Twilight Universe General Philosophical Musings

General Discussion on the Twilight Universe

Moderators: December, bac, Bronze Haired Girl, cullengirl

Forum rules
Click for Forum Rules

Re: Twilight Universe General Philosophical Musings

Postby December » Mon Jun 07, 2010 6:27 pm

hem.

*in a mild voice*

"A reminder to everyone that this is a serious discussion thread, and one with a distinguished past. Post thoughtfully and TREAT OTHERS WITH RESPECT. There are no right and wrong views here, just different perspectives. And remember: we're not here to change each other's views. We're here to understand them -- and explain our own. Please keep that in mind as you write.

Above all...go the extra mile to express your views tactfully. If you think certain views are asinine DO NOT SAY SO. Find a non-confrontational way to tell us what you think. This thread only works if everyone makes an effort to be nice to each other."


These are interesting issues which are worth talking about. Can we all take a communal deep breath and return to this another day? Apart from anything else, I don't have time to make sure no one throws any more sand tonight....

Seriously, I think we can use a little timeout here.
Image
“When did you ever promise to kill yourself falling out of Charlie’s tree?”
User avatar
December
Muse of Philosophical Discussion
 
Posts: 2711
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 5:09 am
Location: Putting the "Longa" into Ars Longa....

Re: Twilight Universe General Philosophical Musings

Postby Knives » Tue Jun 08, 2010 11:03 am

Openhome wrote: What do you believe is behind the myths? Do you see any basic truths on which they touch?


I thought this deserved a bit of getting back to.

A lot of people forget that all myths were religions at some point. From Tiamat to the Aos Sidhe, mythology has its roots in things people used to believe just as fiercely as people these days believe in Christ. First and foremost, these myths were explanations for the natural world (such as how the story of the Ark explains the rainbow, or Narcissus the flower of the same name) and guides for behavior. Myths have common themes and resonances because all societies, at one point or another, dealt with the same mysteries and problems. Where did we come from? How do we encourage people to conform? Why did that bright sky-flash crisp my friend into something disturbingly good-smelling?

That's the reason that my biggest complaints about Ms. Meyer's myth-making revolve around mood and theme. Look, if you could make it frightening, I don't care if vampires can conjure webs from their wrists. The point of vampires in the first place, however, is to provide a reason to be afraid of the dark. In a time when girls could be forced to marry their rapists (i.e. any time before the Enlightenment - Old Testament laws just rock, don't they?), did a parent want their daughter wandering around at night? No. And this isn't even mentioning the various muggers, murderers, et cetera that walked could have been walking the streets. Vampires embody the fear of vicimization from something that seems human, but isn't quite, and the more you remove them from humanity, the more you compromise that myth. Introducing Cullen-esque kindness and restraint creates even more problems (aside from the realism ones I've been mentioning above) because vampires are supposed to embody that which is predatory in humanity. Remove the fangs, as it were, and you remove the myth. As I've stated before, the Cullens are the primary method by which the reader interacts with vampires, and since almost all of the others are stupid, pointlessly evil (see my posts above) or both, the reader associates the Cullens with "proper" vampirism, whether they do so consciously or not. That is what makes me angry. That is what makes vampire fans want to burn large piles of the series - especially since there are plenty of other myths (FAERIES! FRAGGING FAERIES! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN TEN MINUTES ON GOOGLE!) for Ms. Meyer to take advantage of.
Openhome wrote:Knives, I believe that..
wait for it...
you are right.
Knives
Jump Starting Bella's Truck
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 12:01 pm
Location: Trudging Through the Ashes

Re: Twilight Universe General Philosophical Musings

Postby December » Tue Jun 08, 2010 11:32 am

Well....not sure it's something to be angry about exactly! Especially not on this thread, where we're really trying to cultivate unimpassioned discussion.

But it's an interesting question whether Stephenie fails to employ vampires successfully in their natural mythic function (and I agree with you there!) of evoking our fear of the dark and dangerous.

I'm reminded of the problem I have when I go out with my family for a curry or an enchilada. I'm really really bad with chili pepper. A small kick of capsicum makes my tongue and throat hurt. I order my korma mild, and the waiters nod and smile and murmur "yes, yes, mild, very mild" and when my dinner arrives I still find it right on the edge of TOO HOT. (I'm sure you are smiling at this, and reflecting that this doesn't surprise you in the least (*grin*) -- funny isn't it, how true we all are to type?). But here's the point...to you, or my daughter or any normal diner, my curry will seem ridiculously underspiced. For me...well that tiny pinch of chili delivers the experience of a spicy dish. You strike me as a reader with a pretty high tolerance for the graphically dark and violent. I'm more like Stephenie (who famously hates horror movies): I can get by with a pinch of suggestion and an overactive imagination. Though there's no denying it: basically I like comfort food (and stories) a lot anyway.

There's much more to say here -- because no question, Stephenie pushes the business of soft-pedalling her vampire's dark and gruesome side to problematic extremes. This is a subject I've got a lot to say about (and have said a lot about in the past). And alas, I'm out of time at the moment.

But I did want to float this first thought past you: that for some of us, the threat which Edward represents to Bella doesn't FEEL as insipid as it does to you. Because the level of violence, danger, threat, discomfort which we're looking for in stories is simply in a different register. Yes, what we have here is a contained, allegorical aura of danger, rather than pulse-racing, adrenaline-pumping shock and horror: but the "mythic" or psychological function seems to me to be something similar. The point here is: a boy who is in love with you -- and wants to kill you. At that point, vampires part company with fairies decisively. At least the gauze-and-spun-sugar fairies I take it you're talking about.
Image
“When did you ever promise to kill yourself falling out of Charlie’s tree?”
User avatar
December
Muse of Philosophical Discussion
 
Posts: 2711
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 5:09 am
Location: Putting the "Longa" into Ars Longa....

Re: Twilight Universe General Philosophical Musings

Postby Total Twilight Fan » Tue Jun 08, 2010 12:03 pm

I see what you mean, but to me at least, although it was stated many times, it did not truly feel as if Edward was struggling to resist the urge to drink her blood. It seemed too easy, that he could just ignore if you know what I mean. Whereas the others, I could believe that they would drink her blood, Edward was the one that I could see as not quite as much as a threat, maybe because he was younger in one sense.
Image
::Team Jasper & Paul::
Sometimes life brings miracles, it brought me Twilight.
User avatar
Total Twilight Fan
Hiding Lauren's Hair Dye
 
Posts: 496
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 9:26 am
Location: the rez.

Re: Twilight Universe General Philosophical Musings

Postby Openhome » Tue Jun 08, 2010 1:33 pm

Knives wrote:
Openhome wrote: What do you believe is behind the myths? Do you see any basic truths on which they touch?


I thought this deserved a bit of getting back to.

A lot of people forget that all myths were religions at some point. From Tiamat to the Aos Sidhe, mythology has its roots in things people used to believe just as fiercely as people these days believe in Christ. First and foremost, these myths were explanations for the natural world (such as how the story of the Ark explains the rainbow, or Narcissus the flower of the same name) and guides for behavior. Myths have common themes and resonances because all societies, at one point or another, dealt with the same mysteries and problems. Where did we come from? How do we encourage people to conform? Why did that bright sky-flash crisp my friend into something disturbingly good-smelling?


First off, :lol: :lol: thanks for the last line. I nearly snorted my coffee! Secondly, this is exactly what I was saying. Each society creates myths because as humans, we each must face similar issues. We generally call these truths. (Yes, I am a religious person, but I am speaking from a more anthropological view here.) There is always a legend or myth about life and death to explain the seasons that correlates with human birth or sexuality. There are always monsters in cultures to explain bad things and, as a side note, the presence of a dead human monster is almost universal (zombie, vampire, etc... ) The people who created simple myths or great epics did so to explain a common human need or physical truth that transcends culture. Thus, we have myth defining the mythos - the universal truth of humanity.

Knives wrote:That's the reason that my biggest complaints about Ms. Meyer's myth-making revolve around mood and theme. Look, if you could make it frightening, I don't care if vampires can conjure webs from their wrists. The point of vampires in the first place, however, is to provide a reason to be afraid of the dark.

Introducing Cullen-esque kindness and restraint creates even more problems (aside from the realism ones I've been mentioning above) because vampires are supposed to embody that which is predatory in humanity. Remove the fangs, as it were, and you remove the myth. As I've stated before, the Cullens are the primary method by which the reader interacts with vampires, and since almost all of the others are stupid, pointlessly evil (see my posts above) or both, the reader associates the Cullens with "proper" vampirism, whether they do so consciously or not. That is what makes me angry. That is what makes vampire fans want to burn large piles of the series - especially since there are plenty of other myths (FAERIES! FRAGGING FAERIES! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN TEN MINUTES ON GOOGLE!) for Ms. Meyer to take advantage of.


1. I must totally agree with December here. To me, they were scary once Bella realized it. We see them through Bella's eyes, not through their own.
Have your read Bree's story yet?? These vamps are scary, but not scary like a horror story. If you are judging her work because it doesn't read like a horror book, then you are taking it out of genre to judge it. Not even Sookie's vamps are all that scary.

2. She made the fangs even more dangerous. Not just two, but a whole mouthful of them. Yes, they aren't scary, but again, this isn't a horror book. It's a romance between something that is shown as being utterly good (Bella) and something utterly evil (Edward) and the redemption of both. THAT is why she didn't use fairies. They aren't scary or evil to us. Vampires are. You may not like it, but Stephenie does believe in good and evil, and they are a major part of her story. She needed something evil and dangerous, and trying to make a fairy of any type be that way (yeah, I know, they are dangerous in many online and role playing games, but not in popular culture) would have been comical. She needed something evil to show that it could become something good, and her subconscious pulled up the most evil mythical thing she knew of.

Her take on good and evil goes against your philosophical beliefs, and I understand your frustration over that. I don't like Frank Herbert's take on universal causation, but I accepted his books for what they were (until he went nuts).

3. You once posted that an immortal creature who is made to kill to survive would turn evil eventually due to boredom if nothing else (Explorations thread). James wasn't pointlessly evil, he was a sadistic game player. He did what he did for entertainment. Toying with another is a favorite human pass time in every high school in America and likely the world, and is not an unusual thing for a bored immortal to do. The Volturi simply see themselves as godlike and toy with their meals because they don't see them as worthy of the time it takes to calm your victim. Prideful paranormal characters are rather common and fun to both read and write.

Again, I want to point out that I do agree that she didn't explore the evils of her vampires enough in her original Saga. I am very interested on your take on them in the newest book (it's online now, the link is at SM's website).
User avatar
Openhome
Corralling the Cullens while Esme's Away
 
Posts: 2595
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 3:54 pm
Location: Chatting with Esme and giving her parenting advice

Re: Twilight Universe General Philosophical Musings

Postby ringswraith » Tue Jun 08, 2010 2:19 pm

Just wanted to point out that fairies can be every bit as scary as any other denizen of the dark. I remember reading tales of fae with court systems so foreign to human comprehension that it would be pathetically easy for them to trap you in their world, and so they lure innocent victims- usually children, because hey, fairies!- that become their slaves or (worse) playthings.

I too am of the opinion that the vampires presented in Twilight are just not scary. For every time we hear about Edward's struggle to resist Bella, we hear Bella offering up some version of "You'd never hurt me." When James toyed with her, all she cared about was that Edward not avenge her death. When Victoria came for her, she complained about the screen of vamps and wolves protecting her. The closest thing we get to a natural reaction from her is when she's faced with the old woman with the rosary in the Volturi's tower, and the realization of what was about to happen hits her.

I'm not even going to go into BD since she turns into Super!Bella and throws the whole "vampires = scary" equation out the window (along with those stilletos- what was Alice thinking?).

I also understand what December is saying about each of us having different levels of tolerance for things. Personally I do not like horror or suspense. When I played the first Resident Evil game on the PS1 I actually dropped my controller when those zombie dogs burst through a window. (I know, I know.) But I never had any reaction even remotely close to that while reading this series.

Not that it's necessarily a bad thing- as pointed out, it's a love story, not a horror show. But, again, going with vampires "because they're scary" kind of falls short here.
ringswraith
Running with Leah 'cause she thinks I'm hawt
 
Posts: 4633
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 3:46 pm

Re: Twilight Universe General Philosophical Musings

Postby Knives » Tue Jun 08, 2010 5:42 pm

I'm gonna go ahead and echo Ring's statement on faeries - read a bit about the Seelie and the Unseelie. Check out legends about Nanny Rutt or the Bag Man. For that matter, if you can get a hold of a copy, check out White Wolf's (I reference them a lot, don't I? They make good stuff) Changeling: the Lost for an example of how even those merely touched by Wyrd can be terrifying (consider for a moment the stark existential terror of a former psychologist who craves shards of soulstuff. Dream-parasites? Child-eating ogres? And this is just the warm-up act - those aren't even the real faeries). Traditional faerie mythology includes such acts as soul or breath stealing, kidnapping children from their cradles, cursed deals (check out The Nixie of the Mill-Pond, a short story recorded by the Brothers Grimm, and, well, any of their other stories), physical addictions, and even involuntary transformation.

Imagine, for a moment, if Edward knew that his touch - his kisses and embraces and fleeting brushes of flesh on flesh - were physically addicting. Worse, if they slowly wasted his paramour away with every fleeting bit of contact. His love/lust/obsession/plot contrivance for Bella keeps him near her, but his self-knowledge of his own inherently corrupting nature warns him to keep away. Certainly, the other fae mock him for falling in love with a mortal, and jealous rivals may attempt much more than to spread nasty rumors about this annoying mortal thing that has snatched the attention away from their would-be lover...

The above is completely true to the faerie myth and is, essentially, Twilight's plot with a bit of a reflavoring. There's even mythic precedent for a mortal becoming fae or fae-like enough to gain their immortality. It's the same essential story, except without causing such an over-saturation of the teen romance market that it has now turned to (*gag*) fallen angels.

Edit: Insert horrific threat against the author of Fallen here. Please, use your imagination.

As far as Edward "being utterly evil", I would very much love to hear your justifications on that score >.>

Now, I'd like to try and make a pro-con list of Twilight's vampires to illustrate my point here:

Pro: Immortality. Enhanced physical beauty. Effective invulnerability. Heightened senses. Hyper-intensified strength and speed. Retained ability to learn and grow (often stunted in other forms of undeath). Retained ability to sex most mercilessly (Demolished two houses? Really?). Retained ability to breed (males only). No need to eat, sleep, breathe, or even get tired (but see con, below). Additional power (optional; random).

Con: Immortality (resulting in empathic erosion and/or death of every non-vampire you ever knew). Increased flammability (negligable; see hyper-intensified strength and speed above). Blood dependancy (may be satisfied with animal or human blood; potentially negilible, but see madness, below). Madness (potential; see immortality, above, as well as potential madness [no in-universe precedent] caused by attempts at blood abstinence). Rule by total jerkwads (the Volturii).

Wow, that pro list is long. That con list? It's really short, and many of them are negligible with enough self-discipline. Short of being nuked or carpet-bombed, a vampire can expect to literally live forever, able to learn and grow mentally the entire time. They can unreservedly form friendships and loyalties with other vampires. Tell me, what is the incentive to remain human?

If you like, I can give you a pros/cons of White Wolf's vampires for comparison.

Awaiting replies!

- Knives
Last edited by Knives on Tue Jun 08, 2010 7:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Openhome wrote:Knives, I believe that..
wait for it...
you are right.
Knives
Jump Starting Bella's Truck
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 12:01 pm
Location: Trudging Through the Ashes

Re: Twilight Universe General Philosophical Musings

Postby December » Tue Jun 08, 2010 7:03 pm

Knives wrote:Tell me, what is the incentive to remain human?

Um, NOT living forever? (*grin*)

I'm pretty sure I've gone on about this at tedious length on Explorations: the many other ways being a vampire might actually be a bitter loss (and the extent, admittedly, to which BD undermines this!) -- so won't recap here. You know my methods, Watson....

About fairies...I do realize that the true fae are at least as unpleasant as vampires. I just wasn't clear that was what you were talking about.

Rings wrote:When I played the first Resident Evil game on the PS1 I actually dropped my controller when those zombie dogs burst through a window. (I know, I know.) But I never had any reaction even remotely close to that while reading this series.

(*chokes on coffee*). Love it! But more seriously, you've raised about four separate and important points in your post.

•There's the issue of BD and the damage it does to the dark side of Stephenie's story.

•There's the major, and complicated problem of all the ways that Stephenie hints at the horror of being a vampire and doesn't quite make it manifest. (We talked about this a lot on the old Choices).

•There's the interesting question as to whether Bella's determination to sacrifice herself for the people around her by hurling herself at every danger that appears makes those dangers less scary (I'd agree it makes them less harrowing -- but not necessarily less convincing).

•There's the undeniable fact that when Stephenie writes action scenes -- from James and Victoria to the battles with the newborn army -- her talent for compelling storytelling droops. Though I'd say those comic-book dangers are to be distinguished from the danger Edward (and the doom of becoming a vampire) represents. Because they are external to Bella, rather than dangers she is complicit in courting (which may be why they don't really spark Stephenie's imagination to the same extent).

•And there's the underlying question as to whether scary = compelling. Certainly Bella isn't scared of Edward -- and neither are we. But that doesn't make the undercurrent of danger he represents less seductive. Quite the reverse, I think: Bella's numbness (and ours!) to the horror and danger is an essential part of the enchantment.

You know...we've got a heck of a lot of different topics in play at this point. Let's see how we get on, but I might think about splitting this convo into a few separate threads....

As for your observation, Knives, that the eerie faerie scenario you eloquently described pretty much sums up Edward and Bella's situation...I guess I have to confess it's missing the essential ingredient for me. Which is that Edward doesn't merely know himself to be dangerous to Bella -- he actually wants to kill her. At least, until the end of NM he does. The tension between his desire to protect her and to destroy her adds an extra dimension to Stephenie's myth which -- to my mind -- your faeries don't capture and vampires do. It's the craving. That temptation which has nothing to do with his longing to be close to her -- stands in opposition to it in fact.

Granted, by the time the story Stephenie is dealing in has mutated from her original donne in TW to the dilemmas of EC, that aspect has dwindled in importance (though it's still part of Edward's armory of self-loathing -- he doesn't want Bella to become like him because "like him" means being the sort of monster who could long to kill his beloved). But if we're going to criticize Stephenie for choosing vampires for the cultural peg to hang her creations on, I think we need to look at her starting point. And TW is about violent appetite. The savage craving to take another creature's life. Looked at this way, vampires don't look like such a bad fit to me....



Oh and one last request (*puts on mod hat*): fruitful conversation flourishes when everyone keeps a respectful tone. Certainly about the other posters on the thread -- but also about people and ideas out in the wider world. Keep it calm, please. Posts written in exasperation tend to exasperate, whatever the object of their invective.
Image
“When did you ever promise to kill yourself falling out of Charlie’s tree?”
User avatar
December
Muse of Philosophical Discussion
 
Posts: 2711
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 5:09 am
Location: Putting the "Longa" into Ars Longa....

Re: Twilight Universe General Philosophical Musings

Postby Alcyone » Tue Jun 08, 2010 11:31 pm

Knives wrote:Tell me, what is the incentive to remain human?


Considering how the fantastic are portrayed, humans tend to be a) stable, b) funny, c) not Edward.

Joking mostly aside, and this was a point drawn up on Choices before, there is a difference in pre-Edward Bella and stuck-with-Edward-Bella. She seemed more in control of her situation (and I don't refer to being a human in the company of mythological creatures; obviously, she's going to have some difficulty just keeping up with the situation), which lent itself into this witty sarcasm and a self-confidence that was the first thing she lost after meeting Edward (see New Moon).

Of course, any view of humans in this series is going to be skewed. Bella, unreliable narrator extraordinaire, is too dazzled by the Cullens, by the fact that vampires exist, that oh my god oh my god oh my god he likes me. After the wedding, the only human we saw was Charlie. For all of ten minutes. To halt the most obvious arguments, 1) I am aware that she had a mutant fetus growing at an exponential rate that was siphoning blood and breaking spines and 2) she was turned into a vampire and now found blood the hottest thing since Han Solo and his mega blaster. But a little more conflict, a little more "I wish I could see my parents" or even "How's Angela doing?" wouldn't have been out of place but that would make the book longer...uh. Never mind. But from Book 1 we're being told that Edward is incomparable (and he is though my opinion of how he's incomparable may differ from Team Edward's), Jacob is different and all the human boys we see are painted like whimpering puppies (Mike) or are featured more as a reference point (in a "Where's Angela?" "She's with Ben." kind of deal). Charlie is about the only human who we see constantly because he's Bella's father, but even he fades into the background once Bella is part of her new family. And I can't even speak about her mother. Coming from someone who is best friends with her mother, I can safely say that Bella's relationship with her mother is far from what is stated.

But that's another issue with Stephenie's writing as a whole. She likes telling, not showing. And showing is what actually convinces me the reader.


About fairies...I do realize that the true fae are at least as unpleasant as vampires.


I am so tempted to crack a joke about Edward and fairies right now. But I won't. Because it'd be too easy. And an insult to fairies.


Rings wrote:When I played the first Resident Evil game on the PS1 I actually dropped my controller when those zombie dogs burst through a window. (I know, I know.) But I never had any reaction even remotely close to that while reading this series.


I'm pretty bad when it comes to horror myself. I had to leave the theater during that scene when Will Smith is hanging from a rope in I Am Legend (I have issues with horror movies), but I can usually stomach what I read. I...was never even close to disturbed by the vampires acting like vampires. It could be that I was too easily disturbed by the luuuuuuurve dodecahedron that was creeping across the pages, but it's more likely that there was just nothing to be horrified at. As was pointed out above, Bella is too busy focusing on Edward, my hand hurts, Edward, oh hai Jacob, Edward, EDWARD LOVES ME, vote to be turned, Edward, complications with Jacob, complications with Edward, more Edward Jacob, wedding, killer baby, Edward wanting to kill killer baby, Jacob imprinting on killer baby, longest discussion that got nowhere with ruling vampires, and let's break the house down Edward! to really pay attention to the fact that, oh, these are vampires. That's...not good. That's...never good. Oops.


Certainly Bella isn't scared of Edward -- and neither are we.


Speak for yourself. I want him far away from me. Of course, once I got over my initial horror I'd be chasing after him with a flamethrower so maybe I'm not really scared. Frustrated, irritated, annoyed...yep, those sound better.


Bella's numbness (and ours!) to the horror and danger is an essential part of the enchantment.


Numbness: leading cause of disenchantment toward a series.

December wrote:Oh and one last request (*puts on mod hat*): fruitful conversation flourishes when everyone keeps a respectful tone. Certainly about the other posters on the thread -- but also about people and ideas out in the wider world. Keep it calm, please. Posts written in exasperation tend to exasperate, whatever the object of their invective.


But then what's the point of smacking people around with generalizations and logical fallacies and emphatic declarations that Edward sucks (and not in the good way )and headdesks over why Bella was drinking blood from a sippy cup because if a) baby was feeding on outside blood, by the time the Sippy Cup Blood hit the intestines to be absorbed it really wouldn't be blood anymore and b) if baby was feeding on her blood, she'd need blood transfusions not a sippy cup and why am I trying to find logic in a book that makes none and why do I have to be studying medicine so I have to try to reason it without any conscious command and why am I back here again?

What? WHAT? You brought this on yourself, December! ^^
Image
Set by *cullens & converse | AB Type
User avatar
Alcyone
Has More Hidden Talents Than Aro
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:25 pm
Location: Playing foosball with Aro

Re: Twilight Universe General Philosophical Musings

Postby December » Wed Jun 09, 2010 8:42 am

Alcyone wrote:and why am I back here again?

A question we all ask ourselves!

Because there's something about these books? (Surely not). Because there's something about this place? (hmmm, better not answer that). Must because you love me (*grin*).

Joking mostly aside, and this was a point drawn up on Choices before, there is a difference in pre-Edward Bella and stuck-with-Edward-Bella. She seemed more in control of her situation (and I don't refer to being a human in the company of mythological creatures; obviously, she's going to have some difficulty just keeping up with the situation), which lent itself into this witty sarcasm and a self-confidence that was the first thing she lost after meeting Edward (see New Moon).

Now this is an interesting point (though not so much to do with being human, as you observe, but with being profoundly alone. It's interesting to compare Bella's voice in those early chapters with Bree's). For all my swoony bias, I think I'd have to agree with you that if I were choosing a best friend, I'd prefer single!Bella to the Bella that has given her soul to Edward. Not by nearly as wide a margin as you and Tennyo would -- Edward's!Bella doesn't actually annoy me -- but I do agree that she loses some of her bite. Er, no pun intended. But for me, that's not necessarily the same as regretting the person Bella becomes. If I ask myself which Bella would I rather be -- whether Bella herself is worse off as Edward's!Bella -- I'm not so sure. I suspect people will have different feelings here -- it's like the question: Which would you rather be: a brilliant artist, or happy, or good? One might think Edward's!Bella as admirable a person as single!Bella, if not nearly as much fun to know.

But THAT in turn takes us down the by-ways of the Feminist Question. Which is another topic entirely, for which (fortunately) no thread yet exists!

Coming from someone who is best friends with her mother, I can safely say that Bella's relationship with her mother is far from what is stated.

Agreed. Friendship is not Stephenie's strong point: what she writes well is love. Edward and Bella; Jaime, Melanie and Wanderer. (Of course, Jeb's relationship to Wanderer is an exception here....interesting to think about why). The fact is, Bella's notional relationship to her mother is basically just an encumbrance. I suppose Stephenie wanted Bella to have a normal enough background to be our Everyteen -- disfiguring her with a totally alienated childhood would be a bit particular -- but her bond with Renee obviously mustn't tie her too tightly to her past. You feel that Stephenie really wants give us an orphan heroine, adrift in the world and ripe for translation into her new life everlasting without too much left behind. Otherwise the loss might seem too heartbreaking.

Which I guess in a roundabout way does come back to what you and Knives were saying. Stephenie has weighted the scales pretty heavily so we won't mourn Bella's lost humanity too much. ("What IS the incentive for staying human?"). Stephenie has certainly worked hard to disincentivize Bella. At the same time, she wants us to feel that this IS a true sacrifice....

And that in turn brings us back to the substance of this discussion: the precise titration of horror, sorrow and suffering to balance out the sunshine and roses. It seems like this equilibrium point of dark-enough falls somewhere slightly different for each of us, running the gamut from those who find the unqualified sweetness and light of BD's Happy Ever After pleasing to those who find the entire series anodyne and (yes) numbingly nice. Though for me, a more interesting question is... not: how well did Stephenie succeed in conveying the dark side? but: how far did she WANT to give her story a dark side? I think this isn't just Stephenie speaking with a muffled voice, or inadequate eloquence; what I hear is ambivalence.

I am so tempted to crack a joke about Edward and fairies right now. But I won't. Because it'd be too easy. And an insult to fairies.

Ah yes. It was Silly Bella, wasn't it, who observed how metrosexual Edward is ("I mean seriously...you know his pants still had creases in them after he finished killing Victoria"). *giggle*

Posts written in exasperation tend to exasperate, whatever the object of their invective.

Fortunately, posts written in playfulness, tend to provoke playfulness, whatever the object of their invective....

Considering how the fantastic are portrayed, humans tend to be a) stable, b) funny, c) not Edward.

Well, you get two out of three there, don't you? (*grin*)

What? WHAT? You brought this on yourself, December! ^^

I know! Hoping I don't live to regret it....

Very nice to see you back, my dear.

Image
“When did you ever promise to kill yourself falling out of Charlie’s tree?”
User avatar
December
Muse of Philosophical Discussion
 
Posts: 2711
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 5:09 am
Location: Putting the "Longa" into Ars Longa....

PreviousNext

Return to Quench Your Thirst

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests