Jazz Girl, glad to see you passionate defense of your POV. It OK to disagree on view points. However, you may want to do some research of definitions of the terms used; co-dependence and passive aggressive as it relates to co-dependency, mostly Submissive and topping as it relates to submissive. It would help you see where others are coming from.Jazz Girl wrote:Ringswraith~ you make my arguments for me. Thank you.ringswraith wrote:The Dark Knight: You bring up some great points. Allow me to discuss a few of those.
First, your comment on human psychological profiling on werewolves and vampires. I can see where you're coming from, but while they are both grounded in human nature, I believe they are different enough to render human psychological profiling rather useless (or result in an incomplete/incorrect picture). The vampires have been around for a long time- centuries, in someone like Carlisle's case. How does one relate to that? Plus, those of them with added abilities such as Edward, Alice, or Jasper can confound such profiling simply because they can stay one or more steps ahead of the profiler. And the profiler would have no idea that he or she is being manipulated. As for the werewolves, profiling them will probably be easier, but one would have to understand the wolf portion of their minds in order to create a complete picture. And how does one relate to a wolf?
Second, I find it interesting that you have this opinion, yet when you explain the "truck disabling" incident, you go straight to the supernatural explanation. There is merit to what Jazz Girl has been saying all along- You cannot remove the supernatural from these characters and expect them to make the same sense in a normal world.
Dark Knight~ I do want to take issue with the following comment:The Dark Knight wrote: The first post about E&B relationship that started this last round of discussion hit many real points. Bella is co-dependant, regardless of any mystical being or what not, she demonstrates all the basic characteristics of co-dependency (yes she sometimes doesn’t but that does not override the truth that she “normally” does depend on Edward). She gives her life over to him in a very unhealthy way in Twilight the Book and pays dearly for it in NM. Her relationship toward Edward borders on submissive most of the time. Sorry, but that’s how it reads. Now, you may think that I’ll saying this is wrong, that just isn’t true. It just how SM wrote it. That’s the way their relationship works. He’s the protector and she along for the ride (at least through the first three books).
I would first point out that that is how the relationship reads to you. There are many of us (though I am speaking only for myself) who do not read Edward & Bella's relationship that way at all. First, when I look at Bella's realtionship to Edward, I actually see a fairly typical (supernatural elements not withstanding) progression through a relationship. In its' inital phases, both parties are completely enraptured in one another, desiring only to be with the other to the exclusion of other parts of their lives. Particularly adolescent relationships tend to start out exactly that way. You then have a bit of a stabilization process, where things normalize. This is the part of their relationship we really don't get to see because most of it happens during the summer between the time of Twilight and New Moon. Life takes on a routine and other interests creep back into life. We know that Bella worked at Newton's over the summer, she spent time with Alice and Esme and the other Cullens, as well as Edward. But, she also spent time with Angela and Charlie. But, again, because we are not privy to that time, we don't know that she didn't spend time with anyone else.
The events of New Moon disrupt the "typical" progression, obviously. But, even those events can be looked at in context of the reactions. Something happens that tests the relationship. Both parties, still being new to the idea of relationships, have extreme reactions to what they see as a catastrophic event. Because they do not yet understand the importance of communication in a relationship. neither one really understands how to handle the situation as a couple. So they act individually with horrible consequences. But, when the chips are thrown down and it comes time to act, it is Bella, the submissive, completely-overtaken one, who acts heroically and in the best interests of the relationship and the other party. Once that catastrophy is dealt with, both Edward and Bella have a very intense discussion about the future of the relationship, a very natural thing to happen after a challenge to the relationship. They both establish their desires for the future, their boundaries, and they start to put some of their fears on the table as well. They are demonstrating that they are starting to figure out the true dynamic of a relationship; two people coming together to be one entity, not losing themselves in one another, but being a unit as opposed to separates.
Now, Eclipse throws a monkey in the whole wrench. It is a second immediate challenge to a relationship that has already been tested and worked through and is progressing. But, the events of Eclipse also serve a purpose in that they test the relationship and the individuals in a very different way. And, alas, again, it is Bella, the submissive codependent, who tests Edward, the dominant leader of the relationship. Hmh, ironic? And, again, the concepts of communication and openness are reiterated and strengthened. And, of course you have the final committment in Breaking Dawn. And, again, the protagonist for much of the healthy progress is Bella, the submissive, completely over-taken one.
As you might have noticed, I find your characterization of Bella as submissive and overtaken as a little bit off, to say the least. Yes, Bella often turns to Edward for guidance and protection. She's a human navigating a supernatural world. Who else would she turn to but the man who loves her who has lived in that world for 90 years and is strong enough to protect her from it. But, that never means Bella surrenders herself. It is Bella essentially who decides that they cannot simply walk away from the relationship out of differences or fear. It is Bella who attempts to sacrifice herself to save the entire family in Twilight. It is Bella who pushes herself and decides to live any sort of life after Edward leaves. It is Bella who takes back the decision about her mortality at the end of New Moon. It is Bella who completely pushes the issue of keeping Jacob and the pack in their lives in Eclipse. It is Bella who decides her own fate completely contrary to the wishes of almost everyone involved including Edward and Carlisle with regard to carrying and giving birth to Renesmee. It is Bella who orchestrates Renesmee's future in BD. And, it is Bella who is ultimately responsible for the victory over the Volturi. Characterizing her as weak and codependent is just plain weak.
And, again, I will maintain that in all of these things, you absolutely cannot remove the supernatural from the equation. There will always be big center pieces of that puzzle missing if you even try.
Being co-dependant and mostly submissive does not equal weak or helpless (See definitions referral). Your arguments are good and in reality give credence to Bella being co-dependant or mostly submissive when you look at how she accomplishes them. These terms do not take from her rather they are explanations of her very human responses. As we all read the books we could often predict how a character would react. When one has tendencies they can be defined and I put to one and all that co-dependant and mostly submissive along with passive aggression and topping are Bella’s standard operating procedures.
Let me point out exactly my strongest argument for both of these terms. First co-dependant, she can live without Edward, her words and actions as well as one of the biggest underlying plot points of the whole series. If ever there is a clear cut conformation of co-dependency it is this. Sorry you don't like the term but it's fairly clear cut. Now for submissive (notice not "completely over-taken one" which is more accurately a definition of a slave; not Bella at all) she take a more passive role to Edward. It has been repeatedly talked about where Edward make large decisions without regard to Bella’s true desires, See truck issue and his leaving her in BD, he often tries to make amends for his mistakes but he still makes them. Bella’s deference toward Edward’s will is a strong form of submission. That is their relationship throughout most of the saga.
Again, these terms do not make her weak or helpless but rather define her human actions. I would say her passive aggressiveness and topping does greatly influence her getting her way often. In Eclipse, she is very ashamed of her manipulation of Edward when it comes to the big fight (good thing too she did). When you look at how she forced Edward to stay with her it is a classic form of passive aggression. She didn’t force him to stay with her by using brute force but rather brought him to the compromise that she wanted. I would further submit that her putting her mortality to a vote at the end of BD is a form of Topping. She has no real way to force Edward to change her into a Vampire, but by using his family against him she finally gets him to do what she wants albeit she does have to agree to meet other conditions (the later part being another form of submission).
So JassGirl, you may not like the terms but they do define her actions. She is only human after all