Twilight
discussion
Are people who dislike Twilight "obsessed" with Twilight?
Cassie wrote: "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 f..."
I didn't mean she had to fight battles. Most of the conflict in Twilight IS internal, I'll acknowledge that. It's true that a human fighting vampires would be pretty stupid. Distracting herself with mechanics though...I didn't think that was overcoming it. She was making Jacob repair all that stuff so she could commit suicide. That's not overcoming weakness, that's giving into it.
She could have gotten therapy. I remember Diane saying that she had to keep some stuff secret...but she can still keep stuff secret. She could just say that her boyfriend dumped her. It's a common problem for a lot of teenagers. And even if it DID reveal secrets, couldn't she at least have one or two passing thoughts about getting therapy? Maybe something like, "Maybe I could get therapy. I desperately needed it. But then I'd have to tell secrets I'd promised not to give away." Something like that.
I didn't mean she had to fight battles. Most of the conflict in Twilight IS internal, I'll acknowledge that. It's true that a human fighting vampires would be pretty stupid. Distracting herself with mechanics though...I didn't think that was overcoming it. She was making Jacob repair all that stuff so she could commit suicide. That's not overcoming weakness, that's giving into it.
She could have gotten therapy. I remember Diane saying that she had to keep some stuff secret...but she can still keep stuff secret. She could just say that her boyfriend dumped her. It's a common problem for a lot of teenagers. And even if it DID reveal secrets, couldn't she at least have one or two passing thoughts about getting therapy? Maybe something like, "Maybe I could get therapy. I desperately needed it. But then I'd have to tell secrets I'd promised not to give away." Something like that.
What do you mean commit suicide? Ridi.g a motorcycle is not suicide. Adrenaline is not suicide either. Honestly, I would either suggest rereading the book, or brushing up on a few terms.
Jocelyn wrote: "She could just say that her boyfriend dumped her. It's a common problem for a lot of teenagers. And even if it DID reveal secrets, couldn't she at least have one or two passing thoughts about getting therapy? Maybe something like, "Maybe I could get therapy. I desperately needed it. But then I'd have to tell secrets I'd promised not to give away." Something like that."In Meyer's defence:
I hate teen characters that show too much awareness of themselves - Lauren Oliver did that in her novel, having her character be all self-reflective and aware of her shortcomings, and it just doesn't sound realistic in a teen character to show this kind wisdom that you usually gain years after the fact - and especially Bella wouldn't have fit that.
Jocelyn wrote: It's true that a human fighting vampires would be pretty stupidI would advise you do not read any Laurell K Hamilton books then as the lead (a sort of necromancer I guess) often fights vampires and there is another recurring fighter who goes up against the supernatural who is purely human.
Cassie wrote:What do you mean commit suicide?
Jumping off a cliff is considered by a few people I have seen on various forums as a bit of a suicide attempt.
Carina wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: It's true that a human fighting vampires would be pretty stupidI would advise you do not read any Laurell K Hamilton books then as the lead (a sort of necromancer I guess) often fi..."
I would assume that Hamilton vampires are a little less indestructible than Stephenie Meyer's vampires. It is impossible for a human to defeat a Twilight vampire, which is why it would be stupid.
She said that she was building motorcycles with Jacob so she could commit suicide.
I'm pretty sure you were just being sarcastic, but cliffdiving is not commonly seen as a suicide attempt. The only reason it went wrong was because the weather was bad.
Maybe if she was jumping from 3,000 feet in the air, or from a cliff, onto the ground, it's be an obvious suicide attempt. She was just cliff diving. Plus, she said herself it wasn't suicide.
People want to say it's suicide on forums, but I don't see how that's relevant.
Cassie wrote: I would assume that Hamilton vampires are a little less indestructible than Stephenie Meyer's vampires. It is impossible for a human to defeat a Twilight vampire, which is why it would be stupid.She said that she was building motorcycles with Jacob so she could commit suicide.
I'm pretty sure you were just being sarcastic, but cliffdiving is not commonly seen as a suicide attempt. The only reason it went wrong was because the weather was bad.
Maybe if she was jumping from 3,000 feet in the air, or from a cliff, onto the ground, it's be an obvious suicide attempt. She was just cliff diving. Plus, she said herself it wasn't suicide.
People want to say it's suicide on forums, but I don't see how that's relevant.
Well, Hamiltons vampires are actually Vampires - aka they feed off humans. Considering they employ vampiric speed and senses, have minions and some can summon various animals (including Weres) I would say they would probably be harder to kill than the sparkle vampires of Twilight. But then I make no secret that I prefer Vampires to be vicious killers as that is the 'traditional' view.
I also was not being sarcastic though it can be difficult to tell in online forums like this. You didn't quote anyone in your post so I couldnt really go back and read the original posters comments, however you asked "what do you mean commit suicide" so I responded with one of the most common reasons given for Bella being possibly suicidal - not once did I say that I felt that way (I think it an incredibly stupid and crazy thing to do but that is my personal opinion). People have also raised that point on this thread (and others on the Goodreads site - which is a forum of discussion) so it is very relevant to the discussions which are currently ongoing.
Carina wrote: "Well, Hamiltons vampires are actually Vampires - aka they feed off humans. Considering they employ vampiric speed and senses, have minions and some can summon various animals (including Weres) I would say they would probably be harder to kill than the sparkle vampires of Twilight. But then I make no secret that I prefer Vampires to be vicious killers as that is the 'traditional' view."Well then i'm guessing you don't know how to kill them. The Twilight vampires can ONLY be killed by being town apart and burned, and the ONLY creatures strong enough to kill them are other vampires, shape shifters, and possibly werewolves.
Not humnas.
If Hamilton vampires can be killed by humans, then I'm going to go ahead and assume that they have more weaknesses.
i'm not saying this is a testament of quality or anything, i'm just saying it's different.
all I meant by the relevancy comment that just because it's been said, that doesn't mean it's true. I'd say the text from the book is a more reliable source than angry people in forums.
Cassie wrote: "Well then i'm guessing you don't know how to kill them."I do, as I have read these books but many thanks for the use of capitals to make it so much clearer - as I already said though I prefer the more tradtional Vampires (that yes can still be killed with a stake to the heart) than sparkle vampires. My point remains though that they are more vicious (than the Cullens and the other so called vegetarians) and so would be harder to kill in terms of actually getting the drop on them etc. You are right though that Hamiltons books are different - they are more bloody, gruesome and the vampires never sparkle.
Of course if someone says something doesn't automatically make it true (as is obvious from the debates on this thread) - however the point remains that you asked "what do you mean commit suicide" and "People want to say it's suicide on forums, but I don't see how that's relevant." - it has been said before on this forum as some peoples opinion and interpretation of Bella's action - ergo it is relevant in the context of these posts. You are correct in that the text from the book is a reliable source - but of fact only and not peoples opinion. If people want to interpret Bella throwing herself of a cliff without taking any of the proper precautions (and by this I am presuming that people that do this actually inform others incase anything dire does happen etc) as a suicide attempt that is entirely up to them - it is the same as others, myself included, seeing a number of Edwards actions as abusive and controlling whilst others see them as signs of true love and are, therefore, romantic.
@ Ida
Yeah, I agree with you. I would have been fine if Bella was a douchebag in the beginning but eventually developed even ONE likable trait. But she remained a self-absorbed, whiny idiot the whole way through. Most of my criticism for Bella comes from the fact that Twilight is narrated from first person perspective. Like I said, Meyer has no earthly clue how to effectively manipulate POV or narration. She complete missed the entire point of using first person perspective and failed spectacularly at the job. Bella went through very little character development, aside from the fact that she realized that she was in love with Jacob. Seriously, what, exactly, is Bella's character flaw? And if any person can find one here, how does that flaw EVER effect her negatively?
@Cassie
Maybe technically it's not suicide, at least from the way you put it, but Bella KNOWS that she's putting herself in danger. I really don't get what you're trying to say. It IS suicide. In some cases, adrenaline isn't suicide. In THIS case however, it definitely is. Can you explain, exactly, how purposely putting yourself in danger, hoping you will die, is NOT suicide?
And even if it wasn't, how about all the other stupid stuff Bella does? Like, jump off a cliff. If that's not suicide, I don't know what is. She literally has this "haha I'm awesome how fun it is to die" moment when she's drowning.
@ anyone in general discussing the depression
I agree with Ida. People have problems with the New Moon thing because of the way Meyer portrays it. What kind of light a certain perspective in DOES matter. You could say that it's about Bella and Edward overcoming an abusive relationship, but is it written that way? Is there even a single sentence in the entire series that would clue you in about the narrative actually suggesting that their relationship might be abusive? If it WERE written that way I would love this series, because it fits the mold so perfectly. Instead, though, Meyer chooses to romanticize it, like Ida said, instead of using it to show that Bella and Edward's relationship is imperfect.
Yeah, I agree with you. I would have been fine if Bella was a douchebag in the beginning but eventually developed even ONE likable trait. But she remained a self-absorbed, whiny idiot the whole way through. Most of my criticism for Bella comes from the fact that Twilight is narrated from first person perspective. Like I said, Meyer has no earthly clue how to effectively manipulate POV or narration. She complete missed the entire point of using first person perspective and failed spectacularly at the job. Bella went through very little character development, aside from the fact that she realized that she was in love with Jacob. Seriously, what, exactly, is Bella's character flaw? And if any person can find one here, how does that flaw EVER effect her negatively?
@Cassie
Maybe technically it's not suicide, at least from the way you put it, but Bella KNOWS that she's putting herself in danger. I really don't get what you're trying to say. It IS suicide. In some cases, adrenaline isn't suicide. In THIS case however, it definitely is. Can you explain, exactly, how purposely putting yourself in danger, hoping you will die, is NOT suicide?
And even if it wasn't, how about all the other stupid stuff Bella does? Like, jump off a cliff. If that's not suicide, I don't know what is. She literally has this "haha I'm awesome how fun it is to die" moment when she's drowning.
@ anyone in general discussing the depression
I agree with Ida. People have problems with the New Moon thing because of the way Meyer portrays it. What kind of light a certain perspective in DOES matter. You could say that it's about Bella and Edward overcoming an abusive relationship, but is it written that way? Is there even a single sentence in the entire series that would clue you in about the narrative actually suggesting that their relationship might be abusive? If it WERE written that way I would love this series, because it fits the mold so perfectly. Instead, though, Meyer chooses to romanticize it, like Ida said, instead of using it to show that Bella and Edward's relationship is imperfect.
Ida wrote: "@MickeyYes, how silly of me not to realize that feminism being all about equal opportunity for everyone, and not having to feel as if we have to conform to socially accepted norms about behaviour based on gender, and recognising that these damaging ideas are deeply rooted in out culture is totally oppressive to the wiminz. (/sarcasm)"
Yes, it's so freeing to be told what to do, how to react, what kind of relationships to want, how to view the world around me, and what to value in life. I like how feminists now also tell me what to read (and how to interpret that reading), too, because apparently I can't be trusted to manage that myself. (/sarcasm)
The truth is, if women want to be feminists, they're perfectly free to do that. However, I don't think every woman should be considered as 'feminist property'. Bella isn't a feminist, therefore, she is under no constraints to conform to feminist standards. The same as non-Jews are not expected to follow those strictures pertaining to people who choose to follow that religion. To say otherwise is to deny women freedom to choose how to live (which I think feminists would be only too happy to do, if they could figure out how to accomplish that).
Gerd wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "She could just say that her boyfriend dumped her. It's a common problem for a lot of teenagers. And even if it DID reveal secrets, couldn't she at least have one or two passing thou..."
No, I didn't mean that Bella had to be TOTALLY aware of herself. It's possible to write that in such a way that she sounded unsure of herself. Maybe something like, "I could get therapy. But perhaps I was beyond that kind of help. I didn't know what to do." Lack of self-realization can be a flaw, but only if it is portrayed that way and affects her negatively. Just like you, I hate characters that are fully aware of themselves. But I also hate characters who are inconsistent with their personality traits.
No, I didn't mean that Bella had to be TOTALLY aware of herself. It's possible to write that in such a way that she sounded unsure of herself. Maybe something like, "I could get therapy. But perhaps I was beyond that kind of help. I didn't know what to do." Lack of self-realization can be a flaw, but only if it is portrayed that way and affects her negatively. Just like you, I hate characters that are fully aware of themselves. But I also hate characters who are inconsistent with their personality traits.
@ Mickey
Mickey wrote: Yes, it's so freeing to be told what to do, how to react, what kind of relationships to want, how to view the world around me, and what to value in life. I like how feminists now also tell me what to read (and how to interpret that reading), too, because apparently I can't be trusted to manage that myself. (/sarcasm)
I hate to be rude, but...when on earth did Ida say that it's free to be told what to do and what kind of relationship we should have? Is that an assumption you're making out of context? Ida's talking about the worth and respect of the individual woman and girl. She's not trying to say, "THIS is the kind of relationship you should have, and if you do NOT do this you're a pathetic whiny twat."
I understand being able to choose. But if feminism really is all about choice...what if the girl CHOOSES to be in an abusive relationship? In that way, then ironically aren't you basically saying that antifeminism can be a form of feminism? That it counts as feminism even if you do something weak and pathetic simply because you chose to do it?Feminism is different for anyone, but for me it's learning to believe in yourself, respecting yourself, and striving to stay true to your identity. Saying that Bella CHOSE to be the bumbling twat she appears to be is not an excuse for being weak. I don't think it's the actual ability to choose that matters. We can all choose. Technically, no one can actually force you to do anything. It's about the kind of choice you choose to make.
Mickey wrote: Yes, it's so freeing to be told what to do, how to react, what kind of relationships to want, how to view the world around me, and what to value in life. I like how feminists now also tell me what to read (and how to interpret that reading), too, because apparently I can't be trusted to manage that myself. (/sarcasm)
I hate to be rude, but...when on earth did Ida say that it's free to be told what to do and what kind of relationship we should have? Is that an assumption you're making out of context? Ida's talking about the worth and respect of the individual woman and girl. She's not trying to say, "THIS is the kind of relationship you should have, and if you do NOT do this you're a pathetic whiny twat."
I understand being able to choose. But if feminism really is all about choice...what if the girl CHOOSES to be in an abusive relationship? In that way, then ironically aren't you basically saying that antifeminism can be a form of feminism? That it counts as feminism even if you do something weak and pathetic simply because you chose to do it?Feminism is different for anyone, but for me it's learning to believe in yourself, respecting yourself, and striving to stay true to your identity. Saying that Bella CHOSE to be the bumbling twat she appears to be is not an excuse for being weak. I don't think it's the actual ability to choose that matters. We can all choose. Technically, no one can actually force you to do anything. It's about the kind of choice you choose to make.
@idaYou say all that about depression, and all I can find myself wanting to say is that's how I believe it should be. For some reason, you're making it look like a bad thing.
@Jocelyn.
It's not suicide. To be really technical, it's not suicide if you live.
Plus, she did not do it with the intention to die. I have no idea what you're talking about. You're going to have to provide some quotes for that. She didn't crash her bike on purpose, she didn't stop Jacob from trying to help her and try to bleed to death, she didn't even cut her head on purpose, considering that she apologized for bleeding.
I don't find nearly drowning, fighting to survive, then accepting death when you believe you're about to die in a few second is suicide either. Bella didn't jump with the intention to die, she knew how to dive and swim, she took lessesn in the past. She had proper form so it wasn't only that wreckless. The only stupid thing about it was not telling anyone and not paying attention to the weather.
It's not suicide, but it is an attempt at suicide. Which in my opinion is just as bad.
I can't provide any quotes because I do not have the copy with me right now. (And no, I'm not saying that just to be lazy.) Maybe I misworded that, though. What I meant was that Bella didn't care if she died or not. So yes, technically, it's not suicide, or even an attempt at suicide like I previously said, but it portrays a really insulting lack of self respect I find disgusting. Without Edward, she feels that her life doesn't matter anymore. I would be okay if Bella later learned that her life DOES matter without him, but the subtext of the narrative keeps insisting that it's so noble and romantic of her to do the things use does.
Bella didn't jump with the intention to die, but she still jumped. Jumped, knowing that she COULD die, and she probably WAS going to die. Unless being dumped by Edward had mysteriously killed off all her brain cells, it's pretty obvious that jumping off a cliff, during a storm, right into a riptide, is going to get you killed. As for accepting death...I don't get that. It's Bella's choice to do whatever she does. No one forced her to jump off a cliff. It's her own fault she nearly died. And no matter how great of a swimmer you are, even if you're Michael Phelps, there is no way you can survive a rip current during a storm after jumping off a cliff. Or at least escape unscathed. This is very simple logic that Bella should be able to grasp with no problem, whether she was dumped or not.
I can't provide any quotes because I do not have the copy with me right now. (And no, I'm not saying that just to be lazy.) Maybe I misworded that, though. What I meant was that Bella didn't care if she died or not. So yes, technically, it's not suicide, or even an attempt at suicide like I previously said, but it portrays a really insulting lack of self respect I find disgusting. Without Edward, she feels that her life doesn't matter anymore. I would be okay if Bella later learned that her life DOES matter without him, but the subtext of the narrative keeps insisting that it's so noble and romantic of her to do the things use does.
Bella didn't jump with the intention to die, but she still jumped. Jumped, knowing that she COULD die, and she probably WAS going to die. Unless being dumped by Edward had mysteriously killed off all her brain cells, it's pretty obvious that jumping off a cliff, during a storm, right into a riptide, is going to get you killed. As for accepting death...I don't get that. It's Bella's choice to do whatever she does. No one forced her to jump off a cliff. It's her own fault she nearly died. And no matter how great of a swimmer you are, even if you're Michael Phelps, there is no way you can survive a rip current during a storm after jumping off a cliff. Or at least escape unscathed. This is very simple logic that Bella should be able to grasp with no problem, whether she was dumped or not.
Jocelyn wrote: "understand being able to choose. But if feminism really is all about choice...what if the girl CHOOSES to be in an abusive relationship?"Of course, women shouldn't be allowed to make their own choices. Suppose they make the wrong ones? Suppose they use that freedom to do something that feminists don't approve of? Like get attached to another person or cook for someone or not be upset when men watch them sleep. Those things should obviously not be allowed because they make women awful people who deserve public derision.
I really think that young women should be taught early to judge other women if they get depressed or if they ever are in any weakened state. Such weak and pathetic women deserve no sympathy or empathy, of course. Because real women have no faults or shortcomings. We are all heroes. That's what gives us value- how closely we resemble the feminist ideal. < /sarcasm>
Mickey.
I.
Never.
Said.
A.
Single.
Thing.
You.
Just.
Listed.
I never said women shouldn't be allowed to make their own choices. Show me an excerpt from my comment when I specifically said that. I just said that what matters more is the kind of choice you choose to make. What you wrote was a massive assumption. Too big in fact to be plausible.
If feminism is as black-and-white as you paint it to be, then feminism wouldn't even freaking exist. If feminism was so impossibly ambiguous, it defeats the entire point. Feminism IS ambiguous, but not as ambiguous and you keep insisting it is. If someone says something is antifeminist, just say why you disagree. Don't point a finger and say that their opinion is void because feminism is a matter of opinion.
And I explained my analysis quite explicitly. I asked, if you choose to be in an abusive relationship, ironically, isn't that kind of antifeminism a form of feminism? Did I ever say that people who imitate Bella deserve no sympathy or empathy? This is MY perception of feminism. I never said it was ironclad fact. Your position is to argue it or counter it, not mock me for something I never even said, which I think in turn is worthy of mocking. Seriously, how the heck are you making these conclusions? Really, how? Because I would honestly like to know. I never said that how closely you resemble the feminist ideal is a measure of your worth. In fact, I said that everyone has worth. They just need to believe in it. I dislike Bella because she doesn't believe in her worth, not one single bit. She does not pick up on this belief throughout the entire series until she turns into a vampire, and becomes the biggest, Mary Sue-ish, Deus Ex Machina-est plot device ever created.
Again. I NEVER said that how closely someone resembles the feminist ideal is a measure of their worth. I said that everyone has worth. They just need to learn to believe in it.
I mean no offense Mickey, but your post reads like I had posted something that resembled, "IF YOU RESEMBLE BELLA IN ANY WAY YOU ARE AN IGNORANT TWAT THAT MUST DIE A PAINFUL DEATH!!!!"
This is fiction. I don't think women should be taught early to judge other women if they get depressed. When did I say that? I've repeated a million times that it's not Bella's weakness I dislike, it's the fact that she makes no attempt to overcome that weakness. She did not learn anything from her mistakes. She did not develop in almost any way. I am judging Bella as a character, not a real woman. Partly because in my view she's more like an emo plank of wood than a real woman, partly because it's fiction.
I suggest you reread my post, properly interpret exactly what I said, then come back, because you, my friend, missed the entire point of my post.
I.
Never.
Said.
A.
Single.
Thing.
You.
Just.
Listed.
I never said women shouldn't be allowed to make their own choices. Show me an excerpt from my comment when I specifically said that. I just said that what matters more is the kind of choice you choose to make. What you wrote was a massive assumption. Too big in fact to be plausible.
If feminism is as black-and-white as you paint it to be, then feminism wouldn't even freaking exist. If feminism was so impossibly ambiguous, it defeats the entire point. Feminism IS ambiguous, but not as ambiguous and you keep insisting it is. If someone says something is antifeminist, just say why you disagree. Don't point a finger and say that their opinion is void because feminism is a matter of opinion.
And I explained my analysis quite explicitly. I asked, if you choose to be in an abusive relationship, ironically, isn't that kind of antifeminism a form of feminism? Did I ever say that people who imitate Bella deserve no sympathy or empathy? This is MY perception of feminism. I never said it was ironclad fact. Your position is to argue it or counter it, not mock me for something I never even said, which I think in turn is worthy of mocking. Seriously, how the heck are you making these conclusions? Really, how? Because I would honestly like to know. I never said that how closely you resemble the feminist ideal is a measure of your worth. In fact, I said that everyone has worth. They just need to believe in it. I dislike Bella because she doesn't believe in her worth, not one single bit. She does not pick up on this belief throughout the entire series until she turns into a vampire, and becomes the biggest, Mary Sue-ish, Deus Ex Machina-est plot device ever created.
Again. I NEVER said that how closely someone resembles the feminist ideal is a measure of their worth. I said that everyone has worth. They just need to learn to believe in it.
I mean no offense Mickey, but your post reads like I had posted something that resembled, "IF YOU RESEMBLE BELLA IN ANY WAY YOU ARE AN IGNORANT TWAT THAT MUST DIE A PAINFUL DEATH!!!!"
This is fiction. I don't think women should be taught early to judge other women if they get depressed. When did I say that? I've repeated a million times that it's not Bella's weakness I dislike, it's the fact that she makes no attempt to overcome that weakness. She did not learn anything from her mistakes. She did not develop in almost any way. I am judging Bella as a character, not a real woman. Partly because in my view she's more like an emo plank of wood than a real woman, partly because it's fiction.
I suggest you reread my post, properly interpret exactly what I said, then come back, because you, my friend, missed the entire point of my post.
If people remember the books, cliff diving was a recreational activity on the reservation. Jacob offered to take Bella himself. It certainly wasn't considered suicide to jump off the cliff. After Jacob rescued her, he asked, "Why didn't you wait for me?" not "Why are you jumping off of a cliff?"As far as the strong current, she admits that she didn't think beyond the jump. She didn't notice that the water was not calm.
After she had been to Italy and was in a groggy state from sleeping so long, Bella was disorientated when she woke up at first and thought she had actually died (because Edward was with her). She was upset at the idea that she was dead and was worried about Charlie's reaction first. That's hardly the reaction of someone who intended to die.
This all points to recklessness (and I've known plenty of teenagers who do similar things), not a suicide attempt.
Jocelyn wrote: "Jumped, knowing that she COULD die, and she probably WAS going to die. Unless being dumped by Edward had mysteriously killed off all her brain cells, it's pretty obvious that jumping off a cliff, during a storm, right into a riptide, is going to get you killed..."Not really. She was too busy being crazy to even notice the riptide. She didn't jump, KNOWING she was gonig to get caught in the current.
"I'd been so preoccupied by the size of the cliffs. by the obvious danger of their high, sheer faces, that I hadn't worried at all about the dark water waiting. I never dreamed that the true menace was lurking far below me, under the heaving surf."
It was a stupid decision, but it is in no way portrayed as a smart one. Context clues.
As for accepting death...I don't get that.
All I mean is that she didn't give up fighting until she was already close to dying.
It's Bella's choice to do whatever she does. No one forced her to jump off a cliff. It's her own fault she nearly died.
Really, you can apply this logic to any death.
If a race car driver dies in a race, you could say "Well nobody forced him to become a race car driver. It's his own fault for dying. No matter how good of a driver you are, it's obvious that race car driving is dangerous"
Or a firefighter dies in a fire. "Nobody forced him to become a firefighter, it's his own fault for dying. He should have known fires are dangerous."
Or someone dies while bungee jumping. "It's his own fault for dying, nobody forced him to bungee jump. It's dangerous!"
It's insensitive, either way.
I know how dangerous cliff diving in a storm is. I have an uncle who died cliff diving in a storm. Maybe he deserved to die too, like Bella would have, if she died. Who knows...
He wasn't suicidal. He was just having fun, but made a stupid decision. I don't know what his last thought were, but if they involved accepting that he was going to die, I will still say he wasn't suicidal.
Cassie wrote: "I don't know what his last thought were, but if they involved accepting that he was going to die, I will still say he wasn't suicidal. "I agree.
I just read a book about September 11th, in which one of the people stuck in one of the Towers "made peace" with his death as the building was collapsing around him. He survived, but I don't think that moment meant he attempted suicide.
@ Cassie
I don't think the examples you listed are the same. If Bella was a cliff-diver for a career, then I could see the comparison. Firefighters give their lives to help the people. Race-car drivers love to race. These people follow their passions. And if they died, it would be by accident.
Bella? Last time I checked, she didn't have a passion for cliff-diving. She was not doing it for the good of others. She did not almost-die by accident. She did it on purpose. As for not noticing the storm, I simply cannot swallow the fact that you would not notice the storm and waves when you're about to cliff dive. It doesn't matter that she was dumped. Unless Bella has well and truly completed her transformation from a normal, sane human being to a zombie, I still don't buy that. The wind is slapping you in the face. The waves are roaring on the coast. And you're about to jump right into it. To each their own, I guess.
I'm sorry about your uncle. But I am pretty darn sure your uncle was not jumping off the cliff to hear someone's voice. I'd once seen on the news about a guy in a similar situation. He purposely surfed on a small tsunami just to see if he could do it. He did it because it was fun, and because he liked surfing. I don't know anything about your uncle, but from what you said he also did it for fun. Maybe Bella did it for fun too. Except for the fact that she made a promise to her soul mate not to do stupid things. This just looks incredibly shallow, disrespectful and shows that Bella has no regard for what Edward feels, only what he looks and sounds like.
@ Mickey
The fact that it's recreational doesn't make it any less dangerous. You don't do something like that without adult supervision. It's called safety measures. Kind of like the way you don't fence until you have a mask and breastplate on, because someone might poke your eye out and stuff. And what does Jacob have to do with anything? He didn't know about the adrenaline rushes/hallucinations. He had no idea why Bella did all the stupid things she did.
The guy who survived the collapsing Tower did not purposely put himself in danger. Bella did. The situation you put and the situation of Bella are vastly different. It DOES matter whether it was an accident or not.
I don't think the examples you listed are the same. If Bella was a cliff-diver for a career, then I could see the comparison. Firefighters give their lives to help the people. Race-car drivers love to race. These people follow their passions. And if they died, it would be by accident.
Bella? Last time I checked, she didn't have a passion for cliff-diving. She was not doing it for the good of others. She did not almost-die by accident. She did it on purpose. As for not noticing the storm, I simply cannot swallow the fact that you would not notice the storm and waves when you're about to cliff dive. It doesn't matter that she was dumped. Unless Bella has well and truly completed her transformation from a normal, sane human being to a zombie, I still don't buy that. The wind is slapping you in the face. The waves are roaring on the coast. And you're about to jump right into it. To each their own, I guess.
I'm sorry about your uncle. But I am pretty darn sure your uncle was not jumping off the cliff to hear someone's voice. I'd once seen on the news about a guy in a similar situation. He purposely surfed on a small tsunami just to see if he could do it. He did it because it was fun, and because he liked surfing. I don't know anything about your uncle, but from what you said he also did it for fun. Maybe Bella did it for fun too. Except for the fact that she made a promise to her soul mate not to do stupid things. This just looks incredibly shallow, disrespectful and shows that Bella has no regard for what Edward feels, only what he looks and sounds like.
@ Mickey
The fact that it's recreational doesn't make it any less dangerous. You don't do something like that without adult supervision. It's called safety measures. Kind of like the way you don't fence until you have a mask and breastplate on, because someone might poke your eye out and stuff. And what does Jacob have to do with anything? He didn't know about the adrenaline rushes/hallucinations. He had no idea why Bella did all the stupid things she did.
The guy who survived the collapsing Tower did not purposely put himself in danger. Bella did. The situation you put and the situation of Bella are vastly different. It DOES matter whether it was an accident or not.
Jocelyn wrote: "I understand being able to choose. But if feminism really is all about choice...what if the girl CHOOSES to be in an abusive relationship? In that way, then ironically aren't you basically saying that antifeminism can be a form of feminism? That it counts as feminism even if you do something weak and pathetic simply because you chose to do it?Feminism is different for anyone, but for me it's learning to believe in yourself, respecting yourself, and striving to stay true to your identity. Saying that Bella CHOSE to be the bumbling twat she appears to be is not an excuse for being weak. I don't think it's the actual ability to choose that matters. We can all choose. Technically, no one can actually force you to do anything. It's about the kind of choice you choose to make. "Feminism is really about making an existential choice to be free from the bind of the patriarchy. The problem with Meyer's book and others like it is not that feminists don't think that women have a right to make the choice to live this particular life but that the books echo ideas of what women should be as outlined by men for centuries; men who have essentially been making that choice for women (despite err Queen Elizabeth or Queen Victoria or the other smattering of well known 3/4 female figureheads over a span of 3,000 years.)
If one is to make a true choice in life then one must be aware of all the available options before one is able to make that choice. If women are overwhelmed by media that says "this is woman - this is the choice a woman is supposed to make" and then blindly follow it then they're being terribly shortchanged. It's not really about questions of sympathising with depression or suicide, it's about whether in the wider context teenage girls are getting a broad view of the choices open to them as teenage girls - who they could be or how they could live their lives.
Mickey delights in misrepresenting feminism so horribly it's really quite depressing, but then she's very much a Meyer-an. Books like Twilight, with their first person narration present the illusion of choice and freewill but they're not at all questioning about relationships, individuality, society (whereas I'd argue that Harry Potter really is).
I haven't read it but the cliff diving things sounds like a classic "sensibility" scene designed to show Bella's passions. It's not suicide, but it's deliberately putting herself in a situation where she neither really cares whether she lives or dies and she's going to put it into the hands of fate, the only thing that really matters is her lost love. It's an affected mannerism that doesn't really belong in this century - think of the kind of behaviour that Austen was criticising with Marianne Dashwood from Sense and Sensibility. My hunch says that Meyer is not critiquing Bella.
Jocelyn wrote: "The fact that it's recreational doesn't make it any less dangerous. You don't do something like that without adult supervision. It's called safety measures. Kind of like the way you don't fence until you have a mask and breastplate on, because someone might poke your eye out and stuff."The fact remains that it is recreational and it was often done without adult supervision. Everyone who jumps can not be categorized as suicidal. And your example is a little strange. Cliff diving does not require special equipment. I doubt you find fencing without equipment to be suicidal anyway.
Jocelyn wrote: "And what does Jacob have to do with anything? He didn't know about the adrenaline rushes/hallucinations. He had no idea why Bella did all the stupid things she did."
Jacob, who had been cliff diving before, offered to take her. He certainly wasn't under the impression that cliff diving was akin to a suicide attempt. It's just more evidence from the book that it was seen as something to do. To paraphrase Jacob, 'It's not like the reservation has a mall.'
Jocelyn wrote: "The guy who survived the collapsing Tower did not purposely put himself in danger. Bella did. The situation you put and the situation of Bella are vastly different. It DOES matter whether it was an accident or not."
It doesn't make it a suicide attempt. And the World Trade Center attack wasn't an accident.
General statement: Has anyone else noticed that this thread has followed the way of all threads under this book? A poster puts up a thread about an interesting, new idea to explore, and soon fans find themselves patiently explaining to a hater how the story/ character is not abusive or suicidal or pathetic. I catch myself sometimes and I think, 'Why am I having this exact same conversation again?'
Perhaps we fans are partly to blame for encouraging this kind of behavior. There was a thread once where one poster (a hater) was explaining why she kept coming back to Twilight threads and she said that on threads for other books, when she started complaining about the books, others would eventually just ignore her and continue discussing what they were interested in discussing. Twilight fans tend to get their books out and start explaining point by point when a hater appears. (Oh, you think it's pathetic that Bella was upset when Edward left? You think Bella was suicidal and catatonic? You think blank slate characters are signs of an author's incompetence? You find the writing too purple? Let me indulge you by taking your position seriously...) So, are we encouraging obsessiveness in haters by responding to them as we do?
Jocelyn, you appear to be adamant that Bella was suicidal despite everything that people are pointing out to you from the books. Maybe we should explore the idea of why someone such as yourself (who had such a problem with the books) hangs around here and wants to engage in conversations about them. Are some haters as obsessed with Twilight as fans are purported to be? What does it mean to be obsessed as a hater? How does it differ from being a fan?
Mickey wrote: "Jocelyn, you appear to be adamant that Bella was suicidal despite everything that people are pointing out to you from the books. Maybe we should explore the idea of why someone such as yourself (who had such a problem with the books) hangs around here and wants to engage in conversations about them. Are some haters as obsessed with Twilight as fans are purported to be? What does it mean to be obsessed as a hater? How does it differ from being a fan?"I think we would need first to define what exactly a "hater" is, the term gets so broadly used by fans that it seems to include practically everyone that dares to disagree with twilight.
Jocelyn wrote: "@ CassieI don't think the examples you listed are the same. If Bella was a cliff-diver for a career, then I could see the comparison. Firefighters give their lives to help the people. Race-car dr..."
I also mentioned bungee jumping for that exact reason. I'm sure you didn't miss that one. I gave three differentiating examples for a reason. One career, one passion, one recreational.
Unless Bella has well and truly completed her transformation from a normal, sane human being to a zombie,
If by "zombie", you mean "crazy and barely aware of her surroundings", then that's exactly what it was. This means you can buy it now?
Except for the fact that she made a promise to her soul mate not to do stupid things. This just looks incredibly shallow, disrespectful and shows that Bella has no regard for what Edward feels, only what he looks and sounds like.
That was the entire point of her being reckless. There are safer ways to seek adrenaline, but she was intentionally trying to defy Edward. He left her with absolutely no chance of closure. Emotional cutoff, as I mentioned before. She was angry at him, but had no way to confront the source of the problem. He made her a promise, he broke it, so to get even, she broke his promise.
It was crazy and stupid, but it was supposed to be crazy and stupid.
@Mickey's general statement.
Yeah, all that is probably true.
It just seems to me that people send a negative twist on every single detail of the story on purpose. I honestly can't think of a single detail of the entire Twilight saga that has not had a negative, damaging twist forced upon it. It seems a bit ridiculous to just let it slide all the time. I've had people tell me it was anti feminist that Edward called Bella in New Moon instead of Bella finding a way to call Edward, because society tells us that the man is supposed to call the woman.
I've been told that Bella was hypocritical for choosing to date Edward without dating all the other guys, because if you date one guy who asks you out, you should have to date all the other guys who ask you out because it's only fair.
And I've been told that it's wrong to write about romance in general because 50% of marriages end in divorce, so writing about it is stupid because it's unrealistic.
It's just so difficult to tell when someone is being serious, being stubborn, just doing it for fun, genuinely think Twilight is ruining the world, just trying to get to you, just putting a negative spin on things because it's Twilight and that's what people do, or just honestly don't know what they're talking about.
I think it's impossible to distinguish one from another.
You can come across multiple sampling of all these people on any given day, and you can have your ear talked off about how horrible Twilight is, and every single reason will have some sort of "logic" behind it. So much of this logic doesn't make any sense, to the point where none of it at all makes any sense. It all just becomes a huge mass of angry rambling.
It's so much easier to just treat them all the same.
This topic has been in the back of my mind since people started hating on Twilight recently. It almost seems as if those "haters" are just jumping on that bandwagon without even actually 'hating' the book. They seem to be the ones filling up the reviews page on Twilight and taling so animatedly about how much they hate the series, yet those of us who actually love the series tend to keep to ourselves and we aren't out to prove anything.Those people who hate the book might be the very ones with shrines to Stephenie Meyer in their bedroom, but because they don't want to be like "everyone else" they are the first ones to get defensive and talk about how "bad" the book is.
I think it's just because there are so many things wrong with these books, and yet they are so popular. That baffles people, and also, I guess, makes them kind of angry. Why are millions of people being drawn into literature like this, instead of reading something that is actually well-written and doesn't send unhealthy messages to especially young girls? I think the problem with Twilight is that it isn't just a bad series - it's a bad series that is extremely popular, and which has a more than usually enthusiastic fan base. I mean, by now fantasy fans dressing up and knowing everything about their respective fandom is becoming quite normal, but the Twilight fans are just completely different. The crying and screaming in the cinemas, the war between which character you like the most, the obsessing over the actors from the movies.. All of this make people wonder what all the fuss is about. And when they then read the books and conclude that they're horrible, they become confused and offended that a series like Twilight can provoke such a strong reaction when there are tons of books out there that are a thousand times better.You might not agree with this and it may offend you, but it's what many people, myself included, think about these books, and yes, I have read every single one of them.
HOWEVER, I am getting sick and tired of the people just hating on Twilight because that's what you're supposed to do. At least have the decency to sit down and have a look at the book before you judge it. I mean, Harry Potter fans are always offended when someone judges the Potter universe based on the films, but many do exactly the same with Twilight. Hell, some people haven't even seen the films, but they hate Twiligt simply from hearing about it from other people who haven't seen the movies or read the books either.
And I must say that the Twilight books weren't nearly as bad as the haters are saying - they weren't good either, though. But they weren't the worst books I've read, and even I must say that they do have a certain effect on you. You do want to know what happens, problem is that when I finally found out I was disappointed. An then, of course, the horrible writing and the piles of clichés are hard to get over.
Katharina Ofelie wrote: "Why are millions of people being drawn into literature like this, instead of reading something that is actually well-written and doesn't send unhealthy messages to especially young girls? ..."Simply because not everyone sees it the same way. That's all there is to that. It's not very complicated.
Ida wrote: "So, you think it’s normal to start hallucinating voices in your head, and to have nightmares that you wake up screaming from after a breakup? Think about it. Is this really what you expect would happen? I won’t claim to be an expert on mental disorders, but I’..."No, of course it's not normal, I never said it was. I just find it understandable, and I'd rather a story be understandable in the specific context, rather than normal in everyday life. It contributes to uniqueness and originality. I don't want to read a story where I can apply the same reactions to every similar situation, and it would work out fine.
I am aware that there are themes of suicide in the story, and I think it's acceptable. I just know that Bella wasn't the one trying to kill herself.
From what I've learned from Stephenie Meyer's interviews, the suicide is only a homage to Romeo and Juliet.
The whole confusion at the end. Edward thought Bella was dead, so he tried to kill himself, only Bella wasn't really dead.
The difference is that Romeo succeeded and Bella stopped Edward.
As for Jacob's suicidal lie, Bella never thought he was sweet for wanting to kill himself.
Really, no character was happy about another character wanting to kill themselves. Bella didn't enjoy hearing Edward or Jacob talk about killing themselves, so I don't see how it "illustrates what Meyer thinks is the epitome of true love". I think it's the opposite.
Ida wrote: "Cassie wrote: "@idaYou say all that about depression, and all I can find myself wanting to say is that's how I believe it should be. For some reason, you're making it look like a bad thing.
@Joce..."
Ida, you saying that is the clearest way I have seen this put and makes the Romeo and Juliet connection clearer - that said, I hate Romeo and Juliet and think dying for the love of your life is kinda sad (and not in a boohoo kind of way) so not sure it makes me appreciate the books any more...
@ Mickey
Okay. The 9/11 was not an accident. But the fact remains that the man had no way of knowing the tower would collapse that day.
I don't know too much about cliff-diving, but it's still suicide attempt if Bella knows that she's going to die. All the other factors does not make it any less of a suicide attempt. She's deliberately putting herself in danger just to satisfy her drug/Edward addiction to his voice.
Mickey wrote: (Oh, you think it's pathetic that Bella was upset when Edward left? You think Bella was suicidal and catatonic? You think blank slate characters are signs of an author's incompetence? You find the writing too purple? Let me indulge you by taking your position seriously...)
Uh. No offense, but I can't help but feel as though my intelligence is being insulted. You're basically saying indirectly that all people who do not share your opinion are so stupid and weak they'll be bashed by the pure awesomeness of your debate skills. News flash Mickey, there are people out there who do not worship the ground Stephenie Meyer walks on. Without different opinions this world would be a seriously boring place.
What about antis, though? What if they feel like they're having the same conversation again? What if they feel like fans are deliberately twisting what they say and keep justifying Edward's abusiveness and Bella's idiocy? Honestly. You act like antis are stupid idiots who can't get a life. There is nothing wrong with stating our opinion, and there is nothing wrong with stating yours as well. But I DO think it's wrong to mock people for things they never even said, as you have, and mock antis' opinions, indirectly stating that all their reasons for disliking Twilight are absolutely moronic.
Maybe you do think that way. Honestly, I don't care. From reading your post, I'm getting a vibe of "I'm making the world a better place by educating antis what idiots they are!"
It's true that there are many threads similar to this one. It's true that antis can go completely overboard with bashing fans' opinions and spend their time ranting on and on when they could be using their time better for something else. But fact is Mickey, no matter how splendid you think a book is, there will always be haters. Some will hate them unfairly and their judgement can be horribly biased. Some, in my opinion, have real, legitimate reasons for disliking this series. We're basically stating what we thought of it the first time we read it, then debating different views.
Instead of mocking our reasons for disliking Twilight, why don't you actually rebut them instead of mocking them or declaring them void because "it's a matter of opinion?" ALL without twisting them to something we NEVER said.
Okay. The 9/11 was not an accident. But the fact remains that the man had no way of knowing the tower would collapse that day.
I don't know too much about cliff-diving, but it's still suicide attempt if Bella knows that she's going to die. All the other factors does not make it any less of a suicide attempt. She's deliberately putting herself in danger just to satisfy her drug/Edward addiction to his voice.
Mickey wrote: (Oh, you think it's pathetic that Bella was upset when Edward left? You think Bella was suicidal and catatonic? You think blank slate characters are signs of an author's incompetence? You find the writing too purple? Let me indulge you by taking your position seriously...)
Uh. No offense, but I can't help but feel as though my intelligence is being insulted. You're basically saying indirectly that all people who do not share your opinion are so stupid and weak they'll be bashed by the pure awesomeness of your debate skills. News flash Mickey, there are people out there who do not worship the ground Stephenie Meyer walks on. Without different opinions this world would be a seriously boring place.
What about antis, though? What if they feel like they're having the same conversation again? What if they feel like fans are deliberately twisting what they say and keep justifying Edward's abusiveness and Bella's idiocy? Honestly. You act like antis are stupid idiots who can't get a life. There is nothing wrong with stating our opinion, and there is nothing wrong with stating yours as well. But I DO think it's wrong to mock people for things they never even said, as you have, and mock antis' opinions, indirectly stating that all their reasons for disliking Twilight are absolutely moronic.
Maybe you do think that way. Honestly, I don't care. From reading your post, I'm getting a vibe of "I'm making the world a better place by educating antis what idiots they are!"
It's true that there are many threads similar to this one. It's true that antis can go completely overboard with bashing fans' opinions and spend their time ranting on and on when they could be using their time better for something else. But fact is Mickey, no matter how splendid you think a book is, there will always be haters. Some will hate them unfairly and their judgement can be horribly biased. Some, in my opinion, have real, legitimate reasons for disliking this series. We're basically stating what we thought of it the first time we read it, then debating different views.
Instead of mocking our reasons for disliking Twilight, why don't you actually rebut them instead of mocking them or declaring them void because "it's a matter of opinion?" ALL without twisting them to something we NEVER said.
I don't know too much about cliff-diving, but it's still suicide attempt if Bella knows that she's going to die. All the other factors does not make it any less of a suicide attempt. She's deliberately putting herself in danger just to satisfy her drug/Edward addiction to his voice.Knowingly doing something dangerous and knowing you're going to die are two very different things. It seems like you're using the two interchangeably.
She did NOT know she was going to die (or almost die), this is obvious from reading the book. It's not an opinion or an interpretation, that never happened in the book. The exact opposite was stated.
Jocelyn, you appear to be adamant that Bella was suicidal despite everything that people are pointing out to you from the books.
Whoa, whoa. Are you dissing my opinion here? Seriously. Are you? Because that statement is biased. You acknowledge that people who agree with you point out plot points from the books, but you do NOT acknowledge that the other side of the argument ALSO point out evidence from the books. Did you even read my posts? Honest to God, did you? Because I DID give evidence just as well as you did. I have a theory that you just skimmed it and made it up as you went.
Maybe we should explore the idea of why someone such as yourself (who had such a problem with the books) hangs around here and wants to engage in conversations about them.
Duuuuuuude. Am I seriously reading this? Mickey, I hang around here and engage in conversations because I find it entertaining and enjoyable. Suppose I'm bored to death and have nothing to do? I come here and state my opinions, that's what. I like listening to other people talk about their opinions. It's fun. It gives me a much wider perspective of Twilight, or even just the world in general. I like it. Why do Twilight fans always ask, "If you don't like it, why don't you just shut up and go away?" For god's sake. I converse and argue because I enjoy it, and because oftentimes I am bored to death with literally nothing to do.
Mickey, every book will have people who disliked them. And many of those people will want to speak up, state their opinion, and defend it. For a number of reasons. Personally, it is, as I said, 1) enjoyable and entertaining, 2) because Twilights is a literary phenomenon. Maybe it's not meant to be analyzed, or whatever, but in my opinion, phenomenons MUST be analyzed because of its influence over the people who read it, and perhaps even for aspiring writers who are inspired to write by Meyer. That's the whole point of literature. Not only to enjoy it, but to dissect it, break it down, and analyze it.
Are some haters as obsessed with Twilight as fans are purported to be? What does it mean to be obsessed as a hater? How does it differ from being a fan?
I do understand that antis can be just as bad as Twilight fans, or that there are plenty of Twilight fans who are far more mature than many antis. Seeing as I'm ADHD, I'll admit I CAN be quite "obsessed" with the books, as you and other Twilight fans put it. I'm not particularly sure about everyone, but in general, there will always be some who are mature, some who are immature, some who look for attention, and some who want nothing more than to state their opinions and enjoy the argument.
You bring up a really interesting point in that, though. What does it mean to be obsessed as a hater? 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.
Whoa, whoa. Are you dissing my opinion here? Seriously. Are you? Because that statement is biased. You acknowledge that people who agree with you point out plot points from the books, but you do NOT acknowledge that the other side of the argument ALSO point out evidence from the books. Did you even read my posts? Honest to God, did you? Because I DID give evidence just as well as you did. I have a theory that you just skimmed it and made it up as you went.
Maybe we should explore the idea of why someone such as yourself (who had such a problem with the books) hangs around here and wants to engage in conversations about them.
Duuuuuuude. Am I seriously reading this? Mickey, I hang around here and engage in conversations because I find it entertaining and enjoyable. Suppose I'm bored to death and have nothing to do? I come here and state my opinions, that's what. I like listening to other people talk about their opinions. It's fun. It gives me a much wider perspective of Twilight, or even just the world in general. I like it. Why do Twilight fans always ask, "If you don't like it, why don't you just shut up and go away?" For god's sake. I converse and argue because I enjoy it, and because oftentimes I am bored to death with literally nothing to do.
Mickey, every book will have people who disliked them. And many of those people will want to speak up, state their opinion, and defend it. For a number of reasons. Personally, it is, as I said, 1) enjoyable and entertaining, 2) because Twilights is a literary phenomenon. Maybe it's not meant to be analyzed, or whatever, but in my opinion, phenomenons MUST be analyzed because of its influence over the people who read it, and perhaps even for aspiring writers who are inspired to write by Meyer. That's the whole point of literature. Not only to enjoy it, but to dissect it, break it down, and analyze it.
Are some haters as obsessed with Twilight as fans are purported to be? What does it mean to be obsessed as a hater? How does it differ from being a fan?
I do understand that antis can be just as bad as Twilight fans, or that there are plenty of Twilight fans who are far more mature than many antis. Seeing as I'm ADHD, I'll admit I CAN be quite "obsessed" with the books, as you and other Twilight fans put it. I'm not particularly sure about everyone, but in general, there will always be some who are mature, some who are immature, some who look for attention, and some who want nothing more than to state their opinions and enjoy the argument.
You bring up a really interesting point in that, though. What does it mean to be obsessed as a hater? 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.
Cassie wrote: "Ida wrote: "So, you think it’s normal to start hallucinating voices in your head, and to have nightmares that you wake up screaming from after a breakup? Think about it. Is this really what you exp..."
You find it understandable? I guess it's a matter of perspective, but I highly doubt that people suffer from nightmares and scream up waking from them every night after a dumping.
You find it understandable? I guess it's a matter of perspective, but I highly doubt that people suffer from nightmares and scream up waking from them every night after a dumping.
Cassie wrote: "I don't know too much about cliff-diving, but it's still suicide attempt if Bella knows that she's going to die. All the other factors does not make it any less of a suicide attempt. She's delibera..."
If Bella didn't know that she was going to die, or almost die, she is a complete and utter idiot.
I just can't swallow it. I'm sorry. I just can't. You're at a cliff several tens of feet into the air. There is a storm slapping you in the face. The waves are smashing against the rocks. You're about to jump. And you don't think you're going to die? Where is the logic in that? I don't get it.
And while I'm at it, how is that NOT antifeminist? You're turning into a zombie because your boyfriend dumped you? For what, half a year? Because your life revolves around your man so much you would die just to hear his voice for two seconds?
Even for a normal, average girl, that seems to be a bit much. And it still seems like drug addiction to me, more than actual love.
If Bella didn't know that she was going to die, or almost die, she is a complete and utter idiot.
I just can't swallow it. I'm sorry. I just can't. You're at a cliff several tens of feet into the air. There is a storm slapping you in the face. The waves are smashing against the rocks. You're about to jump. And you don't think you're going to die? Where is the logic in that? I don't get it.
And while I'm at it, how is that NOT antifeminist? You're turning into a zombie because your boyfriend dumped you? For what, half a year? Because your life revolves around your man so much you would die just to hear his voice for two seconds?
Even for a normal, average girl, that seems to be a bit much. And it still seems like drug addiction to me, more than actual love.
Jocelyn wrote: "...I highly doubt that people suffer from nightmares and scream up waking from them every night after a dumping. "I think you missed what I said, on only read half the sentence.
Right after that, I said "I'd rather a story be understandable in the specific context, rather than normal in everyday life."
Meaning that I know everyone doesn't react the way Bella did, but I find it understandable under her circumstances.
But I would never "highly doubt" how anyone reacts to any emotional turmoil. People are too complex for that.
How is Bella's situation any different from normal dumping? Besides, of course, the fact that Edward is a vampire, and his dazzling perfection is beyond any human, which seems to be the only reason why she's in love.
I don't find it understandable in her circumstances. At all. Part of the reason is a matter of perspective, it's just personal for me--but it's the fact that I can't find any chemistry in their relationship. What's the reason they're in love? What about each other's personalities do they find unique and appealing? What's even ONE thing they have in common? How is it anything besides teenage hormonal development?
THEN, since to me their relationship felt extremely wooden and sappy, and I didn't think it was nearly as "deep" as Bella kept insisting it was, I felt like Meyer was trying to do all this melodramatic bullshit because she felt the further need to "prove" how deep and true their love was. It may be just me. This chain reaction process was a huge factor in my extreme annoyance at Bella's angst. As I said, this is mostly personal preference, it really depends on how the reader feels about Bella as a character. Since I disliked Bella, I didn't care about her as a fictional character. I wasn't invested in her. I was bored by her. I just wanted her to freaking die already so I wouldn't have to deal with her. For you or any other Twilight fan, you probably didn't feel this, and may be part of the reason why you didn't want to punch Bella in the face like I did.
I simply felt that the "emotional turmoil" as you put it was far too melodramatic for me to buy it. As I skimmed through New Moon (I have a habit of skimming through books before I actually dig in and read it) I'd thought Bella was raped or had her entire family killed or something traumatic like that. Then I found out that the reason for all this melodrama was...being dumped? I despise melodrama, which may be a reason I prefer Harry Potter over Twilight. It makes me feel like the protagonist is a self-pitying crybaby who thinks the world revolves around her/him. I'm okay with melodrama if the protagonist later on thinks, "jeez, what was I doing? How could I be so selfish? Why the heck did I ignore my friends and ditch my dad?" Something like that. Again, it's mostly personal preference, because we all have different points when we can't suspend disbelief any longer.
I don't find it understandable in her circumstances. At all. Part of the reason is a matter of perspective, it's just personal for me--but it's the fact that I can't find any chemistry in their relationship. What's the reason they're in love? What about each other's personalities do they find unique and appealing? What's even ONE thing they have in common? How is it anything besides teenage hormonal development?
THEN, since to me their relationship felt extremely wooden and sappy, and I didn't think it was nearly as "deep" as Bella kept insisting it was, I felt like Meyer was trying to do all this melodramatic bullshit because she felt the further need to "prove" how deep and true their love was. It may be just me. This chain reaction process was a huge factor in my extreme annoyance at Bella's angst. As I said, this is mostly personal preference, it really depends on how the reader feels about Bella as a character. Since I disliked Bella, I didn't care about her as a fictional character. I wasn't invested in her. I was bored by her. I just wanted her to freaking die already so I wouldn't have to deal with her. For you or any other Twilight fan, you probably didn't feel this, and may be part of the reason why you didn't want to punch Bella in the face like I did.
I simply felt that the "emotional turmoil" as you put it was far too melodramatic for me to buy it. As I skimmed through New Moon (I have a habit of skimming through books before I actually dig in and read it) I'd thought Bella was raped or had her entire family killed or something traumatic like that. Then I found out that the reason for all this melodrama was...being dumped? I despise melodrama, which may be a reason I prefer Harry Potter over Twilight. It makes me feel like the protagonist is a self-pitying crybaby who thinks the world revolves around her/him. I'm okay with melodrama if the protagonist later on thinks, "jeez, what was I doing? How could I be so selfish? Why the heck did I ignore my friends and ditch my dad?" Something like that. Again, it's mostly personal preference, because we all have different points when we can't suspend disbelief any longer.
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..."I agree with you. Haters need to step back and let the true readers of all the books that are discussed on here let them enjoy them.
You can't compare books with each other because they aren't on the same subject as each other.
Lesli, people compare books because they're both hugely popular. Which is why, despite the fact that Harry Potter and Twilight have little to nothing in common, people compare them. Because they are both literary phenomenons.
What do you mean by same subject? Do you mean the same genre? If you are, a lot of book comparisons are often the same genre. People have criticized Eragon for ripping off Lord of the Rings. They're both epic high fantasy. How is not that the same "subject?"
What do you mean by same subject? Do you mean the same genre? If you are, a lot of book comparisons are often the same genre. People have criticized Eragon for ripping off Lord of the Rings. They're both epic high fantasy. How is not that the same "subject?"
Jocelyn wrote: "How is Bella's situation any different from normal dumping? Besides, of course, the fact that Edward is a vampire, and his dazzling perfection is beyond any human, which seems to be the only reason..."I find Bella's situation to be different because she didn't only lose a boyfriend, she lost her future. Without Edward, or any of the Cullens, Bella can't become a vampire. She can't become immortal, she can't gain any special powers or abilities. She can't have any of the great things she just discovered because he left her. All that on top of losing love, which is difficult as is.
When normal people break up, all they pretty much lose is who they spend their time with. Maybe how many children they would have, or where they would live. You don't lose the species you were going to become, and you don't lose immortality. You don't lose any super powers.
Plus, she began doubting if it was even real at all. She was wondering if she's been crazy all along and she just made it all up.
Considering that these were vampires she was heartbroken over. Beings she didn't even know were real until a few months prior.
To me, that justifies going a little crazy.
She lost her future?
I'd say that she lost her future by hooking up with the Cullens. She's throwing away any goals and aspirations she might have had just to hook up with Edward. This is another thing I found annoying about Bella, the pathetic way she doesn't care if she abandons her friends and opportunities in life just so she can be with Edward.
I don't have the book with me, so I can't check if Bella really doubted if they were real. It would seem that all doubt would be squashed by the simple fact of her hallucinations and "traumatic" symptoms. If the Cullens were not real she would not be going through all these stupid problems. If it really were a dream she also would not be suffering traumatic symptoms. Again, Bella fails to grasp very simple logic even a fifth grader could process.
I still don't think the heartbreak is justified. She hardly knows anything about Edward. They have no reason to be in love, unless you can find me something that they have in common and even one personality trait they find appealing about each other. Like Ida said, this is an insult to anyone who went through something that was actually traumatic, because dumping, whether it's by a vampire or not, is definitely not very traumatic.
When normal people break up, they lose who they spend time with? I guess that's true, I'm not terribly sure since I've never been in a relationship. But what did Bella do before Edward came along? She never seemed to be lonely. She was antisocial, criticized and stereotyped the people who were nice to her, and basically acted like a self-absorbed, arrogant little brat. Like Diane pointed out, she had interests like cooking and reading. She's showed that prior to Edward's appearance in her life, she was never lonely. Maybe Edward left a void in her, but again, being dumped seriously is not that traumatic.
I find it quite selfish that Bella is heartbroken because she can't become a vampire and immortal or have special powers or abilities. Honestly, when does she ever think about the life that she might be throwing away? She does consider this a little in Eclipse, but in the end, for reasons I cannot comprehend, she decides to throw it away anyway. You shouldn't be heartbroken because you lost a chance at becoming practically a goddess. Not to mention that this is hypocritical of Bella. In the prologue of Twilight, she says: "When life offers you a dream so far beyond any of your expectations, it's not reasonable to grieve when it comes to an end." Exactly my point. You shouldn't grieve when you get a chance to become immortal and beautiful and special and then lose it, ESPECIALLY if you're making such stupid and reckless sacrifices just to do so.
There are exceptions to this, before anyone makes any comparisons. If I won the lottery and someone stole my money, I'd be pretty mad. Except that I didn't have to sacrifice anything to get that lottery money. And so on.
I'd say that she lost her future by hooking up with the Cullens. She's throwing away any goals and aspirations she might have had just to hook up with Edward. This is another thing I found annoying about Bella, the pathetic way she doesn't care if she abandons her friends and opportunities in life just so she can be with Edward.
I don't have the book with me, so I can't check if Bella really doubted if they were real. It would seem that all doubt would be squashed by the simple fact of her hallucinations and "traumatic" symptoms. If the Cullens were not real she would not be going through all these stupid problems. If it really were a dream she also would not be suffering traumatic symptoms. Again, Bella fails to grasp very simple logic even a fifth grader could process.
I still don't think the heartbreak is justified. She hardly knows anything about Edward. They have no reason to be in love, unless you can find me something that they have in common and even one personality trait they find appealing about each other. Like Ida said, this is an insult to anyone who went through something that was actually traumatic, because dumping, whether it's by a vampire or not, is definitely not very traumatic.
When normal people break up, they lose who they spend time with? I guess that's true, I'm not terribly sure since I've never been in a relationship. But what did Bella do before Edward came along? She never seemed to be lonely. She was antisocial, criticized and stereotyped the people who were nice to her, and basically acted like a self-absorbed, arrogant little brat. Like Diane pointed out, she had interests like cooking and reading. She's showed that prior to Edward's appearance in her life, she was never lonely. Maybe Edward left a void in her, but again, being dumped seriously is not that traumatic.
I find it quite selfish that Bella is heartbroken because she can't become a vampire and immortal or have special powers or abilities. Honestly, when does she ever think about the life that she might be throwing away? She does consider this a little in Eclipse, but in the end, for reasons I cannot comprehend, she decides to throw it away anyway. You shouldn't be heartbroken because you lost a chance at becoming practically a goddess. Not to mention that this is hypocritical of Bella. In the prologue of Twilight, she says: "When life offers you a dream so far beyond any of your expectations, it's not reasonable to grieve when it comes to an end." Exactly my point. You shouldn't grieve when you get a chance to become immortal and beautiful and special and then lose it, ESPECIALLY if you're making such stupid and reckless sacrifices just to do so.
There are exceptions to this, before anyone makes any comparisons. If I won the lottery and someone stole my money, I'd be pretty mad. Except that I didn't have to sacrifice anything to get that lottery money. And so on.
I don't think it's fair to say Bella was antisocial, yes she was judgy but she did like some of her friends (Angela, Ben, Jacob).When she got close to Edward and his family, she finally felt like she belonged somewhere. It's similar to what she feels with Jacob (being on the same wavelength), she doesn't really feel that with her human friends. I think this alludes to Bella not being meant to be a supernatural (but that's just my interpretation).
There is such a thing as emotional trauma. Even in real life, without the complications of Bella's supernatural situation.
Also yeah I agree with Mickey, the topics just keep going back. It's a cycle.
Makes me think we should have a FAQ or something. Or a least a post that points out the threads that already discuss this and that.
Feminism:
Romantic novel or crime against feminism
Is twilight anti-feminist?
Jocelyn wrote: "She lost her future?I'd say that she lost her future by hooking up with the Cullens. She's throwing away any goals and aspirations she might have had just to hook up with Edward. This is another ..."
What? Nobody said she can't still have the career she wanted. Carlisle started his as a vampire. Bella could possibly do the same.
When you think about the word "future" in the literal sense, being immortal actually extends your future, it doesn't take it away. Dying takes it away.
It would seem that all doubt would be squashed by the simple fact of her hallucinations and "traumatic" symptoms.
No, not really... Hallucinations aren't real, so having hallucinations doesn't really confirm that anything was real. People hallucinate fake things all the time.
That was one thing that confused me about the story. She said the pain was her only reminder that it was real.
The doubt didn't last the entire time, I think it was only in the beginning, anyways.
I don't feel like proving anyone's love to anyone, which is why I keep skipping over that topic. It gets too frustrating. I absolutely hate when people say anything like "That's not a good enough reason to love", it's just so ignorant to me.
But what did Bella do before Edward came along? She never seemed to be lonely. She was antisocial, criticized and stereotyped the people who were nice to her, and basically acted like a self-absorbed, arrogant little brat. Like Diane pointed out, she had interests like cooking and reading. She's showed that prior to Edward's appearance in her life, she was never lonely. Maybe Edward left a void in her,
Yes, she was content with her life, but what does that have to do with anything? That doesn't mean you're not allowed to become happier, then sad when it's stripped away from you without warning.
but again, being dumped seriously is not that traumatic.
Again, all people are different.
How would you even know this? You keep saying yourself that you've never been in a relationship and you know nothing about them. How would you know what breaking up with someone you love is like? Just looking at someone who's broken up with someone is not good enough. You don't know just because you know someone.
I find it quite selfish that Bella is heartbroken because she can't become a vampire and immortal or have special powers or abilities
Well, I think it's okay to think about yourself every once in a while. I wished Bella was more selfish at times.
Not to mention that this is hypocritical of Bella. In the prologue of Twilight, she says: "When life offers you a dream so far beyond any of your expectations, it's not reasonable to grieve when it comes to an end."
That's more irony than hypocrisy.
Cassie wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "She lost her future?
I'd say that she lost her future by hooking up with the Cullens. She's throwing away any goals and aspirations she might have had just to hook up with Edward. ..."
How about her friends? The people she befriended at Forks? She's never mentioned any friends prior to moving, so I'm going to assume she didn't have any friends, or had few friends. How about those? In fact, she broods over this very choice in Eclipse. She acts sad about it...except it's her own choice she's making.
How about Renee? Breaking Dawn's plot line is a bit faint in my head, so I don't remember any mention of telling Renee about the vampire thing. Since I don't remember too clearly, please tell me if there is a mention. (No, this is not sarcastic, just a simple request.)
There's also the fact that Bella fears that she won't feel the same way towards her parents after turning into a vampire. Conveniently, it turns out perfectly. That's contrived, forced, and shameless abuse of Deus Ex Machina and plot convenience.
It's fine if you don't feel like "proving" anyone's love. I just felt like Bella and Edward's relationship was way too shallow to be too ambiguous. While love is quite ambiguous, it's still possible to break it down at least a little bit. It's not that I don't get the romance between them. It's that I can't find the tiniest reason why they would be in love. I'll give you some examples from other works of literature.
Eowyn and Faramir, from Lord of the Rings. They could relate to each other. They'd both lost family members and both know what it feels like to be rejected by someone they loved. Faramir was moved by Eowyn's grief and loyalty to her family.
Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy, from Pride and Prejudice. Mr. Darcy fell in love with Elizabeth because of her lively personality and spirit. Elizabeth fell in love with Mr. Darcy because of his innate goodness and attempts to become a better person, as well as his ability to acknowledge his mistakes and flaws despite his pride.
(You could argue that Edward is also like this, and in many ways Edward does resemble Mr. Darcy. To me he came off as a watered-down, abusive, non-gentlemanlike, godly version of Mr. Darcy. Darcy does not try to manipulate Elizabeth, control her, and he acknowledges Elizabeth's feelings and desires, which Edward does not.)
Conversely, in Romeo and Juliet, R&J had no reason to be in love. But they paid for it. They paid the price for being stupid. They died. Here, Shakespeare is being satirical, basically showing the stupidity and recklessness of young love. Just like Bella and Edward, Romeo and Juliet have no chemistry. Just like Bella and Edward, Romeo and Juliet fell in "love" very quickly, too quickly to be plausible. Just like Romeo and Juliet, Bella and Edward pull stupid suicidal stunts, selfishly thinking about themselves rather than others.
I don't think that the fact that antis can't see any chemistry in Bella and Edward's relationship is ignorant. Love may be ambiguous, but it's also there for a reason. And that reason has to be beyond stunning beauty and impenetrable mind. Which brings me back to my "it's lust, not love" statement.
How would I know that being dumped is not traumatic? It's true that I'm making a bit of an assumption. But seriously, turning into a zombie, jumping off motorcycles and cliffs, hallucinating, and waking up from screaming nightmares seems way over the top. Like I said, I'd thought Bella had been raped or had her entire family killed before I'd found out the real cause of her depression. Depression symptoms like ignoring friends and family and not indulging in hobbies people normally find interest in I can understand. Suicide isn't terribly rare among dumped teenagers, but neither is it terribly common. Bella is supposed to be mature. Mature people would not do the things Bella does. People don't lose IQ points from being dumped, and while their perception of reality may be a little warped, I don't think it can be such a zombie-like state for over six months. Again, these are all assumptions I'm making. Like you said, I don't know. I'm using what I think I know to make a guess.
Of course it's okay to think of yourself once in a while. But from what I recall, Bella thinks about herself ALL the time, unless she's singing her worshipful praises to the Almighty Gary Stu, Edward. She gets a free car, and her first thought is to bemoan how it isn't new. She's nervous for school, then the first person who's nice to her, she complains that he's greasy and overly helpful. She gets to know Edward for about half an hour, then fights tears on the way home (so much for being mature), which in turn seems contradictary because thirty seconds before she was whining about how torturous it was to have so many people hankering after Her Majesty's Royal Attention.
What I meant by hypocritical is that it seemed out of character. Bella was willing to throw away all that glittery vampire futures to go after James. Yeah, maybe it was for her mother, but any remotely intelligent teenage girl would at least have enough common sense to know that going alone to James is not going to help her mother survive. The quote I put up there is actually in the scene when she's confronting James, except it's in the prologue. So why is she suddenly acting like she's the queen of the world and pissing and moaning about how unfair life is?
I'd say that she lost her future by hooking up with the Cullens. She's throwing away any goals and aspirations she might have had just to hook up with Edward. ..."
How about her friends? The people she befriended at Forks? She's never mentioned any friends prior to moving, so I'm going to assume she didn't have any friends, or had few friends. How about those? In fact, she broods over this very choice in Eclipse. She acts sad about it...except it's her own choice she's making.
How about Renee? Breaking Dawn's plot line is a bit faint in my head, so I don't remember any mention of telling Renee about the vampire thing. Since I don't remember too clearly, please tell me if there is a mention. (No, this is not sarcastic, just a simple request.)
There's also the fact that Bella fears that she won't feel the same way towards her parents after turning into a vampire. Conveniently, it turns out perfectly. That's contrived, forced, and shameless abuse of Deus Ex Machina and plot convenience.
It's fine if you don't feel like "proving" anyone's love. I just felt like Bella and Edward's relationship was way too shallow to be too ambiguous. While love is quite ambiguous, it's still possible to break it down at least a little bit. It's not that I don't get the romance between them. It's that I can't find the tiniest reason why they would be in love. I'll give you some examples from other works of literature.
Eowyn and Faramir, from Lord of the Rings. They could relate to each other. They'd both lost family members and both know what it feels like to be rejected by someone they loved. Faramir was moved by Eowyn's grief and loyalty to her family.
Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy, from Pride and Prejudice. Mr. Darcy fell in love with Elizabeth because of her lively personality and spirit. Elizabeth fell in love with Mr. Darcy because of his innate goodness and attempts to become a better person, as well as his ability to acknowledge his mistakes and flaws despite his pride.
(You could argue that Edward is also like this, and in many ways Edward does resemble Mr. Darcy. To me he came off as a watered-down, abusive, non-gentlemanlike, godly version of Mr. Darcy. Darcy does not try to manipulate Elizabeth, control her, and he acknowledges Elizabeth's feelings and desires, which Edward does not.)
Conversely, in Romeo and Juliet, R&J had no reason to be in love. But they paid for it. They paid the price for being stupid. They died. Here, Shakespeare is being satirical, basically showing the stupidity and recklessness of young love. Just like Bella and Edward, Romeo and Juliet have no chemistry. Just like Bella and Edward, Romeo and Juliet fell in "love" very quickly, too quickly to be plausible. Just like Romeo and Juliet, Bella and Edward pull stupid suicidal stunts, selfishly thinking about themselves rather than others.
I don't think that the fact that antis can't see any chemistry in Bella and Edward's relationship is ignorant. Love may be ambiguous, but it's also there for a reason. And that reason has to be beyond stunning beauty and impenetrable mind. Which brings me back to my "it's lust, not love" statement.
How would I know that being dumped is not traumatic? It's true that I'm making a bit of an assumption. But seriously, turning into a zombie, jumping off motorcycles and cliffs, hallucinating, and waking up from screaming nightmares seems way over the top. Like I said, I'd thought Bella had been raped or had her entire family killed before I'd found out the real cause of her depression. Depression symptoms like ignoring friends and family and not indulging in hobbies people normally find interest in I can understand. Suicide isn't terribly rare among dumped teenagers, but neither is it terribly common. Bella is supposed to be mature. Mature people would not do the things Bella does. People don't lose IQ points from being dumped, and while their perception of reality may be a little warped, I don't think it can be such a zombie-like state for over six months. Again, these are all assumptions I'm making. Like you said, I don't know. I'm using what I think I know to make a guess.
Of course it's okay to think of yourself once in a while. But from what I recall, Bella thinks about herself ALL the time, unless she's singing her worshipful praises to the Almighty Gary Stu, Edward. She gets a free car, and her first thought is to bemoan how it isn't new. She's nervous for school, then the first person who's nice to her, she complains that he's greasy and overly helpful. She gets to know Edward for about half an hour, then fights tears on the way home (so much for being mature), which in turn seems contradictary because thirty seconds before she was whining about how torturous it was to have so many people hankering after Her Majesty's Royal Attention.
What I meant by hypocritical is that it seemed out of character. Bella was willing to throw away all that glittery vampire futures to go after James. Yeah, maybe it was for her mother, but any remotely intelligent teenage girl would at least have enough common sense to know that going alone to James is not going to help her mother survive. The quote I put up there is actually in the scene when she's confronting James, except it's in the prologue. So why is she suddenly acting like she's the queen of the world and pissing and moaning about how unfair life is?
I thought Bella just wasn't as attached to her human life as much as some people would like her to be. True she had reasons to stay, her friends, her family. But as I mentioned she never really felt like she belonged. She had the choice of two futures and she chose the one she wanted most.
That's not throwing it away that's making a choice.
She never really felt she belonged?
If that were true, Bella wouldn't be stereotyping her friends. Shed be making a real attempt to try to mingle with them as best as she could. But she doesn't.
If that were true, Bella wouldn't be stereotyping her friends. Shed be making a real attempt to try to mingle with them as best as she could. But she doesn't.
Jocelyn wrote: "She never really felt she belonged? If that were true, Bella wouldn't be stereotyping her friends. Shed be making a real attempt to try to mingle with them as best as she could. But she doesn't."
Not necessarily.
She felt little or no connection to them. Why would you force yourself to be in a group what you don't want to be in?
I was part of a huge group of friends once. It was okay. But I couldn't say that I really liked being part of the group. There are times where I had fun yes but sometimes (fairly often) it was a chore to go on their group dates. I'm still friends (or more like acquaintances) with some of those people but I don't feel the strong desire to keep in touch.
Sometimes you just don't click with certain people and it happens.
Being shy and feeling like you don't fit in doesn't necessarily make you jump at the chance to be in a group.
To add to that, there was something about Bella. I mentioned her being more comfortable around supernaturals alluding to her being "meant" for the supernatural world. It was never really explained in the book "why Bella". Why couldn't Edward read her mind? Why did she feel at ease with vampires (unlike other people who feel uncomfortable and avoid vampires)? Why was Bella exempt from uncontrollable blood lust?
We can only speculate.
Yes, Edward was the main reason that she chose that life but I think given the chance she would've taken the plunge anyway. Maybe she felt it. The need to be a supernatural (or specifically, a vampire). The pull of the world she was meant to be in.
I'm going to pick what I reply to:Jocelyn wrote: "Uh. No offense, but I can't help but feel as though my intelligence is being insulted. You're basically saying indirectly that all people who do not share your opinion are so stupid and weak they'll be bashed by the pure awesomeness of your debate skills.... You act like antis are stupid idiots who can't get a life...indirectly stating that all their reasons for disliking Twilight are absolutely moronic."
Your inferencing skills need some work. It's rather funny that I'm being accused of "indirectly" calling people idiots by a person who has had to apologize for blatantly calling people idiots. Don't you insult people's intelligence when you call them "twitards"? I think you are trying very hard to pretend there is some moral equivalence here.
Jocelyn wrote: "Instead of mocking our reasons for disliking Twilight, why don't you actually rebut them instead of mocking them or declaring them void because "it's a matter of opinion?" "
See, this is the crux of my problem lately. Why should I try to convince haters of anything? Why would you think that your good opinion should matter so much that it's worth it to a stranger to convince you otherwise? Do you really think your job coming here is to convince fans of your views? Maybe I think you should knock yourself out convincing me of why Twilight is bad. Why must I expend all my energy here rebutting (which, actually, I would say most fans spend their time doing here)? Honestly, there are other fans on this site that I don't know who their favorite character is or what aspect of the Bella/Edward romance they most responded to, but I could tell you exactly how they respond to the charge that Bella was pathetic or the writing was awful, because I've read their responses to that several times over. Fans aren't having typical fan conversations, which suits haters just fine, because they don't have that aspect themselves.
Why go around in circles with these people? You can see in the entire suicide conversation that it is not a matter of logic or referencing what actually happened. These will just be discounted.
Jocelyn wrote: "Why do Twilight fans always ask, "If you don't like it, why don't you just shut up and go away?" For god's sake. I converse and argue because I enjoy it, and because oftentimes I am bored to death with literally nothing to do."
Far from fans "always" refusing to engage haters, I think a big problem around here is the fact that we always engage. It's rather insulting, don't you think, to accuse fans of telling haters to just shut up and go away. You've actually had several fans who have spent a lot of time responding intelligently and succinctly to your posts, patiently explaining things from the book that you are just off-handedly dismissing.
If you are so bored, read a book you like.
Jocelyn wrote: "Seeing as I'm ADHD, I'll admit I CAN be quite "obsessed" with the books, as you and other Twilight fans put it."
I wasn't going to say anything originally, but I feel that since you keep referencing your ADHD... you should really educate yourself about it. There's absolutely nothing in the characteristics of ADHD about being obsessed with things. (Now, that's not saying that people with ADHD can not have obsessions, but it certainly is not due to the nature of that disability.)
Also, you reference your disability when you say something here that people get insulted by. Low impulse control can be a part of ADHD, but it's really going to be up to you to manage that. I know several people who have ADHD (adults) who lead successful lives, but they don't do that by constantly having to ask for forgiveness. (I think that kids often think that apologizing wipes the slate clean, but it's not necessarily true. It damages your reputation here to constantly have to recant something and people start viewing your posts in a different and less sympathetic way.) Most of the people I know learn how to manage it by recognizing its manifestations and working to mitigate them. If, as you say, you "post without thinking", perhaps you should think of a way around that problem. Maybe after writing posts and before posting them, you could go do something else and in an hour or two, come back and look at them with more perspective.
I think how people manage their disabilities is important to how much success they'll find in life and it's not a good strategy to rely on others to overlook all the time. Be more proactive and think about ways to help yourself overcome.
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)
It's an opinion. I never said that it was an ironclad fact. Just in MY view, it was lust. Since Bella cared more about the physical traits of Edward rather than worrying about how he would function and feel as a person if she were doing all of these things, it came off as lust to me.