Am I the only one thinks Bella is a strong character??

[Jordan]

Jharice wrote: "Sandra wrote: "Cinthya wrote: "It’s about how everyone has their place in the world, and that ordinary people can truly find happiness, as long as they will it to happen."

That's an understandably..."

I know tat this might not be correct from everyone's point of view, but for me, the book doesn't have to carry a great life lesson to be a great book.

You see all these different posts about how Bella is a bad influence to girls everywhere and Twilight has a horrible message. I personally disagree with that, but also I don't think every character has to be influencer.

I mean, if you have these perfectly well-behaved characters who never make mistakes, who don't have a sliver of weakness in them, or handle things in a perfect manner, what do you have? A boring book (unless the author can capture it in an appealing way.)

Most people view Twilight as a book about a girl who can't live without a guy. And this is apparently "an extremely bad message for girls because now they won't be able to move on from any break up that they encounter." No, that's just how Bella was. Not every girl is like that. Characters don't have to teach good lessons. That's what gives them character, that they all have different qualities in them. That you can have the Bella's, who are completely entranced in their romance, and you can have the witty Hermione's, and the snarky brave Clary's. That is how story telling works and I think people need to stop hunting for the messages.

[Somerandom]

Jordan wrote: "Jharice wrote: "Sandra wrote: "Cinthya wrote: "It’s about how everyone has their place in the world, and that ordinary people can truly find happiness, as long as they will it to happen."

That's a..."

I'm assuming you ascribe to the aesthetics
philosphy of literature then?

It sounds like you do. That's cool.

Despite my own feelings towards Twilight (one of which was it was so boringly clean cut) I agree with you. Bella doesn't have to be a role model she's, well I personally found her to be an annoying twit. But that's besides the point. She's just a character. Some would argue just a wish fulfillment character, which does sound really plausable. But I don't think she's influential at all.
She always seemed a bit desperate to me but that's just what I got out of it.

In my reading of Twilight I didn't find any strength in her character. Although admittedly I haven't read the series in quite some time. So perhaps I'm not remembering everthing. In any case to me she just seemed like a love struck teenager. Which I guess is the point?
She's clumsy but people seem to find it endearing so I wouldn't call it a flaw. She's impulsive but she's supposed to be given her age. So I wouldn't call it a flaw just a reflection of her age. She does seem a tad arrogant at her school but again it's just a teenager being a typical teenager. I don't remember her having to overcome these "flaws" but again haven't read the series in years so it might be just my memory.
So I didn't really find her flawed as much, I just found her to be another run of the mill teenager being a teenager. Which is not bad just a little "safe" if you get my meaning?
Most strong characters have issues and flaws. Hermione is not a picture perfect character. She has weaknesses too. She's insecure and has to balance that with her overacheiving personality. She's bossy, stubborn and hard headed which often strains her friendship. It also delays her romantic relationship with Ron and she has to learn to control that. She faces the wizard equivalent of racism and has to overcome the prejudice as well as dealing with her own self esteem. These are typical teen problems too. But, personally I think they do address them as flaws Hermione has to overcome. Whereas with Bella Edward seemed to find them just quirks and cute. Although again that could be my own bad memory.

No character is perfect even if they are viewed as strong independent characters. They all make mistakes and have their own flaws they must learn from. They often have their own demons they must deal with.

Bella don the other hand does seem to have a picturesque life and despite assurances that she's just an average girl tends to get things handed to her on a silver platter. She gets the most gorgeous hunk at school, everyone treats her like a Queen on her first day at school(why didnt I go to her school? Sounds like nicest place on Earth!!) and after some drama she lives happily ever after as a perfect vampire with the perfect Vampire family.

I guess that "Happily Ever After" thing kind of bugged me. I mean the the prologue in HP did that too, but I sort of assumed that Harry was spending a fortune on therapy.
Twilight's ending reminded me of Disney. Everyone gets all they could hope for and it's all wrapped up in a neat little package without any real sacrifice.  I guess apart from Bella's pregnancy. But she did have a perfect baby, which I guess is her reward??
At least series' like HP and HG acknowledged the cost of war. I don't know maybe I just prefer a grittier ending.

Personally, I'd rather follow the adventures of Hermione or Willow or even Buffy. But to each their own I suppose.

[Somerandom]

Olivia wrote: "Somerandom wrote: "Jordan wrote: "Jharice wrote: "Sandra wrote: "Cinthya wrote: "It’s about how everyone has their place in the world, and that ordinary people can truly find happiness, as long as ..."

What's your take on Bella, Olivia?

[[deleted user]]

I don't think shes weak at all shes went through a lot being around the Cullens and werewolves a lot going on right there shes endured a lot of things but i think her emotions are weak she crys a lot at stuff u should be happy over i think shes a little sappy at times but who isnt sappy when ur in love? but yes shes strong but i think her emotions are weak

[Melissa]

I don't think there is one right or wrong answer to this. Strong means so many different things to different people. There can only be biased opinions about this.

So this is my biased opinion:
Bella is strong when it comes to sacrificing her own safety for those she loves. This is not an easy thing to do. We all think we would do anything for those we love, but would we really? She follows through. She ran out to meet James, she ran through a crowd to save the person who dumped her from the sun, she cut into her skin so Victoria would be distracted, and she got everything ready to send off her daughter if the battle were to go awry. This is just naming a few.
BUT...
If it weren't for the 2nd book I would think of her as our selfless sacrificing hero. The reason I can't is because of that wretched 2nd book. Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed it like any other fan. But it really put into perspective why Bella is always so sacrificing. She is selfish. In every sense of the word she is selfish. She wants Edward to live so that she doesn't have to live without him. Same with everyone else in her life. You could see it clearly when Edward left. She was a mess (somehow that word doesn't give it justice). When he left the strength was gone. Because the whole reason it is there in the first place is because of the people she loves. But it's not about them. It is about her. She can't live in a world where they are not there. For example. Look at how she dutifully got everything ready for Renesme and Jacob to run away during the battle. The fact alone that she could stomach knowing that she would not be with her daughter kind of makes me wonder. She never questioned what she had to do did she? What a strong woman!....or maybe not. She is okay with this situation because she knows she will die in the battle once she sends her daughter away. Being dead she does not have to miss her, cry for her, or sink into a deep depression. There will be no grief because there will be no her. So even in this instance she proves selfish.

Now before anyone starts foaming at the mouth, understand this: I get it. I totally get why she is like this and I don't blame her. When you love someone like that there is something inside of you that says you cannot go on without them. When I think of loosing my husband I picture some wife suicide scenario as sad as that is. You care about their well-being of course. But you cannot even flirt with the idea of being with out them. So is Bella strong? I think the better question is if Bella can be strong without those she loves in her life. And it is clear she can't.

[Cherie]

When Edward left her she isolated herself into a near comatose state for months then proceeded to put herself AND OTHERS into harmful situations.. She is a stupid, needy girl. No strong, self respecting woman would do these things. I honestly don't care how depressed you are, grow up and move on. I mean come on! She almost killed herself just to hear his voice (which was just her imagination).

[Clarissa]

I agree with message 3 and message 30 and message 22

[Jordan]

Somerandom wrote: "Jordan wrote: "Jharice wrote: "Sandra wrote: "Cinthya wrote: "It’s about how everyone has their place in the world, and that ordinary people can truly find happiness, as long as they will it to hap..."

Yeah, I know what you mean about Hermione. I was just saying that she is a different kind of character than Bella.

[Cinthya]

Jharice wrote: "Mickey wrote: "I think if people were to look at literature, even the so-called classics, you would not find many strong or admirable characters. "

The thing is, those books usually treat the less..."

I couldn´t agree more with you. When I was talking of how Bella is a bad reference for teenagers, I didn´t say that ALL the books have to carry a great life lesson, but as I read once: "Don´t confuse a good book with a trend book". Don´t think that because everyone reads it, is an amazing story. I read the books and I like them, but then I started analyzing what is the meaning of all the story, I found nothing. When you write is because you want someone else to enjoy a story as you do when you think about it, but the books are not from the Romanticism movement, or they are? If they were, well is comprenhensible that the autor didn´t care about the impact that her story would have in this times, when women had already gotten the rights we decive and is not aceptable that girls keep getting the message of:" If the boy of your dreams leaves you...there´s no life anymore". Please, don´t say I´m feminist, I just think that Twilight is like the princess stories that our parents tell us when we are kids, and then you find that stories are just stories but you already have those thoughts that make you think that a woman without a man, can´t live!!

[Clarissa]

so true. i just found out that the author said in an interview that she found the story in a dream. corny !!!!. and you're not a feminist.

[Mickey]

Jharice wrote: "The thing is, those books usually treat the less-admirable and flawed characters as such. Twilight expects the reader to accept Bella and Edward as being the most wonderful people in the world because it consistently tells us this, even though what the book shows is in direct opposition."

I don't remember being consistently told that Bella and Edward were the most wonderful people in the world. There were times in the story when both admitted to wrong-doing. I remember in New Moon Bella felt guilty when she read an e-mail from her mother that she had been so wrapped up in her own emotions that she had not thought of her mother's. ("And I noticed that the whole thing read like a journal entry, rather than a letter to someone else. Remorse flooded through me, leaving an uncomfortable sting behind. Some daughter I was....) This was not a case of her being presented as the most wonderful person. It was quite honest about the fact that she really hadn't paid much attention to her mother. Bella thought her decision to keep Edward out of the fight was enormously selfish, even as she did it. (The entire chapter is called "Selfish".)She also thought the way she did it was manipulative. There are many times when Bella sees herself as not living up to expectations she has for herself, not acting like a good daughter or a good friend.

As far as the assertion that the book tells us that Bella is wonderful, I don't see that. Much of her self-talk is not about how wonderful she is.

There really isn't a big divide between the characters I've mentioned and Bella. All are seen as flawed. I don't see evidence that all of Bella's actions are expected to be kosher. She doesn't even see it that way countless times.

Jharice wrote: "I think this is the big problem and why we have such extreme and opposite reactions to the book and it's characters. It tells us one thing, while showing another. We are told that Bella is mature and intelligent, when her actions say otherwise. We are told that Bella and Edward are completely in the most pure and true love ever, when their actions are more akin to some sort of obsessive crush with liberal amounts of lust. One of the main rules of writing is to "show don't tell." Showing can be the more effective and emotional method of conveying character development/personality as oppose to telling."

I don't see this divide. I do see it in some of the criticism, but I see that as more of a problem that people have towards some of the modern conventions that Meyer doesn't indulge in. A good case in point would be the idea that "Bella is weak and doesn't make decisions for herself", for example. I think this has more to do with the problems with the decisions she made than with the idea that she didn't choose them. Women are not supposed to marry at such a young age. They are not supposed to go through with a dangerous pregnancy. They are not supposed to be distraught when an important relationship ends. The problem is that girls are taught now that women who choose these things (and I don't think there can be any real debate over the fact that she did choose them) are making the wrong choices. The entire story is so far off the grid as to what we are told is a "good message", that many people have a hard time recognizing the flaws in the system in place. Anti-princess stories can be just as constricting.

I think that Twilight offers its readers a different concept of love than one that is often thought ideal today. Its popularity could be seen as a sign of a disatisfaction with the status quo. I think that Meyer's concept of love often deals with a strong and lasting devotion to another that is usually absent in many love stories today. I don't put love and obsession in mutually exclusive categories, although I think it's popular to do so. Most love is centered on and about a certain individual. As far as lust is concerned, I don't see it. In Edward's ideal scenario, Bella would have lived out her natural life and Edward would never have slept with her. If Bella were interested chiefly in getting her needs satisfied, she could easily have done so with Jacob at any time, with whom there would have been no barriers.

I don't see a major difference with showing and telling. I think the problem comes in when people try to summarize the book without really reading closely. Most of the criticism doesn't derive from the books, but from an expectation of "how things are supposed to be" and not a good grasp of a wide range of literature. Flawed or weak characters have never been a problem in literature. If people read a lot of literature, they understand that. When people don't read widely, the expectation might be that such a thing as strong characters are standard, or that they should be.

I don't find the Twilight books to be damaging to young people as much as I find the criticism to be damaging, because it is leading young readers into a lot of misconceptions about what is good reading and bad reading. There isn't really any problem with having weak characters or characters that are not role models. The vast majority of relationships are not written to be manuals or to teach "lesssons". A person who thinks so is going to spend a lot of time being disappointed.

[Jessica]

I would say that my opinion of her and whether or not she's a 'strong character' is rather biased as I flat-out don't like her. However, To asses the things she's done for Edward, sacrificing herself for him and risking her life (even though I know that Meyer doesn't have the will to harm Bella), to see this list of accomplishments and put it up against someone's view of what makes a character strong, there are of course going to be varying opinions.

After reading everyone's opinions so far, the main thing that those who say nay have is that she is selfish and that ultimately, Edward is her strength, that she is not strong on her own. I think they're right.

I cannot look at Bella in any other way other than selfish and that she's only strong when she has Edward to make her strong. She never sacrificed anything(thanks so much for that Meyer) so she can't be considered strong in the sense that she has sacrificed things for others even though she wanted it or to help someone else or sacrificed her life because she was always cradled in Meyer's hand. Meyer would never let anything harm Bella that she couldn't bounce back from. She always got what she wanted without ever having to work for it or sacrifice anything for it. I do believe it is as someone else here said, that Edward literally carried her throughout it all and thus brought her to her happy ending. Everything about the story and Bella was safe and controlled, there was never any risks taken by Meyer and through Meyer, by Bella. No risks over their lives, over losing someone they loved, nothing. It was all safe. Adding that to everything, Bella was in no way strong on her own. She had the potential to be strong, much like everyone else would and/or should when faced with these situations.

So her, strong? No. She had someone be strong for her and even then, they didn't really need to be strong when they would never be put in any real danger. I'm pretty sure everyone could guess that they would be together and happy, that Bella didn't have to live without Edward or that any of the characters that mattered were in mortal peril.

[Britney]

Yes, you are the only one.

[Inge]

Mickey wrote: "I think it's misguided to expect strong characters or to act like there is something wrong with characters who aren't role models. If you think literature should ultimately be a form of propoganda,..."

...it`s seems everyone`s interpretation of 'strong' varies..but flaws to me shows the complexity of a character, and yes makes them human (not always relatable)...not all characters in a book can be 'strong' characters, it would defeat the purpose of the main characters and whatever the author want`s the get across...but loved reading your response and it made me want to read that book!;-)

[[deleted user]]

I didn't like her. When reading from her point of view I was irritated beyond belief. Of course, this could just be a figment of ba..."

I know this is a bit late but when mentioning Edward's and Jacob's point of view, you are referring toMidnight Sun and Breaking Dawn right?

[Carlos]

There are many types if definitions to the word strong but in my opinion i believe bella is a very strong, kind hearted character for many reasons. For example, in the book she chooses to go to the ballet place where james was supposably keeping her mother hostage. This shows that Bella is strong because she shows how much she cares for her mother and would give anything even her life to protect her mom. This shows that she really is strong in many ways.

[[deleted user]]

Olivia wrote: "Tanya wrote: "I didn't like her....

are those 2 book, are to diff things by 2 diff people pov there? "

Midnight Sun is basically Twilight in Edwards POV, but its only a draft that has been put on hold indefinitely so most probably haven't heard of it...

And Breaking Dawn is from both Bella's and Jacob's POV right? I never got to read it so I only have a vague idea of its contents...

[Eduardo]

I think Bella is a well conceived character, what is not the same as a strong one, on the contrary. in fact. Bella's main mark is indecision and insecurity and you can see that along the whole saga.

She doesn't not likes a lot or know her father a lot, but yet she decides to live with here because... She is not quite sure why.

She likes the vampire but is not strong enough to let the werewolf go... Or maybe she likes the werewolf but is not strong enough to let the vampire go... Or maybe she likes both and wants to keep both, delaying the decision to the last minute.

She gets depressed in book two, really depressed. It's quite rare to see a string char that depressed and that tells something.

As a character, Bella only gets strong in the last book after changed by the vampirehood and the motherhood.

She's not a strong character at all.

[Jessica]

Jharice wrote: "So I have a question for folks here.

So the movies did attempt to clean up some of the more problematic elements of the books (such as getting rid of Quil's child-bride). I think they also did alt..."

I think that Movie Bella had her moments, but they weren't as intense as in the book because we're not in Bella's head and thus are getting all the wangst straight from the tap. She was more commendable in the movies than in the books.

[Lorisha]

It feels funny to get philosophical about Twilight but its fun so what the heck…

I liked the Bella character. I think she was convinced and sure of what she wanted. She pursued what she wanted vehemently. I see that as strength. Actually it was this trait that most frustrated me about her. How could she be so sure? How is she so ready to give her life for her man? How? Why? I’m married and love my man deeply but gosh…I've never been that sure of anything in my life. I envied that…and wondered if it was even possible.

[Mickey]

Jharice wrote: "Most of Bella's thoughts and inner monologues center around how Edward is the most wonderful man in the world. She compares him to a 'god' or being 'godlike' quite consistently, so it's safe to say that we are all suppose to see Edward as someone who is good. Even when he admits to killing people, Bella brushes it off. "Oh, they were bad people, they deserve to die," which may or may not be true, we'll never know. The point is, any flaws he has are brushed off or barely noticed."

Jacob provided his opinions quite freely about Edward. So did Charlie. I don't think we were never shown a different way of viewing Edward, one not tinged by the first flush of love. Could you share the excerpt about how Bella thought, as you claim, that "they deserved to die." I'm curious when this happened.

As far as us seeing Edward through Bella's lovestruck eyes, this isn't a flaw in the story. I liked her gushiness. I think it's a good portrayal of being caught up in another person's charms for the first time.

Both the highs and lows of intense relationships are explored, and even the desirability of such a connection is explored, by Bella in New Moon and Jacob and Leah in Breaking Dawn.

The idea that, because Bella gushes over Edward means that he's portrayed as wonderful is a little too narrow. Look at the universe Meyer created and the differing opinions in it.

Jharice wrote: "You are correct in that Bella often thinks of herself in disparaging terms, but the text itself does not support this. Again, this is a case of telling, not showing. Bella's inner thoughts tell us the opposite of what we see. She thinks of herself as plain, even though every male within sight is obsessed with her. She claims she is nothing special, even though everyone acts like she is the center of the universe. She thinks of herself as being the mature one, though her decisions and actions say otherwise."

I don't see evidence in the story to support any of your assertions. There are plenty of males in the story who are not obsessed with her. The few that show an interest are thought to be simply interested in her because of her new girl status. She doesn't act as if she's the center of the universe. Normal high school life continues to go on around her throughout the series. As far as being mature, I think she was. She takes care of her parents in a way that I don't think many teens do and she has a very adult understanding of their shortcomings. Again, the idea that she's not isn't something you've supported with evidence from the story.

Jharice wrote: "And again, the other characters sing praises of her and how wonderful she is. The only characters who do not like Bella are ones we are supposed to hate. Rosalie and Leah are treated as the 'haters', the ones we shouldn't agree with because they are simply jealous of Bella and so their opinion is always false. "

I don't think you are getting the full view of either position. Both Rosalie and Leah's motivations and points of view are explored in the series in a way that is different that being 'treated as 'haters''. Both women discuss their histories and feelings. Did you miss this?

Jharice wrote: "No, I don't think that this is the case. Most of the criticism itself stems from the fact that Twilight is a deeply flawed and terribly written book. Whether you agree with the 'messages' of it or not, that doesn't take away the sheer number of literary mistakes that Twilight makes. Stuff like grammar and construction of the story and plot. Twilight itself has no plot till the last couple chapters, this is not how a good story works. This is also not the fault of the reader, but instead the writer. No one starts reading a book 'expecting' it to be terrible."

I don't think Twilight is a terribly written book. I liked it. If the book didn't work for you, then why would that be the author's fault? Your problems with it are your own. Grammar isn't all that important in a novel, particularly in a first person narrative. Try The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn or Catcher in the Rye or Their Eyes were Watching God. To contend that a book is terribly written because it doesn't have good grammar shows that you don't know that this is not a trademark of so-called 'bad' novels, and that's part of my point. To say a book is bad because of its grammar is something that a lot of criticism circles around, but the problem with that is it simply closes you off to experiencing other books that use it as part of their voice. To say there is no plot shows a lack of understanding what a plot is.

Jharice wrote: "Bella also rarely makes those important decisions. In Twilight she specifically states that she could no more stop seeing Edward, then she could 'stop breathing.' This means that she literally has no choice in her obsession with Edward. Much like she had no real choice in marriage (Edward essentially ties her hands on that). The only thing she really chose was wanted to be a vampire, and even then Edward fought her on that, tricked her into marriage over that, which almost leads me to believe that she deliberately continued the dangerous pregnancy because she knew it would kill her, forcing Edward to turn her (her conversations with Jacob in Breaking Dawn seem to back this up). Other than that, Bella essentially drifts with the story, or is carried by other characters from point A to point B."

If you reread the book, you will find that Bella actually made the decisions. First of all, look what each one wanted. Bella wanted to become a vampire and Edward was against it. The decision to turn her was actually decided at the end of New Moon, not in Breaking Dawn. It happened when the Cullen family outvoted Edward because Bella forced a vote. She didn't go through with a pregnancy in order for Edward to change her. That had already been decided. I saw no tricking into marriage. I saw negotiations and then Edward pulls back and says she doesn't have to marry him. Bella decided to go through with it. It was ultimately her decision.

This idea that Bella doesn't make her own decisions has to do with the uncomfortable fact that many of these decisions are not considered kosher. This is why there's a big pretense towards pretending that she didn't choose. She chose marriage and she chose to go through a dangerous pregnancy. She chose an intense and all-consuming relationsip over self-actualization in terms of college or career (not that these are barred for her.)

Jharice wrote: "People hate the book because it is bad, this isn't a matter of expectations not being met or "an expectation of "how things are supposed to be" and not a good grasp of a wide range of literature." Considering that Twilight is often represented as "a vampire book for people who hate vampire books," and many fans have claimed "I never got into reading until I read Twilight", it seems that it is the critics who do have a good grasp of a wide and varying range of literature."

You think it's bad literature and I think it's good. This is an area of subjectivity and it's a matter of taste entirely. People dislike it for their own reasons, just the same as people like it. It's a matter of opinion whether it is good. I think if you look at a lot of criticism, they show a poor idea of what to expect from literature, like strong, idealized characters or a grammar manual. Saying that there are fans who dislike vampire stories or didn't like reading until Twilight doesn't change that fact.

Jharice wrote: "Claiming that criticism is damaging, in and of itself is a negative misconception. Criticism of a book is just that, criticism of a book. Unless antis are going to bookstores and beating up fans so they can destroy their books, there is nothing damaging here. It's a poorly written book, and I've already pointed out that the problem isn't that it has flawed characters and negative destructive messages, it is that Twilight does not recognize these flawed characters and messages as being such. Edward and Bella never show actual love to one another, they obsess and lust for one another, but love itself seems absent. Notice how Bella focuses completely on superficial, physical traits of Edward. He is beautiful, he is insert stone adjective-like, he is rich and powerful, his scent is like no other, he wears sweater vests, etc. Edward himself is obsessed with Bella's scent and blank mind and compares her to being 'his brand of heroin,' which is probably the most apt description of their love ever. A drug addiction, certainly you think you need it, you may even love it, but it isn't love. It's addiction and it isn't healthy."

I contend that criticism can be damaging when it gives young people a false idea of the conventions of literature, when criticism breeds a particular arrogance towards other readers and when misrepresentations are repeated. Your idea of how love should be portrayed and what words a character should use are nothing more than your subjective ideas. Why should this stop anyone else from liking a book? I don't subscribe to the idea that love should be "healthy". I think it's a new buzzword for a certain (and rather distant) view of "having a relationship" that is ultimately about each partner looking out for themselves. Many people want a more intense and deeply felt relationship. Many people want to read about these types of relationships. I don't know where you get off being "relationship police officer". Who are you to tell others what they should read or how they should feel? If you want to read about "healthy" love, go to it.

Jharice wrote: "In Twilight when Bella is telling Jessica about how 'wonderful' Edward is, she uses purely physical and superficial traits. She even struggles to find something that isn't just beauty/wealth/power, and just settles on 'he is even more unbelievable behind the face.' This is their love, something purely based on physical attractiveness. It is nothing more than lust."

If it were based on lust, why would they choose each other? If it were about sex, wouldn't their needs have been better and more quickly satisfied with thier own kind? If it were based on physical attraction, why was Bella worried that Edward would miss her human-ness? A person's love is not necessarily based on how well they can express it. In fact, one could make the argument that a deeper love is inexpressible. It's more about the kind of connection you feel with a person than about any recounting of their attributes, although I think recounting attributes is often satisfying because it reconstructs the person in your head.

Jharice wrote: "Because being merely distraught means lapsing into a literal coma for months on end before engaging in self-destructive and potentially fatal activities (especially when you consider Bella's supposed 'super-clumsiness, it really shows that she was purposely trying to injure herself). Yes, all young teens should treat their breakups like this."

Of course, it's so much better for young teens to be taught that to be upset makes you worthless and pathetic. If you lose someone, you should just move on and anyone who can't is weak and worthy of derision. This is healthy.

[Mel]

Personally, I don't think she was either weak or strong. I feel that she's somewhere in the middle, which varies throughout the books. My problem with Twilight mainly were the films (awful acting) and the ending to the saga, where everything just kind of stopped, as if Meyer just didn't want to write any more. Realistically, she could still carry on with the Twilight saga if she wanted to, as there wasn't really any kind of conclusion to Breaking Dawn. Yes, they survived the almost-battle, yet the Volturi are still around and causing problems? I would have liked to have seen them be destroyed, to be honest.

[Violet]

Before i give my argument id like everyone to consider this:
WHO is bella? Is she Kristen Stewart with her annoying lip-biting,and gloomy zombie girl aura, OR is she just the normal girl you READ about, who might not have a Specific dramatic flare about her, but is in all aspects, pretty normal and while she has her downers, really is n't your worst MC *ahem*Zoe Redbird *Ahem*?

[Kirby]

Mel wrote: "Yes, they survived the almost-battle, yet the Volturi are still around and causing problems? I would have liked to have seen them be destroyed, to be honest. "

Yeah, I would have liked to see them destroyed, too, or at least put in their place a little more than they were. However, I think that there was a power shift- they were shown that they could no longer just do whatever they wanted without any other vampires questioning their behavior or motives. I thought their leash was at least a little shorter at the end.

[Mickey]

E.C. wrote: "I think she is weak, in the sense that her obsession with Edward has made her weak. What she feels isn't love... no... she is obsessed with Edward - it's the beauty of the story, IMHO. And let us not forget she is still a teenager. What can you expect from a teenager? They're still growing, maturing, finding out who they are and who they want to be in this world.

I think, in the circumstances, she did the best she could."

Your post raises an interesting question: Are teenagers capable of love? What age is best suited to show an ideal version of love?

Obviously, Meyer does not share a lot of modern ideas that teenagers are only capable of obsession, she decided on the age of the main characters, but I wonder, given modern ideas about teen love and common modern critism of stories like Romeo and Juliet would such a simple thing like a certain age cause a love story to be discounted?

I read a book called The Things They Carried, which is mostly a series of short stories about Vietnam except for the last story (more like an essay, really) entitled "The Lives of the Dead", which is about a girl the author was in love with when both were nine years old. He claims in there that it was real love. I'll include this excerpt:

"Linda was nine then, as I was, but we were in love. And it was real. When I write about it now, three decades later, it's tempting to dismiss it as a crush, an infatuation of childhood, but I know for a fact that what we felt for each other was as deep and rich as love can ever get. It had all the shadings and complexities of mature adult love and maybe more, because there were not yet words for it, and because it was not yet fixed to comparisons or chronologies or the ways by which adults measure such things."

[Mickey]

Jharice, I'm just going to make some general comments as this conversation is getting too bloated and ponderous. Your points about how Bella discounts other's opinions doesn't change the fact that other opinions are voiced. Bella doesn't have to agree with everyone else for a point to be considered. Again, the problem is you are looking at Bella and not the entire universe that Meyer created here.

I don't find Rosalie or Leah to be unsympathetic characters. I believe that the story lets each one speak in her own voice and share her own opinions. The same with Jacob and Charlie. Your insistence that Bella doesn't agree with them or follow their advice or direction doesn't make much sense to me. I also take exception to the idea that Rosalie is a "vapid blonde" who "only wanted a home and family", as if there's some problem with that.

I asked for evidence that Bella claimed the people Edward killed were bad people that asked for it. You told me about what Edward said. That's different.

I don't see Bella ever making a big deal of Edward's wealth. She didn't seem very materialistic to me, so I don't understand where you are getting that in the text. It seems like you just added that on. As far as being overwhelmed by a loved one's appearance, I don't find that proof of not being in love.

We actually see more than Bella's point of view. Again, I'm not sure how you are not seeing it. That Bella is not persuaded by others does not negate that they offer counterpoints.

I don't agree that the other women were jealous of Bella's fertility. Leah was frightened that becoming a werewolf might mean that she was infertile and Rosalie was jealous of Bella's humanity (which is a countering position to Bella's desire to be a vampire). The time frame in which the women would be jealous of Bella's fertility is before she was pregnant and she didn't even want to have children. (She told Edward, when he was sad about not having children and closing that door for her that she didn't mind at all.) The idea that it is offensive for a woman to be shown as upset over infertility is something I find offensive. I know many women who struggle with fertility issues and it's neither offensive to show that or wrong to bring the issue up. It shouldn't be taboo. The idea that a woman can't mourn if she finds out she is infertile (and might want a baby) is offensive. Particularly when, in Meyer's books, there is a man who also feels that loss and a woman (Bella) who doesn't mind the idea of being childless.

Your assessment of Twilight's literary quality is your subjective opinion. I find her characterization refreshing. I like that Bella is not the usual heroine you find in stories. There is nothing wrong with the plot, although I find even talking about a plot to be a little juvenile. It's sort of a "book report" term and doesn't reflect what literature is. I don't find a lot of plot holes. You're "telling" things, not "showing" them.

As far as your idea that literary prizes correspond to literary quality, I suggest you read up on the Nobel Prize for literature winners. There are names there that you've probably never heard of and some very great writers who are not on the list. The idea that, because a book did not win a prize, it must be bad literature is a little lazy.

I don't find the argument that their relationship was built on lust very strong. They were together for a year before they even had sex. One had to be coaxed into it and later refused to continue. It was only when she was turned that you could say they had a physical relationship. The idea that it's lust because Bella gushes over his physical traits strikes me as odd.

Why does a character have to cope in a healthy way? That's hardly realistic.

[Mochaspresso]

Jharice, I think you may be projecting a bit in your assessment of Rosalie's and Leah's characterizations. It is true that they both lament over not being able to have children, however, I don't think that is the root of their primary reasons for disliking Bella.

In Rosalie's case, she doesn't like Bella because she was jealous over Edward's affection for her and over the fact that Edward never showed any interest in her. Remember that when Rosalie was turned, she was supposed to have been a possible match for Edward. Even though she was never interested in him, his disinterest bothered her because she is vain and doesn't like it when she is not to center of attention. Rosalie was also jealous of Bella's humanity in general....not just over Bella's ability to have children. If Rosalie could have chosen for herself, she wouldn't choose vampirism. She'd rather be human. Rosalie thought Bella was making a mistake in choosing to be a vampire. She also felt that Edward's relationship with Bella would jeopardize their ability to remain in Forks. She was happy with the way that they were able to assimilate into society and didn't want to give that up.

Leah wasn't really jealous of Bella. She didn't like her because she was privy to Jacob's thoughts and she felt as though Bella was leading him on. She knows exactly what it feels like to be in love with someone who doesn't love you back. She also blamed all of the trouble that the wolves were having with vampires on her. She didn't feel as though Bella was worthy of all of the trouble that they were going through.

Rosalie and Leah's feelings toward Bella were much more complex than being jealous over her fertility. That is gross over-simplification.

[Mickey]

E.C. wrote: "I think love hits you whenever... but your age will make you handle it differently. It's only natural."

I just don't think that there is a uniform reaction because of age. I'm 37. I know other 37 year olds and I don't think we are all that similar. I think the same is true for any age. Are all 17 year olds alike? 27 year olds?

I think we're living in a time that is pretty brutal to teenagers, particularly teenage girls. As a group, I think they are one of the derided and scorned. You can look at terms like "fan girl" and see it in the hatred people have for Justin Bieber or Twilight. It's also evidenced in the way those trends are criticized. I don't remember this being a problem while I was growing up. Adults pretty much left "kid's stuff" alone.

[J.R.]

Eva wrote: "No, she's not a strong character. She's pathetic and mistreated and continually participates in her mistreatment.

Ana Mardoll has a series of detailed pieces analyzing what's going on socially an..."

This is one of the best discussions of Twilight out there and there are a lot. Her point that the REAL protagonist of Twilight is Edward is very well taken.

[Bri]

Jordan wrote: "I have been in so many of these discussions, and obviously there are always haters. But a huge reasoning for why they hate the book is because Bella is a weak, single minded character. I did not ge..."

I thought she was a weak character because she couldn't make up her mind. She seemed confused as she wavered between Jacob and Edward, and I found that annoying. Of course, I rarely read first person because most characters come off as being weak and confused- and that annoys me.

I read this when I was in middle school and since then I have never been in love, but I found that her character lacked depth. It was very superficial, and though the first book began to build her character the following books pretty much dropped it. She stands against every feminist ideal that those who fight for gender equality push for- her entire life revolves around a guy but she never fights it. When Edward left her, she did nothing for months after- she didn't search for him, she didn't try to contact him she stayed at home. She lets the events happen to her, sure it begins to change in the fourth book but it's not enough to change the entire series.

[Mochaspresso]

I firmly believe that radical feminism ruined an entire generation of girls. It filled so many young girl's heads with such nonsense about what "feminist ideals" actually entail.

[[deleted user]]

I think Bella is a strong character, but she seems to use that strength to influence men.

[Stephanie]

Yes, yes you are. She has no self worth or identity how does that translate into strength.

[Bri]

Mochaspresso wrote: "I firmly believe that radical feminism ruined an entire generation of girls. It filled so many young girl's heads with such nonsense about what "feminist ideals" actually entail."

What "feminist ideals"? Is it the right to fight for what you want? Is it the right to decide who you marry? My Great-Grandmother and Great-Grandfather had an arranged marriage- it wasn't a happy one, and according to the stories my Great-Grandmother would wait for him while he was out fooling around. I certainly don't want that. They hadn't even met before they were married. "Feminist ideals" is simply believing that women should have the right to choose what happens to them, and certainly not all feminist's are those wild radicals that scare off society. I honestly believe that the Bella in the book- because this is Goodreads, and we should be discussing books- is a bad role model. She allows a man to rule her life; if she had concentrated in school how much farther could she have gone? She is crippled by her unhealthy dependency on Edward, and Jacob. This is something that should not be encouraged in society.

[Mickey]

Bri wrote: ""Feminist ideals" is simply believing that women should have the right to choose what happens to them, and certainly not all feminist's are those wild radicals that scare off society. I honestly believe that the Bella in the book- because this is Goodreads, and we should be discussing books- is a bad role model. She allows a man to rule her life; if she had concentrated in school how much farther could she have gone? She is crippled by her unhealthy dependency on Edward, and Jacob. This is something that should not be encouraged in society."

Your idea of feminist ideals leads to women characters not being given the choice of doing what they want, though. If a woman chooses to be in a relationship, instead of respecting that as her choice, you decide that she is a bad role model. Do you think it's empowering for women to be told what to do and how to live?

[J.R.]

Mickey wrote: "Bri wrote: ""Feminist ideals" is simply believing that women should have the right to choose what happens to them, and certainly not all feminist's are those wild radicals that scare off society. I..."

Not at all. Allowing a man to make decisions for you or accepting that stalker behavior in a man is normal is quite a different thing from choosing to be in a relationship. Unhealthy dependency is not implicit in a having a relationship nor is being in a relationship antithical to completing an education and having a mind of one's own.

ETA: And yes, I found Edward's behavior to be distinctly that of a stalker. In no way did that look like a normal relationship. My problem was more Edward's behavior and Bella's ACCEPTANCE of that behavior although I also thought she was a cold and unpleasant character in how she treated her family and schoolmates.

[[deleted user]]

Violet wrote: "Before i give my argument id like everyone to consider this:
WHO is bella? Is she Kristen Stewart with her annoying lip-biting,and gloomy zombie girl aura, OR is she just the normal girl you READ a..."
LMAO!!!!!So true!!!!

[Mochaspresso]

J.R. wrote: "Mickey wrote: "Bri wrote: ""Feminist ideals" is simply believing that women should have the right to choose what happens to them, and certainly not all feminist's are those wild radicals that scare..."

Twilight is a paranormal romance novel about a vampire boy and a human girl. I honestly don't understand why so many people are actually expecting "normal" from this plot premise.

[J.R.]

Mochaspresso wrote: "J.R. wrote: "Mickey wrote: "Bri wrote: ""Feminist ideals" is simply believing that women should have the right to choose what happens to them, and certainly not all feminist's are those wild radica..."

Normal as in a non-stalker relationship? Yes, I do expect that.

ETA: It is a paranormal ROMANCE. There is nothing romantic in being stalked.

[Mochaspresso]

Mickey wrote: "Bri wrote: ""Feminist ideals" is simply believing that women should have the right to choose what happens to them, and certainly not all feminist's are those wild radicals that scare off society. I..."

I totally agree. People don't see how much this hinders women more than it actually empowers.

[Mochaspresso]

Bri wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "I firmly believe that radical feminism ruined an entire generation of girls. It filled so many young girl's heads with such nonsense about what "feminist ideals" actually ent..."

Did Edward really rule Bella's life? I honestly don't think that he did. If Edward had truly "ruled" Bella's life, she would have remained human and would have attended an ivy league college. That's what Edward wanted for her and that is what he was trying to manipulate her into doing in the books. I sincerely believe that had Bella done these things, even though none of it was what she really wanted for herself, we wouldn't be having discussions of whether Bella upholds feminist ideals because she's doing exactly what these so-called "feminists" approve of. Choice only seems to matter when it's a choice that's sanctioned by "the movement". This actually undermines the entire concept of "choice". This viewpoint of what "feminist ideals" are and what constitutes a "role model" is extremely divisive toward women, imo.

btw, I would argue that Bella was never intended to be viewed as a "role model" anyway. Despite it's popularity, Twilight just wasn't that kind of book.

[Mickey]

J.R. wrote: "Allowing a man to make decisions for you or accepting that stalker behavior in a man is normal is quite a different thing from choosing to be in a relationship. Unhealthy dependency is not implicit in a having a relationship nor is being in a relationship antithical to completing an education and having a mind of one's own.

ETA: And yes, I found Edward's behavior to be distinctly that of a stalker. In no way did that look like a normal relationship. My problem was more Edward's behavior and Bella's ACCEPTANCE of that behavior although I also thought she was a cold and unpleasant character in how she treated her family and schoolmates."

You have the right to define another woman's relationship? How is this empowering?

What decisions did Edward make for Bella?

[J.R.]

Mickey wrote: "J.R. wrote: "Allowing a man to make decisions for you or accepting that stalker behavior in a man is normal is quite a different thing from choosing to be in a relationship. Unhealthy dependency is..."

How is saying that being stalked is NOT romantic "defining another woman's relationship"? If you find stalking romantic... I am simply not going to go there.

[Mochaspresso]

J.R. wrote: Normal as in a non-stalker relationship? Yes, I do expect that.

ETA: It is a paranormal ROMANCE. There is nothing romantic in being stalked.



What you are doing is projecting your personal feelings onto a story and disliking the main characters for not reacting in the same way that you personally would. That is perfectly understandable. You are entitled to feel this way.

However, it seems like you are also trying to dictate that everyone else who reads Twilight react to it in the same manner that you do and that is what isn't fair. I get the impression that you are trying to imply that if another reader doesn't see it the way that you do, there must be something inherently wrong with them.

From a legal standpoint, "stalking" is defined by the victim feeling threatened or harassed by the stalker in some way. Bella was not threatened by Edward. She did not fear for her safety around him. When she found out that he was doing it, she started leaving her window open for him to come in. She was happy that he appeared out of nowhere and helped her on that night in Port Angeles. If you have read Midnight Sun, you know that the only time that Edward had thoughts of actually harming Bella was during their first encounter in Biology class. After he came back, his intent was never to harm Bella. It was an attempt to protect her and Bella never seemed to mind having Edward around as her protector. Some people do find the concept of having a protector to be romantic.

Stalking isn't romantic in it's usual sinister context....but, imo, the "stalking" in Twilight didn't have that same typical sinister context AND it actually stopped being stalking in any context when she found out and demonstrated that she didn't mind and started leaving the window open for him.

[Shona]

Jordan wrote:

"Jessica wrote: "Yes, you are. "Oh Edward is gone, excuse me while I just fall apart cause my boyfriend dumped me." How does this imply strength to you?"

If you break down once, that doesn't define your whole character. That was in New Moon. Yes, I think she was stupid in this book. I didn't agree with half of the things she did. But you have to consider everything else to balance it out. If you were judged by your worst doing, that's not who you are. That's just something you did..."

Agreeing with the second comment.

I don't think Bella is weak, but I don't believe she is particularly strong either. She is just a girl who fell for someone and then dealt with everything that followed.

I felt that her character came through a little more in the books, but by the third movie this was showing there as well.

She was repetitive yes, and often annoying... but that was mostly in the beginning, in Twilight, when she was first falling for Edward. To be honest, if stuck inside my own head for a while, or any teenage girl's anyone's head, whilst we're in the midst of loving someone new, I think you'd find much of the same stuff.

Just because we're fools in love though, is not to say we're complete idiots.

Bella has other qualities - she's smart, and selfless, and loyal. Just because she puts her love for Edward on top doesn't make her weak.

In reality, a lot of us spend a lot of our time wishing we were first priority in our loved one's life.

[Mirkat]

Mickey wrote: "Grammar isn't all that important in a novel, particularly in a first person narrative. Try The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn or Catcher in the Rye or Their Eyes were Watching God."

Do you make a distinction as to whether the grammar in question is part of the characterization or accidental? I don't think anyone would contend that Mark Twain, J.D. Salinger, or Zora Neale Hurston used poor grammar because they didn't know any better. In Meyer's case, the errors that come up in discussion don't seem to be part of Bella's characterization. She's supposed to be an A student who excels in English--why would she use "reign in" when she meant "rein in," for example?

[Mirkat]

::snerk:: :)

[Adonis]

Bella is a strong character. She is a normal human trapped inside the world with werewolves and vampires. She has to be strong to be able to survive some things that other humans would run away from

[Mickey]

Jharice, Leah and Rosalie do not have to be seen in a positive light by other characters in order to be fully present and functioning characters. Your example of people getting annoyed at their behavior or disliking a trait doesn't negate that, neither does Bella not taking their advice. It's the same as Charlie or Jacob not being a fan of Edward's. A character in a story is usually not universally loved or hated, nor should they be. I don't think you're understanding that a lot of a story is about the interplay between the characters. I think that is something Meyer does well, much better, for instance, than Rowling, who tended to stop short of creating complexity in her supernatural characters.

I don't have a problem with the character of Rosalie as much as your discounting of her because she is "a vapid blonde who only wants a home and family". As if such a character is somehow demeaning or wrong. I felt for her when she discussed her history to Bella and her motivations behind her previous behavior. I also felt for Leah, particularly when Jacob and she have their conversation about imprinting. I think that exchange brought out a lot of the different ideas of love in the series. Each contributed to the narrative. They aren't simply foils for Bella but were characters in their own right.

I still haven't seen the excerpt of how Bella claimed that the people Edward killed were asking for it. I'm not asking you to repeat what you have. I asked for the excerpt where this happened. If there isn't one, just say that. I'm more interested in what happened in the book, not your interpretation.

I still don't see much evidence that she was after his money. She wouldn't accept gifts from him for the longest time and worked a part time job to make her own money for college. The wealthiness what just another facet of the exoticism of their lifestyle. I don't think it really appealed to her as she wasn't interested in fancy cars and tended to find very expensive clothes uncomfortable and embarrassing. I'm not sure we can fault Edward for being rich.

As far as infertility, many women feel the way Leah does. I don't think the proper response is to silence or correct them. I think when Leah opened up about her fears that she was infertile or Rosalie about her regrets about never having a family, these were some of the most powerful parts of the story. I think part of it is I know that it's not the "correct" response as viewed by feminists, but it is something that the average woman could understand. Some women are upset when they learn that they cannot have children (like Leah) and some aren't (like Bella, pre-marriage). Some men are as well (Edward). I think women should be allowed to express how they feel instead of having only the correct responses.

As far as the men being potent, biologically, it makes sense. Men have a less central role in baby-making and their bodies don't change as much or aren't as taxed physically. This is why men are potent well into their twilight years when women are no longer able to have children. You might as well blame nature for being sexist as well as Meyer.

I still do not believe that "showing, not telling" is sound literary practice, nor do I think most people know what that means. It's a buzzword that people use because they think it sounds intelligent. I'm simply pointing out that you tend to simply repeat yourself instead of stating your case. For instance, look back at what you said about Edward's wealth- you haven't added anything to your previous comment. You tell again how Bella was obsessed by Edward's wealth. Repeating yourself won't help your case.

Again, your plot argument is simply claiming the plot is important. Many so-called classics do not have much going on in terms of conflict or things happening. I'm thinking of novels like One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, a story about a typical day of a prisoner in the Soviet gulag by a Nobel Prize winner or Remembrance of Things Past: Volume I - Swann's Way & Within a Budding Grove. I don't see any problem with the plot. I read the entire series in a very short space of time because of the interest I had in what was going to happen next. For someone to claim that a major failing was that the plot was nonexistent strikes me as odd. I saw a lot of things going on and (more important in my estimation) I saw a lot of themes and character nuances. A random person on a reader's site doesn't change my estimation, especially when they don't add anything that I haven't heard before.

Bella never displayed suicidal tendencies.

[Library Nymph]

Shanu wrote: "I don't think that Bella's weak at all... She has been shown to love sarcasm, be funny and have the ability to love somebody so purely.. that's not desperation.. yeah she's centered around just one..."

I agree.