"I go to seek a Great Perhaps"

The Perplexities of Characters and Why they Ruin Our Lives

in Addition to Making them Worth Living

Part II: The Legend of the Reckless Heroine

I love strong, vibrant female characters. I find it easy to look up to them. They have traits that anyone would want.

But I've noticed, recently, that some writers take it a step further. A step toward the unstable, or the impulsive.

Let me explain. I'm sure you've all read the Hunger Games. Yes? Well Katniss is an example of an independent, intelligent and admirable female character. She, in a way, empowers women. Or at least that's how I see it. And I love her.

I also love John Green. A lot. But. I sometimes have an issue with the way people view his characters. In Looking for Alaska, the main girl, Alaska Young, is certainly a stand-out character. But not in the same way Katniss is. She's headstrong, but reckless. Wild and enigmatical. And big. And Miles, the narrator, falls for her.

Looking for Alaska is a beautiful story, and I wouldn't change it, but I just have a hard time believing in Alaska.

I have never met anyone like her. Have you? And I really can't relate. I'm not saying I have it all together. No, quite the contrary. It's just that I find it really hard to relate to so dynamic and self-descructive of a character. She's larger than life. And she makes it look desirable almost. Tragic and insufferable. But desirable. She's a paradox. I love that such a character could be created, but I have yet to find her in life.

And maybe that's part of the beauty of it. A book is an escape. Right? But like I mentioned yesterday, we seek to find similarities between ourselves and the characters we read or see. And maybe I'm the only one, but I don't understand Alaska. She's a mystery. Which could be, perhaps, what the author intended.


But Alaska isn't the only one who fits this description. Multiple books and movies display this type of female lead.

Clementine Kruczynski is desperate, careless and impulsive. Scarlett O'Hara is self-serving, vain and incredibly loyal. Summer Finn is quirky, distant and flaky. Daisy Buchanan is selfish, shallow and effervescent.  Holly Golightly is lost, charming and naive. *

*Clementine from Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

Scarlett from Gone with the Wind
Summer from 500 Days of Summer

Daisy Buchanan from The Great Gatsby

Holly from Breakfast at Tiffany's

I love all most of these characters dearly. For the most part, they're real. So real. And that's what I love about them. But they also have another quality. An air of mystery. Something not so easily described or portrayed.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that these characters are messed up. Most of them even admit it. But the "perfect" (notice the quotations) guy falls in love with them anyway. They make normal seem overrated.

And I use the term "normal" loosely. What I mean is that most of them make wearing a straight jacket look alluring. It's like the only true way to make a guy fall for you is too be as ambiguous or reckless or irritating as possible. It will give your relationship passion. That will surely win him over.  I just have the feeling that people think, the only way to be an interesting person is to be like Alaska Young.

And I think that's the completely wrong message.

People. Just normal people. Are messed up in some way. This is what being human is all about. And these female characters exemplify this well. But almost too well.

I can't speak for the whole world, but I'm going to anyway. I think we love these characters because they are so different from the norm. They are infecting. And beautiful in their own way. They don't set lofty standards for people. They allow room for failure. I can definitely appreciate that. But they make this failure look flawless. Which I always thought was impossible.

People want to be them anyway.

Sometimes it's hard. It's hard knowing that these are the type of people we seem to love (minus Daisy, because honestly she sucks).


Because I can't be Alaska Young for you. And I don't want to.

"I'm nobody! Who are you?"

The Perplexities of Characters and Why They Ruin Our Lives 
in Addition to Making them Worth Living

 Part I: People Who Think They are Characters

These posts are coming to you from a female perspective. I mean, it's not any different than usual, but it just might seem more glaringly obvious this time. Just keep that in mind when you feel the need to disagree, male bloggers. Keep that in mind.

Do you know why we love characters of books, movies and television shows? It's because we notice similarities between these characters and ourselves. We see visions of who we could be, and what we could amount to. We admire them. We can relate. We get the feeling that we aren't alone. That someone understands. We are always in search for connection. And definition. It's a component of the human condition.

I could sit here and tell you about all of the characters I think resemble myself (and there are a fair few), but I won't. Why? Because it would annoy the freaking hell out of you.

It irritates me to no end when someone compares themselves to a character because, essentially, this is what they are doing:

1) Stealing a bit of that character from you. 

2) Flattering themselves undeservedly.

3) Being pretentious.

Hmm let me address all of these separately so you don't think I'm unreasonable.

1) I don't want to share characters. That sounds ridiculous, because of course you have to share them. First, you have to share them with the actual writer who chose to share them with you. Second, you have to share them with the entire world. Fair enough. But here's the thing, I bet you don't want to share them either do you? Every one of us has a favorite book or movie that is special to us for a personal reason. We each have our own personalized version of characters we love and characters we hate. We make them our own. But then guess what? Something like this will happen.

Person: Hey you know that book called "[Blankety Blank]"?

You: DO I? That's my favorite!

Person: Yea well, [Blank], the main character and hero of the novel, is basically my clone. We are so alike, it's ridiculous.

You: Die.

It's especially awful when this person is someone you often feel like punching. How insulting to that poor character to be compared to this person?! There is no conceivable way this person is anything like that character. Not in your head, anyway. And now they have corrupted what you held dear. And it's heartbreaking.

2) It takes a lot of nerve to go around telling everyone how closely you can relate to well-known, famously appreciated characters. A lot of the time, these are characters that society looks up to, and they have admirable qualities. How incredibly conceited do you have to be to go around boasting about how you think you are just like that character everybody likes?

"Yea, you know Cool Hand Luke ? That's basically my life."

"I can totally relate to Rachel Bilson's character form the OC. Our lives are, like, the same. We're the same. For real."

"I just realized, I'm totally Chandler Bing."

"As I was reading, I couldn't help but notice just how similar Lizzy Bennet and I are. We are both dragged down with loads of bratty sisters, we both read constantly, and we are both really sensible. And strong-willed. And beautiful." 

Wow. How great for you.

I think it's perfectly fine to find similarities between you and characters. It's the whole point. But once you find it necessary to proclaim how "awesome" you are, well then we have a problem.

3) There was once a guy I knew who wore a red hunting hat similar to Holden Caulfield's hat, for like a month (even indoors), because he thought he was Holden Caulfield. HE THOUGHT HE WAS LIKE HOLDEN CAULFIELD, one of the most, relatable, real and well-known characters of all time. How original. Please. Save it. You aren't the only person who finds parts of themselves in a character. 

We can have discussions and rants and be consumed in all things WRITING. But let's not lose sight of what matters. If we should be lucky enough to find words that really speak to us…words that seem to just know… then of course we should soak it up or spread the word… But I think people often find themselves in the more shallow end of the "character appreciation spectrum". Of course I love finding characteristics of myself in characters I like, but I'm not going to croak to the world about it. Because, frankly, no one cares.

From reading this, you can probably guess that I spend a lot of my time around really obnoxious people. The things I complain about are trivial, but what else am I going to do with all this time on my hands? 

Whohoo! Four mintues to spare! Take that BEDA

Why I Hate Twilight: Part II D

Why I Hate Twilight Part II: Relationships are Toxic and Abusive

Part D: Edward Physically Abuses Bella

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, it's that time again. If you remember, last discussed was the various examples of mental abuse throughout the series. But we can't overlook the obvious. 

Bella has taken a beating. Literally.

Now first let's get out of the way the notion some of you may have that Edward doesn't want to hurt Bella, and that he's warned her constantly that he can hurt her with the smallest touch. Guess what? It doesn't work that way.

Imagine an abusive husband being tried in court for domestic violence trying to explain himself, "I mean, I TOLD her that I have strong hands. It's not my fault that I threw her out the window. I didn't want to repeatedly beat her. It's not my fault."

That wouldn't fly. 

And yes. Though it is true that Edward hates himself every time he hurts Bella in any way, it doesn't change the fact that she still has bruises over her body. And it also doesn't matter that Bella doesn't seem to mind. Because, as already discussed, Bella is slightly insane.

So. When does he abuse her?  

On page 89, my friends.

Under the dusting of feathers, large purple bruises were beginning to blossom across the pale skin of my arm. My eyes followed the trail they made up to my shoulder and then down across my ribs. I pulled my hand free to poke at the discoloration of my left forearm, watching it fade where I touched it and then reappear. It throbbed a little. (Breaking Dawn, 89.)

Hmmm yes. I can tell his intentions were honorable as he ravished her in this way.

Also. There's that time when he like rips open her uterus or whatever when she's in labor, and then, like, turns her into a vampire. I think that also counts as abuse. Because even though he was just trying to save her from the demon child, he's the one who put it there.

Perfect.

Anyway. The point you can't overlook is the fact that Stephenie Meyer has gotten away with making this abusive main character desirable because he's proper, depressed and self-deprecating. This is not okay. This is called single-handedly destroying everything the Women's Rights Movement has achieved with a single sparkly fruit of a character. 

Or at least that's what it seems like in my mind.

7 Disney Characters Whose Pasts Would Have Made a Better Movie

Disney has a problem with cause and effect. They usually just start at the end and go from there. The setting in almost every movie starts in, what seems like, the middle. I've noticed a trend with certain characters. Their background stories are non-existant. Their actions are unexplained. There's always a universally acknowledged truth about them, but where is the reasoning behind it? I need one. So without further ado here are 7 strange Disney characters who could have really benefitted from a backstory.


1. The seven dwarfs. Let's think about this. Seven men. All shorter than 4 feet. Living together. In the forest. All while mining diamonds. I don't know about you, but this makes me want to do math. What is the probability that seven little men who look very similar and are all around the same age could find each other and collectively decide it would be a good idea to live together in a cottage in a remote forest? Don't get me wrong, I know this is a fairytale, but still…this concerns me. It's a possibility that they could all be brothers…but even if they had parents who were both dwarfs, the probability of all their children turning out to be dwarfs as well is 75%, and 25% of those will not make it to term. So you're telling me their parents had SEVEN children and they all turned out to be dwarfs? With only 56.25% odds? No. I guess one could make a case that there were actually more children, and the averaged height ones decided they were too good to live in a doll-sized cabin.

Either way, I'm still concerned about this cave full of diamonds. Where is this cave, and why has no one else found it? And why are they still poor? Or do they only pretend to be poor? Also. The names. Was it a rite of passage? Once they showed their one dominant characteristic, they got a name? Or was it more of a self-fulling prophecy? Name someone Grumpy and it's inevitable that he will end up bitter. I want these questions answered.






2. Scar. Again, I have a problem with his name. Did he get a scar from a battle and then was nicknamed after it? Or did someone decide it would be funny to give him that token that matched his name? Or maybe it's just a birth mark and his parents thought it would be cute to point it out in the form of a life-long name. Maybe that's the reason he is so bitter. *Update* Oh. Wikipedia confirms it's a nickname because he obtained that scar. That sucks.

I want to know why he is so evil. I want to know what went wrong. The guy has issues. He laughs when members of his family die. At his hands. He's a sociopath. I just really want to know why. I feel like that could almost be a better story than Lion King. Well, it would be close. Evilness always needs to be explained; that's what makes it so interesting. Disney has a problem with this. They just make people evil and then continue on with the princesses. No! I want substance.





3. Beast. Okay. Disney explained how he became cursed and whatnot. But I want to examine the big picture here. There is a boy. About 18? Living alone. In a castle. In an enchanted forest. With a whole bunch of servants. With no family. And from what I can gather, no actual ruling power. He doesn't seem to be ruling any kingdom. And plus, you have to get lost to even find the castle. AND if he was the prince of France or whatever, I think Maurice would have known before he went in, although that is debatable considering he's Maurice. But Belle would have known. She hadn't even heard of him before. Which leads me to believe he is a fake prince. A delusional young male living like a king on his trust-fund. This also means Belle isn't a real princess. I'm sorry for ruining your childhood.












4. Peter Pan. Everything about Peter Pan confuses me. How did he get there? How did the Lost Boys get there? Captain Hook? It all creeps me out. Why are the mermaids so bitchy? And why does Tiger Lily have no real voice? After watching this movie, I learned one thing: Never do I ever want to go to Neverland. I don't like anything about it. I think it would be an awful place to live. Actually, maybe this one is better left unexplained. Because the more sense it makes, the more real it becomes. And that scares me.









5. Evil Stepmother. This one really needs to be explained because I, for one, cannot fathom why Cinderella's dad could ever fall for someone evil. You can say that she fooled him and that she pretended to be someone she was not…but I don't care what anyone says…no one is that good. You can always catch glimpses of someone's true colors if you look hard and are around them long enough. She has to be a witch of sorts. Or maybe a temptress? Someone who dabbles in sorcery. Also I would like to ponder how Cinderella's dad died in the first place? I'm thinking poisoned biscuits. NEVER EAT BISCUITS PREPARED BY YOUR NEWLYWED WIFE. This is nonnegotiable.

6. The King and Queen of Hearts. If someone could explain to me how that one works out, that would be great, thanks.














7. Maleficent. I need to know so many things about her. Did she really condemn a newborn baby solely because she didn't get invited to a party? I think her issues run deeper than that. 1) Where did she get the gargoyle-like goblin minions? 2) What's with her ram/devil horns? 3) How did she meet her crow? Did she nurse him as a baby? Or was it friendship at first sight? 4) What's her beef with the royals? I like to think her story went like this: She was once a beautiful, young fairy. She was kind and generous and gave freely, much like Flora, Fauna, and Merryweather. She fell in love. It was a prince. She would often go out of her way just to see him for a second. Just to see that smile. He didn't love her back. No matter how much she tried to convince him they were meant for each other, she could see her endeavors were futile. He loved another girl. Golden hair, rose red lips, a voice as sweet as a bird's. She couldn't take it. She put him under a spell. A love spell. And it worked. He loved her. She loved him. It looked picture perfect from the outside. But she knew. She knew that slight hesitation in his "I love you's" was the spell. She knew that tired look in his eyes was there because she put it there. She knew, deep down, whether he remembered or not, he didn't love her. And it was too much for her. She let him go. And he married the other girl. Her heartache turned to depression, her depression to anger, her anger to a sinister disposition. She became unfeeling. Evil was the only thing she knew. The sight of that baby and her striking resemblance to the very thing that caused her downfall, caused her world to come crashing down around her. And so begins the tale of Sleeping Beauty.

Hey, I think that's pretty reasonable.




~Lex

Why I Hate Twilight: Part II B

Why I Hate Twilight Part II: Relationships are Toxic and Abusive


Section B: Bella Mentally Abuses Edward

Last time we discussed how Edward mentally abuses Bella. But let’s not be so naïve as to think that the abuse is one-sided. Oh no. Bella causes Edward so much pain that he even attempted suicide. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Let’s start from the beginning.

From the first time he saw smelled her he knew he was in trouble. It was like her scent was carefully constructed with the designed purpose to tempt him especially. A test above all tests, if you will. He couldn’t take it. It got to the point where he was in such physical pain, just by sitting beside her, that he had to miss school. Now, we all know that he’s been through high school numerous times, so that’s not a big deal, but what if he hadn’t? She would be responsible for keeping a boy from his studies in a very vital academic year! Stop that snickering from the side! This is a serious matter.

Moving on to the make-out scenes. Despite the fact that Stephenie is an idiot and didn’t take into account that she already informed us all that vampires have no blood flow, it’s clear Edward somehow gets a hard-on for Bella. And we all know that if he did anything about it, he would end up killing her. Now that’s abuse. Poor guy. I think that's a double whammy for physical pain as well.

Anyway. As specified in the last section, all Edward does is worry about Bella. He threatens anyone that comes near her, and he goes out of his way to save her because she is basically a walking noodle and she has no arm strength and can’t really keep herself upright. Yes, it’s degrading to Bella, but in all honestly, he doesn’t really have a choice; either let her go and watch her lead herself to her own death, or stalk her. She causes him so much unwanted stress.

He begins to get this notion that he can’t live without her. Remember when he tried to commit suicide when he thought she was dead? Yes. Now if that doesn’t prove she has some kind of unnatural, sinister hold on his psyche, then you are probably a Twihard Twitard. No offense, but in that case, you need start asking yourself, “Do I really want a dead, sparkly man cutting my brakes, then trying to off himself, and then proposing and then inserting is cold rock penis up my lady parts? Is that REALLY what I want out of life?” If the answer is still “yes,” then I demand you go read a good book now. GO! Go find a book worth your time! Get the Twilight out of your system!!

 ~Lex

XXX

Why I hate Twilight: Part II A

Why I Hate Twilight Part II: Relationships are Toxic and Abusive

Section A: Edward Mentally Abuses Bella

Before I launch myself into an exhaustive rant, I want to take a look at some standard characteristics of people in an abusive relationship. I've highlighted the ones that are particularly similar to how Edward acts toward Bella.

1. Charming.  This person quickly smothers the other with gifts and praise. He/she immediately pushes for an exclusive relationship using phrases such as “I can’t live without you” or “I’ll kill myself if you leave.” A clear indication something is wrong. 2. Jealous. He/she views others as a threat to the relationship and relentlessly accuses you of flirting. “I know you are having an affair.” The irony is that the abuser is usually the cheater. 3. Manipulative.  Abuse and manipulation go hand-in-hand. This person easily detects vulnerability in others and uses it as a weapon to control, belittle and demean the victim. “You are weak and ugly; no wonder you were abused as a kid.” 4. Controlling. Constant checking on the whereabouts of the victim is a common trait for the abuser. “I check the mileage on your car. So don’t lie to me.” A male controller often refuses to let his girlfriend have a job, she might “meet someone. 5. A Victim. An abuser doesn’t take any responsibility for his/ her poor choices. They are never at fault. When she loses her job, or he gets into a fight, someone else is to blame. “You make me hit you” or “I drink because you stress me out.” 6. Narcissistic. The whole world revolves around the abuser and his/her needs. This person is invigorated by the fact that the victims “walks on eggshells” and live in fear of the next outburst 7. Inconsistent. Mood swings are a common trait for an abuser. One minute he/she is happy and sweet, the next they are pounding a fist or throwing a tantrum 8. Critical. Verbally assaulting others is a way of life for the abuser. “You are a stupid, fat, disgusting tramp. You can’t ever leave me; no other man would have you” or “Ha! You call yourself a man. You are nothing but a mama’s boy. 9. Disconnected. Isolation from family and friends is a key goal for the abuser because it forces the victim into total submission. “Your family causes too much trouble for us. I don’t want you seeing them anymore. 10. Hypersensitive. The slightest offense sends the abuser ranting. Everyone is out to “get him/her.”  “My boss had it in for me; I bend over backwards on my job but I still got fired. 11. Vicious and cruel. A significant number of abusers harm children and animals as well as a partner. Intimidation and inflicting pain fuels his/her power. “If I can’t have you, no one will” or “I just pretended to love you so that you would sleep with me.”   After I read that list, I just had to laugh. Did Stephenie do any research before writing her four-book saga? What's that? Oh right. No she didn't. She dreamt it all. At this time I would like to go through the list and explain why each characteristic is relevant to my claim that Edward mentally abuses Bella (and relevant to the reason why Bella is slightly insane). 1. Charming. Oh wow. If I had a posy for every time Edward tells Bella that his life is irrelevant without her, I could stuff at least 9 pockets full. "You are the most important thing to me now. The most important thing to me ever." Gag me. When he thought she died after she jumped off the cliff, he was determined to get himself killed by the Volturi. What??! If that doesn't prove that Edward thinks he couldn't live without Bella, then nothing ever will. Because Edward is so "charming," Bella basically sees him as perfect. She idolizes him. She is constantly thinking about his perfect bod. He has her so wrapped up in his charm that she neglects to see reason. Never once does she go on and on about his PERSONALITY. I don't think she ever says how she loves him for his MIND. Does she ever question the fact that he's a hundred and some year old BLOOD SUCKING NONHUMAN? Nope. No she doesn't. Because she is completely blinded by his shiny exterior, which I'm not sure, but I think is some kind of mechanism used for hypnotizing. I'm looking into it. There isn't much reliable literature on "hard sparkly skin." 2. Jealous. How many times does Edward growl when Jacob comes near? 'Nuff said. 3. Manipulative. Edward reminds Bella she is weak. Everyday. How many times does he tell her that he could crush her with one blow? Accidentally smother her? Or how about this…lose control and suck all her blood? Yes, yes, he may not be doing this so he can manipulate her, BECAUSE HE "LOOOOOVES" HER. He could just be saying this because it's true and wants to warn her. Right. Okay. I get that. But no one really knows what's going on inside his head, and on paper, it doesn't look so good for him. And furthermore, it's not "cute." I don't think it's cute when a male figure has so much power over a woman, that he as to remind her of it every day. I don't think it's cute that she feels like a delicate little flower in his arms. It's sad. And demeaning. And, in my book, considered mental abuse. 4. Controlling. Possibly the most relevant and troubling of all his characteristics. She's his puppet. He controls every aspect of her life. Even when he wasn't there, he controlled her. She started purposefully putting herself in danger JUST TO HEAR HIM TELL HER NOT TO. But it wasn't him, it was her perception of him deep in her psyche. How messed up is that? She went up to a group of hardened criminal biker thugs because she felt compelled to hear Edward yell at her. She jumped off a cliff! None of this is okay. He watches her sleep! He cut her breaks! CUT. HER. BRAKES. All in the name of her "safety." Tell me this, Edward: How is it safe to purposefully leave your "one true love" in a forest for hours and hours? How is it safe to leave her when a vampire is stalking her? How is it safe to cut her brakes!!??  "It makes me... anxious to be away from you. I wasn't joking when I asked you to try not to fall in the ocean or get run over last Thursday. I was distracted all weekend, worrying about you." "If you let anything happen to yourself - anything at all - I'm holding you personally responsible." "Soon, as soon as I possibly can. I will make you safe first."  "Bella, would you please stop trying to take your clothes off?" "But if you ever bring her back damaged again — and I don't care whose fault it is; I don't care if she merely trips, or if a meteor falls out of the sky and hits her in the head — if you return her to me in less than the perfect condition that I left her in, you will be running with three legs. Do you understand that, mongrel?"   In context, these all seem very "aww" worthy. Everyone just loves how overprotective Edward is. But you see these quotes void of all Bella's delusions, and you have what I call cold hard abuse. You call it protective, I call it belittling. The worst thing about his controlling nature, is that Bella doesn't seem to notice or mind. She just thinks it's "annoying". ANNOYING? How about murderously insane?  7. Inconsistant. Bella even mentions his mood swings.  "You know, your mood swings are kinda giving me whiplash." <--Yes from the movie, but it still proves my point. One minute he wants her to leave him alone forever, the next he's telling her he couldn't live without her. One day he tells her how they could never "be" together and then a month later he's ripping off her clothes. He says he never wants to hurt her, and then he just leaves her in the forest. I mean, I would be confused.  In New Moon, Bella is so convinced Edward left because he doesn't love her, that she literally becomes brain dead. The blank pages in the middle of the novel symbolize her insanity. Everyone reading the novel was smart enough to know that he just said he didn't love her because he wanted to "protect her," but she was actually dumb enough to believe it. His inconstancies pop right out of no where. And it's driving her to be a vegetable. 9. Disconnected. How many things does Bella have to keep from her father all because of Edward? Basically her whole life has to be censored for him because she doesn't think he could handle it. Now that Edward and Bella are married, do you really think Charlie is going to be popping in to see them? Probably not. Because he's scared. His daughter is strangely pale and has birthed a fast-growing halfbreed in only a few months. In summary, Edward has caused further estrangement of a father and a daughter whose relationship could have used improvement from the start. The End. As you can see, I take this subject seriously. And you may not understand why because, after all, it's just a book about fictional characters. And that may be so, but I have realized something in my research; the sites where I found all of these quotes, were all created by diehard fans. The comments in the threads all show how much they love this love story. They find the quotes endearing. They want their own Twilight love story. I find this extremely disconcerting. If they can't spot an abusive relationship when it is so plainly spelled out before them within the pages in their own hands, how are they going to realize when it's happening to them? Is it what they're actively searching for in a relationship? I woe the day when someone finds their own Edward Cullen. ~Lex

Why I Hate Twilight Part I D

Why I Hate Twilight Part I: Stephenie Meyer is a Horrible Person and Writer

Section D: The Atrocity She Calls a Plot

So, in essence, what we have here is a strange, loner-type who moves to dull, rainy, small town, Forks, not because she wants to, but because she doesn't. And in the meantime falls in love with a guy who has been dead for a while. I mean, there have been stranger openings to novels. That's not really the disturbing part. It's how fast, and why she falls in love with him. He's overbearing, bossy, arrogant, stubborn, and treats her like a puppy--what's not to love right? He's always laughing at her and talking down to her. I guess some people would say that's cute, but honesty, he just treats her like a child. He puts her to bed, watches her sleep (creepy?), supervises everything she does, and speaks to her authoritatively. He treats her as a tiny delicate flower. Sure, he has reasons to, but it's condescending. I don't know about you, but even if I was the dependent type, I wouldn't fall for a guy who thinks he's my dad. Or watches me sleep. HE WATCHES HER SLEEP.  Basically their relationship is shallow, built up of outwardly attractions, covered up by the "it was love at first sight" excuse.

Moving on to when she discovers he's a vampire. First off, he admits to following her scent. How is that okay with her? Secondly. She is totally unfazed by the whole affair. When Jacob tells her the stories of his ancestors and the "cold ones"....she just listened intently. Totally calm. When Edward confirms her suspicions...not an ounce of fear. She's a freak of nature, and there is no human on this earth who wouldn't be a tad cautious. 

Then there's the matter of how fast they fell in love. Even if there was a real foundation for a relationship there, it was still too fast. By chapter 9 she admits to herself that she's in love with him. Chapter 9! Out of 24! She barely has spent time with the guy, let alone actually know him. It's ridiculous. I'm skeptic by nature, but I still look at things objectively, and their "love", by no means, makes any real sense. In any way.

Let's not forget the unavoidable undertones of necrophilia and bestiality. Edward is dead, guys. And he's not even human. Neither is Jacob for that matter. It's pretty disturbing that the same girl falls in love with two beings who are not completely human. Bella has issues.

But more about this dead Edward thing. Stephenie says that when humans become vampires, their bodies freeze in time. That's why women can't have babies; their bodies can't change. But here's something she definitely didn't explain (mostly because she didn't have an answer); how do male vampires fertilize human eggs? Sperm are not like eggs. A woman is born with all of her eggs; the seminiferous tubules in the testes produce 12 billion sperm per month. So if Edward's body isn't changing, how is that he was able to provide sperm to create a freak baby? I highly doubt the sperm used was the sperm that was there when he died. Come on, after 100 years and you think he still had the semen he died with? Yea right :D

And while we're on the subject. Vampire sex. First let's talk about how Edward is a vestige of a dead human in a body of what Steph compares to granite. He has no blood flow. He's cold and hard. Bella is delicate white flower full of beauty and daintiness. *snickers*.  Please tell me how a protuberance, much like a cold, hard rock shoved up your lady parts would be anything but a traumatizing experience? 

Just saying.

Now let's talk about werewolf lovin'. We learn what "imprinting" is in Eclipse when Jacob is talking to Bella. I'll discuss what a load of bullshit it is in a later section, but for now I want to examine a continuity error. This is the quote by Jacob regarding the rarity of this phenomenon,"It's one of those bizarre things we have to deal with. It doesn't happen to everyone. In fact it's the rare exception, not the rule..." Hmm..."rare exception"? Then how come half the pack did it? Sam, Paul, Quil, Jared, and Jacob all imprinted. Five out seventeen. Twenty-nine percent? How is that rare? Please explain that to me Smeyer. She's definitely not a mathematician. She seriously needs to get her story straight.

Three more points and then, I promise, I'm done. 

The Happily Ever After Ending of Vomit. She spends the majority of the book rallying the troops and preparing the reader for a battle worth the mental suffering he or she endured throughout the entirety of the book. What did we get? We got a conversation. 

And no one died. SOMEONE SHOULD HAVE DIED. Killing characters off isn't always a sign of good writing, but the emotion one feels after reading about it, is. But I felt no emotion but mild annoyance of the fact I wasted my time.


One thing I notice about the novels I like verses the novels I hate (a.k.a. Twilight) is that the books in which I find myself engrossed are more than just a love story. They have substance. Complex plot lines. A greater story that's more than the sum of it's parts. Twilight? Nope. Just superficial love. And a creepy half vampire baby...thing...


Lastly, no one can overlook the prominent comparisons Meyer makes between her poorly written novels, and classic works of literature. Did she compare her writing to the Bible, Wuthering Heights and Romeo and Juliet? Yes. Yes she did. She's a moron. And that's the only thing I love about her.

Whew boy. That was a long one.