cyberiouse

Example 1:

Anti: Edward is abusive

Support for this argument includes the following (and this is just a quick list):

1. Edward is controlling and domineering
2. Edward has an unequal share of authority over the relationship
3. Edward threatens suicide
4. Edward manipulates Bella into marriage
5. Edward actively attempts to prevent Bella from seeing her friend (removes engine, has her kidnapped)
6. Edward encourages Bellas isolation from others

Now, Ive found that the most common argument in rebuttal for Edward is abusive is But he only does it because he loves her or Hes trying to protect her or His intentions are good or He recognizes that he makes mistakes/overreacts.

Im going to address these arguments in two parts. First, in terms of semantics; that is, the actual actions and consequences in the series, and second Ill deal with the abstraction of intentions versus actions.

1. What is abuse?

Obviously Edward is not abusive physically to Bella, but that doesnt mean that hes not still abusive. That is, he is emotionally and mentally abusive. And the fact that hes a vampire has nothing to do with it; Meyer is portraying a relationship between two people, and given the fact that Edward has a very human psyche (i.e. he experiences human emotions (anger, love, worry), human desires (sex), and was once in fact human) it is not a reasonable argument to simply excuse his bad behavior by simply arguing, hes a vampire, so it doesnt count.

So: abuse. What is it?

Wikipedia says:

Quote:
An abusive relationship is an interpersonal relationship characterized by the use or threat of physical or psychological abuse. Abusive relationships are often characterized by jealousy, emotional withholding, lack of intimacy, infidelity, sexual coercion, verbal abuse, broken promises, physical violence, control games and power plays.


Lets break this definition down in terms of Edward and Bella.

Jealousy If anything, Edwards defining characteristic is in fact his jealousy. It is his jealousy (more than anything else) that instigates his abusive acts. He admits after the engine episode that the main reason for not wanting Bella to see Jacob was in fact his prejudice and jealousy, and thats hardly the only instance of his jealousy.
Emotional withholding The fact that Edward and Bella are supposed to share this incredible, transcendent relationship is undermined by the fact that rather than discuss his fears and uncertainties, Edward chooses to leave Bella at the beginning of New Moon. While its not a crime to end a relationship, the fact that Edward chose to do so in such a cruel and unusual manner instead of explaining his feelings and emotions on the subject is pretty abusive.
Lack of intimacy The intimacy issue is a trickier when it comes to Edward and Bella. First, in terms of physical intimacy: the fact that Edward controls every single chaste little kiss AND withholds sex is incredibly controlling. That he does so supposedly to protect her is negated by the fact that hes more than willing to sex her up once theyre married, even though shes still a puny, fragile human (and she does get hurt). Their lack of emotional intimacy (again, with the above point about emotional withholding) is just as damaging (as referenced by Bellas zombiefied state in New Moon.
Sexual coercion Again, Edward controls every aspect of their sexual lives, against Bellas will and in fact he demeans and treats her like a child when she attempts to sex him.
Broken promises at the end of Twilight, Edward promises to stay with Bella no matter what. Yet at the beginning of New Moon, he massively overreacts to the supposed threat of danger and decides to break that promise, rendering Bella suicidal. Maybe this isnt traditionally abusive, but its unnecessarily damaging.
Control games and power plays All the above points serve the idea that Edwards prevailing character (served by his jealousy) is controlling. And I dont care how powerful and omniscient and old and wise Edward is, when youre in a romantic relationship with someone one partner cannot be completely dominating and the other submissive (unless its a BDSM relationship, but thats another subject entirely). It simply isnt healthy, particularly when its supposed to be this great love of all the ages and representative of an equal partnership.

2. Intentions

Let me just say this once to make it clear: intentions (good or bad) do not matter. Its an instance of the classic phrase acta non verba, or actions, not words. It doesnt matter if I tell you I love you so much! if I immediately follow that statement by trying to kill you. It doesnt matter if I honestly DO love you and I STILL try to kill you; the action of attempted homicide still stands (and Ill be charged with that) regardless of how I feel about it. If I kill someone and then say I made a mistake or I loved him/her, the fact that I feel bad about it in retrospect does not change the irreversible fact that I did, in fact, kill someone.

So if Edward removes the engine from Bellas truck and then replaces it later, the fact that he replaces it later is irrelevant to the issue at hand; the fact that he performed the abusive act in the first place. I dont care if he felt bad about it or changed his mind; he still performed the act to begin with.

If Edward only does anything in order to protect Bella, its again an instance of the irrelevance of intentions. Simply put, he doesnt have the right to upend another persons life or to attempt to control what that person does, even if he cares about them. It is not my roommates place to lock me in our room to prevent me from going out and getting trashed, even if she thinks shes doing it to protect me or because she cares about me. Likewise, it isnt Edwards right to decide who Bella sees, when she sees him, where she sees him, and for how long. Just because he decided NOT to kidnap Bella for the weekend a second time doesnt make the fact that he kidnapped her for a weekend for the first time moot.

Basically, intentions dont matter. Actions matter. Even if Edward changes his mind or feels bad about it, that doesnt erase the fact that he performed the act in the first place. If he feels bad about it, it doesnt mean that his character isnt an abusive one; you dont judge a character based on the person he is by the end of the novel (or series); rather, you judge them (and form an understanding of them) by incorporating EVERYTHING you learn about them throughout the series. So while Edward DOES change and DOES make different decisions, his good decisions dont negate the bad ones. He performs an abusive act = he is abusive, even if he feels bad about it. Capisce?

Anti: [x] doesnt make sense

For the sake of argument, you may replace x with the lack of realism (in terms of plot and setting and especially the various relationships), the sparkly issue, the biology issue, contradictions and hypocrisies, the abandonment of traditional vampire lore, etc.

The response to this is either
a) an attempt to prove that [x] makes sense using a minutiae of plot point and semantics;
b) Its fantasy; it doesnt have to be realistic!

Since point a varies from debate-to-debate, Ill stick with point b for the time being.

Its fantasy; it doesnt have to be realistic is so completely and utterly wrong on so many levels that I almost dont know where to begin.

Lets start with definitions.

Fantasy from Wikipedia:

Quote:
The identifying traits of fantasy are the inclusion of fantastic elements in a self-coherent (internally consistent) setting. Within such a structure, any location of the fantastical element is possible: it may be hidden in, or leak into the apparently real world setting, it may draw the characters into a world with such elements, or it may occur entirely in a fantasy world setting, where such elements are part of the world.
Within a given work, the elements must not only obey rules, but for plot reasons, must also contain limits to allow both the heroes and the villains means to fight; magical elements must come with prices, or the story would become unstructured.

American fantasy, starting with the stories chosen by John W. Campbell, Jr. for the magazine Unknown, is often characterized by internal logic. That is, the events in the story are impossible, but follow "laws" of magic, and have a setting that is internally consistent.


Realistic from Merriam-Webster:

Quote:
3: the theory or practice of fidelity in art and literature to nature or to real life and to accurate representation without idealization


In short, just because something is fantasy does not mean it is unrealistic. The object of writers is to make you believe the story they are telling; whether that story is a crime drama or Lord of the Rings is irrelevant. The point is that the author tries to immerse its reader so fully into the story that not only does the reader understand the complexities of the world they have created (like Trekkies translating the Bible into Klingon, for example) but can use the imagination to "believe" that that world exists. Realism does not mean that everything is exactly how it is in the real world; it means that the media (the book, the movie, the play) is so well-crafted that it seems real. Good writers make their readers believe.

How does the writer do this?

1) Create characters to whom readers can relate; characters who are complex and representative of three-dimensional people (and have complex, three-dimensional relationships);

(Since no one is perfect, Edward fails this test *g*)

2) Create a world with rules (and don't contradict those rules);

3) Use reason and logic to determine the course of plot and character arc.

Basically, giving "it's fantasy" as an argument against the total lack of realism in Edward and Bella's one twu luv-ness is just wrong. A good fantasy can utilize the idea of soulmates (like Richard and Kahlan in Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series) while still taking time to develop the relationship and the characters in a believable fashion. Attraction =/= everlasting love. Everlasting love happens when you get two people who understand, respect, and enjoy the other in terms of personality and character. Edward's hotness and Bella's delicious blood do not a soulmate make. And justifying the pitiful relationship development with "it's fantasy" is only a crude cop-out reserved for those with no understanding of good storytelling.

Example 3:

Anti: "The books are sexist and even misogynistic at times"

Generally, the antis argue the following points:

1. Bella

- plays the weak 'damsel in distress' role;
- Bella is weak-willed morally (wants to have sex but Edward, the good, upstanding, moral man wants to wait until marriage);
- Bella has no ambitions outside of Edward (doesn't want to go to college);
- Bella cooks and cleans for her father
- Bella forgives Edward instantly for the New Moon fiasco ("forgive your man no matter what")

2. The other females are inferior to the male characters across the board.

- The "shallow" friends (Jessica, Angela, etc.) are not given as much screen time as Mike, let's say, and Bella writes them off as basically Barbie dolls whereas the boys are given personalities.
- Bella's mom is flighty and inconsistent whereas her father is solid, dependable, caring.
- Rosalie had shallow ambitions as a human, was a damsel in distress, and has a victimized backstory as opposed to say, Jasper, who was kickass.
- Esme does nothing; she exists for sole purpose of Carlisle having a mate.

3. The werewolves

- They're shocked when Leah becomes a werewolf, but instead of becoming kickass like the rest of them she's a "burden" and a "harpy" because of Sam.
- Imprinting. The women get no say.

I'd call these the three main points that are argued, with the possibility of several more variations and much more support.

What the Twilight defense usually says in response to these arguments is the following.

1. "Bella doesn't mind", "Bella knows that Edward loves her", "Bella offers to cook and clean", "Bella DOES have ambition--marrying Edward"

2. "But Alice is strong, so therefore the books aren't sexist"

3. "They're just surprised that Leah is a werewolf, and wouldn't you be mad at Sam if you were her? That's not sexist!", "Imprinting is romantic, like soul-mates"

I mentioned the trend that I've noticed in the pro-Twilight versus anti-Twilight debates, that the Antis tend to argue in terms of the conceptual while most of the Twilight fans Ive come across attempt to use semantics rather than philosophical rebuttals. The sexism debate is a perfect example of that.

Let's look at the "Bella doesn't mind" and "Bella offers to cook and clean" arguments.

"Bella doesn't mind"

The point that the books are sexist is not whether or not BELLA thinks they're sexist; the closest she gets to thinking about feminism is her essay on whether Shakespeare is misogynistic or not. It doesn't matter if Bella likes playing the damsel in distress or if Bella appreciates Edward telling her what to do--rather, what matters is the essential message of the book: the subtext, theme, and suggestions.

Even if Bella excuses Edward or Jacob's bad behavior, it doesn't mean that a) the readers should forget it or b) that the behavior isn't sexist. Who cares what Bella thinks? Meyer gives us ~1500 pages full of Bella's whiny rambling and TELLS us that it's not sexist or that it's not misogynistic, but what is SHOWN contradicts that.

In brief, even if it doesn't occur to Bella to say, "Hey! I want some gender equality!" or "Hey! I don't need some sparkly vampire to save me!" or "Charlie, cook your own food, you've been doing it yourself for fifteen years!", it doesn't mean that the sexism doesn't exist. In fact, the idea that "Bella doesn't mind" actually becomes an argument for the Anti-Twilight side--Meyer uses her main character to basically shout out from the rooftops that sexism isn't a big deal. Bella SHOULD mind, especially if she's supposed to be a strong, smart, independent female character.

It's the ACTIONS, not the intentions that matter. Bella does offer to cook and clean for Charlie, but again I say who cares what Bella thinks? Why couldn't she have offered to mow the lawn or fix the roof instead of pigeon-holing herself into the traditional female role? The part the matters is the fact that it's the female who performs the "female" duties as though it's expected of her. It's the subtext which tells the reader "this is what good, dutiful daughters do" that is the problem, NOT how Bella feels about it.

"But Alice is strong, so therefore the books aren't sexist"

I can't tell you how much I hate this argument. In short, 1 sort-of strong female character does not cancel out an entire book's worth of weak, pathetic female characters. Not only that, but Alice is only a strong character when compared to Bella or Jessica--if you pitted her against Buffy or Willow or Drusilla or Hermione Granger or Claudia (from IWTV (Anne Rice)), how do you honestly think she'd fare? Answer: not well. Just because 1 crappy female character is lightyears better than the rest of your crappy female characters does not make her a strong character independently.

"But she can see the future!" is not an argument for her strength as a female character. In comparison to Edward and Jasper's gifts, hers is by far the most inconsistent and the most limited--for example, her visions don't always come true and she's unable to "see" the werewolves whereas Edward's gift does not err and he can read the werewolves' minds. Why is the female vampire's gift so inferior to the males'? Why is hers inconsistent (females=unreliable?) whereas Edward's and Jasper's are completely reliable?

Yes, Meyer tells us that Alice is a strong character (she can fight, she's physically strong), but other than that what do we really know of her? Instead of giving her some meaty interests like, I don't know, science or literature or art or history, Meyer turns her into a vampire version of the "shallow Barbies" whom Bella detests. She's 100 years old and Alice still likes playing dress-up and going shopping and planning parties? Why not give her some REAL qualities rather than the vapid and uninteresting activities of the boring, stereotypical fifteen year old girl?

So, just because Alice is a cut above the rest does not make her a good character. Just because she's stronger than the rest of the female characters does not make her a strong character. Just because she's more powerful than the rest of the female characters does not make her powerful. It's all relative, and if you judge Alice on her own merits she does not make the cut as a strong female character.

"They're just surprised that Leah is a werewolf, and wouldn't you be mad at Sam if you were her? That's not sexist!" and "Imprinting is romantic, like soul-mates"

I think the naked fact that Leah turned into a werewolf is great. It really interested me. The problem is how Meyer handled it. Instead of Leah becoming a functioning, useful, and integral part of the pack she becomes a nuisance and drives the pack crazy. Why? Because she's broken-hearted. So what does this say? A) allow your heartbreak to completely take over your life and make you a vindictive harpy bitch and B) your happiness is dependent on your love life. Why is it that Jacob gets sympathy for his heartbreak but Leah is just considered an annoyance? Certainly Sam's betrayal of Leah was worse than Bella's rejection of Jacob (though that's a topic for another day). The fact that Bella, who just lived through a terrible experience (New Moon) is unsympathetic to Leah is just another example of the rampant sexism in the books. Why does the only possibility for a strong female character have to be made into a petty and vindictive annoyance?

Concerning imprinting. It is not romantic. It completely removes the power of the female half of the relationship--rather than build a relationship on mutual interests, trust, and personality, the male imprints on the female and it's OMG! TRUE LOVE FOREVER!

And how about Quil and Claire? Now, the author says that "it's not sexual; the boy will be whatever she needs until she's mentally mature", i.e. a brother or cousin or uncle figure until the little girl is all grown up. The problem is that no matter how non-sexual the relationship between the adult male and the child female is, the fact is that imprinting happens for the purpose of reproduction, thus necessitating a sexual relationship in the future. So the little girl will be "groomed" to be the male's future mate, with no possibility of choice otherwise (Meyer says "it's hard to resist that level of devotion") and will eventually engage in a sexual and romantic relationship with the man that has supposedly been a brother-, father-, or uncle-figure her entire life (an authority figure). That's sick, and there's no excuse for it, not to mention that it totally removes the right to choose from the female.

Conclusion? The books are sexist.

Example 4:

Anti: Twilight has either no plot or a very, very tiny one

Fangirl: Bella and Edwards love story is the plot and James trying to kill Bella is the plot

As youre all no doubt beginning to realize, I really love throwing definitions into the mix.

Wikipedia says:

Quote:
In literature, a plot is all the events in a story particularly rendered towards the achievement of some particular artistic or emotional effect. In other words, it's what mostly happened in the story or novel or what the story's general theme is based on, such as the mood, characters, setting, and conflicts occurring in a story.



The concept of plot and the associated concept of plot construction, also called emplotment, has developed considerably since Aristotle made these insightful observations. The episodic narrative tradition which Aristotle indicates has systematically been subverted over the intervening years, to the extent that the concept of beginning, middle, end are merely regarded as a conventional device when no other is at hand.


Merriam-Webster says:

Quote:
3: the plan or main story (as of a movie or literary work)


Plot is a tricky subject, particularly in literature. For this reason, I apologize in advance for the rambling and confusion that is sure to follow throughout this post.

Plot

Problems arise when one attempts to draw up a definition of plot; either the definition becomes too open (calling everything plot, i.e. the characters and their arcs, the events in the story, the theme etc.) or narrow (calling only literal benchmark events plot, i.e. 1. Bella comes to Forks, 2. Bella meets Edward, 3. Bella and Edward fall in love (debatable)).

With Twilight, there come problems with either definition, so to be fair (since the average Twilight fan admits that in terms of linear plot events, Twilight is pretty lacking) lets look at the open definition in particular.

Character arc and development

Wikipedia says:

Quote:
A character arc is the status of the character as it unfolds throughout the story, the storyline or series of episodes. Characters begin the story with a certain viewpoint and, through events in the story, that viewpoint changes.


Character development may refer to the change in characterization of a dynamic character, who changes over the course of a narrative.


Lets consider characters. There is a complete lack of character development in the book, thus removing the idea of character arc as part of plot. Bella does not change in any essential way from page 1 of the book to page 400 (or however many pages there are) aside from meeting and falling in love with Edward. She is the same character. Meyer does not reveal that she becomes more or less trusting, more or less prone to anger, more or less kind, more or less world-wise, or any other possible changes for other characteristics. At the beginning of the book, she worries about her mother. At the end, the fact that she worries about her mother is the crux of the events-based plot that forms the dubious climax of the book.

Neither does Edward experience any great transformation as a character aside from his relationship with Bella. As a vampire, he is naturally unchanging, sort of preserved forever as a 17 year old boy, and Meyer does nothing to change this perception. He is presented as something of a loner, and that is the only characteristic to change simply by virtue of the love story. Aside from that, there IS no character to change in the first place; Edward, like Bella, is very much a blank slate on which the reader is intended to imprint themselves in order to live the story through Bellas shoes and experience their personal vision of the perfect man with Edward as the vessel.

Meyer gives token characteristics to both characters (Bella is clumsy, Edward plays piano) but neither of these are true intrinsic traits which define the characters actions, wishes, and intentions. Rather, Meyer gives us traits which are focused outwardly rather than personal to each character, such as Edwards jealousy over Bellas friendship with Jacob. Given that he had no one to be jealous of in the past, this is not so much a character trait as it is an after-thought, a reactionary plot device to advance what little conflict there is in the series. Everything Edward focuses on and thinks about surrounds Bella; this is not a character which represents a three-dimensional person so much as the perfect (and non-existent) fantasy man. For this reason, Edward HAS no character of his own except for that which applies to Bella. Thus, the plot in terms of character arc is completely absent because there is nothing within Edward to change in the first place.

An argument against this might say

But the point is that Edward wasnt truly alive until he met Bella, so his character arc happens when he meets Bella

Wanting to kill her one day and then deciding that he cant live without her the next does not a character arc make. And the idea that he wasnt truly alive before Bella only reinforces the idea that Edward is just a blank slate; no real person (or even half of a person) simply exists for 100 years as a transient being with no personal characteristics and quirks and traits (talking old-fashioned does NOT count). Going from a nothing character to a one chock full of reactionary traits (e.g. wants to protect Bella) is not a character arc nor is it character development.

But Edward is caring, loving, smart, awesome, sweet, sexy, psychic, hot, etc. etc., so yes he DOES have personality

Most of those supposed characteristics are subjective in the minds of readers (sexy, hot just because Meyer says so doesnt make it true) and some of them are flat-out contradicted by the text (caring, loving go read the Edward is abusive thread).

Even if those WERE characteristics, they undergo no important changes or development throughout the series, so theyre irrelevant to the plot (which is the discussion at hand).

Theme

Wikipedia says:

Quote:
In literature, a theme is a broad idea in a story, or a message or lesson conveyed by a work. This message is usually about life, society or human nature. Themes explore timeless and universal ideas. Most themes are implied rather than explicitly stated.
Deep thematic content is not required in literature; however, some readers hold that all stories inherently project some kind of outlook on life that can be taken as a theme, regardless of whether or not this is the intent of the author.[/quote[

Most Twilight fans say that the theme of Twilight is supposed to be the love story of Bella and Edward. While this is obviously a woeful ignorance of what theme means, it does provide an interesting opportunity for me to really explore the merits of this supposed love story.

Lets preface this argument with some words from Stephenie Meyer:

Unintentional and rubbish [In answer to the question if vampires represent Satan]. No offense to your friend. It is possible to read TOO deep into a book. They're just vampires


Its interesting to me that Meyer calls an attempt at the basic identification of a metaphor reading too deeply particularly because Ive heard that same argument many times from Twilight fans especially in the sexism and abuse discussions. Its a popular argument (apparently learned from Meyer herself) to say that because the sexism/abuse was unintended, that it therefore doesnt exist. This is obviously silly (and an argument Ive covered before) so I wont get into that too much except to say that the actions characters take (and in Bellas case, her thoughts (or lack thereof)) DO send a message (the theme). In Twilights case, that message is almost certainly unintentional but it is projected quite clearly nonetheless; the message of sexism and abuse being acceptable.

Since Meyer herself argues that the books are NOT sexist and that the notion of Edward acting abusive is hurtful to her, its fair to say that she did not intend for that theme.

So what theme, if any, did she intend to portray?



I cant think of one, and neither can the Twilight fans Ive asked that question. They all say that its just a love story. While I disagree with them, I think its safe to say that the unintended theme (sexism is a-okay) and the intended its just a love story are debates for another day. For now, lets just say that Twilight has a deadbeat theme and therefore, no theme contributes to the plot.

Whats left?

Since characterization and theme have been chopped down at the knees, I must turn my attention to the more narrow view of plot which is the basic step-by-step unfolding of events.

Lets review.

1. Bella moves to Forks.
2. Bella meets Edward.
3. Bella and Edward fall in love (given that this happens in about two weeks I really dont know if it counts, but Im giving Twilight the benefit of the doubt)
4. James comes after Bella.
5. James bites the dust (couldnt resist, sorry).

Plot is incontrovertibly tied with conflict and that is another reason the antis argue that Twilight has no plot. Meyer supposedly used Pride and Prejudice as inspiration for Twilight, but the actual conflict of Bella and Edward getting together was resolved in a few pages; Bella whines about Edward shooting death glares at her, Edward disappears for a week, Edward comes back and starts following her around like a puppy dog.

Twilight fans argue that Bella trying to figure out what Edward was is another conflict. Given that the readers are told on the inside of the dust jacket that Edwards a vampire, not only is this NOT a conflict for them, its more an annoyance. And once Bella finds out what he is, rather than being disgusted or afraid (a more likely response and one that could have led to some true conflict with Edward trying to win her trust or something), she is totally fine with it thats some pretty anticlimactic conflict resolution, if you ask me.

Then James comes. Most antis accept the James-wanting-a-taste-of-Bella as the main conflict of the book, yet it comes into play around 2/3 of the way through the book and reads like it was an afterthought, a conflict that Meyer tacked on once she realized that the book had no plot. Its resolved easily enough considering the length of the book as a whole, and Bella escapes with a broken bone or two and no doubts at all about her relationship with a the guy of the same species as the guy who just hunted her down and nearly killed her. Whatever.

My conclusion?

By my definition, Twilight has no plot. Events happen, sure, but they arent accompanied with and dont effect change in character development, thematic development, and conflict. Instead, Twilight is 400+ pages of whiny rambling and immature gushing over the elusive perfection that is Edward Cullen, a tabula rasa of a character and no more real than a three-legged gnome casting love spells on unsuspecting Elvish citizenry.

Example 5:

Anti: Bella and Edward are in lust, not love

Fangirl: They say they love each other all the time and Bella and Edward are soul-mates and Bella and Edward cant live without each other and Bella and Edward are perfect for each other

As always, let us begin with definitions:

Lust

Merriam-Webster says:

Quote:
noun: 2: usu. intense or unbridled sexual desire : lasciviousness
3 a: an intense longing : craving <a lust to succeed>

Transitive verb: to have an intense desire or need : crave; specifically : to have a sexual urge


Wikipedia says:

Quote:
Lust is any intense desire or craving for gratification and excitement. Lust can mean strictly sexual lust, although it is also common to speak of a "lust for men", "lust for blood" (bloodlust), or a "lust for power" (or other goals), and to "lust for love". The Greek word which translates as lust is epithymia, which also is translated into English as "to covet".


Infatuation

Wikipedia says:

Quote:
Infatuation is the state of being completely carried away by unreasoned passion or love; addictive love. Infatuation usually occurs at the beginning of a relationship. It is characterized by urgency, intensity, desire, and/or anxiety, in which there is an extreme absorption in another. It is traditionally associated with youth.


Bella tells us, Edward tells us, and Meyer sure as h*ll tells us that Bella and Edward have true love. They are soul mates. Bellas lifebloodher very essencesings to Edwards soul.

The best part is that this incredible true love (Better than Elizabeth and Darcy, Meyer claims, better than evil Heathcliff and selfish Catherine!) happens within the first five seconds of meeting each other. Amazing, I knowwhod have thought that people could realize their love for all eternity with one glance at the others stunning, gorgeous, sparkling mug?

Well, I dont. And the antis dont. And all the evidence in the series points to, No, B & E are not in love. Lust? Given by the amount of times Bella tries to corrupt Edwards delicate Victorian sensibilities by employing her lascivious feminine wiles, Id say thats a yes. Infatuation? Every other word is ZOMG, Edward is so hawt! and I lurrrvveee him! So yeah, the word is infatuation.

The fact is, there is no indication anywhere in the series that Edward and Bella are compatible mates. They dont ever have conversations (aside from how wonderful the other is and/or Im dangerous, stay away!), they dont ever do anything together (whats wrong with seeing a movie or reading a book together? They watch Romeo and Juliet in the first book but that was a thinly-disguised plot device for the express purpose of comparing them to R&J [ironically apt, given that R&J were in lust as well] and for the gag-worthy suckfest of quoting the lines at each other).

Of course, its not their fault that they arent compatibleits the fact that theres nothing to be compatible with. Bella and Edward are empty tabulae rasae and as much as Meyer wants us to believe that they have twu luv, she shoots herself in the foot by not giving them actual personalities. When a characters only trait is his hotness, there really cannot be any basis for a true-to-life relationship and thus we get the lust-fest that is all four books.

Twilight fans disagree with me and will say, but its fantasy, and this is true love!

The deus ex machina of true love does not simply erase the necessity of character formation and development. True love does not replace the need for relationship building. Meyer attempts to distract the readers from this fact by emphasizing Edward and Bellas need for each other and the supposed reality that they simply cant live without each other.

On the basis of what, I ask? What is it about Bella that Edward cannot live without, and vice versa?

So in lieu of forming an actual emotional connection, Meyer chooses instead to romanticize suicide. This is potentially my biggest problem with the entire series; the idea that an author writing a young adult series would ever, ever romanticize or gloss over or present suicide as acceptable or understandable is absolutely unforgivable.

I dont care if Bella wasnt actually trying to commit suicide when she jumped off the cliff, it was a suicidal act by virtue of the fact that she was willing to potentially end her life just to hear Edwards voice again. And dont even get me started on the Edward-goes-to-Volterra bit.

In brief, it is not love when the two characters relationship is based only on looks and lust. It is sure as h*ll not true love because the participants are willing to kill themselves rather than face a future without the other. At best, its dangerous infatuation and at worst its a horrifically unhealthy and abusive relationship.

Example 6:

Anti: Bella is an idiot, Bella is superficial (aka Meyer tells and doesnt show)

Fangirl: No, she gets good grades and likes to read, Bella hates superficial people, shes really deep and stuff

Unfortunately this is not an argument where I can use definitions effectively, so Ill get right to it. The Bella is an idiot argument is a perfect example of the Show, not Tell problem for the Twilight books. Let me explain:

Its fine for an author to say [character x] holds a grudge as part of that characters development if the author backs up his or her statement with examples in the text of that character holding a grudge, i.e. refusing to forgive a friend for borrowing clothes without asking, etc., etc. Thats the show part of it; the author, through his or her use of dialogue or action or theme, allows the reader to infer an understanding of the character themselves rather than being led along by the author like a kindergarten teacher leading a line of children to class. It forces the reader to come to his or her own conclusions, to interact with the story at hand rather than being force fed information.

But it can be tricky, and bad writers will often do one or both of the following:

1. Tell [x], but not show [x].
2. Tell [x], and show [y].

The latter is worse and its the sin of which Meyer is guilty. She constantly contradicts herself, and the Bella is an idiot argument is a perfect example.

Imagine if J.K. Rowling had told us that Harry Potter had a savior complex, and then went on to make him say, Forget Ginny Weasley. Im not going down to the Chamber of Secrets! or Screw you, Gabrielle! Its Fleurs job to save you, not mine! or Pffft, Voldemorts there? Sirius can save himself! (Side-note: *cries*) I, for one, would have had a big problem with that and Id wager that Harry wouldnt be near the popular icon he is had Rowling engaged in such shoddy writing.

So lets look at Bella. What makes Bella smart?

Well, were told that she likes to read, and the particular books/plays mentioned are: Romeo & Juliet, Pride and Prejudice, Wuthering Heights, and so on.

Do we EVER see her read anything else? Does she ever give cute little literary allusions? I read a lot (Im an English major, I have to) and the books Ive read constantly pop up in my conversations, in my analysis of any given situation (when I watch TV, see a movie, read a book, EVERYTHING), and they simply influence my life in general. Apparently not so in Bellas case; for all her rumored book-lovers habits, she never makes a single reference to, say, The Picture of Dorian Gray when describing Edwards beauty or vampirism (which would have been interesting!), nor a Wow, Jane freaks me out as much as Claudia did in Interview With the Vampire, nor a Is Harry Potter real, then? when she finds out about Edward &co. being vampires. We never see her read a book outside of the ones mentioned (which Meyer includes solely to draw bad comparisons and introduce awful interpretations), we never see her discuss books with Edward (outside of quoting Shakespeare and trading passages of Wuthering Heights, which again was only for Meyers purposes), and aside from English class will be easy since I read all those books in my other class already, she never shows any interest in her studies (and in fact doesn't even seem to grasp how college is important).

Okay, so Meyer says she likes to read. Where does she show this? Answer: nowhere.

Perhaps more importantly, several of Bellas actions indicate that she is, in fact, not the brightest bulb in the box. Lets list some of her stupid actions:

1. She walks off into a dark alley where she might get raped. WTF.
2. She doesnt tell Edward or any of the centuries-old, experienced vampires about James message, deciding to handle it herself instead (and nearly getting herself killed).
3. She gets lost in the woods (granted, emotional issues aside) within sight of her own home.
4. She repeatedly puts herself (and her life) in danger to hear a voice in her head.
5. Despite writing an essay on Shakespeare being misogynistic, she does not recognize at all the sexist and abusive elements in her own relationships.

So despite Meyer telling us that Bella is a special snowflake in the neurons-and-synapses department, in reality shes a pretty foolish character, though its not just this area in which the author shows and tells something different. In fact, the entire series is contradiction after contradiction after contradiction. Some quick examples:

1. Meyer tells us that Bella knows herself, yet it takes Jacob sexually assaulting her for her to realize that shes love with him (after months of leading him along like a horrible bitch).
2. Meyer tells us that Bella is independent, yet she devolves into a zombie for months on end when precious Edward leaves her (and relies on Jacob for any semblance of happiness thereafter).
3. Bella says that she hates all the superficial girls at school, yet her own relationship is based on the fact that Edward is a shiny, marble Adonis rather than, you know, he has a great personality.

So, where does this leave us?

Oh, right. Bella is an idiot.

Example 7:

Anti: Imprinting is sick, sexist, and promotes pedophilia

Fan: Imprinting isnt sexual, Imprintings not sexist because its equally degrading

At best, imprinting is a second-rate deus ex machina to make coupling easier for Meyer by taking away the necessity for character and relationship development. Basically, love-at-first-sight by any other name still smells not-quite-sweet. Now, had Meyer simply gone ahead with love at first sight rather than the imprinting concept, I doubt wed be discussing it right now. Rather, Id be arguing how lame love at first sight is.

But since Meyer chose imprinting and all its dangly bits, lets take a look at it.

Who imprints?

The male werewolves. It isnt known whether or not Leah can imprint, though she complains in Breaking Dawn that shes twenty years old and menopausal, indicating that she cant procreate anyway, thus rendering the function of imprinting useless (more on that later).

Quil imprinted on Claire, a two year-old.
Jacob imprinted on Nessie, an infant.

What is the purpose of imprinting?

We learn over the course of the series that the purpose of imprinting and why normal folk dont do it is to insure that the werewolf gene (or shape-shifting gene) is passed on. Think of it like an evolutionary adaptation to insure the procreation of ones speciesmuch the same as certain types of frogs modulating the pitch and frequency of their mating calls in order to attract a female of their exact species. Imprinting is not to make sure that the werewolves get true love. Its not to make sure that the werewolves have a barefoot woman in the kitchen to make them sandwiches. The sole reason is for reproduction. Thats it. No other reason.

Imprinting is sick, sexist, and promotes pedophilia

So if imprintings sole purpose is for reproduction, then it is inherently sexual. Saying its not sexual is like saying a dude putting his penis in a girls vag isnt sexual. Reproduction = sexual.

To get out of the squick factor with Quil imprinting on Claire and Jacob imprinting on Nessie, Meyer quickly defends it by saying that the imprinter will be whatever is needed, whether thats a brother or uncle or father.

And there go my squick alarms, blaring away like the siren of a police cruiser full of pedophiles.

One of the problems is that there is an understood future sexual relationship (by virtue of the imprinting) at stake. So the idea of the werewolf taking a fraternal or paternal role in the life of the child leads directly to the concept of child grooming, defined below:

Child grooming

Quote:
The deliberate actions taken by an adult to form a trusting relationship with a child, with the intent of later having sexual contact is known as child grooming. The act of grooming a child sexually may include activities that are legal in and of themselves, but later lead to sexual contact. Typically, this is done to gain the child's trust as well as the trust of those responsible for the child's well-being.


Sound familiar? Thats because that describes the exact actions being taken by Quil and, to a lesser extent Jacob (given that Nessie is supposedly super-mature and super in general) in their relationships with Claire and Nessie respectively.

Certainly Quil doesnt want to hurt Claire, but hes taking an authoritative role in her life and for her to grow up with Uncle Quil or Brother Quil with the expectation of a sexual relationship completely sabotages her rights and her personal ability to refuse him. That is, both Quil and the rest of the tribe expect her to engage in a relationship with him and she has been brought up with the understanding that Quil will eventually become Lover Quil. How is she supposed to refuse him when hes not only been an authority figure all her life but its expected by him and the rest of her family and friends that they live happily ever after (and make lots of puppies)? Thats inexcusable and sick, and as I already established, there can be no imprinting without reproduction. This means that Quil and Claires relationship can never be simply platonic and thats why its pedophilic.

Not to mention that its also sexist. It puts all the power of the relationship into Quils hands rather than Claires. Sure, Quil didnt choose to imprintit was forced upon himbut he does have the ability to mold and shape his and Claires relationship over a period of at least 16 years while Claire is given no options of her own. This goes for every other female who has been imprinted upon Where is their right to choose? If theyre a member of the tribe, then theyre expected to just fall in line with whatever boy has designs on them, because, as Meyer says, its supposedly hard to resist that level of devotion.

Now, a popular argument that the Twilight fans use is this: Imprinting is degrading to both males and females equally, therefore its not sexist. While they do make a good point about imprinting and the males, their logic is flawed. No, the males dont have a right to choose eitherthey become groveling, sniveling love slaves with no options outside of the person they choose, but the difference is that they have feelings for the person. If we take imprinting at face value, then theyve found their soul-mate and they have no doubts, no concerns, and no regrets about it. The problem is that its not reciprocal. The females are not guaranteed feelings equal to the male, yet theyre still expected to hop between the sheets with them. Had Meyer left it as a one-way, unrequited love process, then it wouldnt have been as sexist (it would have put power in the hands the female and degraded the male not a good thing, either). But because she insinuates that the females are supposed to love the male back, then it becomes a problem.

Imprinting (and werewolf reproduction) is sexist in another way as well, specifically for Leah. Now, this is either a giant misunderstanding or a blatant contradiction (Im inclined to think the latter, considering Meyers dubious track record), but in Breaking Dawn, Meyer insinuates that Leah is infertile. WTF? Evolutionarily speaking, why on earth would a female werewolf become infertile while the males get to keep their little swimmers? (Same question to the vampires, actually) So if imprinting happens to insure reproduction, why the hell would werewolf-ism ever make the person infertile? Theres zero reason for it evolutionarily (it goes counter to evolution theory, period) and biologically speaking, if the males can keep creating sperm with no problem, then it makes zeroZERO!sense for Leahs eggs (which she was born with) to suddenly lose their viability. After all, if imprinting is there to make sure that werewolf puppies are running around, then it implies that not only are the werewolves capable of reproduction but that its preferred.

But no Meyer decides to take away Leahs fertility, thus setting her apart from a) the other women on the reservation and b) the other werewolves and c) taking away her opportunity to imprint (if shes infertile, she wont imprint because the potential for procreation has been lost). Now, does the male werewolves sperm count reduce more quickly than humans (thus reducing their viability) because of their werewolfiness? Is that another reason for imprinting, to make sure that they get down-n-dirty quick enough so that theyre not shooting blanks?

The answer to that is no. If Quil can imprint on a two year-old and have to wait a minimum to 16 years before reproduction, then its safe to say that hes not losing any viability any time soon. Likewise, its stated that werewolves, as long as they phase regularly, will never age.

So why is Leah aging (going through menopause/losing her fertility)? Why does the woman get the shaft and the males get to prance around happily with no ill effects (rather, they get killer bods and a never-ending supply of viable sperm). Why do the males get their happy ending (by way of imprinting; no pun intended) and Leah is denied hers?

The only possible reason is that shes a woman and Meyer wanted to give her some extra angst (besides having her heart broken, coincidentally also due to imprinting). By taking away her fertility, Meyer implies that procreation and baby-making are the most important things to her simply by virtue of her having two X chromosomes. Sexist? I should say so.

Imprinting in five words: sick, gross, eww, *shudder*, SEXIST!, and awkward.

Good job, Meyer. Really nice work.
/sarcasm

Example 8:

Anti: The Twilight books send bad messages, e.g. sexism, abuse are okay

Fan: So what?
- Other books have sexism too, like Wuthering Heights, Pride and Prejudice, the classicsare you going to ban those as well??
- Meyer uses old-fashioned concepts, whats it to you?
- Not every viewpoint needs to be represented, you know [e.g. feminism]
- Twilight is based off of older literature, so its not Meyers responsibility to cater to modern philosophy

This is a bit of a convoluted argument but Im going to ask you do to your best to stay with me here. Ive already discussed at length the abuse, sexism, imprinting, etc. etc. so for the purposes of this argument, were going to go with the assumption that the fan has acceptedat least to a degreethe existence, if not the ramifications, of the bad points of the Twilight series. This argument (Why dont you ban everything thats anti-feminist, then?) is usually a last-ditch, I really cant argue with you using the text point and while it can be cleverly disguised and sometimes even a bit persuasive, its logic is inherently flawed.

Fans love to bring Wuthering Heights and Pride and Prejudice into the mix; usually because Meyer herself introduces those two novels in particular as a kind of warped source material and they think it gives credence to their argument.

It doesnt (but more on that later).

I mentioned it in the sexism argument, but Im going to repeat it here. I dont have an inherent problem with an author portraying abuse or sexism or murder or rape in a novel. What I DO have a problem with is when those issues are not addressed. For example, I wrote that the biggest reason that the books are sexist is because Bella herself (nor any of the other characters, but thats beside the point given that Bella is the narrator) doesnt notice. The idea of sexism or abuse never even enters her mind in the slightest.

So its not a big deal, then! the fans like to cry. If it were, Bella would be mad!

No. The fact that Bella doesnt notice is exactly the problem. It means that a) Meyer doesnt realize whats shes writing and trying to pass off as perfect or b) Meyer intends it and actually does hold sexist (etc., etc.) views as perfect or ideal. Either way, it means that Meyer is calling something perfect when it most certainly is notthus idealizing abusive relationships, rampant sexism, justifying suicide, etc.

Im going to give her the benefit of the doubt and say that most likely, Meyer simply doesnt realize it. If she did, it wouldnt be nearly as perfect as she likes to think it iswheres the romance in Bella saying, Screw you, Edward, Ill do/see/hang out with what-/whoever I want or Im going to call the police if you keep stalking me!.

Lets draw a comparison. Hey, look, theres my copy of Pride and Prejudice. Perfectwritten between 1796 and 1797 and published in 1813, it qualifies as one of the old books on which the Twilight series is supposedly based. Many fans like to say, Well, theres sexism in P&P, do you hate that book too?

Remember how I said that Meyer doesnt address the issues of sexism, etc. in the books? Well, yeah, Austen does do that. In fact, Austen skillfully and insightfully expresses the times inequality of the sexes and presents a harsh social commentary (through the veneer of witty repartee) using the story of strong-willed Elizabeth Bennet and noble Mr. Darcy. The sexism, classism, etc. are some of the cornerstones of the book in that Austen uses her heroine to combat them.

Or, take Charlotte Bronts Jane Eyre (1847) and its titular character. Like Elizabeth, Jane is faced with classism, sexism, lack of opportunity, and, like Bella, is faced with dealing with somewhat of a Byronic hero (brooding, dark, secretive, superior). Like Elizabeth, Jane basically gives a polite and cultured fuck you! to her antagonists, and unlike Bella, Jane doesnt take any crap from Mr. Rochester. In fact, the feminist theme in Jane Eyre is so firm and pervasive that by the end of the book, Jane has completely turned the traditional gender roles on their asses. Together, she and Elizabeth represent two of the strongest female characters in all of literature. Bella? Bella doesnt even deserve to be on the same bookshelf as them.

Twilight is based off of older literature, so its not Meyers responsibility to cater to modern philosophy.

Continuing with the P&P and Jane Eyre themes, just because a book is old doesnt prevent it from having visionary and modern themes and considering that P&P is supposed to be one of the books on which Twilight is based, Id say that Meyer does a horrifically piss-poor job of staying true to the its ideas. Rather, Meyer appears to be basing her series off of old IDEAS and old TRADITIONS, which is entirely different from literature. And if thats the case, then my giving her the benefit of the doubt was unwarranted and she herself holds sexist and anti-feminist views. At that point, theres no sense in arguing any further.

Not every viewpoint needs to be represented all the time, you know! (e.g. feminism)

First, of course thats true. But it doesnt mean that I cant have a problem with a viewpoint presented in a work of literature or cinema or theater or whatever. Its my prerogative to disagree, just like it is Meyers prerogative to express whatever ideas she wants, however obsolete and wrong they may be.

Second, let me address the argument more specifically. Feminism, in a word, means equality. The idea that the right to equality for all is a viewpoint rather than an accepted natural right (go read some John Locke, please.) almost makes this argument not even worth arguing. Imagine if Meyer had included some blatant racism instead of blatant sexism and misogyny. Would you shrug it off so lightly? I doubt it. So why is sexism taken so lightly when it affects the greatest number of people (around 51% of all Americans, actually, so ~150 million in the USA alone)? To reply so what? to criticism of sexism in a book demeans women as a whole and sets back equality and feminism a hundred years. And that IS a big deal, and while Meyer has as much right as the next person to spew forth her unmitigated sexist and misogynistic views, I have just as much right to dislike her for it.