Ambivalences

General Discussion on the Twilight Universe

Moderators: December, bac, Bronze Haired Girl, cullengirl

Forum rules
Click for Forum Rules

Re: Ambivalences

Postby Tornado » Sat Dec 24, 2011 7:19 am

Violet Sunlight wrote:1. Only, the author/creator of the story has the right to change/end their character’s/creation’s existence with any circumstance the author/creator wishes, NOT the Character themselves. Therefore, in my opinion, in the Twilight universe like the real world, anyone else ending someone else’s life is homicide/murder and someone ending their own life is suicide. In the real world, when the Author/Creator of oneself end’s one’s life it means, for me, that it is just time for the person to die and move on to eternity and immortality. Hence, when I think of what I just said as being one of the POSITIVE reasons/aspects of Bella becoming a vampire in the Twilight fairy tale created and authored by SM, it fits very nicely with MY OWN personal Christian beliefs that Bella’s imminent death circumstance was the event/device that the author/creator of Twilight (SM) decided to use to have Bella step into not only immortality, but also, had Bella’s body/essence be transformed into another type of being. (Vampire being.)


So if SM had allowed Bella to be transformed into a vampire without her imminent death you would have a problem with that?

Violet Sunlight wrote:2. Also, in my opinion, one of the (fictious) venom’s POSITIVE affects is the medicinal factor of healing the body and prolonging the individual’s life on earth in the Twilight fairy tale. Just, like I said in my, Chemo Therapy IV analogy in the real world. (Strong medicine that almost kills you but has the potential to save someone’s body/existence on earth.) Hence, in my opinion, when one VIEWS using (fictious) venom in the Twilight fairy tale as a form of medicine used for saving someone’s body/life on earth is, the second reason I am in agreement with Carlisle, ONLY when Carlisle & Edward VIEW the (fictious) venom as medicine to help save someone from their imminent death circumstance.


While saving life via venom may be a motivating factor for Carlisle, I'm not sure it ever was for Edward. He thought human death was better for Bella than any sort of vampire life initially, and then later changed to accepting that vampire life was okay for Bella because things seemed to come right when they were heading in that direction. He would have changed Bella if she had died or if she had been healthy, as we see at the end of Eclipse.

Violet Sunlight wrote:“Therefore, like I said before, for the sake of the game we are playing, both vampire beings and human beings, have souls and both have the same rights and opportunities to a happy and prosperous earthly and eternal life. But, this does NOT change the fact that God never intended the vampire life for anyone.


If God allowed vampires to come into being, it would seem that he did intend that life for some.

Violet Sunlight wrote:It just means every supernatural being in the Twilight universe, has to do what we do, make the best of their lot in life. And just because God forgives murder, doesn’t mean we should put ourselves in the path of committing it or be tempted by it. That would go against Jesus’ teachings. The Bible also says one should flee the desires/lusts of the flesh. Murder is listed as one of the lusts of the flesh. Hence, in my opinion, for a Christian, wanting to be a vampire or wanting someone else to be a vampire, of any kind (yellow eyed or red eyed) for any reason, is against Jesus’/Biblical teachings.


But the temptation to murder is something every one of us face anyway. Granted, it is more powerful in a vampire, but so is the capacity to resist. As the Cullens can do it successfully, I don't see it as going against God's teachings, especially if good can result from the transformation, as it does in Bella's case. Without her as a vampire the Cullens will be destroyed by the Volturi. Because of her as a vampire the Volturi may well be entirely destroyed, and the entire vampire world may discover that life without murder is possible. I cannot view Bella's transformation as anything other than God ordained, regardless of her state of being at the time of transformation.

Violet Sunlight wrote:Okay, Regarding SM’s intentions for how Bella was to become a vampire, I am inclined to believe, that SM meant for Bella to become a vampire from an imminent death scene caused by Bella’s birth scene. Didn’t she say something like, Renesmee was always part of the plan since Forever Dawn? I think, I am not sure but, SM’s publisher said something like, SM should get rid of the Renesmee character, and SM adamantly said NO, she wanted to keep her. Also, in the birth scene, she stopped many people from committing murder and stopped Bella from, in my personal opinion, committing suicide. Therefore, for me, all these things are NOT coincidences, in my personal opinion, SM purposefully planned it that way from at least the beginning of Forever Dawn. I am not sure, what the original idea was for, how Bella was suppose become a vampire if the whole story would have just been one book.


Just because SM originally planned to have Bella transformed after the delivery of Renesmee does not mean that she did it because she had a problem with the idea of turning her when she was healthy. As others have said here, SM originally just wrote what she thought was a fun story, so she probably just thought that was an exciting way to go. Also, back when it was just Forever Dawn, Edward never went through the changes he went through in New Moon and Eclipse, so he would still have been adverse to changing her, as he was at the end of Twilight. So something was needed to change his mind. Bella's imminent death did that. But the fact that Edward has come around to changing her while she is healthy, as he does at the end of Eclipse, suggests that the idea of changing her in that state was not a problem for SM.

It would be interesting to see exactly what happened in the alternate ending she wrote when she was being pressured to end the series with Eclipse. Is Bella tranformed when she is healthy in that version? Perhaps.

Violet Sunlight wrote:Now, regarding Rosalie, like I said before, I CAN’T compare Bella’s POTENTIAL rape scene to Rosalie’s ACTUAL rape and murder scene. Like I said before, they are poles apart for me. I respectfully ask, what if Bella would have ACTUALLY experienced the rape and murder scene that Rosalie ACTUALLY experienced, would Edward still have did the exact same thing he did for Bella’s POTENTIAL rape scene? I personally say NO. I am inclined to believe, Edward would have been even more extreme than Rosalie. But, that's just me.


As I said earlier, I completely agree that Edward was intent on torturing the individual who wanted to harm Bella to death, and probably would have enjoyed it while it was happening. But I believe Edward would have regretted it later, because he would have realised (much as he did when he was killing for blood) that doing it made him just as much of a monster as they were. Granted, it might have taken a while for him to realise this (in fact, if he killed himself, which is likely should Bella have been killed, he would probably never have come to this realisation), but he would have come to it eventually. However, it is clear that Rosalie still thinks it's just fine and is glad that she did it, and would probably do it again at any point without hesitation. And I see no sign, from what we know of her character, that this will ever change. That's what doesn't sit well with me.

Violet Sunlight wrote:Also, being that Rosalie was a vampire when she committed those murders, wouldn’t she also have to deal with the NEWBORN intensity of feelings being more powerful than even a regular vampire's feelings?


That still doesn't mean she shouldn't regret it now. As I said earlier, I can understand why she felt that way, and I would probably feel the same initially, but to continue thinking that it was okay sixty, seventy or so years after the event? Especially since it was such an uneven contest. They were her helpless victims once she was a vampire – hardly a foe worthy of vanquishing, as it might have been if it were a vampire whom she had fought. No, they were just weak humans. And being humans, they were answerable to human law, and there would have, as I mentioned in my previous post, been options via the law that the Cullens probably could have utilised to bring these men to justice. I'm sure Carlisle would have favoured that option.
Image
Tornado
Playing a Duet With Edward
 
Posts: 2983
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 7:06 pm
Location: The Land Down Under

Re: Ambivalences

Postby Tornado » Sun Dec 25, 2011 2:08 am

My apologies to the mods for the double post, but I just wanted to say that I am bowing out of this discussion from now on, as I feel that it is having a negative impact on my life. The discussion, at least as far as my comments are concerned, has become unhealthy, and more about point scoring than anything else. I come here for healthy, mutual discussion and exploration, and I fear that I have veered away from that. By all means, others please continue the discussion, but I feel that I cannot post in this topic anymore until I can post in the right frame of mind.
Image
Tornado
Playing a Duet With Edward
 
Posts: 2983
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 7:06 pm
Location: The Land Down Under

Re: Ambivalences

Postby Violet Sunlight » Sun Dec 25, 2011 4:25 pm

To ~ Tornado

My sincerest apologies to you Tornado, for any and all offense and discomfort I have caused. It was never my intentions. I must admit, at times, it did get stressful and uncomfortable for myself as well.

My Sincerest Apologies Always,
Violet Sunlight
Violet Sunlight
Jump Starting Bella's Truck
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 5:21 pm

Re: Ambivalences

Postby Tornado » Sun Dec 25, 2011 5:06 pm

VS, I was referring to my posts more than anything else. It was not intended as a poke at you in any way.
Image
Tornado
Playing a Duet With Edward
 
Posts: 2983
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 7:06 pm
Location: The Land Down Under

Re: Ambivalences

Postby Songbird » Thu Dec 29, 2011 8:29 am

Wow, what an intriguing and confusing discussion. I have a couple of questions for Violet Sunlight, to see if I can better understand some of the views I find confusing.

You mentioned that only the author/creator has the right to end/change their character's life, and not by the character's will or that of another character. Are you saying then, that it must be an outside influence? Death by natural causes/accident? Not a murder, or a suicide, but for example: Bella getting hit by Tyler's van? And IF that is what you meant, do you not consider Bella's choice to give birth, even knowing it will either kill her or make a change necessary, to be akin to suicide? She's not necessarily WANTING to die, but quite willing to, in order to save her baby. So to me, that's kind of like being a suicide bomber...willing to die for something greater than yourself. (make no mistake, were I in Bella's shoes, I would do the same because I believe killing the fetus is murder and I would rather sentence myself to death for that than kill an innocent baby). But if you believe that she should only be changed if she was near death, and only by the author's hand, not her own choice or someone elses, then that kind of negates it being ok, because it was her choice that led you her being near death. I'm not saying you're wrong about her needing to be near death, I'm just wondering if that weighs on you at all? If you see it as a suicidal decision, or maybe you have a different perspective of why it's not the same?

Also, Rosalie's murder of the 2 guards. If, as you say, she had tied them up instead, would that not have condemned them to die? Had they seen her, with her strength, red eyes, etc...and known that she was supernatural, they would either have to be destroyed, or become vampires themselves, by the Volturi's rules that Stephanie Meyer wrote. Certainly, she had the choice not to commit the murder herself, but their deaths would still be on her conscience because her actions are what would lead to their desctruction.

And lastly (I think...that's all I can remember for now) can you clarify for me...you said that God would never create Vampires and would not approve of their existance, etc...are you speaking only in terms of the real world, not in reference to the books? That the existance of vampire characters in fiction is quite separate from the real God and real world, and therefore it's ok to write about because it's NOT real? While I agree, I don't believe in real vampires or werewolves or zombies, or other supernatural beings, I'm wondering what your motivation is to say God would never create them? Because if it's simply their monstrous/murderous nature, then I have to disagree that he would never allow them to exist, simply because there are HUMAN montrous murderers...serial killers, rapists, etc...and if you believe that God created everything, everyone, then God also created these murderers and rapists. God tempts us with the pleasures of evil every day, but it's our choice whether or not to resist. How are the vampires different from human monsters, besides the super human strength, etc? And I believe that since the only requirement for redemption is to believe in God, Carlisle, as someone who believes in God and heaven, would be saved, vampire or not. So I agree with you on that...that Carslise has the same potential as you or I to be saved if he believes in God, which he does. However, IF you are not separating the books from the real world, and are saying God never intended the creation of vampires in the twilight universe, then how do you explain their existance unless you believe in more than one God/creator?

Oh, I thought of one more...I'm curious as to why you view Bella's and Rosalie's attacks as being poles apart. What specifically separates the two, other than Bella's was interrupted? They were both young females, alone after dark, assaulted by a group of men. The only differences I notice are that Bella did not know her attackers, and that Edward was able to intervene before it got too far. Had he not been there, I'm sure it would have continued much the same way as Rosalie's. I'm interested to know if you see more into the situations that makes it different for you?
Image
Signature artwork by TammyAZ
Songbird
Helping Mike to Get a Clue
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 8:48 am
Location: Netherlands

Re: Ambivalences

Postby Violet Sunlight » Fri Dec 30, 2011 2:00 pm

Greetings Songbird, :wave:

Thank you for responding to my post. I really liked your post to me. Before I begin responding to your post, I usually like to say the following sentence on almost all my posts, in case someone sees my post for the first time, I would like for you and them to know the following: I ONLY speak for me, myself & I, and NO other person(s) or group(s).

Also, right now in my life, I am available to chat/post on the weekends only. If I find an extra moment during the week then I will squeeze a post in. Also, I try not to use the quote feature too much, since my posts are usually long.

Okay, here I go, YES, your example of Bella getting hit by Tyler’s van is what I mean by the author/creator having the right to end/change their character’s life, and not by the character’s will or that of another character. Yes, I am saying an outside influence, death by natural causes/accident.

Okay, when you asked me, “Do you not consider Bella’s choice to give birth, even knowing it will either kill her or make a change necessary, to be akin to suicide?". I kindly say NO. Bella giving up her life for her baby, is NOT suicide and/or like a suicide bomber. I also, kindly say, the suicide bomber is TOTALLY different than a mother giving up her life for her baby. Also, anyone giving up their life to SAVE someone/anyone else, is NOT the same as a suicide bomber. I kindly and respectfully say, I think you are applying the meaning of a HERO and a MARTYR to a suicide bomber. A HERO gives up their life and takes NO OTHER life to SAVE someone else’s life. A MARTYR gives up their life and takes NO OTHER life for: 1. what they believe is a greater cause than themselves, and/or 2. For witnessing/sharing their beliefs and/or refusing to renounce their religion/beliefs/principles. Usually a MARTYR is killed by government/community/OTHER PERSON, never by their own hands. A suicide bomber, has already set and preplanned in his/her mind, and has the means, to KILL THEMSELVES & EVERYONE ELSE IN THEIR PROXIMITY for their beliefs, whether religious or otherwise.

Also, I kindly say, I don’t believe Bella chose her imminent death circumstance. Bella did NOT plan to be: 1. Pregnant; 2. Pregnant with a vampire hybrid and; 3. Die from said pregnancy. The imminent death circumstance of Bella’s birth scene was totally NOT created by Bella and it was NOT foreseen by her either. Bella is giving up her human life for her baby’s life. In my opinion, suicide and/or suicide bomber definition does NOT apply to Bella’s imminent death circumstance and Bella's choice to give up her human life to SAVE Renesmee's life. In my opinion, Bella is a HERO for saving Renesmee’s life. And in another sense, Bella is also, being a MARTYR in her imminent death circumstance because, she is giving up her human life for her principles, too. Also, I kindly say, one CANNOT be a HERO or a MARTYR and a suicide bomber at the same time. It is always ONE or the OTHER.

Secondly, I am going to respond to your comments regarding, Rosalie and the two guards and I am going to respond to your last paragraph regarding the difference between Rosalie’s and Bella’s attacks. Firstly, in regards to Rosalie and the two guards, I think Rosalie could have cut the power to the building/house before she would need to get near the guards and then she could have tied up the guards quickly and then did what she did. At least the two lives of the guards could have been spared. Now, I am NOT condoning any of the vengeful acts she did, I am just saying I UNDERSTAND.

And I also UNDERSTAND Rosalie was a NEWBORN vampire at the time she committed the 7 murders, her vampire feelings were way too intense. Revenge is a very powerful feeling for a human, I would think for a regular vampire it would be more and, for a NEWBORN vampire it would be greater. Also, when Rosalie first became a vampire, she really, really hated what she had become and she was really disgusted that she now craved human blood. Though, after her NEWBORN stage and after she found Emmett, she figured out a way to cope with her new vampire life. Therefore, in my opinion, I think, not only, the revenge was a factor in her grievous actions but, the hate/disgust she felt with herself for being a vampire was also, at play for her at the time she committed the 7 murders. I think/guess she wanted someone to pay for what happened to her and she probably thought, who better than the men who led her to her imminent death circumstance. Also, regarding the revenge, the guide says on pg 82, (I am going to underline what I feel helps me explain my point of view, though, the guide does NOT underline), “Another prevalent vampire trait, along with strong romantic bonds and the intense competitive streak, is that of a vengeful nature. Related again to their unchanging state, vampires are not forgiving; they do not move past an insult or injury”.

Okay, regarding your last paragraph, I view Bella’s and Rosalie’s attacks as being poles apart because, for Bella it was going to happen but, it did NOT. For Rosalie, the attack ACTUALLY happened and, in my opinion, it ended her human life, which in turn caused her imminent death circumstance, which in turn caused Carlisle to change her, hence the beginning of her vampire life, which I personally, believe she never wanted and hates, though after Emmett she copes with her vampire life better than before Emmett.

Also, I could be wrong but, I don’t believe Bella was physically harmed at all, in her potential attack. Also, I feel because the attack did NOT happen, Bella was able to, successfully, convince Edward NOT to go after/kill her POTENTIAL attackers. I personally think, it is easier to forgive something that could have happened than something that ACTUALLY happened. However, if what happened to Rosalie would have happened to Bella, in my opinion, Edward would have been even more extreme than Rosalie, even if Bella would have become a vampire. I also, think Edward would NOT have ever been sorry for it. I know Edward was sorry for the murders he committed on the murderers, in his rebellious years, and he somewhat forgave himself for the wrong he did. However, I feel, in this scenario Edward would NOT have been able to forgive others for their wrong, especially, when the wrong done was to his beloved Bella. I don’t think Edward would have felt sorry at all for murdering all of Bella’s attackers if they would have been successful with their attempts.

And I am not sure if SM, would have had Edward either, go to the Volturi to be killed/suicide like in New Moon or, if SM would have had Edward live like Marcus of the Volturi. In this scenario, whatever, SM would have picked, it would NOT have been good for Edward, at all.

Lastly, regarding your question to me about, what I think about God creating vampires. In real life I do NOT believe God would ever create all the supernatural fairy tale characters SM created. Now, regarding what goes on inside the fairy tale, if SM is talking about the God of the Bible, which I believe she is, I believe God would NOT create the Twilight vampires and hence there would be no need for the wolves and the vampire hybrids would NOT exist.

Now, in the Twilight fairy tale, YES, God would allow vampires and werewolves to exist, but, that does NOT mean He created them. Just like God allows divorce, slavery, murder, cheating, stealing, rape etc., to exist in the world, it does NOT mean He wants/chose/created that life style for anyone. God gave humans FREE WILL and that means we are all free to follow His ways or NOT. Hence FREE WILL also encompasses the potential for evil. Also, it was WE humans, who created the actual murders, cheating, etc., NOT God. Also, God did NOT create the vampires, SM did. The way I fit this fairy tale in my head is, I believe there is one author to the Twilight Universe and two creators within the story, SM and God. SM created all the supernatural beings and God created the human beings. However, SM is not only the creator of the Twilight characters but, she is also, the author of the Twilight Universe and characters. Therefore, in the Twilight Universe, SM can do whatever she wants, whenever she wants, to whomever she wants. Hence vampires, werewolves etc., exist.

Also, if SM would have had healthy Bella be turned into a veggie-vampire without the imminent death circumstance, she would be in her right to do it. And if I wanted to enjoy the romance of the story, I would have NO choice but to tolerate her choice in doing so. But, in this scenario, I personally believe, SM would have been going against her own nature, in allowing Bella to be the FIRST HEALTHY person to become a veggie-vampire WITHOUT the imminent death circumstance. But, SM would have been in her right to go against her own nature, as well.

Also, in my personal opinion, if she would have thought it was okay for healthy Bella to become a veggie-vampire then I think she would NOT have loved Jacob as she does. She would have probably thought Jacob was too overbearing, rude, extreme etc., like so many people believe he is and/or use to be. Also, in my personal opinion, if SM would have made healthy Bella into a veggie-vampire, SM definitely WOULDN’T be able to say, “Jacob has no tragic flaw” like she has said on her site. I would think/guess SM would have had to say something like, Jacob’s tragic flaw was his prejudices/intolerance of the veggie-vampires.
Violet Sunlight
Jump Starting Bella's Truck
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 5:21 pm

Re: Ambivalences

Postby Songbird » Fri Dec 30, 2011 3:27 pm

Thanks so much for responding. Your explanation of the hero/martyr vs. suicide bomber makes much more sense to me now, knowing you don't see it as a suicide, but rather putting it in God's hands whether she dies or not, but at least she attempts to save her child.

I understand more where you are coming from now...I don't necessarily agree with everything, but it's nice to understand why someone believes what they believe. I still think, within the realm of the story, God had to have created the vampires and werewolves. I see that quite differently than you do, because I see them as tangible, real creatures...every being is created by God. Ways of life are intangible...they are not "real" objects that have feelings, thoughts, or have needs to keep them alive...like food, sunlight, air, the way things like...trees, and animals, etc. do. Nor are they things you can touch, and see like water and clouds. Things like adultery, murder, rape, etc are ACTS committed by beings. So I still see God as creating the beings, and giving them the free will to act how they act...whether it's the Cullens who choose to be "vegetarian" or it's the "normal" vampires who kill humans for food. That's their free will. They have the choice. No, I don't believe God DID create vampires and werewolves in real life, but within the confines of the story, I still only believe in one creater, and that's God...so if he made the humans and the trees and the animals and the fish, and the heavens and the earth, so too, he made the vampires and the werewolves. I hope that helps you understand where -I- am coming from... Thank you for your explanations. It is interesting to think about.
Image
Signature artwork by TammyAZ
Songbird
Helping Mike to Get a Clue
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 8:48 am
Location: Netherlands

Re: Ambivalences

Postby mandibear » Mon Jan 16, 2012 7:06 pm

I wanted to go back a couple pages in the discussion where Jacob and Renesmee's future was being speculated. Nahuel poses an interesting option for me, and I was wondering....if Renesmee wanted to explore the option of being with Nahuel, would Jacob have to allow it because that's what Renesmee wants? Or is that type of adoration/devotion never questioned? Is it impossible for Renesmee to ever love anyone other than Jacob?
mandibear
Settled in Forks
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 6:59 pm

Re: Ambivalences

Postby Tornado » Tue Jan 17, 2012 2:42 am

I think Jacob would do it if she asked, but he would still have the drive to be near Nessie, which might make it awkward! ;)

From what I have gathered from the books and the guide it seems that when someone imprints the imprintee also feels some kind of draw to the imprinter, although it's not quite so binding. So I think it's unlikely that Renesmee would want to explore a possible relationship with Nahuel. She would simply find it easier to be with Jacob. And hey, why not accept a guy who's going to give you everything you want all the time?
Image
Tornado
Playing a Duet With Edward
 
Posts: 2983
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 7:06 pm
Location: The Land Down Under

Re: Ambivalences

Postby marielle » Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:46 am

Tornado wrote:From what I have gathered from the books and the guide it seems that when someone imprints the imprintee also feels some kind of draw to the imprinter, although it's not quite so binding.


from what I understand, Jacobs says when he explains the imprinting of Quill to Bella is that Quill and him with Renesmee becomes anything she needs, a brother, a friend, a lover... so if Renesmee chooses for Nahuel and wants Jacob to be nothing more than her good/best friend, Jacob will become that... from his explanation a romance isn't even certain...but than again with the older imprints, they all seem to be the perfect match for each other, so I think that the draw is mutual to some point...

Tornado wrote:So I think it's unlikely that Renesmee would want to explore a possible relationship with Nahuel. She would simply find it easier to be with Jacob.

If she is anything like her mom she won't be doing that with out a fight...
These violent delights, have violent endings...Like fire and gunpowder, they consume what they kiss

Image

Respect Team Robsten, Proud addict of the halfway house
User avatar
marielle
Cliff Diving with Embry
 
Posts: 3213
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 5:09 am
Location: Holland, wishing for forks

PreviousNext

Return to Quench Your Thirst

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests