just think about it for a minute. Would shy people think such snarky thoughts as Bella does when someone's nice?

You did bring up quite a few good points, though, I'd never thought of some of what you said.

[[deleted user]]

Cassie wrote: "No, Bella still was not in a coma. She became exhausted and fell asleep in the woods. That's not a coma. A coma is being unconsious for 6 or more hours, and not able to wake up. Bella woke up just ..."

It's not the weakness itself I dislike, it's that Bella makes no attempt to overcome that weakness. Hermione had a moment of weakness as well, but she was able to overcome it. like I said, it's about being strong in the face of danger and facing your fears, not being 100 percent tough.

You're right, it isn't really my genre. But I don't think that completely excuses Bella's zombie state. That's not love, that's lust.

[Cassie]

She took efforts to overcome it after 3 months. She started talking to her friends again, she went out, she distracted herself with mechanics. She didn't go fight battles like Hermione did, but I figured that was becuase she wasn't a wizard and there were no battles to fight in Forks. Not that she was capable of participating in, considering that she was a human and fighting vampires would be a lot stupider than cliffdiving.

[[deleted user]]

@ Diane

When I said Bella needed to win in the end, I meant she had to resolve her inner conflict. Not by reuniting with her man, but by realizing and learning by herself that she can move on with life. It doesn't count when she rescues Edward because she didn't solver her problems before that.

[Cassie]

The "It's not love, it's lust" comments get to me. I don't see why people feel it's right to define love. It's a very subjective concept, and just because it's not generic enough to be considered acceptable love by everyone's standard, I wouldn't say that makes it lust. It's not like Bella was in it for the sex, and nothing else.
It's not the type of love you want in your life. That doesn't mean it's not love.

[Diane]

@Jocelyn:
you can't live your life without a man.
I can see how it would be seen that way. Though that's not the impression I got. To me it was more like "it was exceedingly difficult to move on after you lose the love of your life".

"wouldn't a reader at least, maybe, 20% of the time think about the books he/she reads?"
I certainly don't (not this year anyway, maybe yesteryear). I don't think it applies to everyone. I dunno, I suppose I never saw how more of Bella's thoughts and reflections about books could add to the story. Just my opinion though.

"Shy people do not stereotype others."
Generalization. Shy people can be shallow. I know some people. And me as well, though in my defense I'm considerably less shallow now haha.
I can tell you dislike how Bella thought of her classmates, I thought it was an unlikeable trait as well.

"When I said Bella needed to win in the end, I meant she had to resolve her inner conflict."
Hmmm, I agree somewhat.
I wasn't really happy with the resolution to her depression. It was too abrupt, with Edward the panacea to her disorder. But I agree with Cassie that Bella did try. That was mostly all she could do, I doubt her efforts were enough for a recovery even though it did help.