Breaking Dawn
discussion
Just how mysogynistic IS this series?
Stephenie Myers is a Mormon which typically follows the focus of women being a good mother, wife , daughter etc. so personally I don't think that this book or any of the twilight series was meant to be misogynistic but her ideals reflected through her work.Also in any classic story it typically goes lonely girl who is so sad meets prince charming and lives happily ever after that's how society has been for ages.
As someone who went to college in Utah, just miles away from BYU (I went to Utah Valley University), I am very familiar with Mormon culture. ALL of my roommates were LDS. While not wanting to generalize any culture and say that everyone that is LDS believes exactly the same way on certain issues, I will say this:- I got new roommates EVERY semester because each semester my new roommates would meet a guy and they would be engaged before the semester ended. They would get married before the next semester; thus, I got new roommates. This happened without fail. I mean this with all due respect, and I even heard this joke from my roommates, so I guess it's okay to repeat it here: Girls go to BYU to get their MRS.
- For the most part, the women do believe that it is their CALLING to bring "spirit children" to the earth (I don't want to go into detail about their beliefs because some of my dearest friends are LDS, and I respect what they choose to believe).
Having lived in (and been smothered by) the LDS culture, I can definitely see how being LDS is reflected in Stephenie Meyer's work.
To be honest, I'm not sure it's the case that the female characters are all upset when they're out of relationships, etc. Until Bella meets Edward, she seems fine with being single. When he leaves she goes all emo-crazy, but that's over him specifically, not being alone in general. Also, I think the boys are just as eager to be in relationships - just look at Jacob (and Bella's other thousands of admirers!)
Haha, she definetly did go all emo. It pissed me off. What was it?January
February
March
April
May
I remember flipping through those pages and thinking: "WTF... You have GOT to be kidding me."
Connie - I know, right, and they had been dating for only six months! And she was prepared to OMG SPEND HER LIFE ALONE...even though she was basically spending all her waking hours with Jacob, who she later realized she was in love with??
Sexism reigns supreme in this book. Forget about Bella dropping every brain enhancing activity she's ever had (including just reading a book), Alice being a clothes hound and Rosalie being superficial. The only female character who is not hooked up with a guy and who has some 'character' is Leah. Now, she's a genetic dead end; maybe there's something wrong with her or is it her turning into a wolf that caused her 'femaleness' to end. Ugh! So, the fact that she can't have kids makes her a lesser person, she won't be imprinted upon.While I think your religious background impacts how you think, write etc, I can't help but think this is so sexist. I would hope that any person, LDS or otherwise, would want his/her daughter to be able to do as much as she is capable of--then, should she chose motherhood over everything else-she'd be a better mom for having had options! (And, should she be unable to procreate, she'd be a happy person able to live a wellrounded life--not wallowing in self-pity).
Whew....that was kind of a ramble!
I saw the LDS influence (I have a few Mormon friends) when Bella got dressed up to meet Edward's family. She chose a long skirt and a button down blouse. This screams Mormon to me as I don't know any girl who would select this outfit without mentally trying to follow an extremely modest dress code. What is even funnier is that then Edward and his family go crazy over her outfit and think her attempts to wear modest clothing is super hot and just accentuates her natural beauty. After this it seemed like everything I saw reminded me that Meyer was LDS.
Kara, I actually thought that whole dress-up scene was bizarre when I was reading Twilight. A long khaki skirt and button down blouse didn't seem to warrant all that praise from Edward. Interesting perspective.
Kara, Wow, now that i think about it... that long skirt and button down blouse just gives me a mental picture of those girls who live in that extremist compound. Do you think she braided her hair?
Are you all really talking about Bella's outfit to meet the Cullens? Oh, come on! This has nothing to do with modesty, religion, or anything except the fact that Edward commented on her blouse before (he loves that color on her), and she had nothing else in her possession but jeans. So she chose the skirt. This is such a silly subject to be discussing.
Lebbano--that cracked me up! Although I think the imprinting on babies goes right along the lines with the braided hair, long dresses and 'staying sweet' that we see in the compound! (Maybe the men don't imprint, but they sure get the little girls when they're young and often have to marry some one 18 or more years older....sounds like a story line!)
Why is it silly? The accusations are rampant, and I think it's worth discussing. Some people are offended by the themes in this series, so what better place to discuss it than a discussion board.
I don't think it's silly. Exactly who do you think put the only skirt in her closet (ahem, the author!)? Anyway, it didn't sound like a 17 year-old's "meet the parents" outfit to me when I read Twilight either. I wasn't offended or anything-it just seemed off.
I think it's worth discussing, but who's offended? It's interesting to look for hints in the story that its author was Mormon but...is that bothering anyone? A lot of people have commented that Bella shouldn't have had a kid because that suggests that all girls want to do is have kids. This seems like an unfair accusation. Only two girls in this series ever mention wanting kids. For that matter, Bella was perfectly happy to NEVER have a kid until she got pregnant, and I don't think it's such a stretch to imagine that a pregnant mother would grow attached to her baby. It's true that not all girls want to have babies, and most girls want lots of other things, but is it so bad if that's what a girl (such as Rosalie) wants most? That's one person's choice, and it's a valid one, isn't it?
There are plenty of things wrong with that baby, but I don't think feminism is an issue.
I think that's what I was trying to say with my "offended" comment, Helkat14. Of course clothing choices (and a lot of other things, for that matter) point to the author's views on religion AND modesty. I just meant that I didn't feel like someone else's beliefs were being crammed down my throat-it was all very subtle. So subtle that I wonder if SM even noticed it or if it's just so much a part of her life that it naturally comes out in her writing.
I doubt if SM noticed the things she wrote that were influenced by her religion. It was very subtle, until Breaking Dawn. My thought is there are a whole lot of really bright moms--I just wish Bella had been one. For instance, being a reader, you'd think she'd have been reading to her womb (between chugging blood); She never really got into preparing for motherhood, but she really got into fighting for her baby. Maybe she should have figured out how to care for her. It would have been nice to see her a little panicked about taking care of a baby- we never saw her take HOme Ec!
Shannon - I agree, that's probably what it was. I don't think Meyer was trying to propagate a Mormon agenda here, she probably just thinks of long skirts and blouses as appropriate dress for meeting your boyfriend's parents.
Offended in reference to some people not liking the allegedly misogynistic themes. I say allegedly because I'm not certain it was meant to be misogynistic so much as idealistic. 
When I read the first book, it annoyed me a little that Bella seemed so passive and so apt to go crazy over a guy she barely knew, but I thought, "hey, that's high school, that's first love, and this is a fantasy, so whatever."By the time I got to Breaking Dawn, I found the prescriptive gender roles downright disturbing. However, I don't think that "misogynistic" is necessarily the correct word. Sorry if this is picky, but I've studied gender studies stuff for a long time, so I just wanted to clarify: "misogynistic" literally means hatred for women. That's why often you see the word used to describe things that humiliate, abuse, degrade, or promote violence toward women. I wouldn't blame people for feeling that this book is misogynistic; I'm sure you could come up with lots of good reasons. For me, however, I think it's more accurate to say that the gender roles were clearly prescribed. I think Meyer's LDS beliefs definitely shine through, and it's obvious to me that she thinks that the best life-path for women is that of get married/have babies. Though I very strongly disagree with this idea, I do acknowledge that we live in a free country and Meyer is free to believe as she chooses. What bothers me is that I feel that in Breaking Dawn, much more than the first three books, Meyer is trying to actively moralize her readers. I think she knows she has a lot of young girls reading these books, and instead of setting out to write a satisfying story that fit in with the other books, she instead set out to write a "follow this (freaky) example" story. I'm not trying to make her look sinister, because I think that she really believes that her religion is right and her ideals are good for everyone, but I'm afraid that many young girls are going to come away thinking that "True Love" means being a histrionic damsel in distress who throws her life away every chance she gets. I know it's supposed to be a fantasy, but I remember what it's like to be that age (12-17 or so) and how easy it is to get intensely wrapped up in things around that time. I'm sure that most people would be horrified if their daughter acted the way Bella does, even without the supernatural mayhem.
I'm concerned that the girls who fell in love with Twilight will think they have to model themselves after a tightly restricted gender role (one that defers to their male lover and holds the role of wife/mother above everything else, not even considering any other possibility for their lives)in order to find/hold onto "True Love."
The idea that thousands of girls could turn into "What Would Bella Do?" zombies really worries me.
stehenie myers has a quote about this on both Twilight Lexicon and her on personal web site."I am all about girl power—look at Alice and Jane if you doubt that. I am not anti-female, I am anti-human. I wrote this story from the perspective of a female human because that came most naturally, as you might imagine. But if the narrator had been a male human, it would not have changed the events. When a human being is totally surrounded by creatures with supernatural strength, speed, senses, and various other uncanny powers, he or she is not going to be able to hold his or her own. Sorry. That's just the way it is. We can't all be slayers. Bella does pretty well I think, all things considered. She saves Edward, after all."
That quote is hilarious because for some reason, it just screams mpreg. Actually, mpreg would have made this series a heck of a lot more interesting than it was to me.Also, I don't mind Bella being changed into a vampire. Everyone who's familiar with the series kind of knew since day one that was where it was going. If she could have done it without making Bella a huge whiny annoying Mary Sue with super duper specialness that is never explained or justified, it would have been fine by me.
As for her examples, she really should have stopped at Alice. The Volturi are useless as villains, Jane included, and Bella is too much of a Mary Sue for me to relate to her in the female role model sense.
Hold up - Meyer is "anti-human"???That's not something I'd admit in a public forum...
NataliaI just wanted to let you know that as Mormons we are encouraged to go to college and get a degree and also to be self-reliant. I think that these books are just that...books. I really don't see a lot of our religious beliefs steering it at all.
Also, I think that girls who read these books also watch T.V., to go movies, watch music videos, etc. They have numerous bad examples.
Hm.. wow.Honestly maybe I shouldn't have brought up the affect of religion on stephenie's writting.But when you read through the book carefully it does hint at it. And when I'm saying Stephenie is mormon I'm not saying she's one of the more radical - has three wives wears pilgrim clothes-mormons.
Not offended, just shedding a bit of light.
I've been following this thread for a while to see where it landed and I have a couple of thoughts:1st - Natalia - THANK YOU for figuring out what had been bugging me but I couldn't put my finger on! These books are not misogynistic but, I suppose, it could be argued that there's some prescribed gender roles.
However, I will say I don't think Stephenie set out to make Breaking Dawn a book of morals for her YA readers. She has said all along that when she sent Twilight to publishers she wrote "Forever Dawn" to appease her sister and others who had read Twilight - a what happens now story. And Breaking Dawn follows that storyline.
As far as it purporting that the pinnacle of existence is being a wife and mother - well, I'd say Yes it is. Just as much as being a husband and father. It doesn't mean that's all you are, but it's what brings me the most joy. And we leave Bella at the beginning of that journey. I have no doubt that their little vampire family will do lots of other amazing and supernatural things as well, but the book ends with their family together and safe.
One more note to message 25 (don't remember name :-) Stephenie is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints - AKA the Mormon church. The long hair, fundamentalists on TV of late are NOT Mormons as is used here.
Thank you. I get sort-of tired of people making that assumption.
Its a bit funny that before this book came out i kept saying to my friend who also reads Twilight that i hope SM doesnt let her mormon views ruin the series.Not that mormon views or values are wrong, but i had a feeling that she was going to put them into this book and that it would severely ruin the ending. Hmmm....
My friend had told me, 'as long as shes a good writer, we have nothing to worry about'.
BTW, did anyone else think it was ridiculous how much Bella cooked? And omg, it does not take 3 freaking pages to describe a meal. Seriously
Yeah, the cooking was boring. I really didn't want to know what Charlie ate for dinner EVERY night of the week.
First off, I want to say that I am a member of the LDS church (The church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints, AKA MORMANS) and I DON'T like Breaking Dawn, I actually HATE IT and I think it IS sexist.I wouldn't say that Stephenie is purposely trying to integrate LDS values into the books, because for starters, she defiantly wouldn't have Edward sneaking into Bella's room every night or ever. And the whole imprinting thing/having "no other choice" isn't what we believe either. We believe in free-will (therefore there is no set fate. We are in control of what decisions we make and accountable for any consequences, good or bad). There is so much in these books that aren't in accordance with what we believe that I could go on for a while. The thing is, I think Stephenie couldn't help but (accidentally???) write some of her beliefs into this novel since authors ARE SUPPOSED to write about what they know.
As far as Bella's "meet the parents" outfit goes, I clearly remember thinking that Bella's outfit sounded SO frumpy and middle-aged. I realize that she wanted to impress the Cullens' but I really don't know any teenage girl (LDS or NOT) that would throw on a fugly, plain khaki skirt and a button up blouse for anyone or anything. I honestly think that Stephenie might think that is what a young girl might do (perhaps she actually wore that sort of a getup when she met her husband's parents. Who knows?) All I know is, I wore jeans and a nicer shirt when I met my boyfriend's (now my husband) family. I don't think they thought less of me because of it and they are the epitome of Mormon-ness. So I just think it's just a sign that Stephenie is out of touch with teenagers or fashion or whatever.
If Stephenie was trying to press LDS values on everyone, I think she would have made Bella less of a sex maniac. I realize the teenagers are all over each other (because I was a teenager about 11 years ago) but I don't think I know any teenage girl that ONLY thinks about sex and getting in their beloved's pants. I was irritated that all Bella could think about was how 'greek god-like' Edward was with his perfect washboard abs. Seriously, after 'Twilight' I failed to see any real basis to their relationship besides sexual attraction. It's not like they ever had anything THAT interesting to say to eachother (I would have gouged my eyes out if I had to read one more conversation between Bella and Edward that ended with him assuring her that she was attractive/good enough for him. Bella is so irritatingly insecure and it bugged me that she felt so fortunate that a "hot" guy like Edward would even know she existed let alone date her/be seen in public with her without wearing a paper bag over his head.
I have little girls and I don't want them to be insecure or think they are fortunate to have good-looking guy be interested in them. BTW, any normal guy would have run far away from someone that insecure. Oh and a creepy guy would exploit that level of insecurity in a girl.
I am irritated with the shallow, dysfunctional relationships that are being passed off as "TRUE LOVE". And seriously, since when did it become not frightening to have a guy sneak into your room and watch you sleep without your permission? Is this a new trend that I just don't know about?
I've been married for 8 years but when I found out I was pregnant with my last baby, I FREAKED OUT! We were using protection and we weren't planning on having more children (but it's not like we had ruled out the possibility all together) So yeah, like I said, I freaked out! A normal reaction for anyone not expecting a pregnancy, AND I was 28 at the time (now 29). My point to all this is, I don't know anyone who wouldn't freak out about an unplanned pregnancy (married or single, mormon or not, 18 or 35). So having Bella be instantly cool about being pregnant with what may have been the spawn of satan, wasn't believable for me. Some freaking out on Bella's part would have sufficed, especially since she was freaking out about getting married so young, not 2 weeks prior.
About the marriage, I would be horrified if my children were to get married ANY TIME during their teenage years. I know that there are a lot of girls in my church that THINK they need to get married before they are 21, but I have no idea where they get that idea. I guess it's their moms or someone else's influence because it certainly isn't doctrine. So yeah, I was horrified with the marriage. I guess Stephenie felt it necessary to marry them in order to get on to all the sex, and to be honest, that is ONE place where I would say that Stephenie did push our religious beliefs on purpose. I think anything else (what little there was of it) was unintentional.
BTW, our church isn't anti-abortion. We are pro-choice to an extent. We are fine with abortion in three situations and those are: Rape, incest, and when the pregnancy is putting the mothers life in danger (So Bella's case would have qualified). Basically what I am saying is, I don't think that Bella's choice to keep the baby was pushing any agenda of Stephenie's. I just think Bella is a stupid ho.
All that aside, I STILL DESPISE BREAKING DAWN! I HATE BELLA SWAN-CULLEN! I will forever rue the day that I started reading this series (especially Breaking Dawn).
I don't think you will find anyone truly familiar with (freaky) LDS doctrine who would agree that "'True Love' means being a histrionic damsel in distress who throws her life away every chance she gets." Bella is an incredibly amoral person, I think it's a little offensive that you would attribute her flaws to an actual religion.
I'm sorry, this and message 33 were in response to #20.
This message is in responce to number 20:I am a mormon and I am not a fan of the twilight series at all. I also hope that young girls don't try and follow the moral messages that Myers gives in her writing. And I would like to clarify the the LDS church does not teach these beliefs. Though specific gender roles are given, one is not seen as less than the other. They are equally important. And women are not told to defer to their husband. Husbands and wives are told to make decisions together.
The role of wife and mother is not the only option for women in the church. We are strongly encourage to gain higher education.
I sincerly hope that people reading these books don't see the actions of Bella and the other charaecters as a reflection of the LDS beliefs or its people.
Thank you Lebbano for pointing out how much she cooked. It is a fiction novel, not a cookbook. A already know how to make a can of tomato soup. I don't need SM to tell me how. Maybe if she would have spent more time developing charater and plot and not describing meals, it might have been a better series.
Thanks to Penny, Lori, Megan, and anyone else (in case I missed someone) who came by to clarify some of the religious aspects I picked up on.Obviously I probably went a little over-the-top in my rant (I tend to do that). I'm sure that not everyone who identifies themselves as LDS/Mormon has the exact same beliefs as Meyer (it's hard to find two people going to the same church who have the EXACT same beliefs). Also, since I don't personally know Meyer, I cannot know what her beliefs are and how much she consciously tried to insert them into the books. The parallels I found were based on my own knowledge of LDS/Mormons, which is largely drawn from various conversations I've had with people who are/have been Mormon.
Anyway.
I absolutely understand that whether you're Mormon or not, you probably don't want Bella Swan-Cullen as your poster girl. ;) So no, I don't think everyone who's Mormon is a Bella clone.
Still, one thing I will stand by is that I do see Meyer glorifying prescribed gender roles. I do still believe that her religion informs her concept of those roles to a certain extent, but then, so do many other factors, such as our (secular) patriarchal culture at large. All of us are influenced by our society/community/family/church etc. on how we view gender roles.
In response to McKell, while I appreciate the clarification on what the LDS church officially does/does not teach, I still have to say I personally disagree with the doctrine you have described. I consider myself a Christian, but do not believe that God mandates gender roles. I've heard the whole "separate-but-equal" argument before, from more conservative relatives and from when I used to attend a more conservative church. I never bought it, and I still don't. We could talk about gender roles all day, though. It's an endless discussion. Generally, however, on the very conservative side of the argument you have the idea that because people were born with certain bodies, they must behave in certain ways, and if they do not, it is wrong/harmful to society. On the very liberal side, the argument is that our physical nature has nothing to do with our personalities/tendencies/preferences, and everything that makes us a more feminine or masculine person is the result of learned behavior and societal influence. Most people fall somewhere in between these two extreme ideas, and I do too-- I'm just a little over to the left.
Like I said, we could talk about gender roles all day. I recommend "The Gender Knot" by Allen Johnson for anyone who would like an introduction to gender and society. :)
But back to the book. I think what really bothered me was that there was no development, no evolution of Bella/Edward's relationship. It is perhaps expected (though not ideal) that when teenagers fall in love for the first time they go a little loopy, and have self-confidence issues (He picked me?!?!? etc), and feel like they can't live without the other person. In that stage, the attraction is almost completely physical--after all, if you just met, you don't really know the other person well, and everything you think you know is probably just your idealized concept of them. This stage is probably normal for a lot of people. What bothered me is that Bella and Edward didn't grow out of that; they just stayed there. All they had in common was how unhealthily each was attached to the other. They never talked about anything meaningful. Politics? Religion? Hobbies? Music? Books (okay, a little bit here, but not much)? Aspirations? Details of their past? Nada.
Bella's relationship with Jacob was more like an actual relationship. With Edward, it's just kind of this weird mutual worship thing.
But this is too long anyway so I will stop. ;)
I can't believe I'm about to defend Stephenie Meyer, yet again (because I have plenty of my own issues with the lady). But yeah, in her defense I'd have to say that she's an LDS woman who has gone against the grain. What I mean is, from what I've read about her, she is the sole bread winner and her husband takes care of the kids (at least that is what I've gathered, I could be wrong). She is not the only LDS woman like that, but I have to admit, her situation isn't super common. To tell you the truth, I was feeling quite inspired by Stephenie at one point. I (still) think it's great that she's been able to pursue her talents, full time. I am sure she's probably got a pretty great husband, too. I am quite disappointed that she couldn't write Bella in such a way as to inspire young girls to do something good with their lives (like actually go to college, get jobs or become independent). Stephenie Meyer has the attention of just about every teenage girl I know, and instead of sending a worthwhile message to them she fills their heads with THIS garbage. I am sure there is a whole generation of girls waiting for their sexy prince to show up and save them.
I am not opposed to love stories but this one was just stupid. There is nothing redeeming about it. Anyone who's been in a relationship for more then a few years, knows that love isn't always easy. Marriage isn't easy. Parenthood is NOT EASY! I don't think I've ever met anyone who was a total natural at being a mom. So yeah, I am super irritated that Stephenie made everything super easy for Bella. There was no real conflict, no sacrifice, no actual bickering/fighting between Bella and Edward. And even if Bella did put her foot down about something, she usually ended up giving in to Edwards SEXY, SEXY face and/or having to sneak off to do what she wanted to do anyway.
Edward wore the pants in that relationship and I found that frightening. Bella only got her way by being manipulative - My mother-in-law is the same way and I don't understand it. Why can't Bella have things her way without being sneaky or playing tricks? I certainly don't have to stoop to such a level and I think it's demeaning that anyone should ever feel that it's the only way to get what they want.
@ Natalia, I agree with you on the whole Jacob thing. In my mind, he was always the logical choice for Bella. Yeah, he was dumb and immature but he was only 16, he needed some time to grow up. The thing is, he had more respect for Bella in the sense that he let her be herself and make decisions for herself (yeah, he kissed her against her will but like I said, dumb and immature). There was a chemistry between them that I could not see between Edward and Bella. The kid didn't have the ability to read minds but he could just about read Bella's mind (even edward couldn't do that despite the fact that they were "meant to be" and "soul mates"). Jacob and Bella made sense. Bella was never insecure around him and IMO, their short-lived love story was so much more romantic and sweet. I could see Bella falling in love with him during my first read-through of New Moon. It was no surprise to me that she started kissing him back in Eclipse. I really wanted to see her pick Jacob. It's too bad that Jacob is Bella's whipping boy now. Talk about a horrendous fate, even for a fictional character.
I am disappointed that SM didn't let her characters heal from their broken hearts. Instead of letting them develop and grow from their trials, they just got to magically skip it. I remember thinking I would DIE from my first broken heart. I saw no end to my misery. I didn't think it would have been possible for me to fall in love ever again (what? I was a stupid teenager at the time), but you know what? I got over it and I did fall in love again (a few times actually). I would have loved it if Stephenie had just let ONE of her characters work through heartbreak and loss and then MOVE ON with their lives.
About Leah, ugh, I was SO DISAPPOINTED with all that. I don't even want to talk about it. I just hope, if SM decides to write a spinoff series about Leah, she will write her in a way that will inspire teenage girls. I sincerely believe that SM has a good story in Leah, I just hope she doesn't eff it up!
I just want to point out that while going to college, getting a job, etc are definitely good things, there isn't anything inherently bad about choosing to sacrifice those things to start a family. As long as it truly is an informed choice. I don't think Bella really weighed her options and made an intelligent decision, but if she HAD, and if she'd chosen to skip college and career and be a full time mother - well, there's not really anything wrong with that.
It wouldn't be bad for Bella to choose family over career. The problem with Bella's "choice" is that it was a complete about-face for her character. Where is the thought process behind this "decision"? Stephenie doesn't show us that in BD. We are still talking about the girl who couldn't stand the thought of getting married because people would gossip about her being pregnant, right?
Natalia,I'm glad that I could clear-up some of the LDS beliefs for you. And I also can understand your arguements against specific gender roles.
But thank you for bringing up the subject of the Bella-Edward relationship. It has never been based on anything real or lasting. I haven't read Breaking Dawn yet (I just can't put myself through that kind of torture right now) but from what I have heard their relationship really is only about the physical aspect of marriage. Forget anything else that makes it work.
I have trouble seeing her relationship with Jacob as real. From the beginning she was just using him in order to get back at Edward from leaving. And Jacob manipulated her in order to get what he wanted (That kiss at the end of book 3).
Penny.I <3 you.
And good call on clearing up the LDS beliefs.
Also, i got married at 19, and looking back... it was waaaay to young. I found it very unbelievable how Rene was absolutely ok with it. When i told my mom i was getting married she practically shit chickens for a week.
Lebbano,The Renee thing is definitely unbelievable for me, too. Just another reason this book didn't make sense. For three books, Renee's defining characteristics were: absentmindedness and marriage issues. Then, in Breaking Dawn, she's perfectly fine with Bella's marriage. I don't buy it for a second! Even if Renee acknowledges that Bella is more mature than she was at that age, the Renee we came to know would still have reservations about her teenage daughter getting married. It's too ingrained in her character.
How did we get to know Renee except through Bella's descriptions? We have no idea what she has been thinking all of this time that Bella has been in Forks. I don't think Bella has chosen family over a college education. She knows and has known for a long time now that she will go to college - many times probably. And Carlisle has a career, why not Bella some day? And the decision to have a baby was sort-of made for her in getting pregnant - miraculously. If it had been me, I would have been thinking that this is a one-shot deal and gone for it also.
Wow. I just read thru all these comments at once and it's a lot of back and forth...kinda alot to follow, anyways I just wanted to remind us all why we got into the series in the first place...a total fantasy with this amazing, unbelievable guy and this whole new wild world of vampires (and then warewolves in NM). Anyways, Breaking Dawn was a let down to me for many of the reasons stated here...I felt like SM had let the characters go, there was no development and a lot of the time I felt like I was simply reading words on a page without the proper effect of the chacters. But, what I think we should remember is that (at least for me) this book was a simple guilty pleasure, a fun read that took me to a different world and swept me off my feet. I think that was it, that's their story and as someone posted earlier about the books ending with Bella and Edward just happy to be together as a family, I (even tho I didn't love the book or ending) figure SM left it wide open for the reader to interpret what they would now do with all of eternity. Anyways, just thought I'd throw that out there.
I had no idea that Meyer was a mormon until I was done reading BD and my friend pointed it out to me. I didnt think the book was sexist, it was just dissapointing.
i think the book was a tiny bit sexist. But really all the male characters got lost besides Jacob in this book. You didn't even see Edward bond with Renesme at all. Jasper wasn't himself..to me at least. Emmett and Carlisle was still there as much as normal.Still all of the girls follow the sterotypical girls-shallow,fashion fanatic,etc...
(not that i don't LOVE shopping)
where did Alice go all the book...just popped in and out whenever.
but Rosalie and Leah did make some interesting story plots. Made me see them in a different light i guess
breaking dawn was extremly dissapointing
It's a bit of a novel, but here are my two cents about the series/situation as a whole.I will admit, I not only have read all four books, but I also enjoyed all four books. But I want to put a disclaimer on this: I knew going into the reading that I was not reading good literature nor anything particularly ground-breaking in it's ideas. I read them with an understanding that I was doing it for some inane amusement, not looking for anything deep because I wasn't in the mood for it.
Nobody reads only great literature, or watches only deep and amazing films. Everyone needs a break from deep-thinking media of all forms to just have some amusement. These books count as that amusement. I've read books that were worlds away better than these, but I've also read books that were much worse, both in writing style and content.
The big issue with this series is not so much the series itself, but the society that's receiving it with such acclaim. My issue is that all these young girls who think it's the most amazing series ever with deep meaning for their lives have never had a thorough exposure to what good literature really is. There's nothing wrong with enjoying these books; it's thinking that they're good literature and should have an impact on personal behavior that they become an issue, and that says more about society than it does about the books.
If people are allowing the characters to be role models, then they have far more serious issues going on in their lives than these books, although there are definitely worse role models to have for life and relationships.
It's when people can graduate from high school never having read (nor learned to appreciate) Austen, the Bronte sisters,Dickens, Potok, Tolkien, Lewis, and masses of others that the problem is really starting. With no basis of truly good literature to work from, how can anyone know when they're reading bad literature? (Although the vice versa also applies. It just doesn't have as negative an effect on mental proficiency.)
Kate - I didn't read any of the things you mentioned in high school. I have read most of it independently, and I don't actually think it's ALL good literature...but my point is that as time goes on more and more modern classics are written, and the older stuff isn't always the best thing out there.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Any thoughts?