Twilight
discussion
Am I the only one thinks Bella is a strong character??
Theresa wrote: "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 ..."
To me, a little of both...both a product of their generation:-)
Jharice wrote: My point about Leah and Rosalie as that whatever opinions they harbored, were immediately discredited due to their characterization as ‘negative haters.’ Interestingly enough, I felt like these were two of the better characters in the series; however it seemed like they only existed to serve as foils for Bella, like most secondary female characters in the series.Also, it seems like the thread has completely deviated from the original topic. My apologies.
I didn't think of Leah and Rosalie as "negative haters" or as foils for Bella as I was reading. If you had said Lauren and Jessica, then I would have said most definitely. "Haters", in slanguage, typically mean someone who has no real valid reason for their dislike other than petty jealousy. That fits Lauren and Jessica perfectly but I don't think that it fits Leah and Rosalie at all. I wouldn't go so far as to use the word "justifiable" but they did have understandable reasons for disliking Bella that were not completely rooted in petty jealousy.
Mickey wrote: "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'm not Jharice, but I think she might have been thinking of a scene in chapter 16 of Twilight, pages 342-343:
He sighed, seeming reluctant to answer. "Well, I had a typical bout of rebellious adolescence — about ten years after I was… born… created, whatever you want to call it. I wasn't sold on his life of abstinence, and I resented him for curbing my appetite. So I went off on my own for a time."Bella doesn't say that the people were asking for it, but her reaction to being told that he went off for a few years to rebel against Carlisle's no-killing-people rule was that "it sounds reasonable," and this was even before he told her that he limited his kills to those whose thoughts led him to believe they were bad people.
"Really?" I was intrigued, rather than frightened, as I perhaps should have been. He could tell. I vaguely realized that we were headed up the next flight of stairs, but I wasn't paying much attention to my surroundings.
"That doesn't repulse you?"
"No."
"Why not?"
"I guess… it sounds reasonable."
He barked a laugh, more loudly than before. We were at the top of the stairs now, in another paneled hallway.
"From the time of my new birth," he murmured, "I had the advantage of knowing what everyone around me was thinking, both human and non-human alike. That's why it took me ten years to defy Carlisle — I could read his perfect sincerity, understand exactly why he lived the way he did.
"It took me only a few years to return to Carlisle and recommit to his vision. I thought I would be exempt from the… depression… that accompanies a conscience. Because I knew the thoughts of my prey, I could pass over the innocent and pursue only the evil. If I followed a murderer down a dark alley where he stalked a young girl — if I saved her, then surely I wasn't so terrible."
I shivered, imagining only too clearly what he described — the alley at night, the frightened girl, the dark man behind her. And Edward, Edward as he hunted, terrible and glorious as a young god, unstoppable. Would she have been grateful, that girl, or more frightened than before?
"But as time went on, I began to see the monster in my eyes. I couldn't escape the debt of so much human life taken, no matter how justified. And I went back to Carlisle and Esme. They welcomed me back like the prodigal. It was more than I deserved."
Mickey wrote: "Trust me, A students still make grammar mistakes. When you look at the different voices for Jacob's and Bella's portions of the series (can't speak of Edward's, haven't read it), I think there's obviously a big difference in voice. I prefer Bella's, just because I personally prefer less slang. Since you only think of grammar in terms of character, how do you feel about the grammar of some poets likeE.E. Cummings or Emily Dickinson? It's obviously a question of expression, not always characterization.
I don't know where "reign in" and "rein in" come in. I remember the scene with Claire pulling on the boy's hair like reins on a horse. I imagine that would fall under the category of typo, though. You think it's a grammar mistake? Explain. "
I think the reign/rein thing is a case of not knowing which word to use. The grammar issues people generally point to in Meyer's work seem to be Meyer making errors, not making stylistic choices. I'm fine with Cummings and Dickinson as I've never had the impression that they didn't know any better.
Mirkat wrote: "Mickey wrote: "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..."I don't understand why people like Edward. If for nothing else, why not for the fact that he considers a several year killing spree to be rebellious Adolescence?
Jesse wrote: "I don't understand why people like Edward. If for nothing else, why not for the fact that he considers a several year killing spree to be rebellious Adolescence?"I agree! And I find it troubling that Bella takes the whole thing in stride.
Mirkat wrote: "I agree! And I find it troubling that Bella takes the whole thing in stride. "For people to like him still, for them to excuse him of his past because he felt sorry, that just implies to me that they have Bella's mindset, which is a terrifying mindset because that means that they liken Edward to a God or view him as one.
We're doomed.
Mirkat wrote: "Bella doesn't say that the people were asking for it, but her reaction to being told that he went off for a few years to rebel against Carlisle's no-killing-people rule was that "it sounds reasonable," and this was even before he told her that he limited his kills to those whose thoughts led him to believe they were bad people."This is my problem with a lot of the analysis that Jharice is imparting. It's simply not there. There is not a time where Bella thinks (to my knowledge, anyway) that the people Edward killed deserved it, and this was something that Jharice claimed happened. I think a lot of the criticism of Twilight seems to be second or third hand information that has become so garbled that it doesn't resemble what happens in the books anymore (ex: Bella doesn't make decisions or she was in a coma or comatose in New Moon or that she was suicidal).
Mirkat wrote: "I think the reign/rein thing is a case of not knowing which word to use. The grammar issues people generally point to in Meyer's work seem to be Meyer making errors, not making stylistic choices. I'm fine with Cummings and Dickinson as I've never had the impression that they didn't know any better."When did the "reign in" thing happen? I remember only the incident where Claire grabs at the Quil's hair like reins. Is there another time? Please answer this question because, if it was more than once, it's likely she doesn't know. Although I find it interesting, if it was the only time, that you misquoted the example as "reign in/rein in". The word "in" is not part of the example I'm thinking of.
So, you're saying that your one example of a grammar mistake is actually a typo, is that correct? I suppose making such a mistake means you don't know the difference between mis-spelled words and grammar mistakes. If you are faulting someone for grammar issues, you should make sure the examples you include actually contain mistakes in grammar. Otherwise, you sound like you don't know what grammar is as well.
Mickey wrote: " I think a lot of the criticism of Twilight seems to be second or third hand information that has become so garbled that it doesn't resemble what happens in the books anymore (ex: Bella doesn't make decisions or she was in a coma or comatose in New Moon or that she was suicidal)."Or it might just be that the criticism for the examples you gave are how people interpreted Bella's actions and are their own opinions first hand.
Sounds crazy to you, but people aren't parrots. Seriously, not even Alice believed Bella when she said she did it for fun. She actually believed Bella did it for suicidal reasons.
Jesse wrote: "I don't understand why people like Edward. If for nothing else, why not for the fact that he considers a several year killing spree to be rebellious Adolescence? "Thats easy, why do people like Dexter? You know, the show about a cereal killer who kills other killers. Its the same concept. And sometimes Dexter gets the wrong person. Edward on the other hand, always got the right person.
How else would you have a vampire experience a rebellious Adolescence? He eats garlic while killing people? Vampires in general go on killing sprees, thats part of being a vampire.
Jesse wrote: "For people to like him still, for them to excuse him of his past because he felt sorry, that just implies to me that they have Bella's mindset, which is a terrifying mindset because that means that they liken Edward to a God or view him as one."Or people are more forgiving than you are. Your reasoning for not liking Edward is that he killed people, which also happened to be victimizing women, then I don't understand that mindset. There are examples of people that I can think of, in real life and in books who have killed people and I still loved them. From soldiers coming back from a war to any vampire novel (Sookie Stackhouse Novels to name one).
Heidi wrote: "Thats easy, why do people like Dexter? You know, the show about a cereal killer who kills other killers. Its the same concept. And sometimes Dexter gets the wrong person. Edward on the other hand, always got the right person."The thing is though that it isn't Dexter's place neither Edward's place to say who deserves to die. I don't really want to get into it that much with the Dexter example because I don't watch the show, but I understand where you're coming from. The problem however is that there is a difference between them, imo. Bella doesn't have a problem with Edward having gone off to kill people, even before he further explained that it was people who committed crimes. That's down right crazy. She jumps in and says "Oh, that's reasonable." before he even said it was only criminals. She was completely fine with the thought of Edward killing people simply because he wanted to rebel. How can one justify the killing of others as reasonable just because he wanted to rebel? And it wasn't because he was weak-willed, but because he was simply tired of drinking animal blood, simply tired of being told he can't have what he wanted.
Heidi wrote: "Or people are more forgiving than you are. Your reasoning for not liking Edward is that he killed people,"
I assure you that I have more than one reason and that all my reasons are within reason.
I'm so sorry that I cannot forgive someone who took it in their own hands, put themselves above human law (I cannot tell you how many fucks I don't give on the fact that he is a vampire. His victims were human, their punishment should abide by human laws) and killed people who while were criminals, but at the same time has taken away justice from the victim/victim's family, has killed people who got away with murder but now are unsolved murder cases and their families are left to grieve. Yes, I should think outside the box a little bit more and have empathy for Edward. Look, I hear you but I didn't have empathy for Light from Death Note (who has done the same thing) and I surely don't have empathy for Edward.
Heidi wrote: "which also happened to be victimizing women,
You say this like he made himself a crusader for women by going after criminals who had done wrong to a woman. I just can't find it in me to empathize with him because he mentioned one instance of saving a woman's life, and that's saying IF he had done that, instead of simply having given an example.
Heidi wrote: "There are examples of people that I can think of, in real life and in books who have killed people and I still loved them. From soldiers coming back from a war to any vampire novel (Sookie Stackhouse Novels to name one). "
And that's you, good on you. But to me there's a difference to a cold blooded killer with other intentions than just saving a life and someone like a soldier (Don't know SS novels, don't care to know). You have to keep in mind, he wanted human blood, he just made himself feel better by getting it from those he thought needed to die. To compare him to a soldier who has to kill is just down right crazy to me. Out of all things, why pick a soldier? Do you mean to imply that his years of murder should be honored like a soldier's duty is honored? If so, that puts you in the little box of people who say he's a good guy and those people include Bella who so blatantly call him a God and God-like on many occasions.
It to me isn't fine that he killed people simply because he was a vampire and grew tired of 'curbing his appetite". To you it is fine and justifiable but to me it isn't. I don't care who it was, his "I want human blood more than I feel that you should live" shouldn't make it okay.Now, that isn't to say that this to me applies to all vampire across fiction. I just don't understand how Bella can see reason in his logic before he fully explained and I as the reader am not -because of yours and Mickey's logic- think Bella is bonkers and that Edward isn't a good guy.
Like him, go ahead, but I don't understand why you're so cut throat when I say that he isn't a good guy and that I can't see why others like him. There's a difference between liking the bad guy, and liking the bad guy and thinking he's one of the good guys. It's like with fans of Loki, for example. People say he's misunderstood and write him as such in FF, but no, he's just the bad guy and that's all to it.
Jesse wrote: " To compare him to a soldier who has to kill is just down right crazy to me. Out of all things, why pick a soldier? Do you mean to imply that his years of murder should be honored like a soldier's duty is honored? "I picked a soldier because it is (sometimes) within their duty to kill. Like being a vampire, it is within the nature to kill. Either way killing is killing. And in context, Bella said she understood Edward going into a rebellious adolescence being a vampire. She never said she agreed with it. Just as you claim to understand where I'm coming from, doesn't mean that you agree with it either.
Jesse wrote:Like him, go ahead, but I don't understand why you're so cut throat when I say that he isn't a good guy and that I can't see why others like him. There's a difference between liking the bad guy, and liking the bad guy and thinking he's one of the good guys. It's like with fans of Loki, for example. People say he's misunderstood and write him as such in FF, but no, he's just the bad guy and that's all to it."
I liked Hera. People say she was a bad person. But I understand where shes coming from.
Jesse wrote:"It to me isn't fine that he killed people simply because he was a vampire and grew tired of 'curbing his appetite". To you it is fine and justifiable but to me it isn't. I don't care who it was, his "I want human blood more than I feel that you should live" shouldn't make it okay.
Now, that isn't to say that this to me applies to all vampire across fiction."
I think its interesting that you hold a higher standard to Edward then you do "to all vampire fiction". Now I know, that is me twisting your words around. But isn't what you did to Bella in how she was ok with him killing? It WAS in that context right?
Mickey wrote: "When did the "reign in" thing happen? I remember only the incident where Claire grabs at the Quil's hair like reins. Is there another time? Please answer this question because, if it was more than once, it's likely she doesn't know. Although I find it interesting, if it was the only time, that you misquoted the example as "reign in/rein in". The word "in" is not part of the example I'm thinking of. So, you're saying that your one example of a grammar mistake is actually a typo, is that correct? I suppose making such a mistake means you don't know the difference between mis-spelled words and grammar mistakes. If you are faulting someone for grammar issues, you should make sure the examples you include actually contain mistakes in grammar. Otherwise, you sound like you don't know what grammar is as well."
New Moon, p. 135: "I needed to reign in the enthusiasm before I gave him the wrong idea." The other is example is the one you cite, from Breaking Dawn, p. 153 "Claire screamed and pulled his hair like a horse's reigns."
The "reign/rein" thing was just an example I was able to think of off-hand. If you are honestly interested, you can do a Google search on "Stephenie Meyer" and "grammar" and find lots of documentation.
Bella is a boring character to read. Honestly I used to love the books, and Twilight got me into the whole supernatural and other books. But as I read other books I realized how boring she really was and that you can have a love triangle in the supernatural world and not have it like as one of the ones in the nonfiction section where the girl gets all depressed. (It has been a long time since I read nonfiction and I read two so sorry if they aren't actually like that)and honestly Edward creeped me out the entire time.
Heidi wrote: "I picked a soldier because it is (sometimes) within their duty to kill. Like being a vampire, it is within the nature to kill. Either way killing is killing. And in context, Bella said she understood Edward going into a rebellious adolescence being a vampire. She never said she agreed with it. Just as you claim to understand where I'm coming from, doesn't mean that you agree with it either. "I don't really see an indication in the scene where Bella is showing that she understood Edward being 'a rebellious adolescence' but didn't agree. What is there to understand that makes what he did reasonable and all before he explained that he killed those he found to be guilty? I genuinely want it to be explained to me how that can be seen as reasonable?
Also, I surely hope you know the difference between nature/instincts and duty. What does these two have to do with each other that it makes sense to compare a soldier killing because of duty to Edward killing because he wants to? With a soldier it's kill or be killed, with Edward he just kills who he wants, there's no connection here that I see.
Heidi wrote: "I liked Hera. People say she was a bad person. But I understand where shes coming from."
You'll have to excuse my ignorance. I don't know who this is and thus this example -and any possible explanation for this example- is wasted on me and doesn't tell me anything further about our topic. The only thing it says to me is that there's an implication that you realize he's a bad guy, but are one of those people who make him out to be the good guy. If that's not it then I've gotten nothing from this.
Heidi wrote: "I think its interesting that you hold a higher standard to Edward then you do "to all vampire fiction". Now I know, that is me twisting your words around. But isn't what you did to Bella in how she was ok with him killing? It WAS in that context right? "
You've come to the wrong conclusion and I'm sorry that it seems that I didn't explain my side well enough that you had to come to this conclusion. It goes back to what I said about bad guys and good guys. In other select vampire fiction the bad guys are bad guys and they can't be thought of as the good guy. It would be a solid fact that the vampire is the bad guy in the story and people would still like the vampire. With what I said I mean to express that Edward is a bad guy that people see as the good guy. With Bella, she's just a mess. I see nothing of what I've done with Bella's words but repeat them because I cannot believe that she or others can see Edward killing people just for GP as reasonable
(My example for this^ while I was typing it was Frost from Blade. He's the bad vampire in the story, it's obvious that he's the bad vampire but I still liked him. I however cannot confuse him as a bad guy that is good/misunderstood.)
Maybe it's just our different mindsets where you can see justifying a killing and I can't, idk.
Also, if you had referred to the bad guy/good guy bit instead of just that part to incriminate me and put me in a corner, you would've had the answer to your question before you typed it and instead had me repeat it.
"Like him, go ahead, but I don't understand why you're so cut throat when I say that he isn't a good guy and that I can't see why others like him. There's a difference between liking the bad guy, and liking the bad guy and thinking he's one of the good guys."
Mickey wrote: "Mirkat wrote: "Bella doesn't say that the people were asking for it, but her reaction to being told that he went off for a few years to rebel against Carlisle's no-killing-people rule was that "it ..."What Jharice is referring to, Bella's "callous" reaction to Edward's past, happened in the Breaking Dawn, Pt. 1 movie. In the movie, she does say that those people were bad and deserved it.
edited (yet again) to add....
I checked Breaking Dawn (the book). The movie wasn't exactly 100% true to the book in that scene. The conversation about Edward's past on the eve of their wedding didn't happen in the book and neither does Bella's comments about how those people deserved it. Mirkat is right about Ch. 16 of the first Twilight book. All she says about it is that she thought it sounded reasonable. However, it is also important to mention that she says that hesitantly (...after taking a pause) and there is a lot of internal monologue that happens later on. She goes on to wonder whether the women he saved would have been grateful for what Edward did for them or even more frightened of him had they known.
It's interesting how different groups of people have differing opinions. It just points to the idea that criticism is truly subjective. There have been threads here criticizing the Cullen clan for not living up to the bloodthirstiness of vampire legends. Now there are people who are upset that any vampire killed any person at all at any time in their past.In my mind, I liken the situation to how people consider their food. I can't stand to think of an animal in pain, yet I've been eating meat all of my life and I crave meat when I haven't had it in a while. Other, non-meat based products are satisfying, so it's not a question of survival for me to eat meat. My culture does not consider it a big deal to eat meat (we won't count the feelings of the cows or pigs), and most people do not have the amount of craving for meat that vampires have for their source of food.
The 'rebellion' comment actually reminds me of Mahatma Gandhi, who was raised in an observant Hindu home where meat eating was strictly forbidden. When he was a young man, he lived in England for a while and took up eating meat occasionally. This went against his upbringing and he eventually chose to revert back to abstaining.
The Cullens are an unusual collection of vampires who do not live the way other vampires live. They've assimilated into the human population to some degree, but their differences also keep them separate in large part to the humans they live among. They do not make friends with the locals and, I imagine, after several decades like this, human society changes to the point that the resemblances you had with them grow smaller and smaller.
ETA: I just looked up Gandhi's brief stint at meat eating to make sure I was remembering it correctly. In the sites I visited, the meat-eating time (which may have happened in India instead of when he was in England) was referred to as his 'rebellious' times or as him 'experimenting' with meat eating.
Jesse wrote: "Heidi wrote: "I liked Hera. People say she was a bad person. But I understand where shes coming from."You'll have to excuse my ignorance. I don't know who this is and thus this example -and any possible explanation for this example- is wasted on me and doesn't tell me anything further about our topic. The only thing it says to me is that there's an implication that you realize he's a bad guy, but are one of those people who make him out to be the good guy. If that's not it then I've gotten nothing from this."
Message 141 has excerpt from the book. But I regress. Giving another example to your example, doesn't mean I agree with you. I can think of at least half a dozen Loki like characters. It doesn't mean I agree with you. It just means to me that stance that Loki, Hera heck even Dexter Morgan is moot. And thats how I choose to see Edward. He had a stint of Dexter in him. Knowing what we do about vampires, would you be so shocked if you met one, to learn that they killed anyone?
Heidi wrote: "Knowing what we do about vampires, would you be so shocked if you met one, to learn that they killed anyone? "If I were to have met one I don't think I'd be alive.
Joking aside, it's not the fact that he's killed that is what's bothering me. I don't know how to explain it any further than I just had. Where in what I've posted gives off this air of shock or something else that would make you ask this question? Of course I'm not shocked that him or any other vampire has killed, that's not the point.
Jesse wrote: "Joking aside, it's not the fact that he's killed that is what's bothering me. I don't know how to explain it any further than I just had. Where in what I've posted gives off this air of shock or something else that would make you ask this question? Of course I'm not shocked that him or any other vampire has killed, that's not the point. "
The point is, I don't agree with you, and you don't agree with me. The point is you want to demonize Edward, and I want to humanize him. Something tells me we should be just be vampirize him.
Heidi wrote: "The point is, I don't agree with you, and you don't agree with me. The point is you want to demonize Edward, and I want to humanize him. Something tells me we should be just be vampirize him. "Edward has shown himself as a bad person all on his own, I've done no twisting of context or words to try to portray him as anything other than what he is. And what he is is a bad guy. You see good him in(for some reason that you don't feel the need to elaborate on) and I see him as an asshole, that's just our differing opinions of which are no more right than the others. that's just the way it is.
I agree with Mickey on all counts. In response to the newer comments though I'd like to add that maybe Edward should be viewed as neither a good guy or a bad guy.
He's a vampire. Vampires drink blood and therefore kill, and of course killing - by human standards - is wrong no matter what light is cast on it.
But he is not a human.
Isn't it a little crazy to judge a vampire by human standards?
Naturally, Bella tries to. She does this because she loves him. We tend to turn a blind eye when it involves someone we love.
Granted, this is an extreme case of blindness and an extreme wrong-doing - but again, this is by our own human standards.
By any standard, human or otherwise, Edward has good AND bad in him.
The bad as we know is his vampiric tendencies. He can also be controlling and possessive.
There are good qualities too though, one of which is his capability to love another - not just Bella, but his family too. And he does have good morals.
Just because he lost his way for a small period in his long 'life' doesn't mean that he thinks that what he did was okay. He knows that killing other murderers didn't justify his own kill. And he knows the value of human life, or else he would have shunned Carlisle's ideal completely and permanently.
He sees himself as a soul-less monster, regardless of the lifestyle he now lives - I personally feel he judges himself a little too harshly, given his journey from a newborn monster to a civilised vampire resisting his own nature.
Referring to his killing spree as an 'adolescent rebellion' may have been flippant on his part, but I think that temporarily embracing his true vampiric nature cannot be ruled against him.
If he doesn't get points for being a 'vegetarian', he shouldn't lose any either for being exactly what he is.
Jesse wrote: "Mirkat wrote: "Mickey wrote: "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 exc..."You mean... like a vampire? Remember what his natural instincts are telling him this whole entire time. There really are no "bad" vampires. Drinking human blood is part of our nature. Just like humans (well, now there are obviously vegetarians, but way back when) had to hunt for animals just to keep us fed. I don't think that the fact that a vampire went on a killing spree should be a reason to hate him. He feels guilty, he made sure to express that.
Jordan wrote: "You mean... like a vampire? Remember what his natural instincts are telling him this whole entire time. There really are no "bad" vampires. Drinking human blood is part of our nature. Just like humans (well, now there are obviously vegetarians, but way back when) had to hunt for animals just to keep us fed. I don't think that the fact that a vampire went on a killing spree should be a reason to hate him. He feels guilty, he made sure to express that. "And as I've said before, the fact that he went on a killing spree isn't my only reason to dislike him, just one that was mentioned. Honestly, what kind of picture do I paint of myself that it seems like I only have one reason just because it happened to be the topic at the time?
I see him as a bad guy, that's just the way it shall be. He has no redeeming qualities because of his behaviors and his actions.
I think the book portrayed her as weak, for a human vs. vampire like comparison. Bella was not fit for being a human, but born to die and be a vampire. She was brave, but a bumbling mess, and her courage got her and Edward into a lot of trouble. Sometimes she would have just been better to stay put! lol
Jesse wrote: "Jordan wrote: "You mean... like a vampire? Remember what his natural instincts are telling him this whole entire time. There really are no "bad" vampires. Drinking human blood is part of our nature..."I respect your opinion, I mean, not everyone is going to like the same characters. But I don't think you need to address the people who like him, as if they shouldn't. People like and dislike who they want. I was just saying I disagree with the reason, but then again we disagree on the character as well, so all is good.
Jordan wrote: "I respect your opinion, I mean, not everyone is going to like the same characters. But I don't think you need to address the people who like him, as if they shouldn't. People like and dislike who they want. I was just saying I disagree with the reason, but then again we disagree on the character as well, so all is good."Out of all the time I've been in Twilight discussions, my one main goal was to knock heads with my problems with it, not the people. I never wanted to present myself as that one asshat who felt like they were entitled to dictate what people should or shouldn't like based on their preferences. I'm sorry if you felt that that was what I was doing, I assure you that was never my intention.
Jordan wrote: "I respect your opinion, I mean, not everyone is going to like the same characters. But I don't think you need to address the people who like him, as if they shouldn't. People like and dislike who they want. I was just saying I disagree with the reason, but then again we disagree on the character as well, so all is good."
Hah, this coming from someone who 4 pages ago said: "I have been in so many of these discussions, and obviously there are always haters."
You don't even understand yourself, do you?
My, my, you learn something new every day. So those who don't like a whiny ragdoll of a character are haters? Is that how you refer to people who disagree with you?
As Stephen King wisely put it: "Twilight is about the importance of having a boyfriend."
Bella does the thinking (and you can't even call it that) with her crotch. Her world revolves around Edward and his perfection; his marble chest; his perfect face; his butterscotch eyes...
"I couldn't believe this godlike creature was meant for me."
Bella also has top-notch skills in the self-esteem department.
The book is okay, the writing is abysmal but at least it's entertaining- if you, that is, don't put much thought into analysing the characters. That will require the aid of a vomiting bag.
Hah, this coming from someone who 4 pages ago said: "I have been in so many of these discussions, and obviously there are always haters."
You don't even understand yourself, do you?
My, my, you learn something new every day. So those who don't like a whiny ragdoll of a character are haters? Is that how you refer to people who disagree with you?
As Stephen King wisely put it: "Twilight is about the importance of having a boyfriend."
Bella does the thinking (and you can't even call it that) with her crotch. Her world revolves around Edward and his perfection; his marble chest; his perfect face; his butterscotch eyes...
"I couldn't believe this godlike creature was meant for me."
Bella also has top-notch skills in the self-esteem department.
The book is okay, the writing is abysmal but at least it's entertaining- if you, that is, don't put much thought into analysing the characters. That will require the aid of a vomiting bag.
PS. Mickey and Jharice, I applaud your class, maturity and politeness.
Jesse wrote: "Jordan wrote: "I respect your opinion, I mean, not everyone is going to like the same characters. But I don't think you need to address the people who like him, as if they shouldn't. People like an..."Okay, well sorry I misjudged!
Genesis wrote: "Jordan wrote: "I respect your opinion, I mean, not everyone is going to like the same characters. But I don't think you need to address the people who like him, as if they shouldn't. People like an..."No, but they are people who HATE Twilight. Haters would be the society term. Sorry if you thought I was classifying everyone that doesn't agree with me. I would be a HATER of Beautiful Creatures (well, i don't hate it, but don't like it either), but I try not to be rude to people who like it. No need to sass me, miss. As I said, I respect opinions. And yes, I understand myself.
"No need to sass me, miss."
That has to be the creepiest combination of a school teacher, a pervy cop and a pimp.
You try too hard.
That has to be the creepiest combination of a school teacher, a pervy cop and a pimp.
You try too hard.
Thanks. Nice to know that's what you got out of my reply.
Jordan wrote: "Thanks. Nice to know that's what you got out of my reply."
The rest of your reply was you repeating yourself for the 50th time. Read that already.
The rest of your reply was you repeating yourself for the 50th time. Read that already.
Genesis wrote: "Jordan wrote: "Thanks. Nice to know that's what you got out of my reply."The rest of your reply was you repeating yourself for the 50th time. Read that already."
Really? I never had to tell someone what a hater was before that comment, so I don't think I repeated myself. The only thing I repeated was that I respect opinions. Was that a bad thing? Sorry then...
Genesis wrote: "You're forgiven.Goodbye."
Nice talking to you :)
I'm not sure a blank slate meant to stand in place for teenage self-projection and simultaneously act as a stand-in for the author can even have much characterization beyond the obvious. Rather, if she can, I'd just look at the kind of person S. Meyer is for my answer:http://whytwilightfails.files.wordpre...
Oops! Looks like we got a Mary Sue.
Kit wrote: "I'm not sure a blank slate meant to stand in place for teenage self-projection and simultaneously act as a stand-in for the author can even have much characterization beyond the obvious. Rather, if..."Furthermore, if puritanical ideas of feminine mystique count as strength, I guess Bella is a Madonna.
Kit wrote: "Furthermore, if puritanical ideas of feminine mystique count as strength, I guess Bella is a Madonna. "
What does Madonna mean in this context?
Doesn't that mean the "virtuous one" that is pure and and saves her virginity for marriage that sort of thing? This would more accurately describe Edward.
Olivia wrote: "Genesis wrote: ""No need to sass me, miss."
That has to be the creepiest combination of school teacher and pimp.
You try too hard."
humm."
I'm sorry, were you trying to communicate something? Is this discussion getting too polysyllabic for you?
I've seen spam bots more articulate than you.
What does that humm mean? If you have anything to add feel free to do so, but so far you could only manage to type "ok", "hmm", "that true".
Shit, this probably will go over her head, why do I bother.
That has to be the creepiest combination of school teacher and pimp.
You try too hard."
humm."
I'm sorry, were you trying to communicate something? Is this discussion getting too polysyllabic for you?
I've seen spam bots more articulate than you.
What does that humm mean? If you have anything to add feel free to do so, but so far you could only manage to type "ok", "hmm", "that true".
Shit, this probably will go over her head, why do I bother.
Olivia wrote: "whichever. the question here is bella ever a strong at all or is it when she was change into vamp, then she was bit stronger, to protect everyone? "Even after she became a vampire I don't really think she protected anyone. Sure, with her impossible power she was able to block Jane's (?) ability but even then she wasn't actively doing anything more strenuous or protective than standing around while Carlisle and Aro talked.
Jesse wrote: "Olivia wrote: "whichever. the question here is bella ever a strong at all or is it when she was change into vamp, then she was bit stronger, to protect everyone? "Even after she became a vampire ..."
Sounds like a total cop-out.
I can't put much opinion on the whole Bella's only strong as a vampire as I've never read the series past New Moon.
Kasabuta wrote: "Jesse wrote: "Olivia wrote: "whichever. the question here is bella ever a strong at all or is it when she was change into vamp, then she was bit stronger, to protect everyone? "
Even after she bec..."
then you have no say if bella is strong or not.
Even after she bec..."
then you have no say if bella is strong or not.
Kendra wrote: "Kasabuta wrote: "Jesse wrote: "Olivia wrote: "whichever. the question here is bella ever a strong at all or is it when she was change into vamp, then she was bit stronger, to protect everyone? "E..."
Did I not say that I only gave my opinions based on the first two books alone? That should give me enough merit to judge her up to that point, imo.
I don't know why you people get so defensive when it comes to your favorite things.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich (other topics)
Remembrance of Things Past: Volume I - Swann's Way & Within a Budding Grove (other topics)
The Things They Carried (other topics)
Midnight Sun [2008 Draft] (other topics)
More...
J. Abram Barneck (other topics)
E.E. Cummings (other topics)
Emily Dickinson (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
Fire Light (other topics)One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich (other topics)
Remembrance of Things Past: Volume I - Swann's Way & Within a Budding Grove (other topics)
The Things They Carried (other topics)
Midnight Sun [2008 Draft] (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Stephenie Meyer (other topics)J. Abram Barneck (other topics)
E.E. Cummings (other topics)
Emily Dickinson (other topics)
Trust me, A students still make grammar mistakes. When you look at the different voices for Jacob's and Bella's portions of the series (can't speak of Edward's, haven't read it), I think there's obviously a big difference in voice. I prefer Bella's, just because I personally prefer less slang. Since you only think of grammar in terms of character, how do you feel about the grammar of some poets like
E.E. Cummings or Emily Dickinson? It's obviously a question of expression, not always characterization.
I don't know where "reign in" and "rein in" come in. I remember the scene with Claire pulling on the boy's hair like reins on a horse. I imagine that would fall under the category of typo, though. You think it's a grammar mistake? Explain.