Twilight
discussion
Is Stephenie a bad writer?
Siobhan wrote: Without tooting my own horn too much, I've been writing a series for a few years. I can tell you one of my main characters is pretty heinous right now, he just sort-of cheated on his girlfriend then blamed her (long story). I know exactly what that boy is, but I also know he can be likeable. However, my beta readers have picked up on one of the other characters, who doesn't get many chapters, and they've read her to be a similar way, although that was never my intent. When I looked back, a couple of months later (for fresh perspective) I could see what they were talking about, and could see what I could do to make her the person I know her to be, while still keeping the story lines in tact. I'm not saying I'm better than Meyer - not by a long shot - but if I'm aware as an unpublished writer, why is she not aware when she has been through that process? I don't think this means that your character is technically "unreliable" though. Can I ask you as the author....are you saying that this discrepancy that you and your beta readers picked up on means that the reader is now not supposed to believe anything that your main character says or does in your book or that it leads people to question whether the character is reliable as they are reading? I don't know. I'd like to think that there is a distinct difference between an unreliable narrator and a poorly written character and that I am capable of recognizing the difference between the two. Bella is a flawed character and I believe that she was intended to be. She's supposed to be average, after all. I also think there were some inconsistencies in her character (characterized as selfless yet does something that is extremely selfish) but is that poor characterization on the part of the author or is that the reader having an unreasonable expectation that a poular YA novel portray a positive role model that never makes mistakes and when she does, they are relatively minor ones that she ultimately learns a lesson from?
Oh, God, stop with the multiple posts!
Jesse wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: " Bella didn't see that as romantic either so I am confused as to why these supposed impressionable young girls would if they are indeed taking their cues from her like you say..."
IKR? I'm always like, "Did we read the same book?"
Jesse wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: " Bella didn't see that as romantic either so I am confused as to why these supposed impressionable young girls would if they are indeed taking their cues from her like you say..."
IKR? I'm always like, "Did we read the same book?"
Mochaspresso wrote: "Sarah wrote: "Everyone assumes I am meaning to insult them. I was being completely serious, you legitimately don't see the problem with the book in regards to feminism, and that can only indicate y..."Oh my god, I don't have any problems with you enjoying the book. The issue I'm trying to maintain is the original question "Is she a bad writer" and the answer to that is unquestionably yes. Not an opinion thing, like whether you enjoy the book or not, it is for sure definitely terrible. Like I said, there are plenty of crappy books I like.
And I don't think we need to get into the branches of feminism, this is fairly straightforward. The difference between Twilight and other books that have flawed characters with less than honorable intentions, is that S. Meyer doesn't make her characters this way on purpose. She herself stated that she sees Bella as a strong female role model. She truly thinks she is painting Bella as a selfless, decent human being, and Edward as a gentleman. She actually thinks this relationship is romantic, and every part of the book is part of her fantasy, even the car stuff. Like I said, the whole book is porn. I really don't feel like explaining to you how Twilight is different from all those classic novels you name dropped. And I don't actually disagree with you about letting young girls read Twilight, I agree that if they're well adjusted and able to have a conversation with you about it its not likely to do any damage. That doesn't change the fact that the book portrays females in a horrible way that many people find offensive, and with every right to.
I don't know why you keep feeling you need to justify your parenting to me.
She is never a bad writer.But her thoughts are never realistic..But that can not be criticized because she was obviously writing a fiction...Come on guys! I spent nights on her novels..
Mochaspresso wrote: "Siobhan wrote: Without tooting my own horn too much, I've been writing a series for a few years. I can tell you one of my main characters is pretty heinous right now, he just sort-of cheated on his..."My illustration with my own work was in reference to Meyer not writing the characters she imagined, not that my narrator was unreliable. I do have an unreliable narrator, but that's not either of the characters I referenced. So they weren't questioning the girl (or guy's) reliability, but their very characterisation. And it supports what I said about Meyer, it's incredibly easy to picture a character, but subtle word choices can have a huge impact on perceptions. That's why it's so important to read your work. There's a line somewhere in Breaking Dawn where, every time I read it, I am brought completely out of the story because I don't know what it means, I don't see the relevance, and I know it's from Stephenie's stream of conscience that she refused to have edited. More's the pity.
Yes, I agree Bella's flawed, but I don't understand your argument for whether she's unreliable or not. You've accused me of the very thing you're doing, disregarding the other character's opinions just to go by Bella's narration. And I, like you, have read books with intentionally unreliable narrators, but like Twilight, there are books out there with accidentally unreliable narrators too. Like, Billy and Me, by Giovanna Fletcher, is a great example of that (I sporked it, I know that book very well), Billy spends much of the novel talking about the work he wants to take on to improve his image as a serious actor, yet near the end with the conflict (Billy and the lead, Sophie, having an argument) she claims he's changed because he used to be all about her and now he's about proving himself with his career. They met when he did his first serious piece and he told her what he was aiming for! But if you asked Giovanna, she would tell you what Sophie does, that Billy changes for the worse throughout the novel. It is incredibly easy as a writer, particularly if you don't hone the craft, to write a character you never intended, and to talk of them as the one you image you created.
I definitely don't believe you should only have, in YA fiction, positive role models to aspire to. In the Hunger Games, I thought Katniss was a bitch, but I still wanted her to triumph, because no matter how vile she was, she was still a product of her surroundings.
The biggest problem with Bella is that she is the placeholder for Meyer to live out her fantasy of the perfect high school career, and Meyer wrote it so she could triumph over all the girls she perceived to be more popular, more bitchy, richer etc, and all she did was prove that she would have been the biggest bitch of all.
And lastly, for Jessica's reaction outside of the bar? Completely normal. We haven't all grown up in New York. I crap myself if I have to walk home five minutes in the dark on a winter afternoon and there's someone I vaguely recognise on the other side of the road. No wonder Jessica hesitated, she was scared for Bella and didn't want to be involved if something went wrong, but she didn't want to see her friend hurt either. She was like a rabbit in the headlights. They were seventeen-year-old girls in a dodgy part of town! You keep your head down, walk away fast and pray. Bella was a bitch to her for that whole debacle.
I look at YA books differently than adult books. If the purpose of a novel is to get teenagers to read it, then I think Stephanie Meyer did a great job writing her books. I don't think she is a bad writer. Teenagers are the most unpredictable people and Stephanie Meyer really captured that.
Siobhan wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "Siobhan wrote: Without tooting my own horn too much, I've been writing a series for a few years. I can tell you one of my main characters is pretty heinous right now, he just ..."The placeholder for her to live out her fantasy high school career and triumph over the bitchy girls! That is perfect, no one could have said it better. That is the thing, Bella is not a complex, flawed-on-purpose character. I don't know why people give SM so much credit.
Sarah wrote: "...and I'm also impressed that you trademarked the name."It's not my trademark, unfortunately. It's property of the Department of Overused Cliches™.
Olivia wrote: "Sarah wrote: "Siobhan wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "Siobhan wrote: Without tooting my own horn too much, I've been writing a series for a few years. I can tell you one of my main characters is pret..."The Host = Twilight with aliens. Have you watched the film? It highlights just how bad it is. Worst scene was definitely when Mel/Wanda made out with two guys, in some cliched storyline to bring one of them to the fore. Ridiculous.
Mochaspresso wrote: "On pg 71 of Twilight, Bella says that Jessica makes a half-hearted attempt to convince her to go the dance. Bella also says that she suspects that Jessica "enjoys my inexplicable popularity more than my actual company." "Bella makes no attempt to be friends with them, why should they try when she is not? And how would she know what Jessica is doing if she doesn't actually tell her? Jessica does nothing but try to be her friend and again, what popularity does Bella have that Jessica hopes to gain? Throughout the whole series Bella never has any popularity gained from being new at school, her novelty wore off and no one cared about her after a while. What does Jessica have to gain in a nefarious way that we are shown? Nothing but a shitty friend.
"When I mentioned that Bella felt this way earlier, your response was that her omniscience doesn't count. Those were your exact words. Yet, now you're choosing to count her pov when she is in one of her delusional and hearing Edward's voice in her head phases. "
I still have no clue what you're referring to with the second part about Edward. As for her omniscience for everything else, it doesn't count because she doesn't know what people are feeling or thinking and Jessica shows no ulterior motives to trying to become Bella's friend, so I don't see the problem. We are of course having some miscommunication, can you post what you are talking about?
"If you are allowing your dislike of her to skew your views of what happens in the book, it does. "
Good thing I'm not then.
"The book makes it clear that she does, though. 1) Bella suspects it, 2) Edward reads her thoughts and tells Bella what she's thinking from time to time. 3) Jessica demonstrates it through some of the things that she says and does. She was a popular girl and liked being seen with the new girl. She also liked having more opportunities to hang around Mike since she had a crush on him. She was also a gossip and when Bella started dating Edward, the kids at school all took notice. Jessica liked being in a "friend" position to get the skinny on their relationship and became annoyed when Bella wouldn't confide much to her. The vast majority of Bella's conversations with Jessica involved Jessica grilling her about Edward and Bella thinking of ways to either dodge the questions or change the subject. "
And still Jessica has no popularity to gain from befriending the new girl, Bella. Bella wasn't popular at Forks. What Bella suspects is never confirmed and Jessica is written as the cliche preppy girl at school, what do you expect her to do, especially when written by Meyer?
I'm not saying she was the best friend to have, Meyer made sure of that, I'm just saying I don't see how she was a worse friend than Bella was and tried to gain something from Bella other than friendship, which you aren't showing me. And from what I recall Edward never told her that Jessica had any nefarious thoughts about Bella, that she wasn't friendly. Jealous, sure, but never not friendly.
"She didn't have to engage the men....just Bella. The men were not doing anything. Regardless of whether she knew them or not, I wouldn't have let her go over to them alone. "
And she made a valiant effort to stop her but as I said, she just wasn't written to be the best of buddies with Bella.
"Jessica didn't know that Bella didn't have any interest in Mike until she asked. I will give Jessica credit for the fact that she at least, asked Bella how she felt about it first. That is something a decent friend would do. "
When she asked was after Bella saw the Cullens, it was clear that Bella had no interest in anyone but the Cullens. It's nice that she asked but she still had feelings for him before Bella came along. It's great that she asked, it shows that she's not as bad a friend as you're trying to make her out to be. I wouldn't have given two shits if I were her.
"I'm inclined to say that you either completely misread Jessica's character or you are letting your intense dislike of Bella cloud your perceptions. Jessica was a stereotypical phony friend. She wasn't outwardly mean or nasty like Lauren. She was the smile in your face type and gossip behind your back type."
I don't let my hate for a character cloud my judgement of their character or the story overall. It is why I hate the character and what they do that I judge them on. As such, Bella is a shitty friend and while Jessica was never meant to be a good friend to Bella, she at least wasn't as bad a friend as Bella.
How could she have been that when she never did that? While Bella was catatonic she didn't gossip about her or spoke ill of her. She was as good a friend as Angela was.
Siobhan wrote: "I think the main problem, that's led to these back-and-forth posts, is that Mochaspresso believes that Bella is a reliable narrator, whereas the rest of us know her to be unreliable. And I think th..."And that is exactly it, thank you so much. I was just about to make a separate post about it. Bella isn't a reliable narrator, she is very biased and prejudiced and again, takes Edward's opinion on things and people over everything else when he too is an unreliable narrator. Meyer interjected information that Bella would not have on her own unless she was told or found out for herself. And I hated that and that is a another reason why Meyer is a bad author.
Mochaspresso wrote: "Jesse wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: " Bella didn't see that as romantic either so I am confused as to why these supposed impressionable young girls would if they are indeed taking their cues from he..."Patch is just like Edward in that many a fans would gladly let him stalk them. Patch wanted to kill Nora, who's just like Bella. And because he's mega hot, many fans would let him kill them.
Alexandra wrote: "I read the Twilight Saga a few years back and all I remember is that I couldn't put it down. I didn't really like the story all that much and Bella Swan annoyed me slightly, however, that doesn't m..."I agree, much as Bella was annoying and the writing was tedious, I went through all four books so there must be something there..
Sarah wrote: "Oh my god, I don't have any problems with you enjoying the book. The issue I'm trying to maintain is the original question "Is she a bad writer" and the answer to that is unquestionably yes. Not an opinion thing, like whether you enjoy the book or not, it is for sure definitely terrible. Like I said, there are plenty of crappy books I like. And I don't think we need to get into the branches of feminism, this is fairly straightforward. The difference between Twilight and other books that have flawed characters with less than honorable intentions, is that S. Meyer doesn't make her characters this way on purpose. She herself stated that she sees Bella as a strong female role model. She truly thinks she is painting Bella as a selfless, decent human being, and Edward as a gentleman. She actually thinks this relationship is romantic, and every part of the book is part of her fantasy, even the car stuff. Like I said, the whole book is porn. I really don't feel like explaining to you how Twilight is different from all those classic novels you name dropped. And I don't actually disagree with you about letting young girls read Twilight, I agree that if they're well adjusted and able to have a conversation with you about it its not likely to do any damage. That doesn't change the fact that the book portrays females in a horrible way that many people find offensive, and with every right to.
I don't know why you keep feeling you need to justify your parenting to me.
You said that you hope that I don't have daughters. I'm telling you don't worry about me and raise your own kids because they may have a very serious problem if they are impressionable enough to be negatively affected by Twilight. Not everyone raises their kids to be that impressionable. Stop scapegoating mass media for societies ills and talk to your kids and don't wait until they are old enough for Twilight to do it because that is much too late to be having these types of conversations.
Even if I don't agree, I do respect some posters because they at least support their positions. I wasn't under the impression that everyone had to agree in a discussion forum, if so, what is the point of discussions?
"Twilight is offensive to women" is not a fact. That is an opinion. An opinion that I don't share. I don't condone every single thing that happened in Twilight, but I was not offended by anything in it as a woman. This is the problem with generic rhetoric. I can't read minds like Edward and I don't know what you think I am supposed to be offended by. It seems that you want to speaker box without being challenged and don't want to go into specifics beyond that. Yes, Edward was controlling. So was Heathcliff from "Wuthering Heights". What's your point? You say Edward was abusive. Well, so was Tom from "The Great Gatsby". What's your point? I don't need anyone to explain to me how the books were different. I've read them. I also know that these characters in the classic books were written to be bad. I just don't think that matters as much as you seem to think it does. If "impressionable" kids can't handle a very easy read like Twilight and instantly realize that Edward disabling Bella's truck was wrong and understand that Bella didn't find that romantic......how on earth are they going to understand Jay Gatsby, Tom and Daisy with Fitzgerald's distinctive prose thrown in? That is the mindset that I have. If kids can't handle very easy to read fluff like Twilight, how can they possibly handle the mature content in a JHS/HS level reading list?
btw, Twilight is not porn. Far from it, actually. I know because I read "porn". Twilight is actually very clean, especially when compared to many other popular YA series.
Siobhan wrote: "My illustration with my own work was in reference to Meyer not writing the characters she imagined, not that my narrator was unreliable. I do have an unreliable narrator, but that's not either of the characters I referenced. So they weren't questioning the girl (or guy's) reliability, but their very characterisation. And it supports what I said about Meyer, it's incredibly easy to picture a character, but subtle word choices can have a huge impact on perceptions. That's why it's so important to read your work. There's a line somewhere in Breaking Dawn where, every time I read it, I am brought completely out of the story because I don't know what it means, I don't see the relevance, and I know it's from Stephenie's stream of conscience that she refused to have edited. More's the pity.Yes, I agree Bella's flawed, but I don't understand your argument for whether she's unreliable or not. You've accused me of the very thing you're doing, disregarding the other character's opinions just to go by Bella's narration. And I, like you, have read books with intentionally unreliable narrators, but like Twilight, there are books out there with accidentally unreliable narrators too. Like, Billy and Me, by Giovanna Fletcher, is a great example of that (I sporked it, I know that book very well), Billy spends much of the novel talking about the work he wants to take on to improve his image as a serious actor, yet near the end with the conflict (Billy and the lead, Sophie, having an argument) she claims he's changed because he used to be all about her and now he's about proving himself with his career. They met when he did his first serious piece and he told her what he was aiming for! But if you asked Giovanna, she would tell you what Sophie does, that Billy changes for the worse throughout the novel. It is incredibly easy as a writer, particularly if you don't hone the craft, to write a character you never intended, and to talk of them as the one you image you created.
I'm not sure which character's opinions I am disregarding because many characters seemed to like Bella no matter what she did. (something that I did not like about the books) and to my memory, no other characters offer direct opinions on Jessica besides Bella and Edward (whom you've conveniently determined to be unreliable...more on this later). Other than personal opinions on poor writing and characterization, there was nothing in the books, imo, to suggest that Bella's narration was intended to be unreliable. Maybe a case could be made for her being a naive narrator. However, even then, I still think that literary device has to be intentional. (ie...SM shouldn't say that Bella is mature beyond her years and then make her naive. If the author does that, that doesn't make the character unreliable. It just means that there is a flaw in the author's characterization. Those are two distinctly different things imo.) My assessment of Jessica's character was not just based on Bella and Edward's pov. I've already stated that it was also based on the things that she says and does. However, the fact that the entire story is told from Bella's pov is very convenient to your argument. If you declare Bella and Edward unreliable, you now have the ability to disregard anything that you want to in the story and recast a character that was written as negative as a positive one. You can change established character motivations at will. You can basically re-write the story to suit your needs. (ie...Jessica was a good friend to Bella). I'm not convinced that this is the best and most objective way to analyze literature.
I definitely don't believe you should only have, in YA fiction, positive role models to aspire to. In the Hunger Games, I thought Katniss was a bitch, but I still wanted her to triumph, because no matter how vile she was, she was still a product of her surroundings.
I liked Katniss in the first two books. More specifically, I think I understood why she was the way she was. I liked that her focus was on survival and that in her own way, she was loyal to those who mattered to her. I didn't like her as much in third book, though.
The biggest problem with Bella is that she is the placeholder for Meyer to live out her fantasy of the perfect high school career, and Meyer wrote it so she could triumph over all the girls she perceived to be more popular, more bitchy, richer etc, and all she did was prove that she would have been the biggest bitch of all.
I though Bella was a mary sue character, but not for the reason you mention above. I'm not so sure that Bella's HS career was perfect or that she triumphs over all the other girls. I think much more than getting Edward would have had to happen to make what you are saying true. Maybe if she'd been voted prom queen or something along those lines. I think all of the girl's clique stuff is in Twilight because it's a common and relatable trope in YA fiction.
And lastly, for Jessica's reaction outside of the bar? Completely normal. We haven't all grown up in New York. I crap myself if I have to walk home five minutes in the dark on a winter afternoon and there's someone I vaguely recognise on the other side of the road. No wonder Jessica hesitated, she was scared for Bella and didn't want to be involved if something went wrong, but she didn't want to see her friend hurt either. She was like a rabbit in the headlights. They were seventeen-year-old girls in a dodgy part of town! You keep your head down, walk away fast and pray. Bella was a bitch to her for that whole debacle.
"didn't want to be involved if something went wrong"...that's not how I do friends, we have each other's backs, but whatever.
I said that I understood her reaction given the situation. Bella was wrong to approach the men. What I didn't agree w/ was Jesse's exaggeration that Bella's actions almost got them raped and with all this talk of who is a good friend and who isn't, I thought that a truly good friend would do more than stay on the other side of the street. A good friend wouldn't have let her go alone and would have tried to stop her.
Jesse wrote: "Bella makes no attempt to be friends with them, why should they try when she is not? And how would she know what Jessica is doing if she doesn't actually tell her? Jessica does nothing but try to be her friend and again, what popularity does Bella have that Jessica hopes to gain? Throughout the whole series Bella never has any popularity gained from being new at school, her novelty wore off and no one cared about her after a while. What does Jessica have to gain in a nefarious way that we are shown? Nothing but a shitty friend.I could give you direct examples from the book that contradict your claim that Bella had no popularity at school but there is no point to doing so. You've already decided that Bella is an unreliable narrator and the entire story is told from her pov. The response to everything has been that xyz on pg 123 doesn't count because she's not a reliable narrator.
Bella was popular when she arrived as the New Girl, when she was almost hit by the car in the parking lot, when certain boys showed interest in her, particularly Mike and Tyler and also when she started dating Edward. People were looking and staring. Bella suspects that Jessica enjoys the attention of hanging w/ Bella more than her actual company. Edward, who reads minds, confirms this as well. Whenever Bella and Jessica are together, the talk is either all about Jessica or it's Jessica grilling Bella for the skinny on her and Edward. (Interesting that with all this talk of who is bitchy, Mike, a male is not criticized for deliberately making it clear that Edward was not welcome on the outing to La Push when he invited Bella. Neither was Jacob when he insinuated that Mike was a candy-ass...I think the book says marshmallow...when Mike gets sick in the movie theater. The boys are cliquey and bitchy in Twilight, too. Just as bad as the girls.) When it wore off, ironically, so did her "friendships". Bella had a huge hand in that...but friendship is also a two way street in my view.
"When I mentioned that Bella felt this way earlier, your response was that her omniscience doesn't count. Those were your exact words. Yet, now you're choosing to count her pov when she is in one of her delusional and hearing Edward's voice in her head phases. "
I still have no clue what you're referring to with the second part about Edward. As for her omniscience for everything else, it doesn't count because she doesn't know what people are feeling or thinking and Jessica shows no ulterior motives to trying to become Bella's friend, so I don't see the problem. We are of course having some miscommunication, can you post what you are talking about?
The part about Edward refers to her hearing her voice in her head. This incident is where she starts having the delusions and realizes that she can hear Edward's voice in her head during the adrenaline rushes caused by danger and recklessness. If she's such an unreliable narrator, why did you believe her perception of Jessica's reaction and of the "oozed menace"? Not only did you believe it, you were inclined to exaggerate it way more than even Bella herself did (Bella clearly admits to herself that it was more of an implied menace rather than a real one.)
And still Jessica has no popularity to gain from befriending the new girl, Bella. Bella wasn't popular at Forks. What Bella suspects is never confirmed and Jessica is written as the cliche preppy girl at school, what do you expect her to do, especially when written by Meyer?
I'm not saying she was the best friend to have, Meyer made sure of that, I'm just saying I don't see how she was a worse friend than Bella was and tried to gain something from Bella other than friendship, which you aren't showing me. And from what I recall Edward never told her that Jessica had any nefarious thoughts about Bella, that she wasn't friendly. Jealous, sure, but never not friendly.
The book clearly says that Bella was popular at Forks several times. Twilight is not "Fight Club" or "A Beautiful Mind" or "Shutter Island"....the type of story that where nothing is real and all of it only takes place in the mind of a mentally ill main character. From the first day she arrives, the whole town knew she was coming and that she was the Police Chief's daughter. Charlie knows about everything that happens to her at school via word of mouth or his scanner and what Bella suspects about Jessica's true character and motivations is confirmed by Edward and even by Jessica, herself through what she says and does.
And she made a valiant effort to stop her but as I said, she just wasn't written to be the best of buddies with Bella.
I don't call standing on the other side of the street saying "come on!" valiant or much of an effort and you are right in that she wasn't written to be the best of buddies with Bella.
When she asked was after Bella saw the Cullens, it was clear that Bella had no interest in anyone but the Cullens. It's nice that she asked but she still had feelings for him before Bella came along. It's great that she asked, it shows that she's not as bad a friend as you're trying to make her out to be. I wouldn't have given two shits if I were her.
Here's the thing, though. I don't think that she only asked JUST to be nice. I think that she also wanted to have a clearer idea of what her chances were going to be because Bella was clearly his first choice.
I don't let my hate for a character cloud my judgement of their character or the story overall. It is why I hate the character and what they do that I judge them on. As such, Bella is a shitty friend and while Jessica was never meant to be a good friend to Bella, she at least wasn't as bad a friend as Bella.
Bella is very loyal to her "real" friends. When it comes the kids at school, I just think that Bella didn't have much in common with them. She didn't care about gossip and clothes and shopping. She was completely obsessed with Edward but she wasn't the type that tells her friends everything about her relationship. Even if Edward had been a human boy, I don't think Bella would have been that type. Jessica was the "tell everything and leave nothing out" type and Bella wasn't. Bella was also caught up in all of her supernatural stuff while they were busy just being normal kids.
How could she have been that when she never did that? While Bella was catatonic she didn't gossip about her or spoke ill of her. She was as good a friend as Angela was.
She also sulked because Bella didn't socialize with her or anyone else while she was going through a depression. Way to make someone else's issues all about her. (Not that Bella is any better in that regard, but just sayin'...)
Mochaspresso wrote: "Siobhan wrote: "My illustration with my own work was in reference to Meyer not writing the characters she imagined, not that my narrator was unreliable. I do have an unreliable narrator, but that's..."Don't misunderstand me on purpose for the sake of an argument, it makes you look foolish. You know I meant that Jessica did not want to get hurt. And you know that Jessica did not want to get hurt. But it's very clear that Bella was seeking it. I refuse to believe that Jessica was the shitty friend.
Siobhan wrote: "Don't misunderstand me on purpose for the sake of an argument, it makes you look foolish. You know I meant that Jessica did not want to get hurt. And you know that Jessica did not want to get hurt. But it's very clear that Bella was seeking it. I refuse to believe that Jessica was the shitty friend. I'm not misunderstanding you on purpose and I am certainly not doing it for the sake of an argument. Those were your words and I understood that you meant Jessica didn't want to get hurt. My response.....depending on the circumstances, part of "having someone's back" might involve the very real possibility of being hurt. If that time comes, do you want people who are going to punk out in your corner or do you want people who will have your back no matter what? I am actually being very serious. Where I am from, you do not punk out on your friends.
What would Jacob have done in that situation? Alice? I think they would have gotten in her face to stop her if it came to that and even if they were human, I really don't think that they would have let a fear of being hurt stop them from trying.
I didn't hate Jessica at all...but that doesn't change the fact that her character was a jealous gossipy two-faced phony social leech. No, she wasn't a shitty friend. She just wasn't a true friend or even a very good one.
Mochaspresso wrote: "I could give you direct examples from the book that contradict your claim that Bella had no popularity at school but there is no point to doing so. You've already decided that Bella is an unreliable narrator and the entire story is told from her pov. The response to everything has been that xyz on pg 123 doesn't count because she's not a reliable narrator."Now now, don't pout. Please do, it is the reason were talking about this. If you don't want to then what is the point of us continuing this line of conversation?
I must stress that you can have a first person point of view and have a reliable narrator. Would you like some examples of what I feel is Bella being given information about something because Meyer made it so for reasons one can only guess to be because it furthered the plot? I'm positive you're familiar with the tumblr ReasoningWithVampires, I'm using examples from there.
As explained in the picture, Bella has no logical idea why the tourists would be confused, she (Meyer) cannot feed us information this way because it is cheating at narration.
Bella, to put it simply, is not a reliable narrator because Meyer has made her omniscient.
At this point, I don't feel like knowing about what you mean with edward and me contradicting myself because you won't explain. So I'm just dropping it.
"Bella was popular when she arrived as the New Girl, when she was almost hit by the car in the parking lot, when certain boys showed interest in her, particularly Mike and Tyler and also when she started dating Edward. People were looking and staring. Bella suspects that Jessica enjoys the attention of hanging w/ Bella more than her actual company. Edward, who reads minds, confirms this as well. Whenever Bella and Jessica are together, the talk is either all about Jessica or it's Jessica grilling Bella for the skinny on her and Edward. (Interesting that with all this talk of who is bitchy, Mike, a male is not criticized for deliberately making it clear that Edward was not welcome on the outing to La Push when he invited Bella. Neither was Jacob when he insinuated that Mike was a candy-ass...I think the book says marshmallow...when Mike gets sick in the movie theater. The boys are cliquey and bitchy in Twilight, too. Just as bad as the girls.) When it wore off, ironically, so did her "friendships". Bella had a huge hand in that...but friendship is also a two way street in my view. "
And the first part is all in Twilight. Her novelty wore off and if I remember correctly Bella makes note of that. When Bella suspected that Jessica liked her popularity she had no reason to, it's completely unrelated to the conversation they were having as Jessica wanted to make sure Bella wasn't going to change her mind about going with Mike.
it's hard to find where Edward confirmed that Jessica only wanted Bella as a friend to leech off her popularity, could you quote it?
And as I said before about toxic friends, Bella was not a good friend to them in the least because she barely showed interest in any of them when Edward wasn't around and it's not hard to assume they took notice of this. If someone didn't want to be your friend in the first place, would you continue to try to be their friend? I certainly wouldn't.
"The part about Edward refers to her hearing her voice in her head. This incident is where she starts having the delusions and realizes that she can hear Edward's voice in her head during the adrenaline rushes caused by danger and recklessness. If she's such an unreliable narrator, why did you believe her perception of Jessica's reaction and of the "oozed menace"? Not only did you believe it, you were inclined to exaggerate it way more than even Bella herself did (Bella clearly admits to herself that it was more of an implied menace rather than a real one.) "
you are still not connecting these two which is what I've asked twice now and I'm finding myself less inclined to care. I don't actually care anymore about it since you aren't telling me straight up what the connection is, and where in my posts this originated from so that there can be some clarity.
"Bella is very loyal to her "real" friends. When it comes the kids at school, I just think that Bella didn't have much in common with them. "
Where is her loyalty? She only associates with them when the Cullens are gone which Lauren points out quiet correctly. Bella didn't care for the people who wanted to be her friends. It wasn't that they didn't click, she just never cared. To her they pushed themselves on her and she didn't want that and they were only trying to be friendly so she didn't feel outright ostracized.
" From the first day she arrives, the whole town knew she was coming and that she was the Police Chief's daughter. Charlie knows about everything that happens to her at school via word of mouth or his scanner and what Bella suspects about Jessica's true character and motivations is confirmed by Edward and even by Jessica, herself through what she says and does. "
But you are not showing what Jessica gained from supposedly trying to leech off her popularity. she got nothing that you are showing me. You are only adamant in saying she was popular to which I say that if Jessica were trying to leech off of it then all of them did, which is the next logical step but one you say is wrong because Angela is more of a friend than Jessica to you.
"Here's the thing, though. I don't think that she only asked JUST to be nice. I think that she also wanted to have a clearer idea of what her chances were going to be because Bella was clearly his first choice. "
And? That is your assumption that she was asking with a more ulterior motive in mind and one that can't be proven. She's asking to be nice because she wants to be with Mike, but not if Bella wanted Mike. It sucks that Mike doesn't show an interest in Jessica but she clearly has an interest in him that would've been held back had Bella had an actual interest in him. Hence her not being what you make her out to be.
"She also sulked because Bella didn't socialize with her or anyone else while she was going through a depression. Way to make someone else's issues all about her. (Not that Bella is any better in that regard, but just sayin'...) "
And why would she make it about her only when you mention that she didn't want to socialize with anyone else? When someone is pushing you away there is only so much you can do to try to bring them out before they shut you out completely. If someone you see as a friend doesn't seem to want to be friends anymore with not only you but everyone else in your group, of course you'd sulk. Who wouldn't?
I'm going to ignore the "don't pout" foolishness. If you want to take the thread away from civil discussion into that same snarkyness that exists in the blog that you've quoted, you can do that on your own. I'm just going to continue to talk about the book...... The first cheating at narration example is not accurate, to be honest. That's another reason why I don't like those snarky blogs. People read them and take them as an accurate analysis rather than reading for themselves and forming their own perceptions. (I am not specifically referring to you per se. I'm speaking in general.)
First, Bella does know why those people are there. She's not "oblivious". Second, you can look at a person's facial expressions and recognize confusion. Depending on the situation, you can also figure out why they might be confused without anyone specifically telling you. That isn't "supernaturally intuitive" and it's not cheating because the assertion that Bella doesn't know why those people were there was inaccurate. It's the tourists that don't know and the story is not being told from their pov.
It seems that the blog author feels that the writing would have been better had that line been left out and the reader allowed to figure it out as the screaming starts, but I disagree. The description, as Meyer wrote it, of the tourists walking in, some snapping pictures with no clue and others looking around confused because they might be sensing that something is off about this tour gave me a perfect visual of the scene and it allowed me to imagine myself in the place of a tourist. I literally saw the movie scene in my head....which is always interesting to me when a book is later turned into a movie. That's one of the things that I like to do....think about whether the movie version matches the scene that I had in my mind.
I don't agree with the second one either. Just because an explanation is reasonable doesn't mean that another person can't still have doubts about that explanation. That's not being "omniscient" or even super intuitive, imo. Plus, Edward characterized Bella as being extremely perceptive several times. Her being perceptive here in this situation is not unreasonable or out of character.
fwiw, Edward didn't say that Jessica wanted to leech off of her popularity in Twilight. That was Bella. Edward confirms the negative nature of Jessica's character in Midnight Sun, which you've already rejected. The negative things that Edward reveals about Jessica's character in Twilight are mixed into conversations that he has with Bella. Edward watches Bella in some of her classes through Jessica's mind. A few times in various parts of the book, he tells Bella what he sees in Jessica's mind and it is clear that he doesn't like her. Off the top of my head, I remember that he calls her annoying and that her mind isn't original. He tells Bella whenever Jessica wants to grill her on what's happening between them. He's irritated because Jessica watches and analyzes everything he's doing while he's with Bella at school. She is jealous and nosey and gossipy and he doesn't like her. I think there is more than enough evidence in Twilight to say that Jessica was not a true friend to Bella or even a nice person. We'll probably just have to agree to disagree.
As for Bella blowing off her friends, Mike and Edward didn't particularly like each other. Edward wasn't exactly welcomed with open unconditionally open arms into their little clique. Bella didn't just blow off her friends. She was suffering from depression. Perhaps I am projecting a bit because I have a friend who deals with depression and other psychological issues. She goes through periods when she stops taking her medication and literally becomes a totally different person. We've been friends for a very long time and I never turned my back on her and sulked because she pushed me away. That's part of the reason why I hated New Moon. I didn't like extent of Bella's depression and the way it was resolved.
I also don't think that Bella was intended to be perceived as an unreliable narrator. I think we will just have to agree to disagree on that as well.
She is not that bad. Just that her book's story was too mainstream. There was nothing new to the story. Even her book other than twilight like 'the host' had the same story.
Mochaspresso wrote: "I'm going to ignore the "don't pout" foolishness. If you want to take the thread away from civil discussion into that same snarkyness that exists in the blog that you've quoted, you can do that on your own. I'm just going to continue to talk about the book...... "Thank you for wrongly assuming the intent behind my words. It makes my life fill with joy. You seemed like you were pouting because my mind has already been made on Bella, which duh. It has. But not in that way. If I'm being snarky, you will know, and that wasn't it.
"The first cheating at narration example is not accurate, to be honest. That's another reason why I don't like those snarky blogs. People read them and take them as an accurate analysis rather than reading for themselves and forming their own perceptions. (I am not specifically referring to you per se. I'm speaking in general.)"
And why do you think so? Bella cannot guess -how ever correctly- why the tourist are collectively confused.
"First, Bella does know why those people are there. She's not "oblivious". Second, you can look at a person's facial expressions and recognize confusion. Depending on the situation, you can also figure out why they might be confused without anyone specifically telling you. That isn't "supernaturally intuitive" and it's not cheating because the assertion that Bella doesn't know why those people were there was inaccurate. It's the tourists that don't know and the story is not being told from their pov."
She actually did not know the tourist were there to get eaten because on the next page she says so. She can't gauge their confusion on something she doesn't know. She doesn't know why the tourist would feel as if something were off, she can't be omniscient about it. That's cheating, especially when she doesn't know.
"I don't agree with the second one either. Just because an explanation is reasonable doesn't mean that another person can't still have doubts about that explanation. That's not being "omniscient" or even super intuitive, imo. Plus, Edward characterized Bella as being extremely perceptive several times. Her being perceptive here in this situation is not unreasonable or out of character."
She has exactly zero reasons to suspect that Billy is lying and that Jacob doesn't actually have mono. None. And the last thing Bella is is perceptive, she's shown that a lot.
"fwiw"
What??????
"Edward confirms the negative nature of Jessica's character in Midnight Sun, which you've already rejected. "
Because it doesn't count. It is an unpublished book filled with idioms that I feel if it were published would contradict a lot of things in Twilight. It and its content shouldn't count to anyone on the simple fact that it's unfinished and unpublished. If he doesn't do it throughout the series and Bella's suspicions are never confirmed and Jessica stays a friend, then it is wrong.
"Off the top of my head, I remember that he calls her annoying and that her mind isn't original. He tells Bella whenever Jessica wants to grill her on what's happening between them. He's irritated because Jessica watches and analyzes everything he's doing while he's with Bella at school. She is jealous and nosey and gossipy and he doesn't like her."
And this makes her a bad friend how...? Fuck Edward, like Bella, you shouldn't hold his opinion in high regard. She has a right to be jealous, and being gossipy is her thing. Bella has never been with a boy, why wouldn't she appreciate Jessica decoding the 'boy language' and breaking it down for Bella? These are not reasons why she's a horrible person and wants what little popularity Bella had and not Bella's friendship.
"Mike and Edward didn't particularly like each other.
So?
"Edward wasn't exactly welcomed with open unconditionally open arms into their little clique. "
And you think they had no reason? Like the rest of the humans in the school, they knew that the Cullens were odd and didn't want to bother with them, especially because they didn't want to bother with them either. The problem?
"Bella didn't just blow off her friends. She was suffering from depression. "
And even before then she blew them off to be with Edward and made it clear which group she liked better. Friendships can't blossom if you pull the flower out before it has a chance.
"We've been friends for a very long time and I never turned my back on her and sulked because she pushed me away."
Surely you see the difference between your long, solid friendship and the barely there friendship that Bella didn't care about, nor the people who wanted to befriend her. There is literally no comparison or similarities of which you can project onto.
"I also don't think that Bella was intended to be perceived as an unreliable narrator. I think we will just have to agree to disagree on that as well. "
And that is where you're wrong. I agree that she wasn't meant to be seen as that. Bella was meant to be seen in heavenly light, not the muddy swamp light that I'm casting her in. That doesn't mean that she is a reliable narrator. She's prejudiced and biased, her perception is skewed.
I think SM is an amazing writer! One of my favourite writers ever. Her style is good, very good and I really enjoyed Twilight.
i think SM is a "meh" writer. She's not horrible, but she's not god either. There are a lot of mistakes in the writing, such as awkward phrasing; and all the characters are really flat.
But there are also many other writers that are just as bad, or worse as SM.
Jessy wrote: "Thank you for wrongly assuming the intent behind my words. It makes my life fill with joy. You seemed like you were pouting because my mind has already been made on Bella, which duh. It has. But not in that way. If I'm being snarky, you will know, and that wasn't it. "Don't pout" has a very clear meaning and connotation. Own your words and explain what you were trying to be, then? The intent behind it doesn't matter. I don't care why you said it. The point to me is that it's a rude thing to say to an adult in the midst of what was a civil discussion up until that point.
And why do you think so? Bella cannot guess -how ever correctly- why the tourist are collectively confused.
She actually did not know the tourist were there to get eaten because on the next page she says so. She can't gauge their confusion on something she doesn't know. She doesn't know why the tourist would feel as if something were off, she can't be omniscient about it. That's cheating, especially when she doesn't know.
First, you don't actually need to know anything specific about a situation to be able to recognize a confused facial expression. Bella knows that the Volturi are vampires. It's not hard to figure out that the humans weren't really there for a tour. Second, I don't know what you are referring to when you say that she says she doesn't know on the next page. The lines quoted in the blog occur on page 482. The first line on page 483 of the book is "Edward pulled my face against his chest, but it was too late. I already understood."
She has exactly zero reasons to suspect that Billy is lying and that Jacob doesn't actually have mono. None. And the last thing Bella is is perceptive, she's shown that a lot.
You don't have to have a reason to suspect anything. You should have valid reasons but you don't have to.
Whether you personally think she is or isn't, within the context of the story Edward believes her to be so.
Because it doesn't count. It is an unpublished book filled with idioms that I feel if it were published would contradict a lot of things in Twilight. It and its content shouldn't count to anyone on the simple fact that it's unfinished and unpublished. If he doesn't do it throughout the series and Bella's suspicions are never confirmed and Jessica stays a friend, then it is wrong.
I agree about the ret-conning in general. I just don't think that she ret-conned Jessica's character. Reading Twilight, I never had the impression that she was a decent friend that Bella treated horribly and turned her back on. They always had a very precarious and superficial "frenemy" friendship.
And this makes her a bad friend how...? Fuck Edward, like Bella, you shouldn't hold his opinion in high regard. She has a right to be jealous, and being gossipy is her thing. Bella has never been with a boy, why wouldn't she appreciate Jessica decoding the 'boy language' and breaking it down for Bella? These are not reasons why she's a horrible person and wants what little popularity Bella had and not Bella's friendship.
I don't think she or Lauren had a right to be jealous. It's not Bella's fault that Mike and Tyler liked her. Being gossipy may be her thing, but there is also absolutely nothing wrong with Bella deciding that a gossipy person isn't a person that she wants to confide in or get too chummy with.
I'm not so sure that Jessica is the type that is genuinely qualified to "decode boy language" accurately. Those jealous gossipy types tend to get a lot of that stuff wrong, if my memory of adolescence serves.
I don't see why I should disregard Edward's pov here. He's a main character in the story and has the ability to read minds. Plus, in those instances, Jessica actually went on to do exactly what he said she would do.
"Mike and Edward didn't particularly like each other.
So?
"Edward wasn't exactly welcomed with open unconditionally open arms into their little clique. "
And you think they had no reason? Like the rest of the humans in the school, they knew that the Cullens were odd and didn't want to bother with them, especially because they didn't want to bother with them either. The problem?
Acceptance was another theme that I saw in Twilight.
I'm having a very hard time finding justifications for being cliquey.
It seems that I consider being motivated by jealousy, cliquey and gossipy to be much more negative character traits than you do.
I also thought it was a good thing that eventually, the whole "the Cullen's table" and "our lunch table" thing was gone and they were all interacting and sharing the same tables. The same can be said for the mellowing of original tension between the Cullens and the Wolves.
"Bella didn't just blow off her friends. She was suffering from depression. "
And even before then she blew them off to be with Edward and made it clear which group she liked better. Friendships can't blossom if you pull the flower out before it has a chance.
Hanging out with a boy that you like is not "blowing off your friends." If it is, then Jessica did the exact same thing when she cancelled plans with Bella to be with Mike in the first book. (pg. 146)
Surely you see the difference between your long, solid friendship and the barely there friendship that Bella didn't care about, nor the people who wanted to befriend her. There is literally no comparison or similarities of which you can project onto.
I agree with you that there is a difference. I just don't think the reason that these friendships were "barely there" is all on Bella.
And that is where you're wrong. I agree that she wasn't meant to be seen as that. Bella was meant to be seen in heavenly light, not the muddy swamp light that I'm casting her in. That doesn't mean that she is a reliable narrator. She's prejudiced and biased, her perception is skewed.
I don't think that she was meant to be seen in a heavenly light either because she has flaws. My question is that if you know that she wasn't intended to be an unreliable character, is analysis of the text based on the assumption that she is accurate, though? Especially when one is selectively picking and choosing which instances to apply that analysis. (quoting Bella's words as justification for something that was deemed negative yet discounting them when they are being used to justify a positive trait or contradict that negative claim.)
Responses have gotten pretty predictable by now:4-5 stars: "OH MY GOD she is such an amazing writer she really speaks to me and her characters are so like relatable and any grammar mistakes are like so stylistic choices and isn't it all subjective anyway? Now I have to go and make sweet, sweet love to my Edward Cullen cardboard stand-up... don't judge."
3 stars: "She was... okay."
1-2 stars: "Holy FUCKBALLS she's horrid. If she shit in my eye, she'd do less damage to it than if I had to read that poorly-written, shallow, meaningless, unsuspenseful pile of dog vomit she called a book. It's an affront to English, vampire lore, women, and the trees that were killed to print this abortion. Here are the objective reasons it sucks..."
Imo, you can't call something a pile of dog vomit and an affront to the trees that were killed to print it and then claim that you are being "objective".Some may not agree, but I'm of the opinion that the reviews that come closest to being objective are those that use a pros vs cons format and don't assign a rating. The minute you assign a rating and insert "pile of dog shit" or "amazing, best book I ever read" comments, the review becomes subjective.
Mochaspresso wrote: "First, you don't actually need to know anything specific about a situation to be able to recognize a confused facial expression."And that I didn't say. She can't gleam why they are confused. She didn't know, not even she understood.
"I don't know what you are referring to when you say that she says she doesn't know on the next page."
You just quoted the line I was referring to. She herself didn't know what was going on until they got attacked. So she can't just assume why they are confused, or what for. That's being omniscient and cheating at narration.
"You don't have to have a reason to suspect anything. You should. have valid reasons but you don't have to."
She has no reason to suspect he's lying, as I said. That's just a flimsy excuse to let her omniscience pass because without it she wouldn't have gone to the preserve to confront Jacob because she knew he was avoiding her but not why, instead of him just being sick and not wanting her to catch it. That is still cheating at narration because there is no seed of doubt planted in her head that Billy would lie or that Jacob isn't actually sick.
"Whether you personally think she is or isn't, within the context of the story Edward believes her to be so."
And it isn't ever actually proven.
"I don't think she or Lauren had a right to be jealous. It's not Bella's fault that Mike and Tyler liked her. Being gossipy may be her thing, but there is also absolutely nothing wrong with Bella deciding that a gossipy person isn't a person that she wants to confide in or get too chummy with.
I'm not so sure that Jessica is the type that is genuinely qualified to "decode boy language" accurately. Those jealous gossipy types tend to get a lot of that stuff wrong, if my memory of adolescence serves."
Normal people feel jealously when the one they want wants someone else. This isn't a bad or abnormal thing. And Jessica still treated Bella like a friend regardless of her jealousy.
And yet she still did it because Bella has zero experience with guys being attracted to her and her attracted to them in return so Jessica offered her help in that regard. Whatever you perceive of her, she still did it and held her jealousy in check because she wanted to be Bella's friend, even if Bella didn't care for her in return.
"I don't see why I should disregard Edward's pov here. He's a main character in the story and has the ability to read minds. Plus, in those instances, Jessica actually went on to do exactly what he said she would do. "
Things like talk to Bella about Edward? So?? Again, fuck Edward. Jessica never shows any ire towards Bella, even when it's clear Mike wanted Bella and not her. Bella shouldn't mold her view of things and people over what he says. His opinion isn't golden or unbiased either.
"Hanging out with a boy that you like is not "blowing off your friends." If it is, then Jessica did the exact same thing when she cancelled plans with Bella to be with Mike in the first book. (pg. 146)"
And the amount of times Jessica has done this surpasses Bella's amount? Not likely. Again, At least Jessica tried to be her friend, Bella showed them clearly which group she preferred to hang out with and it wasn't them.
"I just don't think the reason that these friendships were "barely there" is all on Bella. "
Because it's as I've been saying, Bella never wanted to be their friend in the first place. They at least tried till it dawned on them that Bella didn't care about them. You don't see why it's all on Bella but I'm at least showing you why, you've yet to show me how Jessica is this conniving person who wanted the popularity Bella somewhat had instead of wanting to be her friend.
" My question is that if you know that she wasn't intended to be an unreliable character, is analysis of the text based on the assumption that she is accurate, though? Especially when one is selectively picking and choosing which instances to apply that analysis. (quoting Bella's words as justification for something that was deemed negative yet discounting them when they are being used to justify a positive trait or contradict that negative claim.) "
I believe so, yes. Because it's all in Meyer's writing and how she chose for things to go. Bella is the perfect character to her, the most normal, most average character who just happened to get into this situation but wanted to get through it to be with her new found love. But it's because of Meyer's writing that contradicts this. Bella's meant to be selfless, noble, and a plethora of others things Meyer intended for her but she is not written so, and multiple select pieces from the story can show this. It's not picking and choosing, or cropping to make it fit my opinion, it is picking pieces and showing that especially within the context of the story Bella proves to be selfish and a unreliable narrator because Meyer couldn't figure out how else to give Bella this information that she shouldn't have by normal means.
And we certainly can't forget that she's prejudiced and biased. She knows this, we know this. Her perception, as I said, is skewed. This is why she's an unreliable narrator. Because reliable narrators can't be biased and prejudiced.
Mochaspresso wrote: "Imo, you can't call something a pile of dog vomit and an affront to the trees that were killed to print it and then claim that you are being "objective"."Yes you can. It can be so objectively bad that you are put off by it, offended by it, and disgusted with yourself for reading it, and still be able to detach yourself emotionally from your analysis of it.
I read American Psycho on a recommendation from a friend. That book was so depraved and horrifying that I refuse to read it ever again... but I still gave it 4 stars because it was well-written and interesting. I hated and liked it all in one shot.
As for the "pros and cons" argument... no. Something that's a con for someone could be another person's pro (like Bella's need for necrophilia: some people applaud that and go Team Edward, while others see it as deeply disturbing and feel psychotherapy and medication are in order).
(Wait... nope, just double checked: I gave it 2 stars, but praised it to the skies and beyond in terms of writing.)
Bill wrote: "Responses have gotten pretty predictable by now:4-5 stars: "OH MY GOD she is such an amazing writer she really speaks to me and her characters are so like relatable and any grammar mistakes are l..."
Bill I like this post. ;D
I don't care if someone hates a book that happens to be a favorite of mine (which this isn't by any means). I actually love the more passionate reactions that help me see something through a different lenses. I love reading and "liking" the 1 star counterpoint to my 5 star reviews. Yet hate people that can't debate books,art, or movies without calling everyone with a different opinion stupid, weak, blind, etc...
Go to “My Writing” and see what I have!Please comment!
Jessy wrote: And that I didn't say. She can't gleam why they are confused. She didn't know, not even she understood.
Sure she can. People do it all the time, irl. Plus, she clearly states that she does understand. You are just refusing to acknowledge it because for some (nit-picky) reason, you don't think she should have been able to. I think you're also skewing the definition of omniscient. If I see a human walk into what I know is a vampire lair w/ a confused look on his/her face, I don't think it's unreasonable to be able to immediately come to the conclusion that they may have been lured there under false pretenses. I could see your point if Bella was not present at the time. However, Bella was there, saw the tourists and came to a conclusion based on what she saw. That is not being "omniscient".
You just quoted the line I was referring to. She herself didn't know what was going on until they got attacked. So she can't just assume why they are confused, or what for. That's being omniscient and cheating at narration.
She can't if you only quote selected lines in isolation and misrepresent those lines out of context. You're also incorrect about her not knowing until they'd been attacked. They hadn't even been attacked yet when she said she understood. The actual attack doesn't happen until the next page (pg 484).
She has no reason to suspect he's lying, as I said. That's just a flimsy excuse to let her omniscience pass because without it she wouldn't have gone to the preserve to confront Jacob because she knew he was avoiding her but not why, instead of him just being sick and not wanting her to catch it. That is still cheating at narration because there is no seed of doubt planted in her head that Billy would lie or that Jacob isn't actually sick.
Why can't the fact that she hadn't heard from him be her main seed of doubt? (notice that when a friend doesn't call her....she doesn't sit and sulk about it and give him the cold shoulder in return. She goes to check on him to make sure that he's really ok.) She also went to his house and he wasn't there even though he was supposed to be sick. The seed of doubt was also probably planted back when Jacob told her how the other boys in La Push changed after joining Sam Uley's "gang".
"Whether you personally think she is or isn't, within the context of the story Edward believes her to be so."
And it isn't ever actually proven.
In your opinion and you are choosing to reject anything that might possibly counter that opinion.
Normal people feel jealously when the one they want wants someone else. This isn't a bad or abnormal thing.
Yes, normal people feel jealousy but it is actually considered a "bad" emotion. So much so, that a close relative of jealousy, envy, is one of the 7 deadly sins. Just because it's not abnormal for human beings feel it, doesn't mean that it's "good".
And Jessica still treated Bella like a friend regardless of her jealousy.
"Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer".
"The Sparrow"
http://www.minderella.com/words/sparr...
...be sure to read the moral.
Things like talk to Bella about Edward? So?? Again, fuck Edward. Jessica never shows any ire towards Bella, even when it's clear Mike wanted Bella and not her. Bella shouldn't mold her view of things and people over what he says. His opinion isn't golden or unbiased either.
Two faced people usually mask or hide their ire, though. You are missing the point of what TWO-FACED means. Irl, two-faced people appear to be nice but it's the opposite of what they are really thinking and it's something that you can pick up on. Not everyone always does, but it is something that you can see if you are paying attention. Just as it's something you can also easily miss if you are not. In Twilight, If you re-read some of the interactions that Bella has with Jessica, she picks up that Jessica might not be as nice as she comes across. She's not basing her opinion solely on what Edward has told her. Most of it is based on conversations that she's had with Jessica. The only reason I brought up Edward in the first place is because you originally rejected anything that Bella said on the matter.
So, when it comes to Jessica, we can't believe a character who reads minds and we can't believe the main character and we can't believe anything that Jessica says or does because the entire story is told from the pov of the main character whom we can't believe and we can't fault her for a "normal" human emotion or behavior like jealousy and a penchant for gossiping (two traits that I happen to not be fond of in friendships. I've had friends who were gossips but I always held them at arms length and was very careful about what I info I shared with them. Those types were not the people who eventually became my closest friends.)
Talking you about this has made me like Bella more than I orginally did and I completely understand why she preferred to hang with the vampires and the wolves. It's actually ok and even normal to be jealous, gossipy and cliquey? It's ok to punk out on your friends and not have their back in an effort to save yourself? It's ok to give someone the cold shoulder because they didn't call you even though they were going through some really bad times? If I were Bella, I'd be inclined to ditch the Forks HS humans, too.
Because it's as I've been saying, Bella never wanted to be their friend in the first place. They at least tried till it dawned on them that Bella didn't care about them. You don't see why it's all on Bella but I'm at least showing you why, you've yet to show me how Jessica is this conniving person who wanted the popularity Bella somewhat had instead of wanting to be her friend.
I did give you my reasons for thinking that and you rejected them. There is nothing else to do but agree to disagree, imo.
" My question is that if you know that she wasn't intended to be an unreliable character, is analysis of the text based on the assumption that she is accurate, though? Especially when one is selectively picking and choosing which instances to apply that analysis. (quoting Bella's words as justification for something that was deemed negative yet discounting them when they are being used to justify a positive trait or contradict that negative claim.) "
I believe so, yes. Because it's all in Meyer's writing and how she chose for things to go. Bella is the perfect character to her, the most normal, most average character who just happened to get into this situation but wanted to get through it to be with her new found love. But it's because of Meyer's writing that contradicts this. Bella's meant to be selfless, noble, and a plethora of others things Meyer intended for her but she is not written so, and multiple select pieces from the story can show this. It's not picking and choosing, or cropping to make it fit my opinion, it is picking pieces and showing that especially within the context of the story Bella proves to be selfish and a unreliable narrator because Meyer couldn't figure out how else to give Bella this information that she shouldn't have by normal means.
And we certainly can't forget that she's prejudiced and biased. She knows this, we know this. Her perception, as I said, is skewed. This is why she's an unreliable narrator. Because reliable narrators can't be biased and prejudiced.
To me this still sounds like just because you didn't like the writing and Bella's characterization, you're choosing to see her as an unreliable narrator even though you know that the author probably didn't intend for her to be one. You not liking the way that the author chose to structure the story shouldn't change whether or not the character was intended to be reliable. Those are two totally different issues, imo. Your problem is really with the author and you are letting your problem with the author skew how you perceive events in the book.
I'm not the biggest fan of "The Great Gatsby" (liked the story and the writing, hated the characters so much that I actually hated reading about them.) For shits and giggles, I should go make a case for why Tom was a good husband to Daisy since Nick is an unreliable narrator and his pov can't be trusted.
I don't really know if SM is by definition a "horrible writer" I just know that I personally don't enjoy her writing style. I'm drawn in by the unity and just general fluidity of a book. For what ever reason, I find the Twilight Sega to be a bit choppy. It's like I can see where she got up to take a break, or when she stopped writing for the night. (Whether she did or not, who knows! But that's how the choppiness feels to me!) All in all she can tell a story that's attractive to an audience and I think that's all that matters. She managed to get people to read so I have to give her props for that.
Mochaspresso wrote: " Plus, she clearly states that she does understand. You are just refusing to acknowledge it because for some (nit-picky) reason, you don't think she should have been able to. I think you're also skewing the definition of omniscient. If I see a human walk into what I know is a vampire lair w/ a confused look on his/her face, I don't think it's unreasonable to be able to immediately come to the conclusion that they may have been lured there under false pretenses. I could see your point if Bella was not present at the time. However, Bella was there, saw the tourists and came to a conclusion based on what she saw. That is not being "omniscient". "It's not for some reason that you just don't know, I've explained my reason.
How am I skewing the definition of omniscience? When I use the word I go with the blunt definition of it which is when some one knows everything. Which Bella does. She knows that these tourists are being led into a trap though she says otherwise on the next page, she knows Billy is lying to her about Jacob yet she has no reason to know he's lying. Meyer made her omniscient, that's just what it is and it is because she's not that good of a writer that she has to give Bella information to further the plot that Bella would never have otherwise.
"She can't if you only quote selected lines in isolation and misrepresent those lines out of context. You're also incorrect about her not knowing until they'd been attacked. They hadn't even been attacked yet when she said she understood. The actual attack doesn't happen until the next page (pg 484). "
She knew they were going to be attacked, which again she can't come to that conclusion on her own because she knows nothing about the situation. She doesn't know that the Volturi doesn't hold regular tours of the place. It is of course a historic landmark, why should she immediately jump to the conclusion that they're going to be killed? She wouldn't without Meyer giving her that information.
"Why can't the fact that she hadn't heard from him be her main seed of doubt? (notice that when a friend doesn't call her....she doesn't sit and sulk about it and give him the cold shoulder in return. She goes to check on him to make sure that he's really ok.) She also went to his house and he wasn't there even though he was supposed to be sick. The seed of doubt was also probably planted back when Jacob told her how the other boys in La Push changed after joining Sam Uley's "gang"."
Because he's sick? She literally has no seed of doubt to be planted in her head that he's not sick. The seed of doubt can't be that because that is just grabbing at straws. That is no seed of doubt, it is irrelevant to it. She was made omniscient there, given the information that Billy just might be lying and that Jacob is ignoring her instead of actually sick. Mono gives you sore throat, high fever, swollen glands and tonsils, fatigue and weakness. Gee, I wonder why Jacob hasn't called and Billy told me he had Mono and to come back when he feels better. THIS IS SUSPICIOUS! Literally no reason except that she's omniscient.
"Yes, normal people feel jealousy but it is actually considered a "bad" emotion. So much so, that a close relative of jealousy, envy, is one of the 7 deadly sins. Just because it's not abnormal for human beings feel it, doesn't mean that it's "good"."
Really, we're going religious here? It is a normal healthy emotion. To not feel jealousy is abnormal and again nothing ever comes out of it that is bad on Jessica's part. She still tries to be a good friend. Why beat around the bush instead of telling me how she's a bad friend and wanted to use Bella to gain more popularity?
"Two faced people usually mask or hide their ire, though. You are missing the point of what TWO-FACED means. "
What it feels like your missing is proof that Jessica was only ever out for Bella's popularity which she quickly lost. What proof do you have that Jessica became her friend only to gain popularity?
"So, when it comes to Jessica, we can't believe a character who reads minds and we can't believe the main character and we can't believe anything that Jessica says or does because the entire story is told from the pov of the main character whom we can't believe and we can't fault her for a "normal" human emotion or behavior like jealousy and a penchant for gossiping (two traits that I happen to not be fond of in friendships."
No, I don't believe Edward because his opinion of Jessica is biased and you've yet to show me where he says anything negative about her character besides he finds her annoying. What has she done that has shown she's only after her popularity?
you messed up on the rest???
Mochaspresso wrote: "To me this still sounds like just because you didn't like the writing and Bella's characterization, you're choosing to see her as an unreliable narrator even though she wasn't intended to be. You not liking the way that the author chose to structure the story shouldn't change whether or not the character was intended to be reliable. Those are two totally different issues, imo. Your problem is really with the author and you are letting your problem with the author skew how you perceive events in the book. "Thank you for diagnosing my problem, I've seen the light.
I've already said I know Bella was not intended to be an unreliable character. I've said that it's Meyer's faulty writing and her characterization of Bella that purports her as otherwise. It is because of these things, not I hate these things so I see her as a unreliable character. It is not because I didn't like it, it is because this is how I see it. These are different things. And they are called differing opinions. Many, thankfully, would agree with me so my view is not skewed.
She tells a good story but her writing is weak and amateurish.
Jessy wrote: It's not for some reason that you just don't know, I've explained my reason. How am I skewing the definition of omniscience? When I use the word I go with the blunt definition of it which is when some one knows everything. Which Bella does. She knows that these tourists are being led into a trap though she says otherwise on the next page, she knows Billy is lying to her about Jacob yet she has no reason to know he's lying. Meyer made her omniscient, that's just what it is and it is because she's not that good of a writer that she has to give Bella information to further the plot that Bella would never have otherwise.
She doesn't say otherwise. She says that she understands. You choosing to skew the meaning of those two words doesn't make it so. Bella is describing what she's observing and the conclusions that she came to based on what she observed.
She knew they were going to be attacked, which again she can't come to that conclusion on her own because she knows nothing about the situation. She doesn't know that the Volturi doesn't hold regular tours of the place. It is of course a historic landmark, why should she immediately jump to the conclusion that they're going to be killed? She wouldn't without Meyer giving her that information.
LOL. The Volturi giving tours? Really?
I think I know who'd be the tourist snapping pics w/ no clue that something was off.....
Out of curiosity, how do you feel about the fact that some tourists were clueless, some were confused and at least one was panicked? Is that poor writing, as well? I mean, I guess you could ask what was she panicked about? Maybe she lost her child or was she just omniscient, too? At what point, in your opinion, is it acceptable in good literature for a character to know that a vampire is going to kill them? Should no one have known until the fangs are actually in each one of their jugulars?
Because he's sick? She literally has no seed of doubt to be planted in her head that he's not sick. The seed of doubt can't be that because that is just grabbing at straws. That is no seed of doubt, it is irrelevant to it. She was made omniscient there, given the information that Billy just might be lying and that Jacob is ignoring her instead of actually sick. Mono gives you sore throat, high fever, swollen glands and tonsils, fatigue and weakness. Gee, I wonder why Jacob hasn't called and Billy told me he had Mono and to come back when he feels better. THIS IS SUSPICIOUS! Literally no reason except that she's omniscient.
Saying the Volturi are giving tours for no reason is grasping at straws.
Well, you chose to reject that she felt something was amiss because she hadn't heard from him. Is there something wrong with simply having a hunch? Have you ever known when you are being lied to (without concrete evidence to the contrary)? If so, how did you know?
Really, we're going religious here? It is a normal healthy emotion. To not feel jealousy is abnormal and again nothing ever comes out of it that is bad on Jessica's part. She still tries to be a good friend. Why beat around the bush instead of telling me how she's a bad friend and wanted to use Bella to gain more popularity?
I did tell you. You chose to reject it. Bella says this on at least two occasions in Twilight.
Mike intercepted us and steered us to his table. Jessica seemed elated by the attention, and her friends quickly joined us.Read more at location 412
“It will be really fun.” Her attempt to convince me was halfhearted. I suspected that Jessica enjoyed my inexplicable popularity more than my actual company.Read more at location 985
^^^^ Two-faced vvvvv
It was Jessica, and she was jubilant; Mike had caught her after school to accept her invitation.Read more at location 1093.....
Now that she was sure of Mike, she actually sounded sincere when she said she wished I would go to the dance.Read more at location 1096
What it feels like your missing is proof that Jessica was only ever out for Bella's popularity which she quickly lost. What proof do you have that Jessica became her friend only to gain popularity?
It wasn't just to gain popularity. She also had a crush on Mike. Mike was hanging around Bella. Hanging with Bella gave her more opportunities to hang with Mike. When Mike showed interest in Bella, in front of her, her nastier side is evident.
“You can have shotgun,” he promised. I hid my chagrin. It wasn’t as simple to make Mike and Jessica happy at the same time. I could see Jessica glowering at us now.Read more at location 1615
Like I said before, evidence about Jessica's true character is mixed in with the interactions that she has with Bella.
No, I don't believe Edward because his opinion of Jessica is biased and you've yet to show me where he says anything negative about her character besides he finds her annoying. What has she done that has shown she's only after her popularity?
She gossips. I guess this also depends on why you think Jessica gossips in the first place. You said that's just how she is. We know that.....but why do you think she does it? Why do people gossip in general? There are several reasons why and one of them is for attention.
"
I think she's very talented and I love her twilight books.. no ones perfect
Mochaspresso wrote: "She doesn't say otherwise. She says that she understands. You choosing to skew the meaning of those two words doesn't make it so. Bella is describing what she's observing and the conclusions that she came to based on what she observed"You say skewing, I say interpreting.
"LOL. The Volturi giving tours? Really?
I think I know who'd be the tourist snapping pics w/ no clue that something was off....."
Yes, because attacking my character- which you know nothing of- makes you better or correct. Of course.
"Out of curiosity, how do you feel about the fact that some tourists were clueless, some were confused and at least one was panicked? Is that poor writing, as well? I mean, I guess you could ask what was she panicked about? Maybe she lost her child or was she just omniscient, too? At what point, in your opinion, is it acceptable in good literature for a character to know that a vampire is going to kill them? Should no one have known until the fangs are actually in each one of their jugulars? "
Why would that be poor writing? And why would the woman panicking be omniscient? There is a certain point in good literature and it's far before they're being bitten. But that is insinuating that this series is irrefutably good literature instead of subjectively good literature.
" Saying the Volturi are giving tours for no reason is grasping at straws."
They have a day in their honor, is it really grasping at straws that they give tours? Literally in that scene they use tours of the place as a lure to kill humans.
"Well, you chose to reject that she felt something was amiss because she hadn't heard from him. Is there something wrong with simply having a hunch? Have you ever known when you are being lied to (without concrete evidence to the contrary)? If so, how did you know?"
And again, I'm not choosing to reject it because she hadn't heard from him. As I've been saying, she is told the reason she hadn't heard from him is that he contracted mono. And given mono's symptoms it is logical that he wouldn't personally call her to tell her this. There is no reason why she would suspect that this is foul play unless Meyer made her omniscient, which is the case. This repetition is really tiring. How many times do I have to retype this? Is it not making sense to you?
"I did tell you. You chose to reject it. Bella says this on at least two occasions in Twilight.
And I gave a response to those, that is not rejecting it.
"Mike intercepted us and steered us to his table. Jessica seemed elated by the attention, and her friends quickly joined us.Read more at location 412"
This is Jessica being two faced how? she's excited that Mike is giving her attention, and?
“It will be really fun.” Her attempt to convince me was halfhearted. I suspected that Jessica enjoyed my inexplicable popularity more than my actual company.Read more at location 985
It was Jessica, and she was jubilant; Mike had caught her after school to accept her invitation.Read more at location 1093.....
Now that she was sure of Mike, she actually sounded sincere when she said she wished I would go to the dance.Read more at location 1096"
I made a response to this one already. Again, how is this her being two faced?
"Like I said before, evidence about Jessica's true character is mixed in with the interactions that she has with Bella. "
We've went over her jealousy already. Her jealousy didn't hinder her from being less of a friend to Bella. She's jealous that Mike likes her and she gossips, what a two faced bitch, amirite?
This is weak attempts at painting her as two faced.
"She gossips. I guess this also depends on why you think Jessica gossips in the first place. You said that's just how she is. We know that.....but why do you think she does it? Why do people gossip in general? There are several reasons why and one of them is for attention. "
She gossips because Meyer has made her out to be the gossiper. None of what you provided has shown that Jessica only wanted Bella for what she could provide her. After Mike got with her it was all friendship on her part. And Bella still didn't want to be her or their friend. Where is the bad side of Jessica? What thoughts does she have that Edward talks about that shows she didn't like Bella and didn't want to be her friend?
I don't mean to make you dig so much for this but in the end what you say Jessica is all about just isn't being shown enough to me. She's not coming off as two faced, or trying to usurp Bella to get the spot light. She just wanted a friend out of her and Bella didn't want that because she wanted the Cullens, she felt that she fit in Better with the Cullens. As I've seen it somewhere before, Bella from the moment she meets the Cullens act as if she already knows the end and where her true loyalty and friendship should lie.
I think you would enjoy Rescue Me Gently by A K Taylor....young adult romance/erotica/mystery. Lots of good feedback on this one...Rescue Me Gently
Jessy wrote: I've already said I know Bella was not intended to be an unreliable character. I've said that it's Meyer's faulty writing and her characterization of Bella that purports her as otherwise. It is because of these things, not I hate these things so I see her as a unreliable character. It is not because I didn't like it, it is because this is how I see it. These are different things. And they are called differing opinions. Many, thankfully, would agree with me so my view is not skewed. Many people agree...this is the second time you've said this. So what? At one time, many people agreed that the earth was flat. One of the best things about the internet is that you can easily find anyone who shares any pov imaginable. That's not necessarily always evidence that your view isn't skewed. It might only be evidence that many people are just as skewed as you are.
I wonder if there is there something wrong w/ me if I don't give a flying fuck whether anyone agrees with me or not? Maybe. Probably. .....I still don't care.
She's unreliable to you because of the very narrow and very rigid (and very biased, imo) way in which you're reading it and interpreting it. You seem to have a lot of rules about what Bella supposedly can and can't do.
Also, if she were really two faced then she would've gossiped about Bella to make Mike like her less, plant seeds in his head that she is the better of the two and that Mike should like her. Lauren would do this, because she's written to be this type of person. Jessica never spoke ill of her or had ill intentions when becoming her friend. She was never written to be a good friend, but she wasn't a bad one either.
Jessy wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "She doesn't say otherwise. She says that she understands. You choosing to skew the meaning of those two words doesn't make it so. Bella is describing what she's observing and ..."Do you know what two-faced means? She's not sincere. She's happy happy joy joy with Bella when Bella is feeding her gossip. When Bella doesn't, she gets angry. She's happy happy joy joy when Bella is hanging out with her and the minute Bella has her own shit that she has to deal with, she sulks. She's happy happy joy joy when Mike pays her attention. If Mike is nice to Bella for any reason, then she's glowering at her friend. Should Bella riding shotgun even be a reason to glower at your "friend"?
Jessica is two faced because her friendship is conditional. As long as Mike likes her instead of Bella and as long as Bella gossips with her and as long as Bella is available to hang out, go shopping and talk on the phone whenever she wants, Jessica is happy. Re-read the conversations that Jessica has with Bella. Then read the conversations that she has with Jacob and Edward and Alice. Even Angela. Which conversations are more profound? Jessica barely even asks Bella about herself. After Bella starts dating Edward, practically every conversation is Edward gossip-hounding interrogations. Jessica annoyed me, so I it's not hard for me to fathom why Bella wasn't too keen on her.
Mochaspresso wrote: "LOL. The Volturi giving tours? Really?"Sure... because putting an ad in the paper ("VICTIMS WANTED: Must be clean shaven, have no blood diseases, and be over 18. Drug addicts and alcoholics need not apply. Must be willing to submit to having all of the blood drained from their bodies and die. For more info, dial 1-888-555-SUCK") would probably draw all the wrong kind of attention.
Jessy wrote: "Also, if she were really two faced then she would've gossiped about Bella to make Mike like her less, plant seeds in his head that she is the better of the two and that Mike should like her. Lauren..."No she wouldn't have because that's not how you get a boy that you like. Boys don't like that catty crap, especially about someone he likes. Gossiping to him about Bella makes her seem like a bitch and just might backfire and make him defend her.....bringing him closer to Bella and further away from her. She's better off being two-faced and pretending to be "the cool girl". <-----you really need to read "Gone Girl" to fully grasp what this truly means, if you don't already know.
Mochaspresso wrote: "Many people agree...this is the second time you've said this. So what? At one time, many people agreed that the earth was flat. One of the best things about the internet is that you can easily find anyone who shares any pov imaginable. That's not necessarily always evidence that your view isn't skewed. It might only be evidence that many people are just as skewed as you are."And that can easily be said about your views on the series and would become about you and I and not the series any longer. We've been tolerable up to this point, do we really need to dig at each other because the other isn't budging in their opinion and we can't move on? Like I said, you can say my opinion is skewed, I'd like to say we have differing opinions. It makes everything amicable.
"She's unreliable to you because of the very narrow and very rigid (and very biased, imo) way in which you're reading it and interpreting it. You seem to have a lot of rules about what Bella supposedly can and can't do. "
At this point I don't feel like retyping all the ways I find her to be unreliable as a narrator since you want to continue to say my view is skewed and biased and wrong. You don't think she's unreliable, I do. Moving on.
"Do you know what two-faced means?"
Do I know when someone is trying to subtly insult my intelligence? Yes. At this point we obviously can't discuss this topic without trying to take digs at each other and we've been carrying this for a good three pages. We clearly have differing opinions and can't even see eye to eye. would you like to talk about something else? Because retyping things only brings about frustration and carpal tunnel.
Like I said, I don't think she was deliberately written to be unreliable like The Catcher in the Rye where you have to question his true inspirations and motivations behind every thought he tells the reader. Twilight is not that type of book....at least, it wasn't intended to be. I think it's wrong to analyze the book as if you can't believe anything Bella says and then selectively picking and choosing when to do it. There was a discussion in this thread (I think?) about whether Charlie was a good parent. Why did Bella's unreliability not come up then? Seems to me that in a discussion about whether Charlie is a good Dad, that fact that Bella's is unreliable is an important factor to be considered when answering that question. Having said that, I do think she can be unreliable in some ways. Some of her perceptions of herself are clearly not accurate because of her poor self esteem. Her perceptions of Edward may not be accurate either because she's awed and obsessed with him. That doesn't mean, to me, that she also lacks the ability to accurately read other people or situations that she observes though. Is there such a thing as "partially selective unreliability"? Probably, not.
I don't think there are any external factors that would skew her view of Jessica (which began before she even started dating Edward.) and while she's not that bright about a lot of things, I think she's smart enough to figure that the tourists were dinner and she knew Jacob well enough to know that something was off when she didn't hear from him.
Mochaspresso wrote: "Like I said, I don't think she was deliberately written to be unreliable like The Catcher in the Rye where you have to question his true inspirations and motivations behind every thought he tells t..."As I've been saying, she is unreliable because she is omniscient at times and is overall biased and prejudiced and she of course was not intended to be like this. It's not like anything she says can be disregarded because unreliable or not she is the only narrator until the last book. That is some painful reading if one can't go along with what the narrator is saying.
But like I said, to continue to talk about this topic will only lead to repetition and frustration. would you like to talk about another topic?
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Sandworld (other topics)
Fire Light (other topics)
Fire Light (other topics)
Fire Light (other topics)
More...
J. Abram Barneck (other topics)
J. Abram Barneck (other topics)
Stephenie Meyer (other topics)
Elie Wiesel (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Rescue Me Gently (other topics)Sandworld (other topics)
Fire Light (other topics)
Fire Light (other topics)
Fire Light (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
J. Abram Barneck (other topics)J. Abram Barneck (other topics)
J. Abram Barneck (other topics)
Stephenie Meyer (other topics)
Elie Wiesel (other topics)
More...
You're right and that's also why there was a debate over whether Bella was attempting to commit suicide by jumping off the cliff.
My questions is did Stephanie Meyer intend to write Bella as an unreliable narrator, though? If she didn't, then Bella isn't truly unreliable in my eyes. I don't know if I can explain this clearly, but in books like "Lolita" and "American Psycho", it's clear that the author intended for the narrator to be unreliable. The same goes for "The Catcher in the Rye". A fairly recent book with unreliable narrators was "Gone Girl" by Gillian Flynn. In other words, I don't believe that unreliable narration is or can be an accidental or unintended literary device. It's deliberate. You, as a reader, can't just arbitrarily decide that you don't like a character and can't believe him or her and therefore he or she is unreliable. I know that you said that you are reading subtext. However, much of the subtext that you are referring to is only there because you chose to discount anything that contradicted it and/or chose to skew any event that shows something different.
In regards to the incident outside the bar, I know that Bella was the inflammatory one. My argument was that 1) Jessica wasn't that much of a friend either because she didn't do much to try and stop her 2) Jesse stated that Bella's actions almost got them both raped. There was nothing in the text to suggest that. Yes, the story is told from Bella's POV, but are you also saying that the dialogue between characters can't be believed either? Nor their actions? The dude says "Hi", "Hang with us" and "Can I buy you a drink?", Bella declined and she walked away. How is that "OMG! I was almost raped!"? That's exactly the same overly whiny melodramatic stuff that people are claiming to hate Bella for. imo. Most of the thoughts that Edward shares are not of an ambiguous nature where intent is not easily determined. No one questions the reliability of his mind reading when it comes to Aro or James....but he is wrong about Jessica? That doesn't make sense to me.