Twilight
discussion
Am I the only one thinks Bella is a strong character??
Brooke wrote: "In an attempt to get this discussion back on topic...Bella is not a strong character. Strong characters don't get huge, throbbing holes in their chests after their boyfriends dump them."
Sure they do. Jane Eyre was devastated by Rochester's betrayal and he was equally devastated when she left him. Heartbreak completely destroyed Heathcliff and Cathy from "Wuthering Heights".
Edna from Kate Chopin's "The Awakening" was a strong character yet she (view spoiler) after being dumped by her lover.
Strong characters are not necessarily infallible. They can have moments of weakness.
Mochaspresso wrote: "Brooke wrote: "In an attempt to get this discussion back on topic...
Bella is not a strong character. Strong characters don't get huge, throbbing holes in their chests after their boyfriends dump t..."
I didn't say they weren't upset. I said they didn't get holes in their chests or turn into zombies.
Bella is not a strong character. Strong characters don't get huge, throbbing holes in their chests after their boyfriends dump t..."
I didn't say they weren't upset. I said they didn't get holes in their chests or turn into zombies.
Mochaspresso wrote: "Sure they do. Jane Eyre was devastated by Rochester's betrayal and he was equally devastated when she left him. Heartbreak completely destroyed Heathcliff and Cathy from "Wuthering Heights".Edna from Kate Chopin's "The Awakening" was a strong character yet she (view spoiler) after being dumped by her lover.
Strong characters are not necessarily infallible. They can have moments of weakness. "
Romeo killed himself when he found out Juliet was "dead". When she woke up from her sleep she killed herself when she saw Romeo was dead. The Little Mermaid (original story) throws herself off of a cliff because she loses the prince AND she lost being a mermaid. The Princess Bride decides to never love again after she loses her love.
Brooke wrote: "I didn't say they weren't upset. I said they didn't get holes in their chests or turn into zombies"Mental disorders are common in the United States and internationally. An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older — about one in four adults — suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year.1 When applied to the 2004 U.S. Census residential population estimate for ages 18 and older, this figure translates to 57.7 million people.
I do not believe that depression is a sign of weakness.
Maggie wrote: "What does mental disorders have to do with this discussion? What does really any of this have to do with it? Lol"When I reply, you see that I reply with quotes. So you know what I'm referring to when I reply. Just as I did with you. I believe that Bella was depressed. Or as Brooke referred to Bella turning into a zombie or having a hole in her chest. You have only to read the last few replies to know what is being talked about.
Bella is not strong at all. She had no goals aspirations or wants other then to tie herself to Edward in every way she could think of. Making a drastic decision to become a vampire at eighteen is not strong. She is a single minded girl who was surrounded by yes people. There is nothing wrong with being in love and wanting to be with them forever. Forever is a different story when it really exists. Her endless devotion to a boy should not be heralded as strength. Everything she did she did to be with Edward.
Ebonee wrote: "Bella is not strong at all. She had no goals aspirations or wants other then to tie herself to Edward in every way she could think of. Making a drastic decision to become a vampire at eighteen is not strong. She is a single minded girl who was surrounded by yes people. There is nothing wrong with being in love and wanting to be with them forever. Forever is a different story when it really exists. Her endless devotion to a boy should not be heralded as strength. Everything she did she did to be with Edward. "While I can respectfully disagree, I can see where you are coming from. I could argue, that a lot of people have no goals or aspirations. But that doesn't mean they can't do great things. And if Bella wanted to tie herself to Edward in every way, why did she hesitate marrying him? In fact, she was against it. I don't believe that her wanting to be with Edward forever has anything to do with showing her as strong. Others may think differently.
Ebonee wrote: "Bella is not strong at all. She had no goals aspirations or wants other then to tie herself to Edward in every way she could think of. Making a drastic decision to become a vampire at eighteen is n..."
No kidding.
No kidding.
Brooke wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "Brooke wrote: "In an attempt to get this discussion back on topic...Bella is not a strong character. Strong characters don't get huge, throbbing holes in their chests after t..."
You don't think Heathcliff "had a hole in his chest"? Is wandering the moors and talking to the ghost of Cathy really all that far removed from "being a zombie"? Jane Eyre had a "hole in her chest" too and her method of "becoming a zombie" was to run away and hide from her pain with St. John and his sisters. Btw, Jane Eyre used to hallucinate and hear Rochester calling her in the wind, too.
I'm fairly certain that if you were to name any literary character that you consider strong, there is some instance where they also displayed a moment of weakness.
I don't really think she is. She lets males influence her too much. She would just calapse in sorrow when Edward would leave her! And she's extreamly negative, about herself, about Forks, about, well, everything.
Reality101 wrote: "I don't really think she is. She lets males influence her too much. She would just calapse in sorrow when Edward would leave her! And she's extreamly negative, about herself, about Forks, about, we..."I agree about her negativity, actually. I thought that was a very annoying character trait.
Mochaspresso wrote: "Reality101 wrote: "I don't really think she is. She lets males influence her too much. She would just calapse in sorrow when Edward would leave her! And she's extreamly negative, about herself, abo..."Thank you! At least someone agrees with me!
Maggie wrote: "And I am doing this on my ipad, so it won't let me quote you. And I do know what your talking about and no one has given a clear example to show that she is strong you just argue and say things tha..."Most people on here don't think she's strong. I would like to know who you are arguing with.
libellule wrote: "I agree that strong characters have flaws, they would probably be boring characters if they didn't. And I also don't think it's impossible for a strong character to be depressed or even suicidal. But it doesn't follow that every flawed character is strong. A good way to show a character's strength is to confront them with and make them overcome their own weaknesses. (My memory is bad, so I can't give any examples.) I don't think Bella ever does anything like that. Instead she embraces her weaknesses and let's them completely control her, until they conveniently disappear. She doesn't have to work her way through it, it's just gone. That's not how it really works, and it certainly doesn't add to a characters strength.I agree that she occasionally stands up to Edwards controlling behaviour. I can't help seeing that as stubbornness rather than strength, stubbornness seems to be a big part of her character, but I can see why others interpret it differently.
"
I completely agree. I don't think that Bella was especially strong. Nor do I think she was especially weak either. I think she was normal. Just any old Jane Doe from the street.
I thought that Bella had a "quiet strength". It's not the type of strength that is overt, kick-ass or in your face. You don't have to be bold and brash to be strong. It's the type of quiet strength that gave Rosa Parks the courage to sit in the front of the bus and refuse to give up her seat. Lady Diana had a quiet strength about her as well.I think it was Bella's quiet strength that allowed her to demonstrate bravery and courage on several occasions. I thought it was brave of her not to be afraid of Edward, knowing what he was. I thought she was also very accepting in the sense that she did not pre-judge any of the vampires or the werewolves. When James was after her, I thought it was brave of her to refuse to leave until she was certain that Charlie was ok. I also thought it was brave of her to face James alone to try to save her mother. It was brave of her to go to the Volturi to save Edward. It was also brave of her to cut herself to distract Victoria during her fight with Edward.
Regardless of whether one agrees with her decisions, I also thought she was rather tenacious about her choices once she made up her mind about something. The things that she was determined to accomplish, she accomplished and she didn't let anything deter her from doing so.
libellule wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "Brooke wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "Brooke wrote: "In an attempt to get this discussion back on topic...Bella is not a strong character. Strong characters don't get huge, th..."
I think Bella does overcome her weakness......fear.
libellule wrote: "I thought she seemed thoughtless and aimless throughout the books. Instead of thinking deeply on any issue or making plans, she often lets herself be moved along uncritically in whatever direction the plot requires."Mochaspresso gave specific examples from the books and you are giving very general and vague "impressions".
libellule wrote: "Apart from checking that her dad's ok, I don't think any of those show strength. I thought she seemed thoughtless and aimless throughout the books. Instead of thinking deeply on any issue or making plans, she often lets herself be moved along uncritically in whatever direction the plot requires.Corey Booker (the mayor of Newark, NJ) saw that the house next door to his was on fire and without thinking critically or without a real plan, ran into the burning house and rescued his neighbor. He didn't have to do that and it certainly wasn't smart of him to risk his life like that. But he did it anyway. He didn't "think" and he didn't hesitate. You don't always have to think critically or have a well laid plan to be "strong". Strength can also be demonstrated by what INSTINCTIVE actions you take when faced with a situation. There were several instances where Bella was faced with a situation and she instinctively stood her ground and to me, that demonstrated bravery and courage. It seems that it's not in her nature to run. (It certainly was in Victoria's nature to run, though. Her first instinct is always self-preservation. The same can be applied to Aro. The core of his nature is cowardice. That is why he surrounds himself with powerful vampires that can shield him and protect him. Bella has more "strength" than they do, imo.)
btw, I happen to think that it probably does require some critical thinking to quickly come up with a plan of how to ditch 2 vampires with powers who are watching over you.
Fear of what? And how does she overcome it?
I'm going to revert to some neighborhood slanguage with this answer. She overcomes her fear by "squashing it" and/or "jumping in head first". Bella was afraid of Edward, she squashed that fear and decided to get to know him. She was afraid of cliff-diving....she squashed it and jumped. She was afraid when she faced the Volturi, she squashed it and stood her ground with them. She was afraid of Victoria (and of blood, btw). She squashed her fear and cut herself to help Edward.
She experiences fear internally yet outwardly, she demonstrates bravery with her actions. Especially when it comes to people that she cares about. More neighborhood slanguage.....at her core, Bella is actually "ride or die". Just as much as Rosalie or Esme or Alice.
Your getting the wrong idea from my message. Stephanie Meyer (or however you spell her name) wrote bella's discription to be a paragraph and very vague so every girl reading the story can put herself in Bella's shoes(author's words not mine). Also, I am not blaming parents for their various parenting styles, but I feel media and pop culture has a profound impact on all of our lives not just little girls.
I'm not a hater... but I don't think is a strong character. :/
libellule wrote: "I didn't mean her risk taking behaviour, (personally I would attribute those to stupidity) and I definitely disagree that she has to work hard to overcome her fear. It's like she's afraid, and she blinks and it's gone. This happens with Edward, vampires in general and the werewolves. They aren't presented as high risk situation that require quick action. "She blinks and it's gone. I think that sounds more like Kristen Stewart's movie version of Bella. In the books, the reader is privy to all of Bella's thoughts. I wouldn't say that she blinks and it's gone at all. Perhaps it doesn't seem hard because Bella tended to internalize most of her struggles. Her first encounters with the vampires and the wolves weren't presented as high risk situations, but the reader does know from Bella what she was feeling internally. In New Moon, she was actually internally terrified of the Volturi. In Breaking Dawn, the vampires all thought that her transformation was easier than normal, when it was actually agonizing for her. They all marveled at her control of her bloodlust, but from Bella, the reader knows that her control wasn't quite as easy as she outwardly made it seem. Bella also wasn't ruled by emotions as much as the other vampires were.
Regardless of whether you thought some of her actions were stupid, that doesn't mean that they can't also demonstrate courage. The concept of a pilot attempting to land a disabled airplane in the Hudson River sounds extremely stupid to me, but the decision to do it anyway and do it successfully demonstrates courage to me.
libellule wrote: "I haven't seen the movies.I didn't say that she doesn't experience fear or courage, only that she is not an example of a character that has to confront and work her way through her weaknesses. She's a character whose strengths and weaknesses appear and disappear when it's convenient to the plot.
ETA: I don't necessarily believe that Bella is a weak character. She does show strength at several points, but not enough strength to make her a strong character. I don't even thing that strong vs weak characters has to do with how much courage or fear they show, but rather how it's done.
I'm not sure what you mean by appear and disappear when it's convenient to the plot. I do think that Twilight is very much a plot driven series but I don't see that as a bad thing and I thought her demonstrations of courage and tenacity were consistant.
There are many many different ways to demonstrate strength. It doesn't just have to be depicted as fighting something or overcoming an obstacle. Mother Theresa didn't battle enemies or overcome some insurmountable obstacle or weakness. Her strength is demonstrated through her compassion and the lifelong dedication she had to helping others. Some people demonstrate strength through their ability to endure. Some people demonstrate it through their ability to stay focused on a goal. Some people demonstrate it through their ability to maintain who they are as a person. I recently saw and read "The Silver Linings Playbook". The main character's primary strength was his ability to maintain an eternally optimistic viewpoint toward life despite all that was happening to him...that old saying that "every cloud has a silver lining."
I think Bella was strong, but it is a quiet strength that is reflective in and of her character as a person. I thought Bella was selfish at times and annoyingly whiny, but I also thought that she was courageous and tenacious, too. As the story progressed, I also thought that she outgrew the selfishness and the whining as she became a woman. You seem to think that her bad qualities or flaws overshadow any good qualities that she may possess. I don't think that they do.
Maggie wrote: "Mickey wrote: "libellule wrote: "I thought she seemed thoughtless and aimless throughout the books. Instead of thinking deeply on any issue or making plans, she often lets herself be moved along un..."Maggie wrote: "Mickey wrote: "libellule wrote: "I thought she seemed thoughtless and aimless throughout the books. Instead of thinking deeply on any issue or making plans, she often lets herself be moved along un..."
When did she ever have a fear of cliff diving?
Maggie wrote: "Ok. I think it's an insult to compare Bella's strength with rosa parks, Princess Diana or Corey Booker. rosa parks strength is in a completely different ball park.Bellas "strength" was fuled by her obsessive desire to be a vampire and whatnot. Corey booker saved actual lives! That's heroic. And btw when you say that Bella squashed her fear of cliff diving, I think that's inaccurate ! Didn't u see my quotes? It seemed like she wanted to die. That's not heroic. First, It wasn't intended to be a direct comparison of Bella to Rosa Parks specifically. I was trying to use universally well known examples as a means of explaining how strength can be demonstrated in many different ways. Rex Ryan's (NFL coach) leadership style is not the same as Gandi's leadership style, but they are both strong individuals in their own unique ways. I wasn't trying to imply that Bella's actions in Twilight was equal in enormity to what Rosa Parks or Corey Booker did.
I think Bella's actions when she thought James had her mother was noble and heroic. I thought her actions during the standoff against the Volturi in Breaking Dawn were heroic as well.
I didn't read New Moon and Eclipse via kindle and I don't have access to those actual books right at this moment, so I can't check...maybe someone else can if they feel so inclined...but I thought that she was originally afraid of the concept when she first learned of it from Jacob. Also, I didn't say that jumping off of the cliff was "heroic". I said it was brave. Those are two very different things, imo. Bravery is a feeling and or action. Being heroic does involve bravery but it really speaks more to motivation. All heros aren't necessarily brave and everyone who is brave isn't necessarily a hero.
As far as your quote is concerned, I think we view her actions in different lights. I don't think she originally intended suicide when she jumped. In other words, I didn't think that she jumped with the clear goal and mindset of deliberately trying to kill herself. She was thrill-seeking to hear Edward's voice again. I viewed her disregard of the possibility of death in the same way that I view bungee jumping or sky-diving. People are aware of the risks and do it anyway. They aren't committing suicide when they do it. To me, it seemed that she only accepted or resigned herself to the possibility of death after she realized that she was in trouble and might drown.
strenghth is NOT always physical. If she is weak before she is turned how is she going to be anyless weak just because she was turned into a vamp.
Stephanie wrote: "Let's define strength here.The relevant definitions I've found are:
1: the quality or state of being strong : capacity for exertion or endurance
2: power to resist force : solidity, toughness
3: ..."
I agree...
Abby wrote: "Jordan wrote: "Why yes, Bella is the most weakest character ever. She cant do anything for herself, cant even THINK for herself and will do anything Edward says, even when it REALLY pisses her off. She ran into Edwards arms after she saved him and forgot all of things he made her go through.I stopped reading at book two. "
I'm curious, in the second book Bella goes thru depression. What is it that she can't do for herself? She seems to live life to me. With or without Jacob. When does Bella need someone to make decisions for her because she can not think? When did Bella do something she didn't want to do because Edward said so with full compliance and she didn't call him on it?
Its posts like these that state things as fact other than opinion that make me wonder if I even read the same book as others.
Heidi wrote: "Its posts like these that state things as fact other than opinion that make me wonder if I even read the same book as others. "It's posts like these that makes me think that people feel that there's only one way to interpret a thing and if it's not their way then it must be skewed and obviously not what could have ever come from the source material.
Jesse wrote: "It's posts like these that makes me think that people feel that there's only one way to interpret a thing and if it's not their way then it must be skewed and obviously not what could have ever come from the source material."Thus, the whole point of me asking what they read in the material that lead them to that interpretation.
Hmmm.... It's hard to say whether or not Bella was a strong character or not. It really depends on how we're looking at her. I do agree that she was just a normal girl who happened to catch the eye of a vampire. Weak... I don't think she was weak. I think she was depressed, strange, and maybe just a little bit desperate...
Olivia wrote: "the only part were she was strong, when she became a vamp, but the rest she was bit on week side.Heidi replied:
I've seen more the one person say that. Which reverts me back to the whole superman or super being with superhuman strength vs regular human. The Super being is always going to win. If she was stronger when she became a vampire, that's only because the playing field was finally the same. IE - Super being vs super being.
Bella certainly isn't perfect. She is ruled by her emotions. And thinks a lot with her heart other than her head. Yes, she makes mistakes, and sometimes very stupid ones. And by that I mean, while some people are under the impression she tried to commit suicide, I don't believe she did. She never once thought she wanted to die. If she had, she certainly would won a darwin award for it.
I wouldn't describe her as weak, but not as strong either. Definitely somewhere in between. I don't know if I could really ever identify with her because my priorities in life are the exact opposite from hers. For example she wants to fall in love, get married, have a baby, etc, etc. None of those are something I'm even considering right now because whats important to me is my career and my personal growth. There was a lot of times where she showed strength like when she decided to stay with Edward even when she knew what he was or when she kept the baby, but I also see them as somewhat stupid decisions so idk
Jack wrote: "For example she wants to fall in love, get married, have a baby, etc, etc. None of those are something I'm even considering right now because whats important to me is my career and my personal growth."I don't know if I agree with this. I don't think she was seeking out love at all, it just happened. Thought it was going to be an eventuality, she did NOT want to get married right away. And if anything, it is mentioned that she was ok with not having kids.
Yes I do agree she can make stupid decisions, but deciding to keep the baby I do not think was one of them. Keeping the fetus or deciding to terminate it is so personal. Its something woman should always have a right to do. I don't want to ever see us have to regress back to the dark ages with metal hangers because that option was taken from us.
Heidi wrote: "Bella certainly isn't perfect. She is ruled by her emotions. And thinks a lot with her heart other than her head. Yes, she makes mistakes, and sometimes very stupid ones. And by that I mean, while some people are under the impression she tried to commit suicide, I don't believe she did. She never once thought she wanted to die. If she had, she certainly would won a darwin award for it. "People would say she wasn't trying to kill herself or hurt herself deliberately when she cliff dived without supervision but what else are people who see it that way supposed to think? She was extremely depressed about the breakup to were she would do potentially dangerous things just to hear a voice and see someone who wasn't actually there. So what is someone's thought process supposed to be on the topic of her 'coping' technique? To add to that, when she was drowning because the current sweep her under, she was happy to be dying, at the very least complacent with it. What is someone supposed to think about that scene? What did you think?
Did you know, it's possible for some people with depression where the person is self harming, that they would do things that could kill them? They might not mean to make an attempt on their lives, but they would be too depressed to care. Take one too many sleeping pills because all they want is to just sleep, and they would die from it. Or, they'd get saved in time, have their stomach pumped, and now they're on suicide watch and they would hate it because they know they aren't suicidal, just depressed.
Heidi wrote: "I've seen more the one person say that. Which reverts me back to the whole superman or super being with superhuman strength vs regular human. The Super being is always going to win. If she was stronger when she became a vampire, that's only because the playing field was finally the same. IE - Super being vs super being. "How come you see it this way, that if people see her as weak then it's because of the comparison of her ability to do things and the vampire's ability to do virtually everything? Isn't it possible that people could see her as weak because of her, not her compared to vampires? For myself and I'm sure for others it's her behavior, attitude, and reaction to the situations she was put in that ruled her as weak, not because she's up against vampires and she can't do much as a human besides cower behind her vampire supports while they do everything.
No one's asking her to be Buffy. But no one wants her to be the damsel in distress when she's supposed to be viewed as other, more positive descriptors either. Hell, she is basically protected from beginning to end, with literally no worry of if she'll actually get hurt by their enemies, why can't she be a little less depressing and have more power?
Jesse wrote: "How come you see it this way, that if people see her as weak then it's because of the comparison of her ability to do things and the vampire's ability to do virtually everything? No one's asking her to be Buffy. Hell, she is basically protected from beginning to end, with literally no worry of if she'll actually get hurt by their enemies, why can't she be a little less depressing and have more power? "
All great questions. Sorry I edited your response down a lot. I don't per say see her as weak, but I don't see her strong either. I see her extremely ordinary. As a human, I see her strong willed, but Edward challenges her. He tries to protect her, and depending on which book and when, she is either for it (because of James in Twilight) or against it (New Moon) because of Jacob. But its not like she can overpower Edward as a human. The only thing she can do, is out think him.
I think a lot of people WANT her to be Buffy or Katniss or Wonderwoman, that's why - or at least ONE of the reasons they don't like her. They want the carbon copy of "strong" female lead that kicks ass and takes names, doesn't put up with anyone's crap and is perfect in every way (this is someone who is suppose to be a role model, and yet how many women like this exists) . They don't want to see a flawed character. Certainly not a depressed one.
Jesse wrote: "People would say she wasn't trying to kill herself or hurt herself deliberately when she cliff dived without supervision but what else are people who see it that way supposed to think?
So what is someone's thought process supposed to be on the topic of her 'coping' technique? To add to that, when she was drowning because the current sweep her under, she was happy to be dying, at the very least complacent with it. What is someone supposed to think about that scene? What did you think?"
I prefer not to tell people what to think. But I would sum her actions on cliff diving alone to be an act of stupidity. How many of us have ever done anything stupid before? I know I have.
As far as her coping technique, I don't think anyone has a right to judge her. Everyone copes differently. I don't think she was happy to be dying, but I would say she wasn't bothered.
Heidi wrote: "All great questions. Sorry I edited your response down a lot. I don't per say see her as weak, but I don't see her strong either. I see her extremely ordinary. As a human, I see her strong willed, but Edward challenges her. He tries to protect her, and depending on which book and when, she is either for it (because of James in Twilight) or against it (New Moon) because of Jacob. But its not like she can overpower Edward as a human. The only thing she can do, is out think him. "But from the very beginning we're told she's anything but ordinary. We're told she beautiful, she's very smart to the point where her school work bores her, and she doesn't even have to try in school to excel. She has the scent of fuchsia that was explained as only enticing Edward because she's special to him ( I forget the word they used to describe humans who made the vampire lust for their blood) when in actuality it makes all the vampires want her, it was why James went after her. I mean, look at the student's reaction to her on the first day, and what Edward tells her about what every guy (like, literally every guy, down to the male staff) was thinking of her when they were at the restaurant. She even had the ability to block Edward from reading her thoughts. It's never even explained why, it just is. These aren't the building blocks to making an ordinary everyday girl in a story. These are some of the things that makes me think that ordinary isn't a word to describe Bella. She may say she is, but she clearly is not with the way Meyer wrote her.
I can't very much say she could be seen as strong willed, to me. She seems like she lets everyone around her make decisions on her life and goes along with them. Things like what she'll do after she graduates high school, or how she wants to become a vampire. Because Edward doesn't want her to have her way, he puts in applications for her and decides how she'll become a vampire because he wants no one doing it and doesn't want to do it himself. Like, she talked to him of how she wants nothing else from life but to be a vampire, that she doesn't care about her education. And instead of pressing this issue onto Edward to where he'll stop trying to set up her life for her, she just lets him do what he wants and decides that she'll just become a vampire earlier than school would start. Can't send a newborn to school, ya know. With their marriage, she didn't want to get married. But because Edward was selfish and it was that or no vampirism for Bella, she had to marry him. Doesn't seem like she was that strong willed to put her foot down on these things.
Heidi wrote: "I think a lot of people WANT her to be Buffy or Katniss or Wonderwoman, that's why - or at least ONE of the reasons they don't like her. They want the carbon copy of "strong" female lead that kicks ass and takes names, doesn't put up with anyone's crap and is perfect in every way (this is someone who is suppose to be a role model, and yet how many women like this exists) . They don't want to see a flawed character. Certainly not a depressed one. "
Flaws are what makes characters perfect. They can't be perfect despite them because the flaws are what makes up the character. I've seen many people say this, and I agree with them, that Bella doesn't have any flaws. You can point out things that can be seen as flaws, but in context of the story she has no flaws, just like you can point out things that paint Edward in a horrible light but ultimately he is not meant to be seen as anything other than practically godsend (And fanatic fans would dare you to say otherwise). So at least I can say that with reading the story I never expected Bella to suddenly become a warrior who took no one's shit, but I didn't expect for her to be a blank slate doormat either. I can say that my main irritation stemmed from how she handled situations with Edward because she just took his shit and how she treated her.
Heidi wrote: "I prefer not to tell people what to think. But I would sum her actions on cliff diving alone to be an act of stupidity. How many of us have ever done anything stupid before? I know I have.
As far as her coping technique, I don't think anyone has a right to judge her. Everyone copes differently. I don't think she was happy to be dying, but I would say she wasn't bothered. "
There's doing stupid things and it gets out of hand, and there's doing stupid things that you know could end your life. Two very different things that are on opposite ends of the spectrum of stupidity when it comes to doing dangerous things.
She became addicted to seeing and hearing the facade of her ex-boyfriend to the point where she willingly put her life in danger, all to trigger her subconscious into telling her to stop via Edward. I mean, some part of her knows that what she's doing during New Moon is extremely dangerous but she doesn't care, so she has to have Edward telling her to stop doing things. Do you see what I'm getting at? She's so dependent on him that she needs him to tell her to do things (or not do things, in this case) when he's not when there. This is what makes people say that he's controlling, she's weak willed and can't do anything for herself. It was to the point where she needed Edward to tell her not to do things because she wouldn't listen to herself if it was coming directly from herself.
I'm pretty sure she said she was happy, but I don't feel like bringing up a PDF of the book to actually cement this. And why can't people judge her? Why should I not judge her? I don't feel there's anything wrong with judging her because one, she's fictional and two, she did stupid things for a stupid reason and if Jacob weren't there, she would've died for a stupid reason that wasn't even worth it. How can one not judge her?
Jesse wrote: But from the very beginning we're told she's anything but ordinary. We're told she beautiful, she's very smart to the point where her school work bores her, and she doesn't even have to try in school to excel. She has the scent of fuchsia that was explained as only enticing Edward because she's special to him ( I forget the word they used to describe humans who made the vampire lust for their blood) when in actuality it makes all the vampires want her, it was why James went after her. I mean, look at the student's reaction to her on the first day, and what Edward tells her about what every guy (like, literally every guy, down to the male staff) was thinking of her when they were at the restaurant. She even had the ability to block Edward from reading her thoughts. It's never even explained why, it just is. These aren't the building blocks to making an ordinary everyday girl in a story. These are some of the things that makes me think that ordinary isn't a word to describe Bella. She may say she is, but she clearly is not with the way Meyer wrote her. Flaws are what makes characters perfect. They can't be perfect despite them because the flaws are what makes up the character. I've seen many people say this, and I agree with them, that Bella doesn't have any flaws. You can point out things that can be seen as flaws, but in context of the story she has no flaws, just like you can point out things that paint Edward in a horrible light but ultimately he is not meant to be seen as anything other than practically godsend (And fanatic fans would dare you to say otherwise). So at least I can say that with reading the story I never expected Bella to suddenly become a warrior who took no one's shit, but I didn't expect for her to be a blank slate doormat either. I can say that my main irritation stemmed from how she handled situations with Edward because she just took his shit and how she treated her.
I wouldn't go so far as to characterize Bella as a "blank slate doormat". But as much as I liked the series, most of what you said is precisely why I always thought the Mary Sue criticisms that Twilight gets had some validity to them. Bella does have flaws, however, within the context of the story, she doesn't seem to recognize her flaws, nor does anyone else around her. The few flaws that she does recognize are trivial and are spun so that they are seen as endearing to the other characters. (ie....Emmett and her clumsiness.; Mike/Edward and her squeamishness at the sight of blood; Edward's inability to read her mind due to her closed/stand-offish nature.)
Mochaspresso wrote: "I wouldn't go so far as to characterize Bella as a "blank slate doormat". But as much as I liked the series, most of what you said is precisely why I always thought the Mary Sue criticisms that Twilight gets had some validity to them."The reason why I said Bella was a blank slate is because that is what she is. She has nothing going for her, not even a solid description. She had no interests outside of Edward, no hobbies, basically if it didn't involve Edward, she didn't try to care about it. So yeah, blank slate.
Mochaspresso wrote: " Bella does have flaws, however, within the context of the story, she doesn't seem to recognize her flaws, nor does anyone else around her. The few flaws that she does recognize are trivial and are spun so that they are seen as endearing to the other characters. (ie....Emmett and her clumsiness.; Mike/Edward and her squeamishness at the sight of blood; Edward's inability to read her mind due to her closed/stand-offish nature.) ."
That's precisely what I meant. If we the readers see her flaws but no one else does, how can we say they're flaws? I agree with you 100%, but still. Are they truly flaws if only we as readers see them?
Jesse wrote: The reason why I said Bella was a blank slate is because that is what she is. She has nothing going for her, not even a solid description. She had no interests outside of Edward, no hobbies, basically if it didn't involve Edward, she didn't try to care about it. So yeah, blank slate. I think some things may just be consistant with her character. She wasn't this with it, secure girl who had it all together and had it all figured out. Honestly speaking, not every girl is. But I don't think that makes her a blank slate. She does have some interests. She was an avid reader and Edward didn't think much of some of the novels that she enjoyed. She retained her love of reading and she defends her opinions of her favorite works. In New Moon, she took up restoring old motorcycles and riding with Jake (granted, it was a thrill seeking endeavor to hear Edward's voice). Despite her reasons for originally partaking, she did begin to enjoy it and that turned out to be something that she really didn't want to share with Edward when he attempted to share it with her. I think those are very legitimate hobbies.
That's precisely what I meant. If we the readers see her flaws but no one else does, how can we say they're flaws? I agree with you 100%, but still. Are they truly flaws if only we as readers see them?
You are probably right. I've often wonder about that. I don't think the author intended for us to see those flaws at all. For example, Bella is characterized as being self-sacrificing and she is in some instances. However, there were also times when I thought she was incredibly selfish and ungrateful. Especially at times when someone was going out of their way to do something nice or special for her. (ie...Edward's surprise in taking her to the prom.) I don't think the reader is supposed to see anything wrong with her whiny bratty behavior. The reader is supposed to be on her side and sympathize with her and "the agony" that she is supposedly being subjected to. Meaning, that it is possible that SM may have become so caught up in "the Mary Sue" that she failed to see those flaws in her own character. If that makes any sense....
Mochaspresso wrote: "I think some things may just be consistant with her character. She wasn't this with it, secure girl who had it all together and had it all figured out. Honestly speaking, not every girl is. But I don't think that makes her a blank slate. She does have some interests. She was an avid reader and Edward didn't think much of some of the novels that she enjoyed. She retained her love of reading and she defends her opinions of her favorite works."I wouldn't really say she's an avid reader, not even a casual one. Meyer's name dropping in Twilight on Bella's first day of school was not impressive nor believable nor made Bella seem like she's very interested in reading. She's read nothing outside of school assigned books (that we know of) and she only read Wuthering Heights (?) religiously because it reminded her of her and Edward.
If my memory serves me right, I do believe that Wuthering Heights is the only thing she said was a favorite book of hers.
In New Moon, she took up restoring old motorcycles and riding with Jake (granted, it was a thrill seeking endeavor to hear Edward's voice). Despite her reasons for originally partaking, she did begin to enjoy it and that turned out to be something that she really didn't want to share with Edward when he attempted to share it with her. I think those are very legitimate hobbies. "
When did Edward ever show an interest in her motorcycles and tried to partake in the activity with her? From what I remember, she only asked Jacob to restore the bikes so that she could get a adrenaline rush out of riding it. After that, she never interacted with the motorcycles (certainly didn't help restore them), especially because Jacob told her father after she crashed it (and I think after she got back with Edward). I can't say that this is a hobby because she only did it once and with the intention of hearing Edward's voice. I don't want to seem stubborn, but it's a real stretch to say this can be considered a hobby. I mean, she never seemed interested after the first test run, never had an idle thought of how she wanted to ride the bike, if only her father didn't forbid her from doing it.
Mochaspresso wrote: "You are probably right. I've often wonder about that. I don't think the author intended for us to see those flaws at all. For example, Bella is characterized as being self-sacrificing and she is in some instances. However, there were also times when I thought she was incredibly selfish and ungrateful. Especially at times when someone was going out of their way to do something nice or special for her. (ie...Edward's surprise in taking her to the prom.) I don't think the reader is supposed to see anything wrong with her whiny bratty behavior. The reader is supposed to be on her side and sympathize with her and "the agony" that she is supposedly being subjected to. Meaning, that it is possible that SM may have become so caught up in "the Mary Sue" that she failed to see those flaws in her own character. If that makes any sense.... "
It makes sense, totally! It would seem like Meyer got caught up in the hype of making her first book (and then series of book) that she just couldn't get in the nitty gritty of it with Bella and get deep down into the character of her.
Jesse wrote: I wouldn't really say she's an avid reader, not even a casual one. Meyer's name dropping in Twilight on Bella's first day of school was not impressive nor believable nor made Bella seem like she's very interested in reading. She's read nothing outside of school assigned books (that we know of) and she only read Wuthering Heights (?) religiously because it reminded her of her and Edward. If my memory serves me right, I do believe that Wuthering Heights is the only thing she said was a favorite book of hers.
You aren't remembering the story correctly at all. At 3%, she is given her list for school and she remarks on how she's already read everything on the list. At 8%, she talks about deciding to read Wuthering Heights again for fun since the class was currently reading it. It had nothing at all to do with Edward. She reads in her spare time frequently in the story. At 27%, her inner musings are all about reading for pleasure outside of school, what some of her favorite books were (Austen and the Brontes. She had tattered anthology collections of their works.) and she specifically decides NOT to read some of them at that moment precisely because the main character's names were Edward.
When did Edward ever show an interest in her motorcycles and tried to partake in the activity with her? From what I remember, she only asked Jacob to restore the bikes so that she could get a adrenaline rush out of riding it. After that, she never interacted with the motorcycles (certainly didn't help restore them), especially because Jacob told her father after she crashed it (and I think after she got back with Edward). I can't say that this is a hobby because she only did it once and with the intention of hearing Edward's voice. I don't want to seem stubborn, but it's a real stretch to say this can be considered a hobby. I mean, she never seemed interested after the first test run, never had an idle thought of how she wanted to ride the bike, if only her father didn't forbid her from doing it.
I didn't read it in kindle format, so can't tell you the exact location....but in Eclispe, when he found out that she genuinely enjoyed riding, he purchased a set of motorcycles for them to ride together. She didn't like them at all because they were expensive and flashy. Plus, the bikes that she rode with Jake had sentimental value to her because they built them together. (She actually did help Jake restore them. He did most of the work since he was the mechanic, but they went shopping for parts together and they spent many afternoons together in his garage working on the bikes.) She rode them way more than once. She and Jake used to ride together for kicks.
I don't think of Bella as strong or weak. Just morose
Mochaspresso wrote: "You aren't remembering the story correctly at all. At 3%, she is given her list for school and she remarks on how she's already read everything on the list."To which I said I didn't enjoy because it didn't make her sound smart to name drop nor did it make her sound like a avid reader. And besides, scholars dedicate their lives to reading everything by those authors, there's no way that in Bella's 17 short years of life that she's read everything there was to read on those authors. That's why I said it wasn't impressive nor believable.
"At 8%, she talks about deciding to read Wuthering Heights again for fun since the class was currently reading it. It had nothing at all to do with Edward. She reads in her spare time frequently in the story."
And we only ever read of her picking up Wuthering Heights when she decides to read.
"At 27%, her inner musings are all about reading for pleasure outside of school, what some of her favorite books were (Austen and the Brontes. She had tattered anthology collections of their works.) and she specifically decides NOT to read some of them at that moment precisely because the main character's names were Edward. "
I don't know about you, but Austen was apart of my curriculum, so I can't say that she's a non school regulated author. And in that part you're talking of, she only mentioned Austen. To which, yeah, like all the classics you want, but this name dropping isn't impressive. Sorry, don't buy it. It doesn't make her seem smarter and more mature to me that she reads classics and only classics, which I'm sure was Meyer's intention.
she doesn't read anything that's non-school regulated, it's not enjoyable to read of her name dropping like she had, and then that's the only things she's ever read. It doesn't make her an avid reader, just casual.
Mochaspresso wrote: "I didn't read it in kindle format, so can't tell you the exact location....but in Eclispe, when he found out that she genuinely enjoyed riding, he purchased a set of motorcycles for them to ride together. She didn't like them at all because they were expensive and flashy. Plus, the bikes that she rode with Jake had sentimental value to her because they built them together. (She actually did help Jake restore them. He did most of the work since he was the mechanic, but they went shopping for parts together and they spent many afternoons together in his garage working on the bikes.) She rode them way more than once. She and Jake used to ride together for kicks. "
Let's see,...She didn't care about the motorcycle, didn't care if once it served it's purpose to her that it was sold or given away. It seems like she only used the bike to be with Jacob, as Edward had come to the conclusion of. It doesn't give off the air of her genuinely enjoying riding the bike, that if Jacob was not riding with her that she would ride on her own, or want to. It doesn't sound like she cared about the bike either way, not like she cared about her car.
I don't think it was because they were expensive and flashy. From what she said, it seems like she was once again bemoaning how she wasn't right for Edward, using the bikes (hers and the new one) as a comparison of them. Her old dinky bike compared to the right off the lot bike he bought.
But that's just my interpretation from reading for the last half an hour and comparing it to her enjoyment of activities that didn't involve Edward or Jacob.
Jesse wrote: "But from the very beginning we're told she's anything but ordinary. We're told she beautiful, she's very smart to the point where her school work bores her, and she doesn't even have to try in school to excel. "Even with every boy at school thinking shes beautiful, she didn't seem to believe she was anything but ordinary.
Jesse wrote: "I can't very much say she could be seen as strong willed, to me. She seems like she lets everyone around her make decisions on her life and goes along with them. Things like what she'll do after she graduates high school, or how she wants to become a vampire. Because Edward doesn't want her to have her way, he puts in applications for her and decides how she'll become a vampire because he wants no one doing it and doesn't want to do it himself. Like, she talked to him of how she wants nothing else from life but to be a vampire, that she doesn't care about her education. And instead of pressing this issue onto Edward to where he'll stop trying to set up her life for her, she just lets him do what he wants and decides that she'll just become a vampire earlier than school would start. Can't send a newborn to school, ya know. With their marriage, she didn't want to get married. But because Edward was selfish and it was that or no vampirism for Bella, she had to marry him. Doesn't seem like she was that strong willed to put her foot down on these things."
I guess one could see it that way but I don't. I don't think she really had any plans after high school, other then to be with Edward. Edward always wanted to please Bella, do you truly think he applied for college with the thought process "I'm only doing this so she will not get her way and be unhappy". Because to me, that is crazy. I know the road to hell is paved with the best of intentions, but I certainly do not think that is his though process. And the getting married thing again, wasn't a huge stretch. Do you believe Bella never ever , even 100 years down the line wanted to get married to Edward? Is it such a stretch to compromise with someone you love? Usually when it does happen in real life, both parties are unhappy. When she was walking down the isle to get married, her dad had to almost hold her back from bolting down the isle to Edward. She was excited and happy to be getting married once she saw him. (yes I know we females can be fickle things)
Jesse wrote: "Flaws are what makes characters perfect. They can't be perfect despite them because the flaws are what makes up the character. I've seen many people say this, and I agree with them, that Bella doesn't have any flaws. "
While I've read both Mocha and your explanation of this and understand what you mean I will say that I disagree with the one and only true flaw I saw from Bella. I think Bella had low self esteem , which was one of the huge building blocks of her depression. How does she get over it? She gets out of bed and decides to live her empty life. I think distracting herself with Jake is what got her out of her funk.
Here is where I am on par with you, as a character, Bella is described as many things. But how many of the things that are described is reflected in her character. I think Stephanie Meyer wrote Bella flat, and by that I am in agreement that Bella was the same character on the first page as she was on the last book in the last page. She had no growth as a character. Its mentioned that shes a klutz, but she doesn't really fall but once? Twice in the books. Its mentioned shes anything but ordinary, but maybe I'm remembering wrong, I could of sworn Stephanie Meyer back tracked on that and said Bella was ordinary in the other installments. Or maybe I'm interjecting my thoughts on what really happened, because she didn't seem extraordinary to me.
Jesse wrote: "She became addicted to seeing and hearing the facade of her ex-boyfriend to the point where she willingly put her life in danger, all to trigger her subconscious into telling her to stop via Edward. I mean, some part of her knows that what she's doing during New Moon is extremely dangerous but she doesn't care, so she has to have Edward telling her to stop doing things. Do you see what I'm getting at? She's so dependent on him that she needs him to tell her to do things (or not do things, in this case) when he's not when there."
But hes not there. I'm with you until the end point you tried to make. To me its like saying I'm so addicted to drugs I have to pretend to do them - that's how dependent I am on them. Which makes no sense to me. If I have to pretend to do them, then I'm not really dependent on them... if I'm not doing them... Right?
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)
Books have power. They feed our imagination, they influence how we perceive and interact with the world, and our perception of right vs. wrong.
I don't feel that I used any more "hyperbole" than the message that I was responding to, which was typed in all caps.
Books certainly do have power and that power is very strong. But during your infancy to tween years, books do not have more power and influence than your parents and your home environment when it comes to those things that you mentioned or at least they shouldn't. In those cases where books do, it is because something was lacking, dysfunctional or non-existent in the parental department and/or home environment. Your tween child should not be learning about love and relationships from Twilight. They should have learned that from you well BEFORE their exposure to Twilight.
This is where parental responsibility comes into play. If you have not been teaching your child about love and relationships and sex by that age, then your tween most certainly should not be reading Twilight. But that's your child. It's not anyone's place to tell me (in all caps) that my kids will get wrongful impressions about love and relationships from Twilight. Some of us have been having these types of discussions with our kids all along and are confident that our kids can actually handle reading it.