Page 4 of 99

Re: Twilight Saga Q&A #3

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 7:59 pm
by roseaurora
I understood her answer to mean that more venom would be less painful because it would spread quicker and that once it reached the heart it would reach the max amount of pain ever at that point... so the quicker it got there the quicker the transformation but ultimately the pain would be the same either way, just not as drawn out initially. Hope that made sense.... haha.

This is why it took Bella just over 2 days and Carlisle suffered through just over 3. He only had a small bite. Much like it would have been for Bella if they had let Jame's venom change her then.

Re: Twilight Saga Q&A #3

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 9:27 pm
by shatarah
roseaurora wrote:I understood her answer to mean that more venom would be less painful because it would spread quicker and that once it reached the heart it would reach the max amount of pain ever at that point... so the quicker it got there the quicker the transformation but ultimately the pain would be the same either way, just not as drawn out initially. Hope that made sense.... haha.

This is why it took Bella just over 2 days and Carlisle suffered through just over 3. He only had a small bite. Much like it would have been for Bella if they had let Jame's venom change her then.
Carlisle's bite wasnt small. The vampire tore into his flesh near a main artery. With bella's bite from james that would have probably taken longer because of it's location being further from the major blood arteries.

Re: Twilight Saga Q&A #3

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 9:46 pm
by roseaurora
Hmmmmm.....

I don't remember it being like that... I thought it was a chance bite by a weak vampire... oh well, not the first time I've been wrong... nor will it be that last.... :lol:

But, in comparison to what Bella got it was smaller I suppose (just trying to save face :D )

Re: Twilight Saga Q&A #3

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 10:04 pm
by who_needs_fangs?
They never said it was a major artery, one may assume because the vampire was trying for a drink, but it was never explicitly stated. In fact, Carlisle said he felt bad about where he had bitten Edward because it made the transformation needlessly longer. That would only happen if he had bitten far away from the heart. Carlisle bit Edward in the same spot he, himself, was bitten by the rogue.

Re: Twilight Saga Q&A #3

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 10:29 pm
by Kirume
Oh !! You know so much :""> ?? Are you Stephenie Meyer :) ??

Only 2 queses :"> :

1. What is the relation between members of Cullen ? ( I think Alice is Edward's younger sis , Rose is older , Emmett is older too but ... what 'bout Jasper ?? It doesn't seem like younger brother , right ?? )

2. What does NM's cover mean ?

Re: Twilight Saga Q&A #3

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 10:38 pm
by who_needs_fangs?
Nobody here is Stephenie Meyer, as far as I know. We just read all the interviews on this website.

1. You mean the relationship they have for their human cover story? Esme and Carlisle Cullen are the parents. They've been the foster parents for Esme's niece and nephew, eighteen-year-old twins Jasper and Rosalie Hale, for 10 years. They adopted seventeen-year-old Edward Cullen, seventeen-year-old Alice Cullen, and eighteen-year-old Emmet Cullen individually.

2. Stephenie Meyer says she does not see any symbolism in the New Moon cover, and had no say in it. However, some people relate the tulip to Bella's heart through the book, wilted and falling apart. Some people believe it to be a representation of how Jacob is holding Bella together as she desperately clings to the falling petal that is hanging by a thread, Edward.

Re: Twilight Saga Q&A #3

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 10:59 pm
by BrandOfHeroine
My theory about the New Moon cover is that Bella is the flower, obviously, and the red in the flower represents blood, 'cause Edward left Bella bleeding. However, blood or no blood, the flower is still alive, and that represents how Jacob "saved" her.

But that's just me.

Re: Twilight Saga Q&A #3

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 11:18 pm
by mananda
roseaurora wrote:Hmmmmm.....

I don't remember it being like that... I thought it was a chance bite by a weak vampire... oh well, not the first time I've been wrong... nor will it be that last.... :lol:

But, in comparison to what Bella got it was smaller I suppose (just trying to save face :D )
I agree. The vampire that bit Carlisle was weak with hunger.

Re: Twilight Saga Q&A #3

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 11:31 pm
by Kirume
who_needs_fangs? wrote:Nobody here is Stephenie Meyer, as far as I know. We just read all the interviews on this website.

1. You mean the relationship they have for their human cover story? Esme and Carlisle Cullen are the parents. They've been the foster parents for Esme's niece and nephew, eighteen-year-old twins Jasper and Rosalie Hale, for 10 years. They adopted seventeen-year-old Edward Cullen, seventeen-year-old Alice Cullen, and eighteen-year-old Emmet Cullen individually.
Oh ! It's not like that ... I mean relationship ... uhmmm .. I mean relationship between them to know more about Bella's position ...'cause if Alice is Edward's younger sis , she will call Bella "sis" right and Bella will be sister-in-law ... It also means Jasper will call the same as Alice does ... but Jasper is Edward's Older brother .... so what will happen ??? What a mess :cry:

Re: Twilight Saga Q&A #3

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 11:40 pm
by who_needs_fangs?
Oh, thank you for clarifying. I think the Cullens all think of Carlisle and Esme as their mother and father, except for Bella because her parents are still alive, and Charlie's still a part of her life. They consider their mate to be their spouse as they've all gotten married at least once. Everyone else is a sibling - there are no in-laws - so Bella considers Jasper her brother and Alice her sister.