una wrote:As one who is lurking on this thread, I have truly enjoyed the discussion. I feel that I am poorly equipped to jump in a lot of the time. However, I really enjoy the discussion while you both work to prove your sides and discuss the middle grounds. Before the "Great Crash" I was a serial lurker on the TUPGM thread (or what ever the initials are).
Please do continue, these discussions are fabulous!
Alcyone wrote:You've been brainwashing ouisa. I really don't like you right now.
Yes, because the world's clumsiest girl isn't self-destructive enough. She needs a repressed, controlling vampire with too many issues to enumerate to seal her fate.
Which nails the precise reason why I first began to have problems with this relationship....We had nothing to go on character-wise; it was almost like he was just a pretty face and it is perfectly acceptable to change all your priorities just for a pretty face. I was raised to believe that physical traits are important--if the physical repulses you, it doesn't matter how wonderful a character the person has, you'll always turn away--nevertheless, character is still the most important and the only means through which to judge someone. However, we had nothing.
his insufferable arrogance (this coming from someone who admits to being insufferably arrogant and then shudders at the thought of sharing a characteristic with Edward)...
I'll admit to this image being one of the few I liked (and not because Edward is suffering, though that may be partly it). I'm an author who likes to torture characters. I like pitting everything against them just to see how they stand the blows. Pain and suffering bring out one's true personality, stripped of all facades. At least with this, I agree with you. He withstood the agony with certain grace, even if his actions toward the source of his suffering may be irrational, creepy and sometimes downright frightening. I understand self-immolation, the desire to change one's fate, even applaud it.
But I can't condone many of his actions toward Bella. The need to torture oneself doesn't mean you can torture another, even if Bella is just as masochistic and senseless in this as he is.
...Am I incapable of saying something nice without working in an insult somewhere?
December wrote:Yes, it’s the story lurking at the back side of the tapestry of TW -- but what one begins to realize (and this was true even before MS appeared) is that the underside to Bella’s story is much darker and more complicated than she or we readily recognize.
Speak for yourself. After several other YA novels, novels and manga relating to a vampire-human romance, I predicted almost every hurdle in their relationship and all of Edward's conflict (sans the prudyness. Kuroe is not a prude). Made it unoriginal to boot.
I am capable of not commenting on the control comment. That would just be too easy. *smirk*
Actually, he made his own abyss. That god complex of his...
It was indeed....Was it firefly who mentioned he would have been more likeable if he'd snacked on infants too?
December wrote:Where Bella is concerned, at any rate, Edward attains the kind of total imperviousness to temptation that has taken Carlisle centuries to perfect. For love...
You are perfectly content with his acquiring this imperviousness through love, while I would prefer it to be mostly due to his own character. Love may have provided the catalyst, but I would consider so much more a stronger character if he'd slaved there without needing that catalyst, through sheer strength of will.
Or, as had been touched on before, if he simply showed some form of compassion as his family does, rather than sheer selfishness.
December wrote:So yes, MS is a love story: Edward and Bella’s love for one another is the radiant spindle around which this other story of darkness and suffering and redemption turns.
He was redeemed? When?
December wrote:though I think Stephenie leaves Edward and Bella’s relationship underspecified deliberately, to allow their love story to be a kind of Everyromance.
But the relationship is just wrong! It is so radically antifeminist and so obviously balanced to favor one direction, rather than both... Doesn't really qualify as an Everyromance. More like a nightmare masquerading as a dream.
Li'lBit wrote:If bad things happening to women in a book is anti-feminist, then by the same logic Dickens was anti-youth and Weisel was anti-Semite. I think it's an important distinction that these acts are not glorified in the book. They're horrific crimes. Esme lived in a time when women were often mistreated - drawing attention to this as unacceptable and cruel is not a bad thing. Women are raped far more often than men. They are abused more often than men. The fact that this very sad reality is reflected in the books isn't anti-feminist.
Ah yes..I stand humbly corrected. See Marcus is so bored so much of the time that he bores me as well. *yawn* No wonder I got his name wrong. I wonder if he had been able to run away with Didyme if they would have eventually joined the Cullens or their lifestyle?Alcyone wrote:And it's Marcus, not Marco. Marco Polo is a different Italian.
Alcyone wrote:MRK wrote:Seems more anti-man to me personally...
Right. Because the man is the one being hurt.
If I were a despot...
Ouisa wrote:First I don't think Alcyone's point was "bad things" it was violence afflicted by men. It's the preponderance of this violence happening to women with no corresponding violence to men. Edward died of the flu. Emmett died after a bear attack these things happen in life. Esme, Rose and to some extent Alice died or suffered in their mortal lives from cruelty and violence. (The only exception to this is Jasper who was killed by a woman.) I'm pretty sure too that Alcyone is disturbed by the continued trend of violence inflicted by men on women in The Host. There is a subtle pattern in these stories. And I can kinda see her point.