?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
02 September 2008 @ 12:58 am
SMeyer defends Breaking Dawn, sucks at that, too  
Stephenie Meyer has posted FAQs on Breaking Dawn. This woman is pure crack on a crackstick. I think chocolatepot (or perhaps it was cleolinda -- I can't remember which) was the one who said she's awesome at unintentional hilarity. WORD.

Highlights and my responses:

I may post some extras [from Forever Dawn, the original sequel to Twilight] someday if I ever have time to go back through the Forever Dawn manuscript—it's just as long as Breaking Dawn.

WE ALL LIVE IN A YELLOW SUBMARINE, A YELLOW SUBMARINE, A YELLOW SUBMARINE! *repeat 87 times* (Sorry, only some of you will get this one.)

Q: Vampires and pregnancy: when did that idea occur to you? How does that work?

A:
[snip for tl;dr] Now, on to the "how is this possible?" question. First of all, of course it's not possible. None of this story is possible. It's a fantasy story about creatures that don't actually exist. Within the context of the fantasy, however, this is how it works:


OK, I can appreciate this answer. It's a fantasy story, so the reader needs to suspend disbelief. However, in this particular case, it's an example of shoddy worldbuilding. I think there are way too many elements of her vampires that she simply didn't bother to work out -- or just gave pat, too-convenient explanations for. I hear Tolkien is a very thorough worldbuilder,1 and he's also been criticized for it, because the details of the elements of his universe are boring to some readers. J.K. Rowling, on the other hand, didn't build every last detail of her world; for example, we don't understand how magic works, why it appears in some people who come from Muggle lines, how it might alter a person's genes, etc. (If you're looking on some interesting theories on these questions and more, check out Red Hen's essays, particularly The "Foundation" Essays and the Oh Wide Wide (Wizarding) World! pieces -- see the sidebar on the left of the site to navigate to them.) But overall, she thought out a very consistent, logical universe, and she traded off providing the nitpicky foundational details for the telling of a riveting story. Unfortunately, SMeyer followed neither approach, but rather the FAIL model. So yeah, I get that her story is not realistic; if it were, Edward would be on Dateline's "To Catch a Predator," as various people have already said. But she could have done a way better job of thinking out her universe and presenting it to us.


1Yes, I've never read any of his books before...I know, I know, I'll give 'em a try someday. To be honest, fantasy is not really so much my genre. But I do mean to give 'em a read. I'm just too busy...posting about Twilight's failtasticness on LJ. >>


However, the cells that make up their [vampires'] skin are not pliant like our cells, they are hard and reflective like crystal. A fluid similar to the venom in their mouths works as a lubricant between the cells, which makes movement possible (note: this fluid is very flammable).

(1) Yes, OK, so that's why they sparkle in the sun, but wouldn't they still sparkle under light, or even low-light-but-not-entirely-dark conditions? Poorly thought-out premise FTL.

(2) If the fluid is very flammable, then wouldn't the vampires be scared of fire, just like the Scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz? Cells exist on the surface of the skin, so the fluid would be between them and thus exposed to the air, and you can't say that there's some sort of protective layer OVER the cells, especially since that layer would have to bend in order for the vampires to move and flex, and thus the lubricant would have to exist in that layer, too, and...

Yeah, I should stop trying to make logic of this, shouldn't I? *sigh*

Other involuntary reactions, like blinking, don't exist because there is no purpose for them.

I don't recall Bella being weirded out by the non-blinking of the vamps, but maybe they were just so practiced at pretending to be human that they got in the habit of purposeful blinking, just as they sit and shift around even though they don't need to (as described in Breaking Dawn). Still, this is a sort of interesting element; it's too bad SMeyer didn't explore it a bit further, especially after Bella becomes a newborn. (Or perhaps she did? I haven't finished Breaking Dawn yet.)

The normal reactions of arousal are still present in vampires, made possible by venom-related fluids that cause tissues to react similarly as they do to an influx of blood. Like with vampire skin—which looks similar to human skin and has the same basic function—fluids closely related to seminal fluids still exist in male vampires, which carry genetic information and are capable of bonding with a human ovum.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL Edward truly does have a venom cock! Still, this does not answer the question of whether Edward has a cold, marblelike wang (and thus a permanent hard-on -- perhaps the worst case of priapism in history!). But it does hint that he's got a sparkle cock! Yay!

On a more serious note, I still wonder why the venom from his ejaculate didn't poison Bella (aside from the pregnancy itself being a danger to her). Or, for that matter, why sucking face with her didn't give her...I dunno, mouth blisters or something.

Oh, right. Shoddy worldbuilding. I remember now.

I didn't get into all of these details at my signings because it's a long, complicated mouthful.

That's what SHE said! Come on, man. People asked you for answers. You ought to give them. Surely you can come up with a condensed version if you think the full explanation is of the tl;dr sort. I don't recall JKR providing incomplete explanations just because she didn't want to go into it. Your readers are there to hear those sorts of things. *headdesk*

Also, it's hard to be clearly heard with all the screaming.

You arrogant excuse-making wench. I call bullshit. That's what a microphone is for. JKR knew how to use one, and I'm sure she had screamers at some of her events, too. And yes, I know, public interviews can get out of hand, but surely someone asked the same questions to you in a more private, intimate setting. I appreciate that you have taken the time to provide the answer on your Web site after the fact, but I still call bullshit.

Mostly, though, I waited to do this in writing because I have an immature, Homer Simpson-like tendency to giggle when I say the words "seminal fluids" in public.

LOL, OK, immature and stupid, but funny nonetheless. Self-awareness feels nice, doesn't it? You might want to try having some more often.

I suppose I could try to prolong her story unnaturally, but it wouldn't be interesting enough to keep me writing. Stories need conflict, and the conflicts that are Bella-centric are resolved.

...

See previous comment on self-awareness. *brings out the cluebat* Bella's story wasn't interesting in the first place, especially in Twilight, which could essentially be summarized as follows:

Bella: "OMG I'm so plain and clumsy and he's so hot and perfect and sparkly, so there's no way he likes me!"
Edward: "OMG I'm such a monster and she's so freesia smelling, so there's no way she likes me!"
Bella: *falls down*
Edward: *sparkles*
Bella and Edward: *like each other but angst about it*

My angsty high school diary entries were more interesting. And yes, stories need conflict, but I would hardly say that "I like you and you like me, but we don't know it, and then when we do, we are both convinced that the other is too good for us" is much of a conflict unless you're talking about Sweet Valley High. And even that series did it better. (Conked-on-the-head!Elizabeth becoming just like Jessica and forcing Jessica to be all responsible and thereby act more like Elizabeth FTW!)

And what about the conflicts that aren't Bella centric? Oh, right, Bella's your self-insert, so we shouldn't care about anything else. Never mind.

The surprise to me is that so many people do like my books.

Yay, we agree on something!

I wrote them for a very specific audience of one, and so there was no guarantee that any other person on the planet besides me would enjoy them.

Yes, clearly. That is why Bella is your self-insert Mary Sue. And this is one of the many reasons that the stories should never have been published at all, although I've got to give you credit anyway; getting published is not easy, and on a more general level, I say congrats for doing so. This is where your editor and Brown Little exhibit mass amounts of fail.

It's a hard thing to have people unhappy with you, but there's nothing I can do. Either Breaking Dawn entertains you or it doesn't.

Oh, don't get me wrong; it entertains me all right! Just not for the reasons I imagine you were hoping for.

If I could go back in time, knowing everything I know right now, and write the whole series again, I would write exactly the same story. (The writing would be better, though—practice makes perfect.)

...I guess you're just a slow learner, then? People say that the writing in Breaking Dawn is better than that in Twilight. I read Twilight and New Moon when I was 38 weeks pregnant, so I don't remember a whole lot, but I'll take people's word on the writing improvement. That said, Breaking Dawn still has issues, man. ISSUES.

Look, I do have some compassion for SMeyer. She's right -- not everyone will like what a person writes; to have that sort of expectation is foolish. One person's junk is another person's treasure, and vice versa. I appreciate that her heart isn't broken by people like me. But I still have to mock. It's the only way for me to deal with the trauma of having read these books.

If Breaking Dawn were ever made into a movie, it's hard to imagine it fitting into ninety minutes. The book is just so long! I can't imagine how to distill it—if I could, the book would be shorter.

You can't imagine how to distill it? Here's a clue: Cut out all the parts where Bella goes on about Edward's hawtness. That should cut the book down in at least half. ;)

Anyway, I haven't finished the book yet, so maybe she's right, but on a more serious note, it strikes me that showing a lot of the scenes on screen is way faster than reading them, because narration necessarily takes longer to provide detail. The agony of Bella's conversion to sparklepire could easily take a minute or shorter. And the honeymoon could take maybe five minutes -- just show us the feathers and the bitten headboard and the rolfing up of fried chicken and we're good to go! Sorry, SMeyer, but this isn't Deathly Hallows, which has a lot of plot and a lot of dialogue and scenes that convey important information. Your narration rambles, as does your dialogue. There's a lot that can be cut.

When I said that Breaking Dawn might be impossible to film, it's because of Renesmee.

Are you sure it's not because you're pretty sure that the backlash against the book means that you won't get a film deal through that book anyway? :D

Q: Is Bella an anti-feminist heroine?

A: When I hear or read theories about Bella being an anti-feminist character, those theories are usually predicated on her choices.


Choices??? Bella constantly says she had no choice; she was drawn to Edward, and once she met him, there was no turning back! Yes, OK, so she could have chosen the "safe" route with Jacob, but in the end, she chalks up this "choice" to the fact that she had no choice from the beginning; she couldn't exist without Edward, and he couldn't exist without her. Where is the choice here????

Apparently, it is with the logic. :(

I never meant for her fictional choices to be a model for anyone else's real life choices. She is a character in a story, nothing more or less. On top of that, this is not even realistic fiction, it's a fantasy with vampires and werewolves, so no one could ever make her exact choices.

No, but the least you could do is not make them so fucking retarded. And again, she constantly claims that when it came down to it, there was no choice. You can't have it both ways!

Bella chooses things differently than how I would do it if I were in her shoes, because she is a very different type of person than I am.

Hello monitor, meet mouthful of water! *sets the self-awareness bat next to the cluebat* Where's that fandomsecrets post that takes a picture of SMeyer and juxtaposes it with text that describes Bella Swan, with arrows going to each matching attribute? Yes, that picture focuses on looks only, but c'mon, it's clear that Bella is a total self-insert. *takes out a self-awareness anvil*

In my own opinion (key word), the foundation of feminism is this: being able to choose. The core of anti-feminism is, conversely, telling a woman she can't do something solely because she's a woman—taking any choice away from her specifically because of her gender. "You can't be an astronaut, because you're a woman. You can't be president because you're a woman. You can't run a company because you're a woman." All of those oppressive "can't"s.

Yes, and you never let Bella choose; she had to follow fate. A true choice would be turning down what feels like fate. Had Bella chosen Jacob, she would have chosen the "safe" life, yes, but she also would have been going against her obsession with Edward heart. Would it have been a good choice? I don't know, but it would have been a choice.

Saying that you didn't constrain Bella as a woman doesn't get you out of the fact that you constrained her, period. And by doing this, you played upon old female tropes of pursuing a man to the rejection of all else. In Bella's case, all else included her own parents, as she was going to have to never see them again after becoming a vampire (although I suspect that in Breaking Dawn, she finds a happily-ever-after way to get around all this; I haven't gotten to that part yet, but I'm sure it's there). It's an interesting conflict, and one worthy of exploring in literature, but it horrifies me that SMeyer has presented Bella's choice as romantic. Sure, she goes through some conflict over it, but the reader is supposed to believe that this intensifies the idea of true love. I think it's just creepy.

One of the weird things about modern feminism is that some feminists seem to be putting their own limits on women's choices. That feels backward to me. It's as if you can't choose a family on your own terms and still be considered a strong woman. How is that empowering? Are there rules about if, when, and how we love or marry and if, when, and how we have kids? Are there jobs we can and can't have in order to be a "real" feminist? To me, those limitations seem anti-feminist in basic principle.

I'm a stay-at-home mom now, and so I hear her on this. As someone who went to an Ivy League school and is close to finishing a master's degree, I had to fight with a lot of inner turmoil caused by society's expectations for women and their careers, especially educated women. No one has ever given me a hard time about my choice, but it's still a choice that was hard to make in all of the years building up to when I knew I'd eventually have to make it. So yeah, fair enough, it's bad to make women feel as though making the decision to marry and raise children is a weak, anti-female choice. But that's not why her books are being criticized. They're being criticized because Bella was willing to shut out everything and everyone in her life -- her family, her friends, her education -- in order to follow her creepy sparkly stalker man, and to do so at a young age because she didn't like the idea of being older than her man. >:(

There's my tl;dr on excerpts from her FAQs. God, I needed that. *grabs the sploogetowel and begins wiping up*

P.S. Sorry if there are any spelling or grammar issues; I usually read my posts over at least once before putting them up, but it's almost 1 am, and I really shouldn't be up, considering that my daughter continues to suck ass at sleeping through the night, despite the sweet-potato-induced(?) flukes of a couple weeks ago. (On the Meghan front, I must report that she tolerates applesauce and likes carrots. Yay!)

 
 
Current Mood: wanky
 
 
 
i am a trick questionkilted on September 2nd, 2008 06:13 am (UTC)
God, you're wonderful. Take that, SM. That woman is just... an insufferable twit. She tried to make all of her crap seem more interesting and deep than it is when all she's really doing is avoiding the issues. It hurts my brain.
Miss Sophia: Twilight - Edward Maybellinemiss_sophia on September 3rd, 2008 12:59 am (UTC)
She tried to make all of her crap seem more interesting and deep than it is when all she's really doing is avoiding the issues.

Yep, that's the problem here. If you're writing fluff, just admit you're writing fluff! Although I think part of the blame should be assigned to the fandom, which wasn't able to call a spade a spade either. No, Twilight wasn't the Second Coming. It wasn't even the next Harry Potter. It was just a teenage emo vampire romance novel (albeit one that was hella creepy and full of some really questionable notions).
i am a trick questionkilted on September 3rd, 2008 02:18 am (UTC)
Exactly. Plus, think she let all her fame go to her head. This sort of thing is probably why JKR didn't google Harry Potter till after the last book was out, haha. And you're right- the fans need to own up on the crazy. Denial looks good on no one.
(no subject) - miss_sophia on September 3rd, 2008 03:01 am (UTC) (Expand)
The Fizzy Champagne Princesspuredeadthingy on September 2nd, 2008 07:38 am (UTC)
When I saw the name 'Renesmee' in the book I convinced myself the character saying it was just being silly.

Oh. How wrong I was.
Miss Sophia: Twilight - Edward Maybellinemiss_sophia on September 3rd, 2008 01:01 am (UTC)
LOL, I know, it just screams "BAD SUE NAME"! I do have to give her credit for not making Renesmee an assbaby, though. That would just have taken the cake.

For what it's worth, I did read on Fandom_Wank that name mashups are a very common Mormon thing, so that might explain it a little bit. But it's still retarded sounding.
dragonsinger954 on September 2nd, 2008 11:40 am (UTC)
Q: Vampires and pregnancy: when did that idea occur to you? How does that work?

A: [snip for tl;dr] Now, on to the "how is this possible?" question. First of all, of course it's not possible. None of this story is possible. It's a fantasy story about creatures that don't actually exist. Within the context of the fantasy, however, this is how it works:

OK, I can appreciate this answer. It's a fantasy story, so the reader needs to suspend disbelief. However, in this particular case, it's an example of shoddy worldbuilding. I think there are way too many elements of her vampires that she simply didn't bother to work


Actually, while in scientific sense and the normal world, the idea does not work, vampires fathering babies is as old as the vampire legends themselves.

Dhampirs are children of a male vampire and female human and have existed in legends in Romania, Transylvania (yes actual place) the slovak nations as well as the romani and travellers.

We have several already popular in today's culture - Blade, Bloodrayne among them.

So its not really just coming from out in left field.
Miss Sophia: Twilight - Edward Maybellinemiss_sophia on September 2nd, 2008 04:22 pm (UTC)
Oh, I didn't mean to imply I have an issue with the actual premises she set up with respect to vampires and pregnancy, but rather that she made the mistake of attempting to justify them scientifically, but didn't do so thoroughly, leaving huge gaps that just beg further questions. I think there were two good ways for her to deal with questions about what she did with Bella's pregnancy: (1) Just say, "This is the fantasy world I have set up, and the minutiae of it are not important." This would also be a good place for her to bring in the existing legends and traditions in vampirelore, as you brought up. In other words, "My universe has roots in long-standing vampire tradition, so I didn't just make this stuff up. And it would be ridiculous for me to provide scientific justification for my canon, because it is fantasy, not the real world." The lattermost sentence is what she essentially did in the answer I had quoted, and I totally agree with her there. After all, I don't think Bram Stoker was forced to give a rundown on just how vampires might actually exist after all. (2) Provide the "scientific" minutiae, but do a much better job with it. In other words, don't say things like "vampire cells are lubricated by highly flammable venom" without explaining why a vampire doesn't fear a lighted match.

Now, I do think SMeyer was between a rock and a hard place here. I think that the first route, where she says, "Just suspend your belief; the details are not important" would still have drawn criticism from people who wanted very detailed, realistic worldbuilding; JKR has come under the same criticism, and as I said, I don't think it's fair at all. Not every fantasy author (if JKR would even consider herself that; I think she once said she thinks of herself as more of a mystery writer who happened to set a story in a fantasy world) wants to be Tolkien. Some just want to tell a story, and I can appreciate SMeyer being one of them. So that means she had no interest in going the second route -- that is, explaining the details.

Unfortunately, she chose a middle route -- explaining details that were not well thought out and were filled with holes -- that didn't work so well.

And what screwed her over even more is that she was trying to build a twist in which we (and the characters in her books) think that Bella won't be able to get pregnant because female vampires are known to be infertile, but later find out that male vampires can impregnate female humans. And when the twist was revealed in Breaking Dawn, there was a lot of reader outcry along the lines of "But you said vampires can't have babies!" This is another area where I do feel for SMeyer, because I don't think she ever had said that! Her stories are quite consistent in saying that female vampires can't have babies and that the characters are under the (ultimately mistaken) impression that male vampires can't either. So for the most part, I don't think the big outcry was fair. But on the other hand, once again, she went the extra step of trying to scientifically justify her story (i.e., the lack of change in vampire bodies means that females can't have menstrual cycles, but since men don't menstruate and their semen remains, but is now venom based, they are still fertile) in ways that just lead to further questions and don't hold up very well.

More tl;dr from me. :P Anyway, sorry if I gave the mistaken impression that I took issue with the overall premise. My problem was more with the ways she tried, but did a shoddy job at, justifying it. :) And thanks for mentioning all that -- I'm not hugely familiar with vampirelore, but do find it intriguing from a monster (but not so much romance) sort of angle.
Marie of Romania: bigdeal_evie_iconsmiss_daizy on September 2nd, 2008 12:11 pm (UTC)
I didn't read the books so I can't speak to the rest but re: the feminist part, I find that to be a facile argument. I'm a feminist and a mother who stayed home by choice for a time. I also worked part-time, free-lance, full-time and flex time. Most women I know did/do the exact same thing. That's what's meant by choice; not one or the other, not when your children are X age but not Y age.

But the reason I had those options, that I could always find something that fit the place I was in was education and experience. And it takes real time and real work to earn those. It's not impossible to marry young, have a child and then manage it (I also know woman who've done this and I admire the hell out of them), but it's so very, very much harder that it doesn't happen for a lot of women.

I read something once along the lines of "If women are going to raise children, they deserve the resources to make it a manageable choice." You should have a place of your own in your mind that makes Barney less annoying, the four walls less oppressive, the pastels less never-ending. (That's one of reasons I love seeing new moms journaling!)

So, yeah, this is a hot button for me when I read statements like that. I'm no more torn about my work choices that I am about any of the other myriad tough choices I've made, I feel no more judged than I judge others and it's feminism that made that a reality for me.
Miss Sophia: Meghan - Sweet potato smilemiss_sophia on September 3rd, 2008 01:21 am (UTC)
You should have a place of your own in your mind that makes Barney less annoying, the four walls less oppressive, the pastels less never-ending.

Oh, this is so true. And when you start to feel this way is the time you know it's right to have a child. I remember seeing some of my friends a few years ago dragging around booster seats, changing their schedules to fit their kids' bedtimes, letting their soup get cold while they fed their children oatmeal, etc., and I just couldn't identify with it; I wasn't in that mental place yet. Now I totally understand, and the fact is that none of those things are a drag for me at all. I don't think I will ever get over the amazement of how much parenthood changes one's world. And for me, it's an incredibly positive change, one that's reinforced every time my daughter looks up at me, smiles, or pretty much does anything at all. :)

As for your greater point, yeah, I could not agree more. Feminism definitely paved the way for women to choose to work, choose to raise children, or both. Just curious, have you ever read Michael Gurian's The Wonder of Girls: Understanding the Hidden Nature of Our Daughters? He postulates that feminism was a radical response to traditional ideas about women (i.e., they should be barefoot and pregnant) and was thus a huge force in freeing women from these ideas, but then constrained women in the opposite manner (i.e., by putting them down if they chose to devote their efforts to raising a family rather than climbing the corporate ladder). He proposes "womanism" as a middle way, where womanism is the idea that women should be left to make their choices and not to feel bad for whatever direction or directions they choose at various points in their lives.
From the land between Wake and Dream.: Facepalm - miss_jaffacakesea_thoughts on September 14th, 2008 12:17 am (UTC)
A fluid similar to the venom in their mouths works as a lubricant between the cells, which makes movement possible (note: this fluid is very flammable).

So all Bella had to do to that attacker was put a lighter inside his mouth, who knew?

fluids closely related to seminal fluids still exist in male vampires, which carry genetic information and are capable of bonding with a human ovum

This is so hilarious that I can't even really comment on it. I was just discussing this with my friend today, who pointed out that in the Joss universe, vampires can have sex, they just don't have babies (Conor was an exception but then S4 of Angel is just pure crack anyway).

When I said that Breaking Dawn might be impossible to film, it's because of Renesmee.

You're darn right, because nobody will be able to pronouce that name with a straight face! It's a stupid name, SMeyer. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it. Even my friends who like the books think that name is ridiculous. I don't care if combining names is a Mormon tradition, there's a way to do it and make a pretty name: Annaleigh, Cherlyanne, etc. You managed to take two pretty names and combine them into one ugly moniker. (Why does Bella even NAME her baby after her mother if she dislikes her so much, Abbie? Please explain. ;_;) And then there's the fact that her nickname is NESSIE, which will make everyone in the UK go "They name their babie after the Loch Ness Monster, WTF?" Fail fail fail.

Wait, Jacob's the safe choice? How is a werewolf the 'safe' choice? At least he's still ALIVE and is only a monster once a month and doesn't pass on the werewolf thing through his sperm, and his sperm isn't POISONOUS... oh wait, I'm making too much sense here, aren't I? *rolls eyes*
Miss Sophia: Twilight - Edward Maybellinemiss_sophia on September 14th, 2008 04:18 am (UTC)
in the Joss universe, vampires can have sex, they just don't have babies

Ah, but Bella would never have achieved her potential as a woman had she not had Renesmee chewed out of her uterus.

Why does Bella even NAME her baby after her mother if she dislikes her so much, Abbie? Please explain. ;_;

Actually, I don't think she really dislikes her mom. She just sort of shakes her head and laughs and goes, "Oh, Renee...." It's like her mom is a child and she is the mother, and all of this is to show how wonderful and mature Bella is. It's the same deal with her father; he's so inept that he can't even use a microwave, so Bella does all his cooking. But I don't think she disliked her mom.

Still. Renesmee = moronic name.

And what's even more hilarious about the Nessie nickname is that Jacob the werewolf was the one who started with it, and Bella's all, "NO, MY CHILD IS NOT THE LOCH NESS MONSTER!" It's like so many other of the book's flaws: SMeyer thinks it's OK to keep them in as long as the characters acknowledge the idiocy themselves...like when Bella's mom calls her out for making her entire life revolve around Edward. Rather than agreeing with that being sick, SMeyer essentially blows it off by having Bella be all, "WHATEVER, I LOVE HIM!", which shows that she herself sides with Bella. But I get the impression that she thinks that by having another character point out the WTFery, it exonerates her for perpetuating the WTFery to begin with.

In other words, FAIL.

Wait, Jacob's the safe choice? How is a werewolf the 'safe' choice? At least he's still ALIVE and is only a monster once a month and doesn't pass on the werewolf thing through his sperm, and his sperm isn't POISONOUS... oh wait, I'm making too much sense here, aren't I? *rolls eyes*

Actually, the werewolves in the series aren't quite like the traditional werewolves. In fact, in Breaking Dawn, it's clarified that they're not werewolves at all, but rather...I forget the term, but it's essentially that they're spirit animals; they're people whose spirits are connected to animal spirits. Oh, I know, one of the words was "shapeshifter." Apparently, there ARE real werewolves in Europe, that do the whole change-at-the-full-moon thing, but Jacob et al. aren't of that ilk. Jacob and his pack can change into wolves at will, and the moon has nothing to do with it. The werewolf thing actually IS somewhat hereditary, but almost exclusively (with just one exception) down male lines, and the wolf spirits stay latent until vampires come into the area.

I think what SMeyer meant by "the safe choice" is that Bella could settle down with Jacob and have children and not have to give up her parents, whereas with Edward, she'd have to cut ties with everyone she knows (so that they don't find out that she's become a vampire), and her life would not be "normal." But it's still retarded and nonsensical.
(no subject) - sea_thoughts on September 14th, 2008 04:54 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - miss_sophia on September 14th, 2008 05:03 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - sea_thoughts on September 14th, 2008 03:27 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - miss_sophia on September 14th, 2008 04:33 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - sea_thoughts on September 14th, 2008 04:53 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - miss_sophia on September 14th, 2008 05:29 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - sea_thoughts on September 14th, 2008 06:10 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - miss_sophia on September 15th, 2008 03:15 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - sea_thoughts on September 15th, 2008 09:38 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - sea_thoughts on September 15th, 2008 09:54 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - miss_sophia on September 16th, 2008 04:06 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - sea_thoughts on September 16th, 2008 06:29 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - miss_sophia on September 20th, 2008 03:53 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - sea_thoughts on September 23rd, 2008 10:13 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - miss_sophia on September 25th, 2008 01:18 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - sea_thoughts on September 30th, 2008 10:19 pm (UTC) (Expand)
From the land between Wake and Dream.: Laughter - fizzlingwhizbeesea_thoughts on September 14th, 2008 12:23 am (UTC)
Click and be happy

You need to see this fanart, if you haven't already. It is full of win.
Miss Sophia: Twilight - Edward Maybellinemiss_sophia on September 14th, 2008 03:56 am (UTC)
That was BEAUTIFUL. *cries sparkly tears of happiness*
From the land between Wake and Dream.: Laughter - fizzlingwhizbeesea_thoughts on September 14th, 2008 02:52 pm (UTC)
It's a thing of beauty, isn't it?

*LOL* How do you get the letters to go all sparky like that anyway?
(no subject) - miss_sophia on September 14th, 2008 04:32 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Shannonbardsong on September 28th, 2008 07:04 am (UTC)
I can't sleep, so I'm reading over your back posts and apparently realizing I have opinions. Let me show you them!
I never meant for her fictional choices to be a model for anyone else's real life choices. She is a character in a story, nothing more or less. On top of that, this is not even realistic fiction, it's a fantasy with vampires and werewolves, so no one could ever make her exact choices.

Wow, as a huge fan of genre fiction and a feminist, that statement caused spontaneous cranial combustion. First off, way to belittle the genre you've chosen to write in by dismissing it as unrealistic and, presumably, not to be taken seriously. Especially when you expect other people to take you seriously.

Second, I dunno, the whole subsuming of one's life and personality to be with one's twue wuv of sparkliness isn't the sort of thing that healthy girls should be encouraged to do, and I think a lot of teenage girls see Bella as a role model.

I think it's absolutely possible to have a fulfilling romance with someone and not subsume your own identity in the process. And I want to read more books where this actually happens, because I am so over the whole codependent relationship = perfect Happily Ever After trope in romance.

On a less sploogetastic note, I love all the Twilight mocking I've seen lately. Especially because I feel like I'm totally ahead of the curve on that score since I tried to read the book something like a year ago and couldn't get past the first nine or ten chapters. I didn't even get to the good parts, like where Edward stalks Bella while she sleeps. And every time I run across a serious Twilight fan, I want to take them aside and gently suggest other YA books that don't suck. Except I don't read much YA, so that always fails. :P