Advertisement
Critical Analysis of Twilight
Write an Article
Critical Analysis of Twilight Opinion Article
Anti-Feminism: Bella Swan and the Illusion of Choice
|
|
|||||
Preface: I have read all books and seen the movies. Most importantly, the fact that it’s fantasy doesn’t excuse the themes and messages in the book. Fiction is merely a vehicle humans developed to communicate important lessons, values and philosophies. I am not claiming any of the implications I discuss were intentional on SMeyer’s part. Whether or not the author or readers are aware of it, though, the Twilight series communicates dangerous messages about what is acceptable or admirable or desirable. Also, I highly recommend Arzim’s Rebuttals. It’s long, but fascinating and deeper than the books themselves. --------------------------------------- Stephenie Meyer’s rebuttal to claims that Bella is anti-feminist is based on her own odd and simple definition of feminism: http://www.stepheniemeyer.com/bd_faq.html “In my own opinion (key word), the foundation of feminism is this: being able to choose.” I think women who have fought and are still fighting for women's equality through the Feminist movement would take issue with Meyer's implication that a person can apply whatever definition they wish to another's political ideology. For those who firmly believe that it is impossible for an opinion to be wrong, though, this definition is still, at the very least, meaningless. The simple proof of this is that a woman can choose to be subservient to men or value men and masculinity more than women and femininity. This is undeniably anti-feminist. However, it is her choice to be anti-feminist. Therefore, according to Meyer’s definition, anti-feminism can be a form of feminism. A self-negating concept would not have made a very sturdy “foundation” for such a huge movement. “The core of anti-feminism is, conversely, telling a woman she can't do something solely because she's a woman—taking any choice away from her specifically because of her gender. ‘You can't be an astronaut, because you're a woman. You can't be president because you're a woman. You can't run a company because you're a woman.’ All of those oppressive ‘can'ts.’” What she is describing is only intentional and direct sexism, pretty easy to spot. Oppression is far more subtle, institutionalized into our basic instincts and daily treatment of gender. It is also unintentional and unnoticed by the oppressing class. For example, a male boss rationalizes promoting males because he gets to know them better through after hours drinks and games of golf. Men usually tell themselves women wouldn’t want to be invited to these things. Otherwise, they don’t have the time because of society’s expectations that wives take care of the majority of housework. The male boss tells himself he would be open to promoting a woman he felt was qualified but doesn’t even realize that he isn’t giving her equal opportunity. The widely agreed upon definition of feminism by reference sources and scholars in the field of women’s studies is “belief in the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.” (please note that equality does not mean sameness) Arzim’s Rebuttals (the first argument on Edward’s abusive traits) explains rather thoroughly how Edward does not treat Bella as an equal in their relationship. For those who still believe that Bella is a feminist figure because she makes choices, I’m going to expand on the prevalent theme in the series of women having the illusion of choice. Throughout the whole series, we never really see Bella struggle over a decision or a choice she has to make. Rather, quite the opposite occurs, her decisions invariably come immediately. The closest thing she has to a decision making process is “What is best for Edward or brings me closer to Edward?” [Presumably, Stephenie Meyer believes that Bella’s severe devotion to Edward (that starts after they’ve had just a few conversations) that not only tops, but also erases all her other priorities, values, aspirations, and thought processes is proof of their true love.] Even Bella herself admits to her lack of choice when it comes to Edward. “I didn’t know if there ever was a choice, really. I was already in too deep. Now that I knew — if I knew — I could do nothing about my frightening secret. Because when I thought of him, of his voice, his hypnotic eyes, the magnetic force of his personality, I wanted nothing more than to be with him right now.” Bella Swan, Twilight, Chapter 7, p.139 Bella repeatedly describes a “hypnotic” sensation whenever she hears Edward’s voice or looks at him. Although it is intended to be romantic, Meyer’s word choice describing Edward’s “hypnotic” effect and “magnetic force” on Bella alerts the reader (without much subtlety) that the “choice” is being controlled by an outside force, specifically Edward. Whether he intends to or not, Edward’s presence in Bella’s life weakens her strength of will and even of body, causing her to faint at one point. Any self-respecting woman or woman-respecting man would remove themselves from such a situation. (side note: I thought the fainting spell was unintentionally symbolic of the unequal and unhealthy nature of their relationship. Just one of the many reasons the first book could have been amazing if it had been in a series about a boy who manipulates a girl into worshiping him and believing they are in love but really it's a destructive, obsessive relationship. The first book being from her fantastical, idealized point of view and the rest showing how her dependency-fueled decisions end up messing up everyone in her life. Depressing? Yeah, but a million times more fascinating.) (side side note: Does Meyer think the fact that Edward, intentionally or otherwise, made Bella pass out is another symptom of true love or was there some purpose to that happening? Not rhetorical, I was really confused as to what the point of the fainting was.) Other examples of how Edwards’s involvement in her life weakens Bella: --- “I’d given more information than necessary in my unwilling honesty, and I worried it would provoke the strange anger that flared whenever I slipped and revealed too clearly how obsessed I was.” Twilight, Chapter 11, p.230 --- “Our relationship couldn’t continue to balance, as it did, on the point of a knife. We would fall off one edge or the other, depending entirely upon HIS decision, or HIS instincts. My decision was made, made before I’d ever consciously chosen, and I was committed to seeing it through. Because there was nothing more terrifying to me, more excruciating, than the thought of turning away from him. It was an impossibility.” Twilight, Chapter 12, p.248 --- “There was no way around it; I couldn’t resist him in anything.” Twilight, Chapter 13, p.284 --- “His eyes were melting all my fury. It was impossible to fight with him when he cheated like that.” Twilight, Epilogue, p.485 --- “His mouth was on mine then, and I couldn’t fight him. Not because he was so many thousand times stronger than me, but because my will crumbled into dust the second our lips met.” New Moon, Chapter 23, p.512 Also, notice that Edward himself is not enchanting and attracting her. He is a complete jerk when they first meet for no reason apparent to her. If she cared about personality or being respected, she would have written him off and spent her time developing relationships with the people who were warm and welcoming to her (literally every human in Forks.) However, this doesn’t deter her because she’s fallen in love with Edward’s body, not Edward. From what I recall, the only quality she even mentions, other than his inhuman beauty, is that he is over-protective. As much as I hate Edward, Bella can be pretty bad, too. She’s not only anti-feminist, she’s also completely objectifying Edward! Bella often puts up with Edward directly taking away her ability to choose without putting up much of a fight or being upset for more than a moment. She credits it to is protectiveness, which she believes makes it excusable. “Over-protective” is a red flag for a potential physical or emotional abuser. This shouldn’t attract Bella if she’s half as smart as Meyer says. As part of his role of being completely in control of Bella, their relationship and her other relationships, Edward frequently decides he knows what is best for Bella and leaves no room for discussion: dragging her across the parking lot without trying to reason with her first, removing her engine, etc. The argument is “That’s because he’s a vampire. He has to protect her. He really does know what’s best for her. He apologizes later.” Perhaps this is an inherent quality of vampire-human relationships and there is no way to avoid the vampire having all authority and control. If so, then all vampire-human relationships are inherently unequal partnerships and inherently unhealthy. ******************************************* >>>>GOOD INTENTIONS OR APOLOGIES DO NOT MATTER WHEN IT COMES TO A CONTROLLING, SHORT-TEMPERED SIGNIFICANT OTHER!!<<<< ******************************************* In fact, these are often the main reasons women feel trapped in abusive relationships. In New Moon, Edward lies to Bella about his reasons for leaving. Since there was no way she could stop him, he clearly does not see her as an equal who deserves to know why someone who claimed she was the most important thing in the world is leaving her. He also takes away her ability to choose how to handle his departure, removing everything that he thinks will remind her of him. Bella has become so dependent on Edward for happiness and meaning that in her life after his departure, she becomes an empty, emotionless “zombie.” Not for a few days or weeks, for months. It seems that by leaving, Edward has put her on auto-pilot, as she has no interest in choices or oppurtunities she may have that won’t help her bring Edward back. She literally has no life, personality, aspirations, happiness, anything without Edward. She only manages to even partially regain any of these things by coming dependent on another man, Jacob, and using him as an emotional crutch. There is topic on which she does appear to make a conscious, if stupid, decision. She decides to start cheating death on a regular basis so that she can hear Edward’s voice. However, it becomes obvious that she’s not really in control of this supposed “choice” either. “I was addicted to the sound of my delusions. It made things worse if I went too long without them.” New Moon, Chapter 15, p.352 [[ad⋅dic⋅tion –noun the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma.]] Clearly, this is a very good description of Bella’s daredevil exploits. Addiction is not decision, it’s severely dangerous compulsion. Even with her new emotional crutch, Bella’s decisions are still being entirely made involuntarily and immediately by her obsession with Edward. Here are a few more examples of Bella’s lack or illusion of choice that I’m not going to delve into: ---She never has the ability to decide whether or not or when she becomes a vampire. When it finally does happen, it’s Edward’s only choice if he wants her to survive. ---She doesn’t choose to marry Edward, but rather is blackmailed into it by him. ---Edward and Alice frequently withholding information that directly relates to Bella’s life and well-being. The supposed “choice” that bothered me the most was that of the werewolves’ infant imprints. An infant who is imprinted on is going to grow up her entire life with the imprinter constantly around as an authority figure. In order to make imprinting a child acceptable, it is explained that he will be “whatever is needed, whether that’s a brother or uncle or father.” Jacob doesn’t say it out loud, but once she starts to mature, he’s going to find her irresistibly sexually attractive and expect a sexual relationship with her. He doesn’t say it out loud because Meyer apparently wishes to remain in massive denial about how messed up this is. Arzim’s Rebuttals likens the situation to child-grooming, which I think is spot on. [[“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.]] These children are going to be raised to trust their imprinters and view them as guardians who have authority over them. Since their parents are okay about the imprinting, they will raise the children to believe that an adult man’s supernatural fixation on her is acceptable. Since parents typically explain to their children what love is, they and the man himself will tell her that the imprinter loves her and she will grow up believing that this is a fact rather than something she can judge from herself. Meyer casually dismisses the possibility of the feelings not being reciprocated because it's “hard to resist that level of devotion.” Apparently, the girls are going to be told that someone having strong feelings for you is reason enough to love them. The extreme “level of devotion” throughout their entire childhoods and constantly being told how much their imprinters love them will create the impression that rejecting the imprinter would be wrong, that they "owe it" to the imprinter or that it is their duty to their community. It is a typical subconscious attitude ingrained in men that when they are rejected, it is the fault of the women. There are a million reasons for a women to reject a man, i.e. her comfort level, his manner of approach, feelings for someone else. However women who reject for any reason tend to be labeled as "ice queens," "b****es," "conceited," etc. Compare this to the typical reaction of a rejected female: depression, lowered sense of self-worth, etc. This is because men are taught to believe that the only reason that matters is their interest in the woman. This attitude is more dangerous than playground insults however. Some men become convinced that a woman has no right to reject them because they deserve whatever they want. It is simply one type of "blaming the victim" tactics that is used to justify rape. (side note: I know not all guys and girls react the way I described, definitely not the guys I hand out with, but it is a trend) When children are sexually abused by an authority figure they trust, they often do not tell anyone because they are afraid and confused about what’s going on. Meyer claims that the imprinted children have a choice, but it’s an illusion. After being prepared and pampered and guided down the aisle to her life’s purpose of reproducing with someone who pretended to be her “brother or uncle or father” her entire life, she’s not going to feel like she has a choice. |
||||||
Advertisement
Critical Analysis of Twilight Related Links
Critical Analysis of Twilight Popular Content
Advertisement
Great article, I really like your approach and you clearly have a great knowledge of the books and the subjects you write about.
I especially like the 'imprinting=child grooming'-thing. Imprinting always sounded just SO wrong to me, but you really opened my eyes in HOW wrong it is.
5/5.
just one thing: the person the wolf imprints on is just as obsessed and "in love" as the wolf.
The thing I've always seen and feared in Twilight is that it is targeted at tweens (young teens), and is teaching them that its OK for the man to dominate you, its OK for him to be emotionally abusive, its OK to have no decisions, love is based on physical attraction only, life's not worth living without a man, all you need in life is to find a strong man to save you get married to have his babies and be devoted to him, your own ambitions are worthless, and so forth.
Tweens are very impressionable, they are meant to be for certain reasons, and they will take Bella and Edward as their idols, and they're example of what love is, and I fear they will grow up thinking this is all OK, because Edward is controlling and abusive, but is said to be romantic and perfect and absolutely fine, so they will think being abusive is romantic.
Sorry kinda went off on a tangent there :P
You're saying a two year old TODDLER can be obsessed and in love. Right, sure, whatever.
Excellent article nuxi :D
“The way you move — you orient yourself around him without even thinking about it. When he moves, even a little bit, you adjust your position at the same time. Like magnets... or gravity. You’re like a ... satellite, or something. I’ve never seen anything like it.”
Apparently Meyer's idea of an empowered independent woman is an involuntary "satellite" to a man.
So yeah, the particular relationships have a lot in common. However, Shakespeare used their foolishness and superficiality as part of a work of biting social commentary (and gave a more realistic outcome to such an unhealthy relationship). On the other hand, SMeyer actually holds these things up as ideals to millions of young people searching for an easy answer to what love is.
Also, I don't care how miserable or broody he is, Bella makes it obvious that she could never leave him like he left her in New Moon. "Because there was nothing more terrifying to me, more excruciating, than the thought of turning away from him. It was an impossibility." It's not impossible for him. By showing that he is the one who is capable of leaving, Edward proves once and for all that he controls the relationship.
JulieV: As nuxi already said, Romeo and Juliet are not actually supposed to be in love. It is an obsessive lust relationship. If you ever read the book (the original, by William Shakespeare), you should recognize this. It was never supposed to be love, it was just mistaken for love. The book is about hate, not love. I can't stand it when people relate a work such as Twilight to an amazing work such as Romeo and Juliet. The one and only way that they are alike at all is that the main romance is not love at all; just obsessive lust.
Do you guys know that Stephenie Meyer based New Moon on Romeo and Juliet? That's why the whole of New Moon (minus the wolves) is so boring and stupid. She doesn't know that Shakespeare meant it to be a satire, she thinks it's all srs bsns.
I think the Twilight franchise provides a welcome break from the constant need to choose, to have control over the consequences of our individually based choices. Perhaps (and I'm no sociologist here) the Twilight franchise, and Bella as a character, allows us to identify with a sense of relief from the consistent torment of having to choose and worry about the choices of our consequences.
Just a thought.
But then when a, like what?, 16 year old guy imprinted a 2 year-old I facepalmed.
With adults I think its fine, especially if you have a strong women who can say no, but a 2 year old? I facepalmed so hard...
Great article Nuxi.
The imprinting/child-grooming thing was very interesting, though the whole idea is sickening. How can it be written off as love?
Anyways, good job!
I love the Twilight saga but I hate the Edward/Bella relationship and how it influences teens like myself that women should devote their life to a man, even if you are in love!!!!
"The gravity of the earth no longer tied me to the place where I stood. It was the baby girl in the blond vampire’s arms that held me here now. Renesmee.
Jacob Black, Breaking Dawn, Chapter 18, p.360"
When your reason for existance is a child - doesn't that just scream 'child molestation'?
As for all the people claiming Romeo and Juliet is a satire:
It's not a satire. It is supposed to be commentary about hate, foolish choices, etc., BUT Shakespeare was sympathetic to the lovers' plight. There are many clues in the text (changes in metre, and so forth) to show that Romeo and Juliet are impulsive, but have genuine feelings for each other. Comparing them to Bella and her boys toys is just insulting
Except... they are completely different situations. :?
And on the Romeo & Juliet comparison, yes they were both obsessed with each other, but it made them end up death too. (<- which was by far more realistic). Shakespear choose to portray them like that and he knew what it would mean. But SMeyer really thinks that her story is about true love.
You have to remember Meyers' background, a highly patriarchal religion where women are supposed to be completly subservient to men, and who have to share their husband with many other women in the afterlife, depending on how good of a Mormon your husband was on Earth. (Seriously)
My sister-in-law is Mormon and LOVES the Twilight series.
imprinting is by far the most repulsive idea Meyer ever came up with. The whole Twilight saga is laden with symbolic power. I do believe though, that discussing its value is great. I like your arguments, they make sense and are not patronising the twihards.
on the R&J discussion, Shakespeare might have been sympathetic for the two but this does not mean he agreed with what they were doing. She's 12-going-on-13, he's 15-17 (Romeo's age is never stated) and they are getting married... WS is simply portraying the Italians as uncivilised and allowing their children to get married. Also, what is even more important is that adults tell Juliet that she will be a wife at 14(!) paedophilia, anyone? Despite feeling for the couple, WS criticises society and makes fun of the Italians. R&J are not a love story, as mentioned a number of times before in the comments, it is a sad satire. To see how utterly wrong it is watch Zeffirelli's '68 film version. Juliet is so young it is simply creepy and wrong.
About Romeo&Juliet: I wouldn't call it a satire, I do think it is a tragedy. The real message lies in the prejudicious hate between the two clans that continues until the extreme (to Romeo and Juliet's death). However, Shakespeare never tried to make it sound as if he approved of Romeo and Juliet's hasty decisions to get married. Actually, he doesn't even try to make it seem acceptable. The entire play happens over the course of about 5 days. That means that during 5 days R&J meet, they get married, separated and die. This is hardly true love in anyone's books? It's even worse than Twilight, where the supposently "true love" is ignited within a few weeks.
Shakespeare's message was that R&J were foolish because they mistakened lust for love and had to suffer for doing it behind their parents' backs because Juliet is to be married with another man. Also note that her strong resistance to being married to another man is not because of her sweeping romance with Romeo as much as the fact that they are Catholics, and that would mean she's guilty of bigamy - something that basically means you're going to hell.
So they cook up their risky plan and when it fails they die. BUt still Shakespeare portrays this tragedious choice as having good consequences on the long run, because it unites the two clans.
It was fantastic.
I totally agree with everything there.
I've never really thought of Bella's relationship with Edward as... obsessive. Now that I think about it, it does seem like Bella seems so attracted to Edward that it bordered on Edward being able to control her choices, actions, and basically her life.
Bella 'loving' Edward because of his looks-good point. She gets entrapped with his looks an never really took the chance to see what he REALLY was. She says to Jacob that 'Edward is the sweetest, most unselfish' guy she knows (or something like that. I don't have the book with me right now). In my point of view, Edward is a control freak.
So Bella 'loving' Edward because of his looks is kinda logical (sorta).
Great article.
~partypony
learn something in language arts class first.
Furthermore, Bella's near-death experiences are not a logical justification of complete control over her friends, (Jacob) and her life! Maybe Bella has a choice in whether or not she is utterly submissive to Edward, but it doesn't seem to affect the route that the series takes with the relationship, as she is completely bound to him.
By definition, "feminism" is a "doctrine that promotes equal rights for women." And, (going off of what is seen in the series) there doesn't seem to be much equality. :) But that's your opinion, I suppose~ Love can be a relative term, just like everything else.
Edward talks to Bella like a child when she asks to see Jacob:
'"You know it's out of the question for you to be around a werewolf unprotected, Bella. And it would break the treaty if any of us cross over onto their land. Do you want us to start a war?
"Of course not!"'
Eclipse, Chp.1 Pg.28
To me it sounds like a father talking to a daughter. Not people in a relationship talking.
He also say that Heathcliff and Cathy from Wuthering Heights shouldn't be ranked with Romeo and Juliet or Elizabeth and Mr.Darcy. He should be called a hypocrite because look at his relationship with Bella. And the worse thing is all of this is on the same page!
With imprinting I agree with you to a point. Imprinting on a child is just wrong! But when the werewolf imprints on someone older-more their age-I suppose its better because she has a choice to say no. I think that when the werewolf imprints on someone older, the imprintee feels something too. Like love at first sight sort of.
"I emphatically reject the second accusation. I am all about girl power—look at Alice and Jane if you doubt that."
Yet she made her main character, the center of these books, completely anti-feminist. I wouldn't mind it so much that Bella was anti-feminist. All it would do was make her an even less likeable character. But it's obvious she was meant to be feminist so it not only detracts from the character, it detracts from the book.
Just throwing around some of my thoughts here. Wow, I said feminist A LOT. Sorry about that.
Yes, they can. However, Smeyer claimed that her novels were not anti-feminist so...shrug.
A book written in the 19th century does not equal one written in the 21st.
You say "a woman can choose to be subservient to men or value men and masculinity more than women and femininity. This is undeniably anti-feminist". That's wrong. Only the latter is an opinion; the former is a personal choice and therefore can be neither feminist nor anti-feminist. If a woman enters an unequal relationship as the lesser party *on the basis of her gender*, that's an implied anti-feminist mindset, but if she does it for reasons unrelated to her gender, it's irrelevant. In other words, it's anti-feminist to (consciously or not) believe that women *should* be subservient to men, to promote this opinion or to try to enforce it on others, regardless of what you do in your personal life.
More to the point: A woman can be overwhelmed by her affections for a man. There is nothing right or wrong, feminist or anti-feminist about that. It isn't a matter of ideology, it's simply a matter of emotions too strong to handle, especially for someone inexperienced. Men are equally susceptible to being blinded by love. The only difference is that the possible negative consequences tend to be worse for women than for men (statistically speaking).
I have a question, if it's not too much trouble :D What is it that feminists want? What is the goal of the movement? I thought that it was equality? But isn't equal opportunity (women having the ability to choose) a kind of equality? If women are able to choose, it doesn't really matter what they choose, does it? Whether they want to be a housewife or the president, as long as it was their choice, isn't that what matters in the feminist movement?
A lot of the things that you consider limiting factors on Bella's ability to choose (such as the way the she seems to be addicted to Edward) are things that I can't wait to experience! :D I don't think that's a bad thing, it's certainly not doing me any harm :) I've have every opportunity a person could hope to be offered in their life, I can be anything! And what I want to be is in love :) I can't wait to feel that way about someone. Chemically, love is like an addiction. Imagine feeling that way for someone! Imagine how much you (as in, you personally) would have to love someone to react the way Bella does when Edward leaves. I can't even begin to imagine ^_^ Personally I think Bella could have handled it better, it's certainly not what I would have done, but it's still wonderful to behold how much she must love him. What ana amazing feeling it must be :D
You can't wait to expirience it? This perspective honestly scares me. Love and addiction are two very different things. Bella is an incredibly obssessive and codependent person. The only goal she has in her life is to marry Edward. She doesn't enjoy spending time with anyone else but him, and she wants to be with him 24/7. She doesn't even mind him watching her sleep. I don't know if it's because of her low self esteem- she keeps repeating to herself how bad she is and how superior Edward is compared to her-, but this is not a healthy relationship, far from it. Normal teenagers are supposed to have interests, dreams and goals besides their boyfriends. Bella doesn't. Also, normal people would recover fast from a break-up (especially with a boy they knew for just a few months) while Bella showed signs of extremelly heavy depression. She didn't eat for a week, she went "zombie-state" for months, and she developed hallutinations. The only thing that managed to get her better was another man (Jacob). All that indicate something really wrong with her mental state. Meyer potrays relationships as addictions, and women as to not be able to survive without a man. If you expirience falling in love, you'll realize it's not like that. Especially not adolescent love. The world doesn't end if your boyfriend leaves or dies. If Edward was Bella's husband or they had a long term relationship, I might understand her. But it's just her first crush. If you are a teenager you know that crushes come and go easily, and they never develop to addiction. In my opinion, Bella can only be characterized as a very sick person. If you try to have a "love" like this, you can't expirience healthy, normal bonding. You'll only find yourself in codependent, addictive relationships.
And you can also get yourself in a lot of harm. While S. Meyer presents addiction as a positive thing and gives a happy ending, things are much different in real life. If you're looking someone that is obssessed with you, spends all day thinking about you and watches you sleep and tries to control your every move, you're most likely to end up in an abusive relationship.
I'm sorry for freaking out, and if also if I offended you. It's just that this statement worried me :/
I just don't understand the signifigance of her wanting to spend so much time with him. She's happy with him! What else matters?
"Meyer portrays relationships as addictions, and women as to not be able to survive without a man."
I don't think that's true. I don't think it matters that Jacob or Edward are male. If Bella were a lesbian I'm sure she would have been just as depressed if her female equivalent of Edward had left her. Same with Jacob: if she had found a female friend with whom she got along with just as well, I'm sure she would have been just as comforted by her friendship :) So she may be dependant on others for happiness (although, I don't think it's unreasonable for her to need a friend after a serious break up), but it really doesn't indicate that she is specifically dependant on men.
Also, you refer to her feelings for Edward as "just her first crush." But it's not a crush, she's in love with him D: If an 18 year old told me that she were as in love with her boyfriend as Bella is with Edward, I would think she were being extremely naive! ^_^ But as it is, Bella is not a real person. Her feelings are what the author makes them, and it is Meyer's intention that Twilight is a story about an 18 year old who really is that in love, regardless of whether it would be that way in reality after having known him for such a short time.
Ew, no, I'm certainly not looking for that ^_^ I'm a complete introvert and can't stand more than a few hours of human contact per day. I definitely want to feel the way that they feel for each other, but certainly not within the same kind of relationship as they have! :)
I don't think it matters that Jacob or Edward are male. If Bella were a lesbian I'm sure she would have been just as depressed if her female equivalent of Edward had left her.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here :/ I mention her not being able to live without a man because I know she is straight. If she has homosexual, she would still be dependent, just with women. It doesn't make a difference, I was merelly talking about the gender she is attracted to.
Also, you refer to her feelings for Edward as "just her first crush." But it's not a crush, she's in love with him D:
You say that Bella is in love with simply because she (and literary Meyer) keep repeating it. But can you name somewhere in the books that Meyer actually shows, instead of telling (big writing mistake) why Bella and Edward are in "love"? The only reason Bella gives is because he is hot and mysterious. The only reason Edward gives is that Bella is interested at him more than other humans, and that he can't read her mind. That's it. They never seem to actually be interested in the other's personality, they don't have anything in common and the only conversations they share all have the theme: "I'm dangerous" "No you're not", "I love you" "Me too", "I would kill myself if you leave me" This isn't love, this is lust and obssession. Shakespeare wrote about these themes, but at least he presented them as they really are like.
But as it is, Bella is not a real person. Her feelings are what the author makes them, and it is Meyer's intention that Twilight is a story about an 18 year old who really is that in love, regardless of whether it would be that way in reality after having known him for such a short time.
Yes, Bella is not a real person. But S. Meyer's fans are. In Bella's world, everything always goes right, and codependent relationships are considered "true love". In the real world, full of Twilight fans that thing this is an ideal relationship, things aren't so great. In the real world, codependent relationships are complicated and phychologically harmful, and controlling, obssessive men like Edward are actually dangerous. Not to mention the fact that now girls want no less than a perfect looking guy and pregnancy in a young age. Bella may be in Meyer's controllied universe, but those girls and women aren't.
Ew, no, I'm certainly not looking for that
Well, I'm definately glad :)
Oh good, that's fine then :) I thought you might be one of those people who blames everything on men, regardless of whether or not it would be just as bad if it had been a woman. But it appears not, so all is well :D
"You say that Bella is in love with simply because she (and literary Meyer) keep repeating it. But can you name somewhere in the books that Meyer actually shows, instead of telling (big writing mistake) why Bella and Edward are in "love"?"
Oh, I see why we disagree here! For me, Twilight is a light, fluffy romance. So the explanation "they just are" is good enough ^_^ I realy just like the humour and the characters, so I don't mind if it hasn't got much depth. I disagree that it's just lust and obsession, it is love, but we only know that because we know that was the author's intention. It hasn't got enough depth to be self-evident :)
Sign In or join Fanpop to add your comment