Quote:
The Twilight series has an original and unique plot that's never been done before! It's so amazing, and Meyer is an awesome author who doesn't deserve your criticism!
As hilariously uninformed as this sounds, it's an argument that I've heard several times before on the thread. Unless you have been living under a rock for your entire life or just have an ice-pick lodged in your head, then you should know that Twilight's plot is about as original as any other vampire romance. Most of them follow the same formula: Vampire falls in love with human girl, human girl falls in love with vampire, vampire must deal with his blood lust while around girl to be sure that he doesn't kill her, eventually the girl either dies or becomes one of the eternal undead.
Basically, Meyer took a very old conflict, that goes back to the original vampire stories of the nineteenth century, of the struggle for the vampire to either reconcile their blood lust with their lingering humanity, or their 'love' for a human. It's usually a male vampire, who loves a human woman, but this isn't always true; sometimes it's reversed, or sometimes there are homosexual themes (such as in Le Fanu's Carmilla).
Hence, Meyer's plot is neither original nor is it particularly amazing in its execution. I've seen this premise done many times, and done better. Of course, there was the potential for the series to be good, don't get me wrong there it did have that much, but the execution was horrible and the characters and plot handled extremely poorly. It's definitely not as good as Interview With the Vampire, though that wasn't exactly the same thing, but at least the characters and the plot were engaging and, dare I say it, human and identifiable. That's more then I can say of Meyer's work, which was incredibly shallow, making it difficult to identify with the entire cast of characters that she'd implemented in the series.
If she'd wanted to make the series better, then Meyer could have done more research, or put much more effort into developing a better plot or developing the characters to give the novel more draw to the intelligent readers who are mostly excluded from the fanbase. Meaty vampire novel lovers like more conflict that what was given, and have extremely high expectations for any novel that has gotten as much hype as the Twilight series has. It's been blown out of proportion, mostly by young teenage girls, and in some cases their mothers, who don't realize completely what a truly good book series is.
So, in closing, the Twilight series had the potential to be good, despite its cliched plot. In fact, it borrows heavily from several other vampire novel series', there's nothing new or amazing about it, Meyer just used the tried and true formula of a vampire love story between a human and a vampire. As well, no one is above criticism. There will always be critics of books or movies; it's an actual job and profession which many people make their living off of.
Quote:
All you people who don't like Twilight are just a bunch of Jocks and Posers! Your just like Jessica: JEALOUSE!
Twilight is the most gothic love story EVA TOLD! You wish you could write all amazing like stephen meyer! shes a freaking GENUS!
YOUR ALL SUCH LOOOOOOOSERS!!!
Twilight is the most gothic love story EVA TOLD! You wish you could write all amazing like stephen meyer! shes a freaking GENUS!
YOUR ALL SUCH LOOOOOOOSERS!!!
There is just so much wrong with that argument that I'm not sure where to start... I just had to include this comment because it made me snort scalding hot tea out of my nose with how misinformed it is, poorly put, and just ignorant overall. Your spelling and grammar need work; you spelt 'genius' wrong, not to mention several other errors that make you look like an idiot. Also, accusing people of being 'jealous' of someone else is the type of argument that one resorts to when they can't think of any valid arguments to make against anyone who doesn't agree with them. If this is the sort of 'fan' that Meyer's work cultivates, ones who believe in a dictatorship and that anyone holding a dissenting opinion should be exterminated, then maybe she needs to have a sit-down with her fans to talk about proper behavior. Obviously, the Twilight fans are vastly immature and their already lacking brains have suffered further damaging by Meyer's thesaurus-rape of a novel.
For one, I've stated MULTIPLE times before both in this entry and in the thread itself and I'm not the only one who's pointed this out, but the plot is the same as numerous other vampire/human love stories that have been written before Twilight and Meyer came along. It's not a new concept at all, which then destroys your claim of Meyer's "genius". Calling Meyer a 'genus' just further impresses your own moronity.
Oh, and to avoid confusion, genius is defined as thus: an exceptional natural capacity of intellect, especially as shown in creative and original work in science, art, music, etc. Note the original and creative. Meyer did none of that, and the sparkling vampires does not count, because that is just, well, very out there and only makes to glorify the concept of the vampire more and drags us farther and farther away from what a vampire truly is.
Also, you've clearly never read anything that could be defined as "gothic literature" because you're misusing that word. Gothic literature is defined as thus: being of a genre of contemporary fiction typically relating the experiences of an often ingenuous heroine imperiled, as at an old mansion, where she typically becomes involved with a stern or mysterious but attractive man.
Or gothic, defined as: Of or relating to a style of fiction that emphasizes the grotesque, mysterious, and desolate. So, in examining your claim of Meyer having written "the most gothic love story EVA TOLD", all you've done is truly make yourself look like an idiot because neither definition of gothic that I have provided has proven you correct in that assumption. In fact, Twilight is the farthest thing from gothic. It's like calling Aqua a hardcore rock band or something else as ridiculous.
As for your claim that we who hold a different opinion then you on the Twilight series of being "jocks" and "posers"? Everyone is entitled to their own informed opinion. Oh, and I don't count as a jock or poser, I like the series, but I love being overly critical of it because fans like you make that too easy for people like me, along with the antis, to pick at your very weak arguments.
Quote:
I've only ever read the Twilight series! It's the best series ever! It's all I read!
I sincerely hope that anyone who uses this argument is joking, because all it does is make you sound like a complete idiot, and also very obviously debunks your opinion on the matter. If you have nothing to compare the series too, then you need to read something else before you say that it's the 'best series ever' or else you may have later regrets.
Of course, the biggest problem with this 'argument' is that it doesn't even actually count as an argument! Since you have no basis for comparison, then you can't accurately say that Twilight is 'the best series ever'; it just doesn't work aside from making you look like a huge idiot. Try going out and reading a few other good novels before you come back to the argument because I'm getting a little tired of hearing this sort of thing.
Lastly, if it's all you ever read, then that's a problem too. You obviously need to read something else to make a comparison. Saying things like this only makes you look stupid, as I've said before. Go and read something else before you can make any valid arguments against the antis or intelligent fans.
Quote:
OK im a twilight fan so when i saw the movie i was furious cuz to me it sucked!!!!!!
There are a lot of variations on this point, including criticizing the casting and saying that the movie was terrible, was nothing like the book, etc. I have several points to make against this, all of which are completely relevant. (Note: I took this particular quote from the actual thread itself, and I'll probably have to do that a lot with this section of the arguments.)
A movie and a book are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT things, and should be treated as such, even if a movie is adapted from a book. Unlike a book, a movie has something called TIME RESTRICTIONS, it has a certain length that it can't exceed and has to typically fit within two hours. Hence, screenwriters must adapt the original source material to fit into that time span and make it flow in a way that makes sense. Also, movies are more open to a wider audience, and so, must be made so as to be easily interpreted by everyone.
For being a movie, the Twilight movie was pretty good. To accurately judge a movie's quality, judge it as a movie and not as a BOOK, as I said before, they're two completely different things.
Sometimes, in movies, scenes have to be cut in order to make the movie flow better and also because of time restrictions. Obviously the movie isn't going to be exactly like the book because of the inherent difference between the two mediums. So, if you want to say that, please make sure you're actually judging the two as two separate things. A movie can't please everyone, but it wasn't as bad as it could have possibly been, at the very least, the essence of Twilight was carried over from the book to the movie.
Quote:
Robert Pattinson is butt ugly! Everyone was completely cast wrong they looked so ugly and it was terrible! They looked nothing like how I imagined! etc.
Well obviously the actors aren't going to look EXACTLY like how everyone imagined them! They're fictional characters, and hence, their appearances are extremely up for debate among fans. It does not help that Meyer didn't go into great detail about what these characters looked like, and so everyone was left to dream up their dream vampires of what these characters look like. Each fan would've had a different idea of what Edward looked like, or what Bella looked like, etc. This is a differing of opinion.
Everyone remember when the Harry Potter movies came out? It's the same thing, just happening to a different fandom. The characters don't look like how you pictured, that's fine, it doesn't mean you can rat on them and say that the casting is what made you hate the movie because the actors cast look NOTHING like how you pictured the characters.
A casting for a movie adaption of a book is very subjective. As such, the actors cast obviously fit the casting director's or the director's idea of what the characters look like. It's one INTERPRETATION of their appearance, and as such, while you can disagree with it all you want, is not a logical argument for saying why the movie was terrible. Please try to keep your arguments to being about the movie ITSELF while keeping the casting not fitting your imagining of the characters as much as possible.
Personally, I thought the Twilight movie was cast pretty well. Since I'd never had much of an idea of what of the characters looked like, I was mostly pleased with the castings. Although, I really was unhappy with Jasper's casting. Somehow, I think he's cute, yes, and would be PERFECT to play Jasper if he was HUMAN, but I don't think he's got that dangerous vibe to him that I associate with Jasper. My pick would've been Gaspard Ulliel to play Jasper. The look of constipation that Rathbone played him with didn't help his case in my books either. This is, of course, my opinion, and you can have a different opinion of the casting.
Just say that you thought the movie was good or bad, and then discuss the casting as a different point; there's the chance that others will disagree with you about the casting or the good or bad points of it. Liking or disliking a movie is all a matter of opinion. Like how I love Repo! The Genetic Opera, even though most people don't like it! Casting is one person's interpretation of what the characters looked like, and Meyer's descriptions of the characters weren't stellar either, so that gave the people making the movie even less to work with.
Quote:
Kristen Stewart was wayyyy too pretty to play Bella. Bella is suppose to be plain! Dumbass director!
Okay, this was suggested to me by a friend here on Gaia, and I decided that I would deal with it as well. Like I said, this entry is going to be CONSTANTLY in revising, as I add more points and arguments as they're suggested. If you have something you want to add, then just leave a comment with what you want to say. Or, if you have a concern or argument that you want me to address, do the same thing, please.
Anyways, onto this argument! As I said earlier, the casting director and director thought that Kristin Stewart fit their idea of what Bella looked like. Again, as the books are told from her perspective, we never get an unbiased idea of what it is that Bella looks like. She's either described as "plain", by herself, or "beautiful" by Edward and Alice, which creates the conflict. And again, seeing as how we don't get an unbiased description of what Bella looks like it isn't a very valid argument.
Oh, and seeing as the ideals of what is the definition of beautiful and what's the definition of plain or ugly, is extremely subjective and differs between person to person, this is, again, a point of differing opinion. Basically this isn't a valid reason for not liking the movie, saying it's bad, or just saying that the movies were generally s**t. Please use more tangible evidence to back up your opinion, but like I said earlier, this is all a matter of opinion, and EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN INFORMED OPINION.
Now I will move onto the actual book itself. Be prepared Twitards, if you've ventured this far, and welcome to any and all of the antis and intelligent fans who have also made it this far. I'm hoping that this is really helpful to you guys, really, because I consider myself to be an intelligent fan of the series. If you're referencing this for your own arguments, please quote me on it, and if you're linking this anywhere else, please tell me so!
Quote:
In my opinion, Jacob's a hormonal little kid that just needs to be interested in women his own age, or just be pushed out of a plane.
Edward's awesome & all, I mean he's EDWARD FREAKING CULLEN, but in Midnight Sun you find out that he's a total stalker & needs a hobby other than watching people sleep. Or stalking people.
And I'm all for Team Edward because i despise Jacob with the intensity of 50 million suns, but Team Jasper is waaaaaaaaaaaaay better. I mean it's cool to read minds but messing up everybody's emotions would be HILARIOUS! AND I always go for the tortured soul, AKA Jasper.
But I hate the fact that he was a CONFEDERATE soldier 'cause slavery's just f'ed up.
Edward's awesome & all, I mean he's EDWARD FREAKING CULLEN, but in Midnight Sun you find out that he's a total stalker & needs a hobby other than watching people sleep. Or stalking people.
And I'm all for Team Edward because i despise Jacob with the intensity of 50 million suns, but Team Jasper is waaaaaaaaaaaaay better. I mean it's cool to read minds but messing up everybody's emotions would be HILARIOUS! AND I always go for the tortured soul, AKA Jasper.
But I hate the fact that he was a CONFEDERATE soldier 'cause slavery's just f'ed up.
Okay, sorry for the long quote there, but I took it (again) from the thread itself to better explain and argue my points against it. I'm going to try and stay away from specific arguments about the characters, and make it more about the characters themselves along with the conceptions brought out in this. For one, it clearly demonstrates the states of mind of many Twitards.
For one, 'Edward FREAKING Cullen' does not qualify in any way as a legitimate argument for his character. If you're going to at least ATTEMPT to argue that Edward has personality and is a fully developed character, then stay away from this. Also, don't use 'awesome & all' as an argument either, it doesn't say much for your intelligence. In fact, just take this comment and do everything possible if you're going to try and argue for character development that is the opposite of this comment, because otherwise it'll sound stupid.
Secondly, there is a distinct LACK of character development in Meyer's writing of the series in general. Instead of doing what an intelligent and GOOD author would do if you're not following me, then deal with your ice-pick that's lodged in your skull, which would be develop all of the characters and their back stories, Meyer instead "focuses" on Edward and Bella. Of course, that isn't saying very much, considering how flat those two characters are. I'll go into a little more detail here, just to illustrate my reasoning and such with examples.
Bella is a very shallow character who reminds me very much of all those 'popular' beytches at my high school who I absolutely LOATHE the ones that I can't stand and would be all too glad to shove an ice-pick into their skull in the hopes that it'll either permanently cause them brain damage or just kill them outright. She's extremely petty and is a textbook example of what a Mary-Sue is.
For those unfamiliar with the definition, here it is (I am going to bold it for the attention grabbing): A Mary Sue in literary criticism is a fictional character with overly idealized and hackneyed mannerisms, lacking noteworthy flaws, and primarily functioning as wish-fulfillment fantasies for their authors or readers. The author may seem to push how exceptional and wonderful the Mary Sue character is on his or her audience.
Doesn't this sound familiar? Of course it does! It describes Bella to a T! And, as well, Meyer even ADMITS that she wrote Bella in such a way that the readers would picture themselves as her! That's a clear set-up for a Mary-Sue situation, and the other characters in the book are very quick to go on and on, waxing poetically and needlessly at times, about how wonderful and perfect Bella is. If you don't agree with me, then please tell me one fault that Bella possesses which is noteworthy.
Being clumsy does not count, since it's found to be endearing by the entire cast of the novel.
So really, no faults in her character. She's the literal example of a Mary-Sue, meaning she's bloody perfect.
I'll move onto Edward now. He's about as flat as male characters come, not to mention, he's a stalker! I hope that all you fangirls out there know that stalking is against the law and is a punishable criminal offense. For one thing, stalkers are notorious for being incredibly unstable mentally, and often turning to murder or violence when they don't get access to the object of their hugely misplaced "affection".
So really, Edward has no personality whatsoever except that of the cookie-cutter love interest of a drugstore counter romance. It's really sad isn't it? I mean, there was potential for him to be a decent, well-rounded character who readers could identify with, but Meyer pretty much butchered that, just like she butchered the rest of the characters.
As for the other characters. There isn't much to say about them, because Meyer completely ignores developing them at all, apart from slapping on some back story and leaving it at that; there's no explorations of any of them as characters in as of themselves, they're just wallpaper on the wall. Since you can't get a good 'feel' for any of the characters, they're hard to identify with and even more bland to read about. Meyer could use some work in this department.
The most 'dynamic' character we get, is Jacob Black. He seems the most human out of the entire cast of characters in Twilight, which is sad and not saying much since he's not much better then Bella or Edward in terms of characterization. I use a lot of these terms loosely.
Dynamic versus Static Characters: A dynamic character is one who, during the course of the story, changes significantly. Significant changes might include changes in insight or understanding, changes in commitment, or changes in values. Changes in circumstance, even physical circumstance, would not qualify unless they result in some change within the character's self. In contrast, a static character does not undergo significant change, remaining basically unchanged (in understanding, commitment, values) throughout a work.
Somehow, Meyer managed to completely bypass the dynamic characters aspect of a story (these dynamic characters usually make up the main cast of characters), and managed to "craft" four novels around extremely static characters. That isn't good story-telling, that's a cop-out, and also why Twilght qualifies as a huge fanfiction, in place of an actual novel. Or series of novels, however you want to put it.
Quote:
Edward and Bella love each other! They're a modern version of Romeo and Juliet!
For one thing, there is no chemistry between Edward and Bella, theirs is a textbook case of a teenage fling, puppy love, not actual real love. It's infatuation, not love. Here, I'll define infatuation for you, if you don't already know.
Infatuation: is the state of being completely carried away by unreasoned passion or love; addictive love. Usually, one is inspired with an intense but short-lived passion or admiration for someone.
Sound familiar? That's exactly what Bella and Edward have for each other: an infatuation disguised vaguely as a teenage love affair. It's not a healthy relationship at all, and is not long lasting either. I wouldn't be surprised if they realized this later and then broke up, looking for actual love in real people where they'll realize all the wrongs that they've done with each other. Again, Twilight is aimed at a teenage audience, so this isn't too surprising, and with the general bad quality of the books, it's to be expected as well. Considering Meyer wrote the first book in only a few months, and with limited research I'm guessing, the quality of the books has obviously suffered greatly. There could be potential for something good, but it's been shoved off to be ignored completely in a lonely corner.
The only thing that Edward and Bella have in common with Romeo and Juliet, is their fleeting "love" for each other. The whole 'love at first sight' idea, is dealt with in both stories, but the authors handled them differently. Whereas Shakespeare's is a definite tragedy (a Shakespearean tragedy to be specfic), Meyer's takes the notion of love at first sight, and tries to deal with it SERIOUSLY, which is just a complete laugh and makes the series a bit of a farce.
Love takes TIME and EFFORT.
Romeo and Juliet DIED because they believed that they loved each other, when they really didn't, had they lived, the story would have been completely different and absolutely NOTHING like Twilight. That's where the tragedy lies: Two young lives were cut short for something as stupid and foolish as "love", and it wasn't even actual love; it was infatuation!
Ultimately, Twilight takes this cliche seriously, and ultimately is the bigger joke for it, and should not IN ANY WAY be classified as a classic. It's not. There's a reason that Romeo and Juliet is a classic; it's a bit of a satire of the concepts of love, and in no way like Twilight. Don't compare the two, please, because it's painful for a future English major like me to see (lots of others would agree with me, I'm sure).
On Edward's abusive nature, there's a lovely post on the Twilight Sucks forums on the subject, and since that argument made perfect sense, I'll quote the entry here.
Quote:
Anti: “Edward is abusive”
Support for this argument includes the following (and this is just a quick list):
1. Edward is controlling and domineering
2. Edward has an unequal share of authority over the relationship
3. Edward threatens suicide
4. Edward manipulates Bella into marriage
5. Edward actively attempts to prevent Bella from seeing her friend (removes engine, has her kidnapped)
6. Edward encourages Bella’s isolation from others
Now, I’ve found that the most common argument in rebuttal for “Edward is abusive” is “But he only does it because he loves her” or “He’s trying to protect her” or “His intentions are good” or “He recognizes that he makes mistakes/overreacts”.
I’m going to address these arguments in two parts. First, in terms of semantics; that is, the actual actions and consequences in the series, and second I’ll deal with the abstraction of intentions versus actions.
1. What is abuse?
Obviously Edward is not abusive physically to Bella, but that doesn’t mean that he’s not still abusive. That is, he is emotionally and mentally abusive. And the fact that he’s a vampire has nothing to do with it; Meyer is portraying a relationship between two people, and given the fact that Edward has a very human psyche (i.e. he experiences human emotions (anger, ‘love’, worry), human desires (sex), and was once in fact human) it is not a reasonable argument to simply excuse his bad behavior by simply arguing, “he’s a vampire, so it doesn’t count.”
So: abuse. What is it?
Wikipedia says:
Quote:
An abusive relationship is an interpersonal relationship characterized by the use or threat of physical or psychological abuse. Abusive relationships are often characterized by jealousy, emotional withholding, lack of intimacy, infidelity, sexual coercion, verbal abuse, broken promises, physical violence, control games and power plays.
Let’s break this definition down in terms of Edward and Bella.
Jealousy – If anything, Edward’s defining characteristic is in fact his jealousy. It is his jealousy (more than anything else) that instigates his abusive acts. He admits after the engine episode that the main reason for not wanting Bella to see Jacob was in fact his prejudice and jealousy, and that’s hardly the only instance of his jealousy.
Emotional withholding – The fact that Edward and Bella are supposed to share this incredible, transcendent relationship is undermined by the fact that rather than discuss his fears and uncertainties, Edward chooses to leave Bella at the beginning of New Moon. While it’s not a crime to end a relationship, the fact that Edward chose to do so in such a cruel and unusual manner instead of explaining his feelings and emotions on the subject is pretty abusive.
Lack of intimacy – The intimacy issue is a trickier when it comes to Edward and Bella. First, in terms of physical intimacy: the fact that Edward controls every single chaste little kiss AND withholds sex is incredibly controlling. That he does so supposedly to protect her is negated by the fact that he’s more than willing to sex her up once they’re married, even though she’s still a puny, fragile human (and she does get hurt). Their lack of emotional intimacy (again, with the above point about emotional withholding) is just as damaging (as referenced by Bella’s zombiefied state in New Moon.
Sexual coercion – Again, Edward controls every aspect of their sexual lives, against Bella’s will and in fact he demeans and treats her like a child when she attempts to sex him.
Broken promises – at the end of Twilight, Edward promises to stay with Bella no matter what. Yet at the beginning of New Moon, he massively overreacts to the supposed threat of danger and decides to break that promise, rendering Bella suicidal. Maybe this isn’t traditionally abusive, but it’s unnecessarily damaging.
Control games and power plays – All the above points serve the idea that Edward’s prevailing character (served by his jealousy) is controlling. And I don’t care how ‘powerful’ and ‘omniscient’ and ‘old and wise’ Edward is, when you’re in a romantic relationship with someone one partner cannot be completely dominating and the other submissive (unless it’s a BDSM relationship, but that’s another subject entirely). It simply isn’t healthy, particularly when it’s supposed to be this ‘great love of all the ages’ and representative of an equal partnership.
2. Intentions
Let me just say this once to make it clear: intentions (good or bad) do not matter. It’s an instance of the classic phrase acta non verba, or “actions, not words.” It doesn’t matter if I tell you “I love you so much!” if I immediately follow that statement by trying to kill you. It doesn’t matter if I honestly DO love you and I STILL try to kill you; the action of attempted homicide still stands (and I’ll be charged with that) regardless of how I feel about it. If I kill someone and then say “I made a mistake” or “I loved him/her”, the fact that I feel bad about it in retrospect does not change the irreversible fact that I did, in fact, kill someone.
So if Edward removes the engine from Bella’s truck and then replaces it later, the fact that he replaces it later is irrelevant to the issue at hand; the fact that he performed the abusive act in the first place. I don’t care if he felt bad about it or changed his mind; he still performed the act to begin with.
If Edward only does anything “in order to protect Bella”, it’s again an instance of the irrelevance of intentions. Simply put, he doesn’t have the right to upend another person’s life or to attempt to control what that person does, even if he cares about them. It is not my roommate’s place to lock me in our room to prevent me from going out and getting trashed, even if she thinks she’s doing it to “protect me” or “because she cares about me.” Likewise, it isn’t Edward’s right to decide who Bella sees, when she sees him, where she sees him, and for how long. Just because he decided NOT to kidnap Bella for the weekend a second time doesn’t make the fact that he kidnapped her for a weekend for the first time moot.
Basically, intentions don’t matter. Actions matter. Even if Edward changes his mind or feels bad about it, that doesn’t erase the fact that he performed the act in the first place. If he feels bad about it, it doesn’t mean that his character isn’t an abusive one; you don’t judge a character based on the person he is by the end of the novel (or series); rather, you judge them (and form an understanding of them) by incorporating EVERYTHING you learn about them throughout the series. So while Edward DOES change and DOES make different decisions, his good decisions don’t negate the bad ones. He performs an abusive act = he is abusive, even if he feels bad about it. Capisce?
Support for this argument includes the following (and this is just a quick list):
1. Edward is controlling and domineering
2. Edward has an unequal share of authority over the relationship
3. Edward threatens suicide
4. Edward manipulates Bella into marriage
5. Edward actively attempts to prevent Bella from seeing her friend (removes engine, has her kidnapped)
6. Edward encourages Bella’s isolation from others
Now, I’ve found that the most common argument in rebuttal for “Edward is abusive” is “But he only does it because he loves her” or “He’s trying to protect her” or “His intentions are good” or “He recognizes that he makes mistakes/overreacts”.
I’m going to address these arguments in two parts. First, in terms of semantics; that is, the actual actions and consequences in the series, and second I’ll deal with the abstraction of intentions versus actions.
1. What is abuse?
Obviously Edward is not abusive physically to Bella, but that doesn’t mean that he’s not still abusive. That is, he is emotionally and mentally abusive. And the fact that he’s a vampire has nothing to do with it; Meyer is portraying a relationship between two people, and given the fact that Edward has a very human psyche (i.e. he experiences human emotions (anger, ‘love’, worry), human desires (sex), and was once in fact human) it is not a reasonable argument to simply excuse his bad behavior by simply arguing, “he’s a vampire, so it doesn’t count.”
So: abuse. What is it?
Wikipedia says:
Quote:
An abusive relationship is an interpersonal relationship characterized by the use or threat of physical or psychological abuse. Abusive relationships are often characterized by jealousy, emotional withholding, lack of intimacy, infidelity, sexual coercion, verbal abuse, broken promises, physical violence, control games and power plays.
Let’s break this definition down in terms of Edward and Bella.
Jealousy – If anything, Edward’s defining characteristic is in fact his jealousy. It is his jealousy (more than anything else) that instigates his abusive acts. He admits after the engine episode that the main reason for not wanting Bella to see Jacob was in fact his prejudice and jealousy, and that’s hardly the only instance of his jealousy.
Emotional withholding – The fact that Edward and Bella are supposed to share this incredible, transcendent relationship is undermined by the fact that rather than discuss his fears and uncertainties, Edward chooses to leave Bella at the beginning of New Moon. While it’s not a crime to end a relationship, the fact that Edward chose to do so in such a cruel and unusual manner instead of explaining his feelings and emotions on the subject is pretty abusive.
Lack of intimacy – The intimacy issue is a trickier when it comes to Edward and Bella. First, in terms of physical intimacy: the fact that Edward controls every single chaste little kiss AND withholds sex is incredibly controlling. That he does so supposedly to protect her is negated by the fact that he’s more than willing to sex her up once they’re married, even though she’s still a puny, fragile human (and she does get hurt). Their lack of emotional intimacy (again, with the above point about emotional withholding) is just as damaging (as referenced by Bella’s zombiefied state in New Moon.
Sexual coercion – Again, Edward controls every aspect of their sexual lives, against Bella’s will and in fact he demeans and treats her like a child when she attempts to sex him.
Broken promises – at the end of Twilight, Edward promises to stay with Bella no matter what. Yet at the beginning of New Moon, he massively overreacts to the supposed threat of danger and decides to break that promise, rendering Bella suicidal. Maybe this isn’t traditionally abusive, but it’s unnecessarily damaging.
Control games and power plays – All the above points serve the idea that Edward’s prevailing character (served by his jealousy) is controlling. And I don’t care how ‘powerful’ and ‘omniscient’ and ‘old and wise’ Edward is, when you’re in a romantic relationship with someone one partner cannot be completely dominating and the other submissive (unless it’s a BDSM relationship, but that’s another subject entirely). It simply isn’t healthy, particularly when it’s supposed to be this ‘great love of all the ages’ and representative of an equal partnership.
2. Intentions
Let me just say this once to make it clear: intentions (good or bad) do not matter. It’s an instance of the classic phrase acta non verba, or “actions, not words.” It doesn’t matter if I tell you “I love you so much!” if I immediately follow that statement by trying to kill you. It doesn’t matter if I honestly DO love you and I STILL try to kill you; the action of attempted homicide still stands (and I’ll be charged with that) regardless of how I feel about it. If I kill someone and then say “I made a mistake” or “I loved him/her”, the fact that I feel bad about it in retrospect does not change the irreversible fact that I did, in fact, kill someone.
So if Edward removes the engine from Bella’s truck and then replaces it later, the fact that he replaces it later is irrelevant to the issue at hand; the fact that he performed the abusive act in the first place. I don’t care if he felt bad about it or changed his mind; he still performed the act to begin with.
If Edward only does anything “in order to protect Bella”, it’s again an instance of the irrelevance of intentions. Simply put, he doesn’t have the right to upend another person’s life or to attempt to control what that person does, even if he cares about them. It is not my roommate’s place to lock me in our room to prevent me from going out and getting trashed, even if she thinks she’s doing it to “protect me” or “because she cares about me.” Likewise, it isn’t Edward’s right to decide who Bella sees, when she sees him, where she sees him, and for how long. Just because he decided NOT to kidnap Bella for the weekend a second time doesn’t make the fact that he kidnapped her for a weekend for the first time moot.
Basically, intentions don’t matter. Actions matter. Even if Edward changes his mind or feels bad about it, that doesn’t erase the fact that he performed the act in the first place. If he feels bad about it, it doesn’t mean that his character isn’t an abusive one; you don’t judge a character based on the person he is by the end of the novel (or series); rather, you judge them (and form an understanding of them) by incorporating EVERYTHING you learn about them throughout the series. So while Edward DOES change and DOES make different decisions, his good decisions don’t negate the bad ones. He performs an abusive act = he is abusive, even if he feels bad about it. Capisce?
Next argument now. Oh, and now I've moved on to a few little nitpicks that I have with the series as a whole, but you're free to keep reading
Quote:
The ending was a happy one! I loved how it ended! The series was perfect!
Life doesn't always end happily, and largely, Meyer went about resolving all the "emotional conflicts" in her series with the efficiency of an OCD man in the shoe-lace factory if you don't get this reference, that's fine; obviously I've been watching too many ZP reviews. Everyone gets some sort of happiness in the end, which is not only entirely unrealistic, but also requires her to go back on several characters. She completely does a one-eighty on characters to make SURE that everything ends happily and nicely. It's all very nauseating in its sickly sweetness.
For one, Leah's character never actually DEALS with the source of her bitterness and issues, eg. her broken heart over the loss of Sam and their life together, instead, Meyer glosses over it and makes it all better by making absolutely sure that she DOESN'T EVER HAVE TOO. This isn't good story-telling, this is something third-rate authors do when they can't think of any way for them to find some form of resolution for the characters they create. Obviously, Meyer didn't come to this series with a plan, since she came to it using an idea from a dream and didn't think that maybe outlining what should have happened in the story and with the characters.
Meyer seems to believe that a sugar-coated happy ending is all her mindless drones fans really want. Apparently, substance has been drowned thoroughly by this point, and now Meyer's trying to strangle some resolution from her already thrice dead plot and empty characters.
Please, the dribble isn't wanted or needed. Life doesn't go like this, quit the further brain-washing of the impressionable young women who make up your fanbase.
Quote:
I love the concept of imprinting! It's so sweet and beautiful and lovely! I loved how Jacob got his happy ending with Renesme! A perfect ending, everyone's happy.
Again, I'm going to quote that entry from Twilight Sucks on this matter, because it has several very good and valid points to make. I will also add my own input after the quote.
Quote:
At best, imprinting is a second-rate deus ex machina to make coupling easier for Meyer by taking away the necessity for character and relationship development. Basically, love-at-first-sight by any other name still smells not-quite-sweet. Now, had Meyer simply gone ahead with love at first sight rather than the imprinting concept, I doubt we’d be discussing it right now. Rather, I’d be arguing how lame love at first sight is.
But since Meyer chose imprinting and all its dangly bits, let’s take a look at it.
Who imprints?
The male werewolves. It isn’t known whether or not Leah can imprint, though she complains in Breaking Dawn that she’s “twenty years old and menopausal”, indicating that she can’t procreate anyway, thus rendering the function of imprinting useless (more on that later).
Quil imprinted on Claire, a two year-old.
Jacob imprinted on Nessie, an infant.
What is the purpose of imprinting?
We learn over the course of the series that the purpose of imprinting and why normal folk don’t do it is to insure that the werewolf gene (or shape-shifting gene) is passed on. Think of it like an evolutionary adaptation to insure the procreation of one’s species—much the same as certain types of frogs modulating the pitch and frequency of their mating calls in order to attract a female of their exact species. Imprinting is not to make sure that the werewolves get true love. It’s not to make sure that the werewolves have a barefoot woman in the kitchen to make them sandwiches. The sole reason is for reproduction. That’s it. No other reason.
“Imprinting is sick, sexist, and promotes *****]
So if imprinting’s sole purpose is for reproduction, then it is inherently sexual. Saying it’s not sexual is like saying a dude putting his p***s in a girl’s vag isn’t sexual. Reproduction = sexual.
To get out of the squick factor with Quil imprinting on Claire and Jacob imprinting on Nessie, Meyer quickly defends it by saying that the imprinter will be “whatever is needed, whether that’s a brother or uncle or father.”
And there go my squick alarms, blaring away like the siren of a police cruiser full of *****.
One of the problems is that there is an understood future sexual relationship (by virtue of the imprinting) at stake. So the idea of the werewolf taking a fraternal or paternal role in the life of the child leads directly to the concept of child grooming, defined below:
Child grooming: The deliberate actions taken by an adult to form a trusting relationship with a child, with the intent of later having sexual contact is known as child grooming. The act of grooming a child sexually may include activities that are legal in and of themselves, but later lead to sexual contact. Typically, this is done to gain the child's trust as well as the trust of those responsible for the child's well-being.
Sound familiar? That’s because that describes the exact actions being taken by Quil and, to a lesser extent Jacob (given that Nessie is supposedly super-mature and super in general) in their relationships with Claire and Nessie respectively.
Certainly Quil doesn’t want to hurt Claire, but he’s taking an authoritative role in her life and for her to grow up with Uncle Quil or Brother Quil with the expectation of a sexual relationship completely sabotages her rights and her personal ability to refuse him. That is, both Quil and the rest of the tribe expect her to engage in a relationship with him and she has been brought up with the understanding that Quil will eventually become Lover Quil. How is she supposed to refuse him when he’s not only been an authority figure all her life but it’s expected by him and the rest of her family and friends that they live happily ever after (and make lots of puppies)? That’s inexcusable and sick, and as I already established, there can be no imprinting without reproduction. This means that Quil and Claire’s relationship can never be simply platonic and that’s why it’s *****.
Not to mention that it’s also sexist. It puts all the power of the relationship into Quil’s hands rather than Claire’s. Sure, Quil didn’t choose to imprint—it was forced upon him—but he does have the ability to mold and shape his and Claire’s relationship over a period of at least 16 years while Claire is given no options of her own. This goes for every other female who has been imprinted upon… Where is their right to choose? If they’re a member of the tribe, then they’re expected to just fall in line with whatever boy has designs on them, because, as Meyer says, it’s supposedly “hard to resist that level of devotion.”
Now, a popular argument that the Twilight fans use is this: “Imprinting is degrading to both males and females equally, therefore it’s not sexist.” While they do make a good point about imprinting and the males, their logic is flawed. No, the males don’t have a right to choose either—they become groveling, sniveling love slaves with no options outside of the person they choose, but the difference is that they have feelings for the person. If we take imprinting at face value, then they’ve found their soul-mate and they have no doubts, no concerns, and no regrets about it. The problem is that it’s not reciprocal. The females are not guaranteed feelings equal to the male, yet they’re still expected to hop between the sheets with them. Had Meyer left it as a one-way, unrequited love process, then it wouldn’t have been as sexist (it would have put power in the hands the female and degraded the male… not a good thing, either). But because she insinuates that the females are supposed to love the male back, then it becomes a problem.
Imprinting (and werewolf reproduction) is sexist in another way as well, specifically for Leah. Now, this is either a giant misunderstanding or a blatant contradiction (I’m inclined to think the latter, considering Meyer’s dubious track record), but in Breaking Dawn, Meyer insinuates that Leah is infertile. WTF? Evolutionarily speaking, why on earth would a female werewolf become infertile while the males get to keep their little swimmers? (Same question to the vampires, actually) So if imprinting happens to insure reproduction, why the hell would werewolf-ism ever make the person infertile? There’s zero reason for it evolutionarily (it goes counter to evolution theory, period) and biologically speaking, if the males can keep creating sperm with no problem, then it makes zero—ZERO!—sense for Leah’s eggs (which she was born with) to suddenly lose their viability. After all, if imprinting is there to make sure that werewolf puppies are running around, then it implies that not only are the werewolves capable of reproduction but that it’s preferred.
But no… Meyer decides to take away Leah’s fertility, thus setting her apart from a) the other women on the reservation and b) the other werewolves and c) taking away her opportunity to imprint (if she’s infertile, she won’t imprint because the potential for procreation has been lost). Now, does the male werewolves’ sperm count reduce more quickly than humans’ (thus reducing their viability) because of their werewolfiness? Is that another reason for imprinting, to make sure that they get down-n-dirty quick enough so that they’re not shooting blanks?
The answer to that is no. If Quil can imprint on a two year-old and have to wait a minimum to 16 years before reproduction, then it’s safe to say that he’s not losing any viability any time soon. Likewise, it’s stated that werewolves, as long as they phase regularly, will never age.
So why is Leah aging (going through menopause/losing her fertility)? Why does the woman get the shaft and the males get to prance around happily with no ill effects (rather, they get killer bods and a never-ending supply of viable sperm). Why do the males get their happy ending (by way of imprinting; no pun intended) and Leah is denied hers?
The only possible reason is that she’s a woman and Meyer wanted to give her some extra angst (besides having her heart broken, coincidentally also due to imprinting). By taking away her fertility, Meyer implies that procreation and baby-making are the most important things to her simply by virtue of her having two X chromosomes. Sexist? I should say so.
But since Meyer chose imprinting and all its dangly bits, let’s take a look at it.
Who imprints?
The male werewolves. It isn’t known whether or not Leah can imprint, though she complains in Breaking Dawn that she’s “twenty years old and menopausal”, indicating that she can’t procreate anyway, thus rendering the function of imprinting useless (more on that later).
Quil imprinted on Claire, a two year-old.
Jacob imprinted on Nessie, an infant.
What is the purpose of imprinting?
We learn over the course of the series that the purpose of imprinting and why normal folk don’t do it is to insure that the werewolf gene (or shape-shifting gene) is passed on. Think of it like an evolutionary adaptation to insure the procreation of one’s species—much the same as certain types of frogs modulating the pitch and frequency of their mating calls in order to attract a female of their exact species. Imprinting is not to make sure that the werewolves get true love. It’s not to make sure that the werewolves have a barefoot woman in the kitchen to make them sandwiches. The sole reason is for reproduction. That’s it. No other reason.
“Imprinting is sick, sexist, and promotes *****]
So if imprinting’s sole purpose is for reproduction, then it is inherently sexual. Saying it’s not sexual is like saying a dude putting his p***s in a girl’s vag isn’t sexual. Reproduction = sexual.
To get out of the squick factor with Quil imprinting on Claire and Jacob imprinting on Nessie, Meyer quickly defends it by saying that the imprinter will be “whatever is needed, whether that’s a brother or uncle or father.”
And there go my squick alarms, blaring away like the siren of a police cruiser full of *****.
One of the problems is that there is an understood future sexual relationship (by virtue of the imprinting) at stake. So the idea of the werewolf taking a fraternal or paternal role in the life of the child leads directly to the concept of child grooming, defined below:
Child grooming: The deliberate actions taken by an adult to form a trusting relationship with a child, with the intent of later having sexual contact is known as child grooming. The act of grooming a child sexually may include activities that are legal in and of themselves, but later lead to sexual contact. Typically, this is done to gain the child's trust as well as the trust of those responsible for the child's well-being.
Sound familiar? That’s because that describes the exact actions being taken by Quil and, to a lesser extent Jacob (given that Nessie is supposedly super-mature and super in general) in their relationships with Claire and Nessie respectively.
Certainly Quil doesn’t want to hurt Claire, but he’s taking an authoritative role in her life and for her to grow up with Uncle Quil or Brother Quil with the expectation of a sexual relationship completely sabotages her rights and her personal ability to refuse him. That is, both Quil and the rest of the tribe expect her to engage in a relationship with him and she has been brought up with the understanding that Quil will eventually become Lover Quil. How is she supposed to refuse him when he’s not only been an authority figure all her life but it’s expected by him and the rest of her family and friends that they live happily ever after (and make lots of puppies)? That’s inexcusable and sick, and as I already established, there can be no imprinting without reproduction. This means that Quil and Claire’s relationship can never be simply platonic and that’s why it’s *****.
Not to mention that it’s also sexist. It puts all the power of the relationship into Quil’s hands rather than Claire’s. Sure, Quil didn’t choose to imprint—it was forced upon him—but he does have the ability to mold and shape his and Claire’s relationship over a period of at least 16 years while Claire is given no options of her own. This goes for every other female who has been imprinted upon… Where is their right to choose? If they’re a member of the tribe, then they’re expected to just fall in line with whatever boy has designs on them, because, as Meyer says, it’s supposedly “hard to resist that level of devotion.”
Now, a popular argument that the Twilight fans use is this: “Imprinting is degrading to both males and females equally, therefore it’s not sexist.” While they do make a good point about imprinting and the males, their logic is flawed. No, the males don’t have a right to choose either—they become groveling, sniveling love slaves with no options outside of the person they choose, but the difference is that they have feelings for the person. If we take imprinting at face value, then they’ve found their soul-mate and they have no doubts, no concerns, and no regrets about it. The problem is that it’s not reciprocal. The females are not guaranteed feelings equal to the male, yet they’re still expected to hop between the sheets with them. Had Meyer left it as a one-way, unrequited love process, then it wouldn’t have been as sexist (it would have put power in the hands the female and degraded the male… not a good thing, either). But because she insinuates that the females are supposed to love the male back, then it becomes a problem.
Imprinting (and werewolf reproduction) is sexist in another way as well, specifically for Leah. Now, this is either a giant misunderstanding or a blatant contradiction (I’m inclined to think the latter, considering Meyer’s dubious track record), but in Breaking Dawn, Meyer insinuates that Leah is infertile. WTF? Evolutionarily speaking, why on earth would a female werewolf become infertile while the males get to keep their little swimmers? (Same question to the vampires, actually) So if imprinting happens to insure reproduction, why the hell would werewolf-ism ever make the person infertile? There’s zero reason for it evolutionarily (it goes counter to evolution theory, period) and biologically speaking, if the males can keep creating sperm with no problem, then it makes zero—ZERO!—sense for Leah’s eggs (which she was born with) to suddenly lose their viability. After all, if imprinting is there to make sure that werewolf puppies are running around, then it implies that not only are the werewolves capable of reproduction but that it’s preferred.
But no… Meyer decides to take away Leah’s fertility, thus setting her apart from a) the other women on the reservation and b) the other werewolves and c) taking away her opportunity to imprint (if she’s infertile, she won’t imprint because the potential for procreation has been lost). Now, does the male werewolves’ sperm count reduce more quickly than humans’ (thus reducing their viability) because of their werewolfiness? Is that another reason for imprinting, to make sure that they get down-n-dirty quick enough so that they’re not shooting blanks?
The answer to that is no. If Quil can imprint on a two year-old and have to wait a minimum to 16 years before reproduction, then it’s safe to say that he’s not losing any viability any time soon. Likewise, it’s stated that werewolves, as long as they phase regularly, will never age.
So why is Leah aging (going through menopause/losing her fertility)? Why does the woman get the shaft and the males get to prance around happily with no ill effects (rather, they get killer bods and a never-ending supply of viable sperm). Why do the males get their happy ending (by way of imprinting; no pun intended) and Leah is denied hers?
The only possible reason is that she’s a woman and Meyer wanted to give her some extra angst (besides having her heart broken, coincidentally also due to imprinting). By taking away her fertility, Meyer implies that procreation and baby-making are the most important things to her simply by virtue of her having two X chromosomes. Sexist? I should say so.
For one, I'm just against the imprinting on small children. And that's mostly what this post was about. Seeing as it's basically promoting ***** in my opinion (it's really actually true; I don't know what Meyer was smoking when she thought that was a good idea I want to know what it was she was smoking at that point), it's not sweet nor happy.
And Meyer giving Jacob's daughter is a cop-out. Since he couldn't have the girl that he "loved", aka Bella, she instead gave her the mutant spawn and said "there, now everyone gets to live happily ever after!" I still haven't forgiven her from turning Jacob into a *****. Really, the last book read like a really bad fanfiction. I was expecting s**t, but I wasn't expecting s**t that bad. Dawning Crap more then lived up to my non-expectations.
Quote:
Meyer's vampires are so creative! I mean, they're beautiful, smart, and sparkle in the sun! It's great! And the fact that they can have babies with humans makes it even better!
There is such thing as creative license, I will give Meyer that, but there are too many problems with the Meyerpires for this argument to be too valid. I'll now address the points about them that the antis and the intelligent vampire fans have with them.
For one, the SPARKLING. The only things about traditional vampires that Meyer kept was the drinking of blood, be it human or animal, and the blood lust. In no folklore whatsoever, or any other vampire book or series, do the vampires sparkle. This is the one thing that I have a huge problem with. Basically, Meyer took away all of the weaknesses of the vampires in favor of making them perfect beings, of which they're far from. So they sparkle in the sun? How does that harm them? It doesn't, it just gives the fangirls more fodder for their ridiculous wet dreams.
Another problem with the vampires, is that Meyer has made them almost impossible to destroy. The only way to be sure that you've killed them? Ripping them to pieces and then burning those. It only further alienates the Meyerpires from the rather large literary collection of vampires, because they don't appear to have any traditional weaknesses of vampires, sunlight and aversion to holy objects etc, but they just don't have any weaknesses period. There were several ways that Meyer could have handled the vampires, and she chose to walk the way of the horrible cliches. She could have given them some weakness, staying close to folklore but also being unique; sticking to some of the tried and true methods but while also being original isn't something that hardcore vampire fans would fault her for her bad vampires and paper-thin plot are what they do; the one dimensional characters don't help her case with them.
Lastly, the little matter of the vampire/human baby debate. There are some huge problems with this, one of which is Meyer completely doing a one-eighty with the rules of HER OWN UNIVERSE which she CREATED, and thereby SHOULD BE WELL AWARE of the restrictions and such placed on her 'vampires'. It clearly states early on in the book that not only are the vampires frozen in time, but that they've been dead for a long time and can't produce any bodily fluids, that all they can produce is venom.
For one, Meyer then went back and tried to patch up this blatantly large continuity error by trying to use BIOLOGY of all things to explain it. That was a d**k move, Meyer. Any good author will tell you that if you're trying to roll something by fans and skeptics you don't try to use science when it will obviously blast larger holes in your mistake then you already have by breaking the laws of your universe.
Here's how it goes: Sperm needs to be kept at a specific body temperature in order for it to SURVIVE. This temperature is just a little cooler then the body's internal temperature, which is why sperm is stored in the testes until ejaculated (or it dies). As well, sperm has a relatively short life expectancy, like all bodily cells they're not immortal, which is why men continually produce sperm throughout their reproductive lives. Sperm lives for about three days in the female body, and about (I believe) the same amount of time in the male body; there is no way that it could ever survive the eighty-plus years that Meyer's claiming that Edward's had.
By Meyer's twisted logic, Rosalie and Emmett could have a petri dish baby; they'd just need a suicidal surrogate to carry it, I guess. And lastly, her chromosome explanation was a load of total ********, because any high school Biology student will tell you that the chromosomes have to LINE UP during fertilization. That's why each gamete (type of cell a sperm is) has only 23 chromosomes, half the number that is in a somatic human cell (a somatic human cell has 46 chromosomes, meaning 23 pairs). The chromosomes of Bella and Edward's gametes wouldn't line up, meaning that the mutant spawn they'd produce would have two extra, unpaired chromosomes floating around (and these chromosomes would probably cause chromosomal disorders; think Down Syndrome, which is trisomy of the twenty-first chromosome).
Well, for now, that's it. If you have any points you'd like me to address or arguments I missed, then please, go ahead and leave me a comment telling me so, and I'll get right on addressing it. ;D I'm very open to suggestions on things that I can add to this, and I want to address as many concerns and arguments as I can for the betterment of antis and intelligent fans everywhere.
Community Member