Page 6 of 11

Re: The Host -- Q&A

PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:34 pm
by wanda
*Wanderer* wrote:But if there is a sequel, I don't think that everything would be ruined. I mean, if it was written by Stephenie, it would still be perfect. How could Stephenie write something not-perfect?


I'm not so sure about that. everyone here is going to kill me, but Breaking Dawn definitly wasn't my favorite book, just because of Renesme. she kind of destroyed it for me. I like the series, pretty much, up until then. then again, Bella annoyed me a lot sometimes too. except in the first book....but this thread is about The Host, not Twilight.

but I totally know what you mean by saying that The Host was fine without a sequel, it makes you think about what could happen, but there doesn't need to be anything else written to describe it. it's just all for you to ponder about...

Re: The Host -- Q&A

PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 8:22 pm
by debussygirl
Does anyone know if in the Host the humans in the caves still get married?

Re: The Host -- Q&A

PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 8:28 pm
by Black
I don't see what the point would be. I don't see a point to marriage in general, really because if you're going to be with someone then be with them. Why do you need a paper from the state saying that you're going to be together? It all seems very silly to me and it also makes it a lot harder (and much more expensive) to break up when you find someone new (something that's not likely to happen in the caves anyway).

Re: The Host -- Q&A

PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 12:01 am
by deven
i am sure the people in the caves would hold their own ceremony if someone wanted to get married. maybe doc would play preacher lol

as for the whole idea of marrige...i dont think its so you have a piece of paper to say your married..i think its to get to the next level of commitment. and if you get married then you shouldnt be looking for someone "new"...when you get married its saying i have found my one and only and there isnt gonna be any one "new"

Re: The Host -- Q&A

PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 12:11 am
by Black
deven wrote:as for the whole idea of marrige...i dont think its so you have a piece of paper to say your married..i think its to get to the next level of commitment. and if you get married then you shouldnt be looking for someone "new"...when you get married its saying i have found my one and only and there isnt gonna be any one "new"

People shouldn't need to be married before they decide to reach the next level of commitment. What's the point? If you wanna be with someone, be with them. If you don't, then leave. It's going to happen that way whether there is a ceremony or not so I don't see a point in spending the money and making a fuss.

Re: The Host -- Q&A

PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:13 pm
by sarah!
they would hold a ceremony in the caves or something. :D

Re: The Host -- Q&A

PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 11:14 pm
by wanda
I think they would have their own kind of ceremony, even though it wouldn't be officially official, it would be for them.

as for the idea of marriage. I think that if you want to be with them, then yes you should be with them. but if you think you want to have and show a bigger commitment that just being with them, you get married. it kind of proves your love, even though you shouldn't have to do that just to show your love. yeah, you could say that there are a lot of people who aren't married that are in love and both know it and have kids, but that's just how those people choose to do it. you don't [i]have[i] to be married to show your love. but I think that people who are married like that because it officially shows they're in love and they plan to love eachother forever.

Re: The Host -- Q&A

PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:01 pm
by Wingtear
I'm not sure how they'd do it in the caves... Marriage itself is just a legal process (if we're being crude) and they are outlaws. It might be as simple as moving into someone's room. Which could explain all the fuss about the rooms anyway...

And Black. There are a lot of legal upsides to being married as oppose to just living together. I can't know for sure what they are where you live, but here they are extensive, though common-law-marriages are very common here, and there are a few laws protecting them as well.

Re: The Host -- Q&A

PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:53 pm
by slightlyobsessed
Okay, two new questions for the thread:

1)If Wanderer had been unable to leave Mel's body, would she have stayed with Jared?

2) Near the end of her time shared with Wanderer, Mel was often quiet and it took a lot for her to say anything to Wanderer. So, again, if Wanderer had been unable to leave Mel's body, would Mel have disappeared eventually?

Re: The Host -- Q&A

PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 8:00 pm
by *Wanderer*
slightlyobsessed wrote:Okay, two new questions for the thread:

1)If Wanderer had been unable to leave Mel's body, would she have stayed with Jared?

2) Near the end of her time shared with Wanderer, Mel was often quiet and it took a lot for her to say anything to Wanderer. So, again, if Wanderer had been unable to leave Mel's body, would Mel have disappeared eventually?


Hm, I guess these are questions that only Stephenie can answer, but I'm gonna take a shot at 'em:

1)That's a hard one. Technically, she wouldn't really "stay" with Jared, because Jared really didn't want Wanderer in that way. He wanted Melanie. But I guess Wanderer would just stay "yearning" for Jared with her body, and yearning for Ian with her soul. It would kinda be impossible to choose for her to choose. Did I make any sense at all? But that's just my guess. Anyone can feel free to disagree.

2)My prediction is... yes, unfortunately. It was getting harder and harder for Melanie to make that connection. She was slowly getting weaker.... But again, feel free to disagree.

*Wanderer*