Re: Edward Cullen #4
Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:07 pm
Amethyst/malaz (now I can satisfy both! ) I do consider melodrama to be a character trait of his. He displays it time and time again. I suppose, if you wanted to be diplomatic, you could say he was a reactionary, or he's extreme. But to me, it reads as melodrama.
Kachiti, I appreciate your understanding, but I think you may have actually misunderstood. I don't think Edward defines a man, but that's because I don't think any one person defines a man. Edward may be the definition of manliness for you. He's not for me. I know that there are certain qualities that define a man to me, and Edward fits some and does not fit others.
My definition of a man is more traditional.
I don't think, though, that this discussion was ever about manliness. It was about masculinity, which is totally different.
Also, to go by just his definition - hunter, predator, provider. Ok. Well then by that same token, take the definition of any soldier, or police officer. They are protectors and hunters and fighters. But say he goes home and drinks himself silly every night, then abuses his wife and kids. Is he a man? By his paper definition, yes. But by his actions, no.
Jazz Girl, I think you are getting awful upset about that article. And I understand, were it an article about Jacob, I would be just as upset. I just wanted to make sure that you understand that just because I am not saying that Edward is the manliest man ever doesn't mean I agree with the people who wrote that.
Kachiti, your last line about Romeo made my day.
I really really think the key here is to remember that there is no one "ideal man"
Kachiti, I appreciate your understanding, but I think you may have actually misunderstood. I don't think Edward defines a man, but that's because I don't think any one person defines a man. Edward may be the definition of manliness for you. He's not for me. I know that there are certain qualities that define a man to me, and Edward fits some and does not fit others.
My definition of a man is more traditional.
I don't think, though, that this discussion was ever about manliness. It was about masculinity, which is totally different.
Also, to go by just his definition - hunter, predator, provider. Ok. Well then by that same token, take the definition of any soldier, or police officer. They are protectors and hunters and fighters. But say he goes home and drinks himself silly every night, then abuses his wife and kids. Is he a man? By his paper definition, yes. But by his actions, no.
Jazz Girl, I think you are getting awful upset about that article. And I understand, were it an article about Jacob, I would be just as upset. I just wanted to make sure that you understand that just because I am not saying that Edward is the manliest man ever doesn't mean I agree with the people who wrote that.
Kachiti, your last line about Romeo made my day.
I really really think the key here is to remember that there is no one "ideal man"