And suddenly the titles make sense
Aug. 3rd, 2008 01:28 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
azuriteI finished reading "New Moon" in one sitting last night, and I'm going to start on "Eclipse" tonight (NM kept me up until 3:30am; I wonder if "Eclipse" will do the same?).
My first, overall impression of the book was "Damn, this was better than the first one!" No, seriously. Even with Bella as a complete emo whiner (but justified! Because seriously at age 17-18, when you've only JUST experienced your first "true love" and he UP AND LEAVES YOU because "it's not you, it's me" etc. etc., you're going to be emo for a while. Possibly a long while), I empathized with her a lot more. I felt I understood her a lot more, even if I didn't always agree with what she did.
And Edward? Edward was a prick, like all guys -vampire or otherwise- tend to be at some point or another in relationships. Point in fact, him leaving I saw coming (and I mean from a book-stance, not from a "I read the back cover" or "I read the spoiler wank ages ago" stance). Everything right down to how he did it (minus the whole removing everything of himself from Bella's room --er, hidden in the floorboards; that was kind of harsh).
I basically wanted the first book scrapped or at least condensed; the plot of the second book was much better, moved faster, and had me reading literally, non-stop. The first book just didn't do that for me; it had too much exposition, and I had moments of irritation with Bella SO MUCH SO that I wanted to throw the book against the wall.
PLus, Jacob got more screentime, and to reiterate what I mentioned in my "Twilight" post, I can see why there's a group of Bella x Jacob fans. It's not just that Edward made a stupid typical guy mistake and left Bella "for her own safety" (seriously, what "dangerous bad boy" hasn't done that "for his girl's sake," like, ever? Angel did that to Buffy on numerous occasions, and that's just comparing Meyer's series to another popular vampire-love franchise). It's that Jacob came into his own as a CHARACTER in this, both the "you gotta love him" kind and as the "you gotta hate him" kind. In the beginning, he was this ball of sunshine that kept trying so hard, and it was cute and admirable, even if he was all naive and getting what he really wanted seemed so obviously futile to us readers.Then all of a sudden, he gets prickish, but he's got an excuse: he's JUST become a freakin' werewolf!
Edward's been a vampire for 90+ years; what's his excuse? Oh, yeah, he's never been in LURVE before. -_-
Don't get me wrong; like most series I get into (book or otherwise), I'm a canon 'shipper with "Twilight," Ed x Bella all the way; there's just no point in 'shipping otherwise, mainly because Meyer's made it so plain that, much as Jacob is "teh smex" and he'd probably be better for Bella in numerous ways, I can never see them as having a permanent, lasting relationship-- not unless Edward clocks her on the head with a brick and she forgets all about him (and I mean LITERALLY, not the whole "did he really exist?" dream-like state of post-break-up pain and woe and angst).
Now, back onto the whole concept of "mythos" used in a story... there's a reason why I don't like Meyer's vampires (her werewolves are pretty freaky too, being bigger than your average BEAR), and it's not just because I was a Buffy fan first:
Vampires and werewolves are part of mythos-- part of stories that have spanned the ages, crossed borders and boundaries and cultures, and can be found almost anywhere, anywhen. There are certain elements of these creatures that exist REGARDLESS of when the myth was developed (if you're looking at Bram Stoker's "Dracula," Anne Rice's tripe, Buffy the Vampire Slayer/Angel/Fray, or even Meyer's "Twilight" series).
For example:
* It is not a vampire if it does not suck blood.
* It is not a werewolf if the moon doesn't have something to do with its changing.
Thus, Meyer's vamps are iffy, because they don't seem to have FANGS. I kind of liked the idea of Whedon's vampires having a "game face," because, like the Cullens and company, the vamps of his world(s) could walk around and blend in-- up until they smelled blood or got hungry. Wouldn't the start of "Twilight" been so much more interesting if, in order to save Bella from Tyler's van, Edward had to morph his face somehow, but he morphed back so fast that Bella couldn't be sure? And she started looking up everything on vampires, trying to instigate any kind of incident where she might provoke him or the other Cullens again, setting herself up as bait? Wouldn't it be more interesting if everyone else thought she was crazy, but she knew without a doubt that she'd only survived because of something that no one else WANTS to believe in?
Maybe that's just me.
The one thing you notice about the mythos, though, is that besides the idea of them being bloodsuckers, regardless of anything else (eye color, paleness, aversion to sun, lack of reflection or ability to capture in a camera, stakeability), HUMANS ALWAYS HAVE A WAY TO TRIUMPH. But it's a bit like "it's the victors that write history" concept, right? It's said that history is skewed toward whoever "won" the battles, thus stories about vampires always feature them as EVIL and SOULLESS, and humans are the poor victims who miraculously find a way to fight back.
Meyer's vampires aren't (all) evil and soulless, but humans are (have been, and undoubtedly will continue to be) the victims, because vamps like the Cullens are frankly RARE. And apparently, all the Cullens can really do is preach about their "vegetarianism" (rather than, say, getting blood from a blood bank or a butcher, a'la Angel) rather than do anything about it. Humans still have no way of fighting back, and Bella knows this, which I think is partly what fuels her desire to be a vampire: it's not just to always be with Edward, it's to stop putting the people she cares about in danger, and perhaps stop always being a danger (in danger) herself.
Now, with the werewolves, when Jacob explained that they change whenever they lose their temper, I wanted to laugh. So these werewolves of Meyer's are just fuzzy versions of the Hulk? No, really. I do like the idea of someone becoming a vampire/werewolf/whatever without the "usual" methods (a bite, in both cases). It's rather interesting to imagine a story where someone might have become a werewolf because they were poisoned (technically I guess that's how Meyer's vamps come about; the venom coating their teeth is what travels through the bloodstream and alters the body... but hey, poison is ingested, while venom can enter the body through other methods), or a vampire because they were born that way.
I started to be a bit more okay with the idea of sparkling vampires, because while it does still keep with the idea of vampires not wanting to be in the sun, Meyer twists it for different reasons. She takes a lot of the "preconceived notions" one might have about vamps or werewolves and turns it on its head, but I think some of those notions need more explanation before they get completely flip-flopped, you know? It's like, no matter what Meyer says, I still can't get over the fact that her werewolves are more or less GIANT, FUZZY, HULKS. They retain their consciousness, for the most part, and can WILL themselves to change if they need to. Doesn't that sort of take away a lot of the incredibleness, some of the cool-factor of werewolves?
In her defense, though, I do like how they only exist (or at least, the people only have the ability to transform) so long as vampires are in the vicinity. But that begs the question, does it really coincide properly? Did the arrival of the Cullens coincide with Sam's first transformation into a werewolf?
"Twilight" took so long to get the plot moving; "New Moon" did it quickly and easily. If the books were likened to forms of killing, "Twilight" was like a slow, twisting of the knife in one's abdomen, while "New Moon" was more like a quick beheading. Not just that, but while "Twilight" often bored me, "New Moon" had an almost constant rhythm of drama, suspense, and even action! I was suitably impressed, and had a good reason to keep reading.
And of course, I read the preview for "Eclipse," and let me just say, the wank altered me to the whole marriage plot long before Edward did. It's not even "foreshadowing" what with Edward being so blunt about it. And on that note, Bella continues to befuddle: for all that I liked her for in "New Moon," I started to doubt was really her true character, based on the preview of "Eclipse" that I read. This is the girl that was willing to kill herself (or be killed, or simply die as as a result of her circumstances) for Edward, wanting to give up her family, her mortality, any normalcy or teeny tiny normal wishes she may have harbored in the deep, deep recesses of her mind-- AND SHE FEARS GETTING MARRIED!?
Seriously lady, you're thinking about committing your immortal life to this guy, more or less, wanting him to turn you instead of Carlisle (he's got the coolest name out of anyone in the entire series), and you're afraid of what a simple HUMAN commitment stands for? I was honestly blown away. What did she think she was going to do, simply spend the rest of her immortal life with Ed, always calling him "boyfriend"? Okay, I know the girl doesn't want to age, but if there's anything I've picked up with "Twilight," it's that no matter how old you are (real age-wise, not just appearance-wise), there's maturity that comes from experience. Otherwise, frankly, Ed would be a LOT more immature. Bella's got a partial excuse because she really IS 17-18, and hasn't been turned YET, and thus has only her human experiences to fall back on (no matter how vamp-filled they may have been thus far). So Ed's smart enough to realize, immortality together = make it official, why not?, but Bella? Who the hell knows what she's thinking? Does she even know what she's getting into? She seems to think she does....
Also made better in NM vs. "Twilight" was the concept of "extra powers." I like how the Volturi both used and abused them, and how it's not like ONLY ONE VAMP EVAR has a certain power; another vamp can have a very similar one, or have limitations. A baby vamp (that is, a young child that was turned, not simply someone who was recently turned) can be awesomely powerful, and an adult vamp can have no real powers at all other than what being a "vamp" gives you (immortality, super-senses, super-strength/speed). Bella and Edward's meeting with them also set the stage for Bella's eventual turning, and her own "special power," where she's able to block the best of everyone else's powers-- but not completely. Unlike Jacob and the other werewolves, she still features in Alice's visions, and Jasper is able to calm her, but neither Aro nor Edward can see her thoughts, and Jane can't blast her.
Not that I'd ever go into a fandom this raw and crazy, but, I had numerous squee-scenarios in my head (aka plot bunnies, aka fic ideas) while reading "New Moon:"
* What if Bella somehow became a vamp (or even a werewolf) before Alice and any of the others came back, or before they reunited? What if, as I mentioned before, it was NOT through the "usual" methods of bite (or in the case of Meyer's werewolves, by getting angry and having "the blood" in her anyway-- hey, Bella did have a bunch of transfusions at the end of "Twilight," remember?)
I don't know, I just don't like the idea of Bella always being so weak (and klutzy). It's like, Usagi didn't need Tuxedo Mask; he just happened to help out every now and again, and he ended up being good in bed and a decent king. But everyone knows, SAILOR MOON KICKS ASS ON HER OWN. Why can't Bella be like that somehow, without Edward having to be the one to turn her (or anyone else, for that matter), without her being a vampire? I mean, clearly she's already got some sort of latent power in that
a) she's horribly danger-prone
b) she can block almost any vampire power
c) she can manifest some pretty realistic delusions (honestly, I thought we were going to find out that Edward refused to completely sever himself from Bella and managed to leave a part of himself in her mind, or could otherwise "talk" with her, e.g. telepathy, rather than Edward's voice really being completely in her head --albeit for the reasons Bella didn't fully understand until the very end of NM)
d) she can be a halfway decent peacekeeper between mortal, magical enemies
Well, onto "Eclipse" and hopefully a decent night of sleep!
My first, overall impression of the book was "Damn, this was better than the first one!" No, seriously. Even with Bella as a complete emo whiner (but justified! Because seriously at age 17-18, when you've only JUST experienced your first "true love" and he UP AND LEAVES YOU because "it's not you, it's me" etc. etc., you're going to be emo for a while. Possibly a long while), I empathized with her a lot more. I felt I understood her a lot more, even if I didn't always agree with what she did.
And Edward? Edward was a prick, like all guys -vampire or otherwise- tend to be at some point or another in relationships. Point in fact, him leaving I saw coming (and I mean from a book-stance, not from a "I read the back cover" or "I read the spoiler wank ages ago" stance). Everything right down to how he did it (minus the whole removing everything of himself from Bella's room --er, hidden in the floorboards; that was kind of harsh).
I basically wanted the first book scrapped or at least condensed; the plot of the second book was much better, moved faster, and had me reading literally, non-stop. The first book just didn't do that for me; it had too much exposition, and I had moments of irritation with Bella SO MUCH SO that I wanted to throw the book against the wall.
PLus, Jacob got more screentime, and to reiterate what I mentioned in my "Twilight" post, I can see why there's a group of Bella x Jacob fans. It's not just that Edward made a stupid typical guy mistake and left Bella "for her own safety" (seriously, what "dangerous bad boy" hasn't done that "for his girl's sake," like, ever? Angel did that to Buffy on numerous occasions, and that's just comparing Meyer's series to another popular vampire-love franchise). It's that Jacob came into his own as a CHARACTER in this, both the "you gotta love him" kind and as the "you gotta hate him" kind. In the beginning, he was this ball of sunshine that kept trying so hard, and it was cute and admirable, even if he was all naive and getting what he really wanted seemed so obviously futile to us readers.Then all of a sudden, he gets prickish, but he's got an excuse: he's JUST become a freakin' werewolf!
Edward's been a vampire for 90+ years; what's his excuse? Oh, yeah, he's never been in LURVE before. -_-
Don't get me wrong; like most series I get into (book or otherwise), I'm a canon 'shipper with "Twilight," Ed x Bella all the way; there's just no point in 'shipping otherwise, mainly because Meyer's made it so plain that, much as Jacob is "teh smex" and he'd probably be better for Bella in numerous ways, I can never see them as having a permanent, lasting relationship-- not unless Edward clocks her on the head with a brick and she forgets all about him (and I mean LITERALLY, not the whole "did he really exist?" dream-like state of post-break-up pain and woe and angst).
Now, back onto the whole concept of "mythos" used in a story... there's a reason why I don't like Meyer's vampires (her werewolves are pretty freaky too, being bigger than your average BEAR), and it's not just because I was a Buffy fan first:
Vampires and werewolves are part of mythos-- part of stories that have spanned the ages, crossed borders and boundaries and cultures, and can be found almost anywhere, anywhen. There are certain elements of these creatures that exist REGARDLESS of when the myth was developed (if you're looking at Bram Stoker's "Dracula," Anne Rice's tripe, Buffy the Vampire Slayer/Angel/Fray, or even Meyer's "Twilight" series).
For example:
* It is not a vampire if it does not suck blood.
* It is not a werewolf if the moon doesn't have something to do with its changing.
Thus, Meyer's vamps are iffy, because they don't seem to have FANGS. I kind of liked the idea of Whedon's vampires having a "game face," because, like the Cullens and company, the vamps of his world(s) could walk around and blend in-- up until they smelled blood or got hungry. Wouldn't the start of "Twilight" been so much more interesting if, in order to save Bella from Tyler's van, Edward had to morph his face somehow, but he morphed back so fast that Bella couldn't be sure? And she started looking up everything on vampires, trying to instigate any kind of incident where she might provoke him or the other Cullens again, setting herself up as bait? Wouldn't it be more interesting if everyone else thought she was crazy, but she knew without a doubt that she'd only survived because of something that no one else WANTS to believe in?
Maybe that's just me.
The one thing you notice about the mythos, though, is that besides the idea of them being bloodsuckers, regardless of anything else (eye color, paleness, aversion to sun, lack of reflection or ability to capture in a camera, stakeability), HUMANS ALWAYS HAVE A WAY TO TRIUMPH. But it's a bit like "it's the victors that write history" concept, right? It's said that history is skewed toward whoever "won" the battles, thus stories about vampires always feature them as EVIL and SOULLESS, and humans are the poor victims who miraculously find a way to fight back.
Meyer's vampires aren't (all) evil and soulless, but humans are (have been, and undoubtedly will continue to be) the victims, because vamps like the Cullens are frankly RARE. And apparently, all the Cullens can really do is preach about their "vegetarianism" (rather than, say, getting blood from a blood bank or a butcher, a'la Angel) rather than do anything about it. Humans still have no way of fighting back, and Bella knows this, which I think is partly what fuels her desire to be a vampire: it's not just to always be with Edward, it's to stop putting the people she cares about in danger, and perhaps stop always being a danger (in danger) herself.
Now, with the werewolves, when Jacob explained that they change whenever they lose their temper, I wanted to laugh. So these werewolves of Meyer's are just fuzzy versions of the Hulk? No, really. I do like the idea of someone becoming a vampire/werewolf/whatever without the "usual" methods (a bite, in both cases). It's rather interesting to imagine a story where someone might have become a werewolf because they were poisoned (technically I guess that's how Meyer's vamps come about; the venom coating their teeth is what travels through the bloodstream and alters the body... but hey, poison is ingested, while venom can enter the body through other methods), or a vampire because they were born that way.
I started to be a bit more okay with the idea of sparkling vampires, because while it does still keep with the idea of vampires not wanting to be in the sun, Meyer twists it for different reasons. She takes a lot of the "preconceived notions" one might have about vamps or werewolves and turns it on its head, but I think some of those notions need more explanation before they get completely flip-flopped, you know? It's like, no matter what Meyer says, I still can't get over the fact that her werewolves are more or less GIANT, FUZZY, HULKS. They retain their consciousness, for the most part, and can WILL themselves to change if they need to. Doesn't that sort of take away a lot of the incredibleness, some of the cool-factor of werewolves?
In her defense, though, I do like how they only exist (or at least, the people only have the ability to transform) so long as vampires are in the vicinity. But that begs the question, does it really coincide properly? Did the arrival of the Cullens coincide with Sam's first transformation into a werewolf?
"Twilight" took so long to get the plot moving; "New Moon" did it quickly and easily. If the books were likened to forms of killing, "Twilight" was like a slow, twisting of the knife in one's abdomen, while "New Moon" was more like a quick beheading. Not just that, but while "Twilight" often bored me, "New Moon" had an almost constant rhythm of drama, suspense, and even action! I was suitably impressed, and had a good reason to keep reading.
And of course, I read the preview for "Eclipse," and let me just say, the wank altered me to the whole marriage plot long before Edward did. It's not even "foreshadowing" what with Edward being so blunt about it. And on that note, Bella continues to befuddle: for all that I liked her for in "New Moon," I started to doubt was really her true character, based on the preview of "Eclipse" that I read. This is the girl that was willing to kill herself (or be killed, or simply die as as a result of her circumstances) for Edward, wanting to give up her family, her mortality, any normalcy or teeny tiny normal wishes she may have harbored in the deep, deep recesses of her mind-- AND SHE FEARS GETTING MARRIED!?
Seriously lady, you're thinking about committing your immortal life to this guy, more or less, wanting him to turn you instead of Carlisle (he's got the coolest name out of anyone in the entire series), and you're afraid of what a simple HUMAN commitment stands for? I was honestly blown away. What did she think she was going to do, simply spend the rest of her immortal life with Ed, always calling him "boyfriend"? Okay, I know the girl doesn't want to age, but if there's anything I've picked up with "Twilight," it's that no matter how old you are (real age-wise, not just appearance-wise), there's maturity that comes from experience. Otherwise, frankly, Ed would be a LOT more immature. Bella's got a partial excuse because she really IS 17-18, and hasn't been turned YET, and thus has only her human experiences to fall back on (no matter how vamp-filled they may have been thus far). So Ed's smart enough to realize, immortality together = make it official, why not?, but Bella? Who the hell knows what she's thinking? Does she even know what she's getting into? She seems to think she does....
Also made better in NM vs. "Twilight" was the concept of "extra powers." I like how the Volturi both used and abused them, and how it's not like ONLY ONE VAMP EVAR has a certain power; another vamp can have a very similar one, or have limitations. A baby vamp (that is, a young child that was turned, not simply someone who was recently turned) can be awesomely powerful, and an adult vamp can have no real powers at all other than what being a "vamp" gives you (immortality, super-senses, super-strength/speed). Bella and Edward's meeting with them also set the stage for Bella's eventual turning, and her own "special power," where she's able to block the best of everyone else's powers-- but not completely. Unlike Jacob and the other werewolves, she still features in Alice's visions, and Jasper is able to calm her, but neither Aro nor Edward can see her thoughts, and Jane can't blast her.
Not that I'd ever go into a fandom this raw and crazy, but, I had numerous squee-scenarios in my head (aka plot bunnies, aka fic ideas) while reading "New Moon:"
* What if Bella somehow became a vamp (or even a werewolf) before Alice and any of the others came back, or before they reunited? What if, as I mentioned before, it was NOT through the "usual" methods of bite (or in the case of Meyer's werewolves, by getting angry and having "the blood" in her anyway-- hey, Bella did have a bunch of transfusions at the end of "Twilight," remember?)
I don't know, I just don't like the idea of Bella always being so weak (and klutzy). It's like, Usagi didn't need Tuxedo Mask; he just happened to help out every now and again, and he ended up being good in bed and a decent king. But everyone knows, SAILOR MOON KICKS ASS ON HER OWN. Why can't Bella be like that somehow, without Edward having to be the one to turn her (or anyone else, for that matter), without her being a vampire? I mean, clearly she's already got some sort of latent power in that
a) she's horribly danger-prone
b) she can block almost any vampire power
c) she can manifest some pretty realistic delusions (honestly, I thought we were going to find out that Edward refused to completely sever himself from Bella and managed to leave a part of himself in her mind, or could otherwise "talk" with her, e.g. telepathy, rather than Edward's voice really being completely in her head --albeit for the reasons Bella didn't fully understand until the very end of NM)
d) she can be a halfway decent peacekeeper between mortal, magical enemies
Well, onto "Eclipse" and hopefully a decent night of sleep!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-08-03 05:25 pm (UTC)In real life, that would get tiring oh, so fast for the guy.
Jacob becomes her friend - they joke around, challenge each other, share interests. And he doesn't really let her get away with her crap too much. Despite being a werewolf, he's still human. Ed & co., honestly? Seem to have lost most of their humanity. Not in the "compassion" sense, but in the "qualities that make them normal" sense. In almost every sense of the word, Meyer has made them "perfect" - and that annoys me. I can't relate to ANY of them in almost any way. I still don't know why Alice and Jasper are so fabulously in love, even AFTER Jasper's background is expounded on in 'Eclipse', nor do I really think Rosalie's reason for disliking Bella so much explains much at all (also in Eclipse).
Meyer's has proven she capable of writing fat, complex, well-rounded characters - look at Jacob (and, though he doesn't get much screen-time, Sam has some great complexities). The Cullens and, to a lesser extent, Bella, are all incredibly flat and practically one-dimensional.
'New Moon' is, by far, in my opinion the best of the series so far. I liked the fact that Meyers wasn't afraid to send her love interest away for 80% of the book in order to develop the story. And the friendship/budding romance between Jacob and Bella is handled well. Bella hates herself for being selfish and shows remarkable remorse for leading Jacob on (even though he knows the reality). In book 3 she seems to forget all that and becomes a selfish coward not above using emotional manipulation - and what's infinitely worse, Meyers seems to have no qualms about justifying Bella's actions.
...Arg, sorry. I'm so long-winded, but your post definitely hit home with me in some places. I share a lot of your views. :) I look forward to hearing what you think of 'Eclipse'!
no subject
Date: 2008-08-03 06:41 pm (UTC)Speaking of, if you do like these books, I highly recommend just ending them with Eclipse....just forget that the new one comes out.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-04 07:25 am (UTC)Sad thing is, her attitude reminded me a lot of me. o_o (I'm a Sue!)
I think there might be two main reasons why women still read stuff that more or less puts women into roles more apt to historical fictions:
* They miss the "good ol' days," when men were men and women and women (whatever that means), but basically when things like chivalry and virtue were held in high regard.
* It's fiction, and no matter what we do in real life, no matter what we support, etc., we still like to indulge that tiny little part of our inner selves that likes to think of being wanted by the hottest guy, being the heroine who is self-sacrificing but manages to survive (and did so on her own wit/clumsiness/luck/whatever), and is loved by all. The vampire bit is just "cool."
As for Meyer, I do think her stories have read a bit like a soapbox; she used Edward as her reasoning for why sex shouldn't happen before marriage, and came off sounding like she was advocating the smartness and supposed permanence of high school relationships, with or without physicality. The one guy who acted his age -Jacob- more or less got speared from Bella's POV, but that was at least understandable AS A CHARACTER, because Bella's not the type to fight back (dirty) much, and, as you pointed out, she's just not physically strong enough, anyway.
But that's why I turn to fanfiction. The plot bunnies were a'bouncing as I read it, I assure you! I'd like fic for Twilight if only it gave Bella a more realistic attitude for her age, if she got to kick some ass (without breaking any bones), and if it explained some of the holes I feel Meyer left, like just why Edward is so attracted to Bella (beyond smell).
So, seems like you've read "Breaking Dawn" already then, eh? Does it make things worse? From what I smelled of the wank, people felt it was going to be the most out-of-character, at least based on the Bella and Edward we'd seen in the last 3 books, but who knows? After reading "Eclipse," I can at least understand why there WOULD be a floofy wedding in the beginning, and why there might be sense of urgency for Bella to want to be turned. And finally, some sex!
I'll hopefully be able to read it in a day or two.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-04 07:33 am (UTC)But yeah, I only started to empathize with Bella more, and feel she was more dimensional because of her attitude in Book 3. Not that it was a good attitude to have, but I've recognized it in myself, especially at her age. And the one saving grace of it being in first-person POV is, technically, the way Bella thinks/talks about how wonderful Edward is, how statuesque (and how velvet his voice is, don't let me forget that) he is, etc. is perfectly fine for her. If it were a limited third-person POV, that would be kind of repetitive and sickening (or at least to a greater degree). But at that age, when The Hot Guy in school starts doting on you? Sure, why not describe him with all the goofy art history terms you can think of?
I do like Jacob x Bella A LOT, especially after Book 3, but frankly unless Edward DIES -AGAIN- AND IS SHREDDED TO BITS (and I mean, Bella witnesses it or otherwise has tangible proof of it), I can't see it happening. I do like how Meyer brought in the possibility of Bella genuinely being in love with two guys at once, because it does happen. I'm glad she didn't try and have Bella delude herself into thinking all those times spent with Jacob were just "friendly," because even in her "innocent" POV, they weren't, and I'm sure a part of Bella was damn well aware of that, long before Jacob pushed her into admitting it.
I feel like I keep justifying the Bella I've slowly started to like -but only a tiny bit, mind- if only because I'm starting to see more of myself in her. I can "get," then, why she was emotionally manipulating others: out of desperation, selfishness, etc. But at least Bella's aware of it; she makes no secret of it, but in revealing how lousy she feels about everything she's done, it's not like she'd honestly do it differently, given another chance.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-05 06:39 pm (UTC)I've read plenty of books where the main character is a whiner, emo, completely selfish, ect...ect...but it's always how the writer handles that and how the people around the character react to said character that make the difference. EVERYONE is selfish and whiney, but most people get called on it in their lives at some point, or have a realization, and start to stray away from it and grow up. Bella just never does that, and gets worse because she gets a "Happily ever after, yayz!" without having to give up anything. Life doesn't work like that, and those who it does work like that for, when you talk to them after a few years, are never really happy.
Hey, a lot of people read these books because they're brain candy: I get that! I read JD Robb, Star Wars, and a bunch of other crap that is really just there, but it's being able to say "yeah, this is just telling a story, this isn't the Next Big Thing." There in lies the difference. At the age of 16 if you can't tell the difference between "Number the Stars" and "Twilight" then you haven't been paying attention to what you're reading.
The problem is that Bella isn't any of the things you mentioned. I'm going to have to disagree with you on Bella being 1) Self-sacrificing, 2) having survival skills. At no point does she give anything up, ever. Going to live in Forks? What did she give up there? What was her attachment to Phoenix outside of the sun? Her mom? Her mom who she barely calls, or thinks about, rolls her eyes about talking to, freaks out when her dad tells her important things like her being in the hospital? Friends? She didn't have any, or didn't care about any enough to keep in touch.
As for having survival skills, Bella's idea of survival appears to begin and end with she doesn't want to live if her boyfriend dies. She needs to be pulled out of situations and 'protected for her own good' which just reeks of self-hating vagina to me. That silly girl, unable to walk down the street on her own.
Meyer's soapbox is...an odd one. It's an obvious self insert if you read her description of Bella on her website, that she would have named her daughter Bella, and a bunch of other things, but some of the things she does (Quill imprinting on the 2 year old?! The stalking?! WHAT?!) it makes me question what she's trying to TELL young girls. Relationships out of high school can and do work, not all but some. But there's a lot of other things in the books that you have to look and just wonder what the hell is she thinking?
And yes...the fourth book is just bad. It takes all three books canon and says "What did I write this for? Silly me!" And there it goes! Sailing out the window! I've seen some fantastic retconning before, but this makes the Stephanie Brown problem look like a walk through daisies. I'm not talking about the wedding, or even the typical crap that's expected. I was honestly disturbed and a little sick to my stomach during one part.