What do you think?

I've wondered lately about my life, and my calling responsibilities in particular.

I've fretted and worried about my abilities, or lack thereof, specifically organization, and decision making....things that do not come naturally to me, but I know are important.


So that must be why I was called to this position?


To learn these important lessons, to "make weak things strong unto [me]".

But sometimes I wonder, if perhaps that's why we have councilors and secretaries, to even out the load, to fill in for each others' lack. Perhaps this is a way for weak things to become strong.


So that must be why I was called to this position?


To share important burdens, to jointly fill essential needs.

But also I ponder (and apparently others do too), that perhaps I already have within me, all that is required. That my abilities, my strengths: calmness, love, innovation, knowledge, and teaching are perhaps the most important things that can be given to those I serve.


And that is why I was chosen for this position?


To fret less about what is hard and unnatural for me, and instead to invest my time, "Improv[ing] the Shining Moments". Taking what is best about me, and giving it all my effort.




I don't know. Perhaps all three?


What do you think?

Archetypes: What is the Definition of a "Strong" Female Character?

(Once again I find myself inspired by something discovered on accident while looking for something else.

Apparently, Tami Cowden, a romance author, and her partners (I'm not sure in what) got together and wrote a book that catalogues and discusses sixteen character archetypes (eight female, eight male) in fictional works. Here I'm going to present you with a survey of the archetypes along with a few of my thoughts.)

EDIT: After some interesting comments, and a note from Ms. Cowden, I've made a few changes below. If you want those changes to reflect on the facebook quiz, you'll have to take it again.


What is Strength? When you read a book, do you require "Strong Characters" of the author? Do you shut a movie off halfway through, simply because the heroine seems dull, or spineless? What is your definition of dull? Is it the same as mine?




As I've begun writing, I've found myself justifying these characters both to you and to myself. It is my hypothesis that any of these types can be considered "Strong" characters, but they must be mature ones, written by mature authors.

Too often nowadays, we find ourselves faced with ONE right answer. ONE party, ONE lifestyle, ONE ideal.


Good authors can challenge those assumptions, but poor ones seem to ratify them.


Let's begin:

Ladies First:

The Boss

The Boss is a bold, authoritative, and goal-oriented woman. In difficult situations, she jumps in and takes charge, ordering surrounding characters into action, demanding respect, and bowing to no one.



Not surprisingly, Cowden sites Cate Blanchett's Elizabeth, and Katherine Hepburn's Eleanor of Aquitaine in The Lion in Winter as Bosses. Think of, "I even made poor Louis take me on Crusade. How's that for blasphemy. I dressed my maids as Amazons and rode bare-breasted halfway to Damascus. Louis had a seizure and I damn near died of windburn... but the troops were dazzled." And, " I could peel you like a pear, and God, himself, would call it justice. "

I love these women to the point of heroine-worship, but (maybe it's just me) there seems to be a bit of pressure on all women to be like this. After all, doesn't The Boss sound like the ultimate Feminist dream? Here's what I wonder: Are we told to be tough, strong-willed fighters, or does the suggestion come from our own sense of inadequacy?

Though "Strong" is probably the first word that comes to mind when defining these ladies, I tend to enjoy them in their vulnerable moments. They become relatable, yes, but most of the attraction lies in the fact that they are growing, stepping outside themselves.


The Seductress (formerly "Survivor")

This lady is referred to as "mysterious and manipulative." Often dealing with trust issues, she is constantly on the defense, looking for ways to stay ahead. She's intelligent, but hides behind femininity and charm. She's always got a back-up plan.

According to Cowden, the iconic Survivor is Scarlett O'Hara (Gone with the Wind). My bias here is that I just really don't like Scarlett, with her selfishness and schemes. Still, one could argue that she's a product of her situations: "As God is my witness they're not going to lick me. I'm going to live through this and when it's all over, I'll never be hungry again. No, nor any of my folk. If I have to lie, steal, cheat or kill, as God is my witness, I'll never be hungry again."

Still, I have enjoyed reading about Survivors. One of my all time favorites is the title character in Mara, Daughter of the Nile. Mara is redeemable (in my point of view) because she is heroic. She begins by playing both sides in her little spy game, but eventually realizes that she believes one side is "Right" and risks her life for that belief.

Scarlett just ends up making herself (and everyone else) miserable, but Mara matures and becomes more.



The Spunky Kid

Instead of the Boss, this girl's the team player. She holds her own, but is often in a supporting role. She's got lots of friends, is probably a bit of a "tomboy," and has a great sense of humor.

Cowden's examples include the heroines of Sleepless in Seattle and The Mary Tyler More Show.

My immediate thought is J.K. Rowling's Ginny Weasley. She's lively and witty, but got the cute little sister rap for five books. ""Ginny, don't call Ron a prat, you're not the captain of this team—" "Well, you seemed too busy to call him a prat and I thought someone should.""

Ginny's spunk makes her a fun (and even enviable) character. People like me wish we could speak our thoughts with such ease. Again, I find her most interesting when she is doing something different—Serious, instead of funny. In these moments she proves that spunk can be steel if need be.



The Free Spirit

The Free Spirit is characterized by her whimsical nature. She doesn't feel dictated to or confined by society because she does her own thing. Think inside the box? What box! She's all about the journey, self-expression, and tends to have a rosy world-view. Still, this can get her into trouble when she tries to "help" others, becoming a bit too meddlesome. She doesn't really think ahead, but why worry?

Try Goldie Hawn in HouseSitter: "I just wanted to see what it would be like to live in that picture. " or Amy Adams in Enchanted: "Giselle: Now if only I can find a place to rest my head for the night. Robert: What kind of place? Giselle: I don't know. Maybe a nearby meadow or a hollow tree. " Some also cite Jane Austen's Emma Woodhouse, "Silly things do cease to be silly if they are done by sensible people in an impudent way. "

These women can be annoying, but what about Jerry Spinelli's Stargirl: “I’m not my name. My name is something I wear, like a shirt. It gets worn. I outgrow it, I change it.” or "I root for everybody!“

With the whimsy comes a sincere kindness that can be viewed as strength. These women dare to be different.



The Waif

Here's a character that makes Feminists grind their teeth! The classic pure innocent, she always needs to be rescued. Often insecure, instead of taking action, her strength is found in endurance. Still, while wielding a sword would be her last option, that doesn't mean she wouldn't be good at it.

Waifs are probably the most difficult to write for a modern audience. Immature Waifs (like Mia Thermopolis from The Princess Diaries, and Bella Swan from Twilight) have been found annoying (though Mia tends to get off the hook by constantly whining about how she should be like Hilary Clinton, Beyoncé, and other good role models).

Sucessful Waif characters seem to need an excuse for their status of inactivity, such as a cultural concern.

Two of Cowden's examples, the title characters of Sabrina and Jane Eyre, are at a distinct social and financial disadvantage. In addition, Jane fell for her employer in a time where women had little to now power, so that complicates things further.

Yet I find Jane Eyre to be quite heroic. Maybe you wanted her to tell Mr. Rochester to go to Hell, but Jane did what I would have done in her situation. She waited for him to say his piece and then calmly told him she could not, would not, stay and stole away in the night. She endures hunger and homlessness, on her own terms, in favor of comfort and love on terms she could never consider without degredation.

"Gentle reader, may you never feel what I then felt...May you never appeal to Heaven in prayers so hopeless and so agonized as in that hour left my lips; for never may you, like me, dread to be the instrument of evil to what you wholly love."


If that's not strength, I don't know what is.

(Still, do you think a modern audience would stand for a modern woman acting in such a way without an "excuse" like Jane's?)


(EDIT: Apparently the article I read was from an early draft. Cowden now sites Jane Eyre as a LIBRARIAN. Need another example of a Waif? Try Judy Garland in The Wizard of Oz)


The Librarian

She's orderly, controlled, and knows she's intelligent (even if no one else does). She's stubborn and self-reliant, taking care of herself with her brains, not her looks. Often practical to the point of impatience, The Librarian knows what is proper, and will generally make sure everyone else does too.

Yes, you guessed it, Cowden named this Archetype after Marion the Librarian from The Music Man.

"As long as the Madison Public Library was entrusted

To me for the purpose of improving River City's cultural level,

I can't help my concern that the Ladies of River City

Keep ignoring all my council and advice. "


One of my favorite Librarians, of course, is Hermione Granger. "You're saying it wrong," Harry heard Hermione snap. "It's Wing-gar-dium Levi-o-sa, and make the 'gar' nice and long."

A know-it-all can be annoying, but don't we love watching them grow out of their frosty exterior?



The Crusader

The Crusader lives for her Mission (whatever that may be) so if you stand in her way, be prepared to face the consequences. Not afraid to get her hands dirty, you will find her in the thick of things. She's stubborn and feisty, and never takes a vacation.

Most Comicbook heroines are Crusaders, along with Buffy, the Vampire Slayer, and (probably the most famous Crusader) Princess Leia, "I don't know who you are or where you've come from, but from now on you'll do as I say. "


Crusaders, like Bosses, are wonderfully intimidating. One needs them for their passion and direction, but no one is ever as committed as they are.



The Nurturer


The Nurturer isn't necessarily a homemaker. She cheerfully takes care of EVERYONE. A happy ending isn't good enough unless it applies to her family and friends as well. With her composure and patient ear she will listen to, and generally solve, everyone's problems. With loyalty to the point of stubbornness, she'll protect those she cares about. When others are with her, they're in good hands, and they might just get cookies!

Examples of Nurturers include the helping, healing Vianne Rocher in the book Chocolat and Mary Poppins: "Practically perfect people never permit sentiment to muddle their thinking."


While often losing themselves by becoming too entrenched in the problems of others, no one can deny that Nurturers are strong. Imagine a mama bear, fiercely protecting her cubs. Perhaps it was a Nurturer screaming, "Not my daughter, you b****!" as she jumped into the fray, weapon drawn. These are the moments we look forward to, when the Nurturer's calmness gives way to her need to protect.



In conclusion, I find that what makes a character interesting and inspiring (to me) is not necessarily strength, but maturity. Maturity, in my opinion, being the ability to step outside ones comfort zone, and do something necessary, but hard. If a character is always mouthing off, perhaps she will learn to stop and think, if she is quiet and unassuming, perhaps she will learn to stick up for herself. We look for these changes, and we rejoice in them, because than we now have something for which to admire the heroines.


Well, that turned out completely different from how I had anticipated, but I have some questions for you followers (and hopefully blogstalkers :)

Can you guess which Archetypes I identify with the most? (Hint: They're the ones I spent the most time justifying, lol)
Can you guess which Archetypes I identify with the least?
What Archetype are you? (If you're having trouble deciding, try the Facebook Quiz I made)

What Twilight Should Have Been

I've been thinking about Twilight lately.

Yeah, I know, I need a new topic. But after being secretly obsessed with those books, I've been trying to both justify my reaction, and figure out how I feel about the books now.

I have already dealt with the some of the Questionable Content in Twilight. As well as the Reason Why People Read it. Today, I'm going to quickly examine the literary merits of the book, and then explain what form it could, and perhaps should, have taken.

One thing that helped me understand my own veiw, was going to amazon.com and reading the reviews of others. Not the paltry ones from "Twi-hards" or haters (which generally focus entirely on story content and whether they loved or hated it), but the meaty ones that are written with thought (and allude to the author's skill). I especially like the 3/5 stars entries, because there I generally find reviews I agree with. These often point out the same flaws/strengths. Elizabeth Spires, reviewing for the New York Times, got it right.

"The premise of "Twilight" is attractive and compelling — who hasn't fantasized about unearthly love with a beautiful stranger? — but the book suffers at times from overearnest, amateurish writing. A little more "showing" and a lot less "telling" might have been a good thing, especially some pruning to eliminate the constant references to Edward's shattering beauty and Bella's undying love."

The way I see it, Twilight suffers from two main things.

It Lacks Plot. If you can be satisfied to follow every minute detail of a heroine's mental agony over new love (as apparently I can), then you'll enjoy Twilight. The book does not offer as much in the way of life events, as it does in mental/emotional events. Also, it is a very linear book. Bella has one problem and, as soon as it is resolved, another problem enters to take it's place.

The Main Characters Aren't Sympethetic. Those who view books critically tend to find Bella annoying and weak, and Edward abusive. Those who, like me, take characters at face value on a first read, found them to be exactly what Stephenie Meyer intended. Bella is supposed to have a quiet strength. She rarely stands up for herself or speaks her mind but, in the end, she always does what she thinks is right. Edward is supposed to be the strong intellectual that burns with such passion he will stand in the way of anything that threaten's Bella's safety (including Bella herself). The problem lies, as Elizabeth Spires said, in too much telling, and not enough showing. People like me tend to believe everything they are told (unless there is obvious evidence to the contrary), but to about half the population, seeing is believing. So while I find that Bella and Edward's relationship is reminicent of Jane Eyre and Mr. Rochester's (INFJ + ENTJ), many people find the whole thing to be a disgusting, anti-feminist travesty. In the end, perhaps they are right.

Obviously, the fatal flaw in my Jane Eyre argument is that, in that story, Jane was the one strong enough to leave a bad situation, while in Twilight's sequal, it is Edward that leaves.



Now, on to the THE POINT of my post (yes, I know I always take too long to arrive, but in case you haven't noticed, it's the journey, the "rising action" that I enjoy).


What should Twilight have been? No plot? Flat characters? I'd have thought it was obvious.




Twilight Should have been an Opera

Remember those famous lines from Phantom (Which, incidentally, is not an opera)?

You'd never get away
with all this in a play,
but if it's loudly sung
and in a foreign tongue
it's just the sort of story
audiences adore,
in fact a perfect opera!

Traditional opera is a combination of two kinds of singing: Recititive and Aria. Recititive is singing where the melody mimics human speech patterns. It is the conversations, the dialogue, and what moves the action in an opera. Arias are moments in time. Traditionally, they are supposed to explore a single emotion. They do not move the plot forward, but instead are a probe of some aspect of the human experience. (Which is why people take so long to die in operas, they're exploring their final emotion.)

Twilight is full of emotional probes.

Imagine the selections on the soundtrack?
An Aria for Bella, "L'amour est un brillant poitrine".
And one for Edward, "Qu'est-ce qu'elle pense en ce moment?"
And while we're at it, how about Charlie? "S'il vous plaît, rester loin de ma fille!"

No? No opera?

Fine.




Twilight Should have been a Poem

Imagine if Stephenie Meyer had chosen a more abstract method to catalogue her famous dream? Instead of creating characters that made her curious to explore their lives, she could have focused on the strong emotions involved, written a page a verse, and been done.

I'm no poet, but here's what I came up with in a few minutes:

Green leaves cover death
secret song thrums through veins to capture heart
darkness never looked so bright

breath steals it's last moment
Life lives it's fullest
thinking
perhaps
it has come to an end

Heart stopped by absence....
or presence

What would you decide?


Not very good, but I could keep at it and make it better.
My friend, though he hated the movie, was somehow inspired by the concept. He came home and wrote a creeptastically chilling love song. Someday, when it's online, I'll link it here, but for now, you'll have to make do with my attempt.


Alright, now, I know you might not like poetry, so here's my favorite thought:



Twilight Should have been a BALLET

Imagine! No dialogue! No characters agonizing over their faults while the audience completely agrees. No constant discriptions of Edward's beauty! Physical beauty could be successfully portrayed by the (statistically) gay man in the part. It wouldn't be weird that he takes his shirt off, because it'll actually help us see the lines of his movement! And Bella would never have to remind us how clumsy she is.

Ballets have a tradition of romance and the supernatural, and can also do well in industrialized settings (wish I could have seen Matthew Bourne's Cinderella, set in WWII Britain, when it was here in LA).

Bella and Edward's danger laden passion could have been exemplified in beautiful, tension filled pas de deux ("step of two," a dancer's duet, if you will). And imagine the high school scenes! I can picture the intricate chaos between classes, the shy and clumsy Bella, unaware of her effect on those around her. And don't forget pas d'action! The romance would probably not take as long, so we could skip ahead to an Allegro fight scene with James.

How else can we ladies talk our men into going to the ballet?



I'll make a poll. Let me know which you think Twilight should have been.



P.S. I've never tried to get my husband to go to a ballet, but he took ballet in college and I go to Clippers' games with him, so maybe I should try it....

Question: Is Edward Cullen an Abusive Boyfriend?

Answer: I don't think so, but we'll see.

Disclaimer: I managed to read all four Twilight books without falling in love with Edward Cullin. I think he's an interesting character, he's just not the kind of guy I'd want (Plus, he's NOT REAL). That being said, I was kind of obsessed with the books for a while, but I got over it. I think this puts me in a unique position. I don't think Stephenie Meyer's saga is "tHE beSt EvEr!" but I enjoyed them, and think they're fun. If you think it's silly to analyze fictional characters, you won't enjoy this, so go away.

If you intend to, but have not yet read the Twilight series, consider this your warning: Spoilers Ahead!


Now, I've been thinking about this since dear Liz, Nicole (miss you!) and I talked about it on Saturday. Is Bella in an abusive relationship? Well, I looked up a few websites, and can easily claim that NO she is not. Of the ten characteristics listed on this site, Edward only has three (as does Bella), so I conclude that he is not abusive....Physically.

Unfortunately, Edward and Bella's relationship is a candidate for Ambient (or Stealth) Abuse.

According to Dr. Sam Vaknin's book, "Malignant Self Love: Narcissism Revisited," ambient abuse is, "...the stealth, subtle, underground currents of maltreatment that sometimes go unnoticed even by the victims themselves, until it is too late. ...It is the outcome of fear."

By subtly introducing fear to a victim (or prey, as Vaknin says) an ambient abuser renders him or her useless and easily manipulated....it's all about control.

Now, here comes the age old debate on Desire. If someone doesn't want to, or intend to hurt you, are they still responsible for it? This will be important.

It is my assertion that Edward can be considered an Ambient Abuser, when who he is, is added to what he is.

Vaknin gives five categories of Ambient Abuse. One can be considered abuse, but, by the nature of his personality, we can assign Edward two or three. In addition, by the nature of his species, we can assign him the other two. So, while he does not seem abusive, it does appear that Bella is being abused.

Let's begin.

I. Inducing Disorientation (Not Edward's Fault)

"The abuser causes the victim to lose faith in her ability to manage and to cope with the world and its demands." Let's face it, Bella has never had much faith in her ability to begin with, Edward didn't cause that.

"The abuser subverts the target's focus by disagreeing with her way of perceiving the world, her judgment, the facts of her existence, by criticizing her incessantly – and by offering plausible but specious alternatives. By constantly lying, he blurs the line between reality and nightmare."

Edward does lie to Bella, when he is trying to protect her, but she can usually tell. He often criticizes her, but in a charming way. He has the habit of trying to convince her she is good and beautiful (things she does not believe) but often teases her about her intelligence and logic (things that she is more confident in).

"Bella, you are utterly absurd" (Twilight p. 82). "You don’t see yourself very clearly, you know. I’ll admit you’re dead-on about the bad things, but you didn’t hear what every human male in this school was thinking on your first day" (210). Edward is constantly trying to convince Bella to believe the opposite, to see herself as he sees her. It's not intended malignantly, and Bella never buys it anyway. While Edward often disapproves of Bella's choices (as do many others) she usually is convinced she's done the right thing. However, he does introduce her to a new world, a world where her previous notions and beliefs cannot exist, a world of vampires and mythology. This, more than anything, seems to make Bella reassess herself, her life. She is ready to accept almost anything.

II. Incapacitating (Both Edward's Fault and Not Edward's Fault)

"The abuser gradually and surreptitiously takes over functions and chores previously adequately and skilfully performed by the victim. The prey finds itself isolated from the outer world, a hostage to the goodwill – or, more often, ill-will – of her captor. She is crippled by his encroachment and by the inexorable dissolution of her boundaries and ends up totally dependent on her tormentor's whims and desires, plans and stratagems." Edward is Chivalrous. He drives her to school, he protects her from harm, he makes sure she eats. Here's where intent comes in play. Does he like it when she's helpless and depends solely on him, or is he merely a little old fashioned and service-oriented. After all, he usually drives his whole family to school....but it is his car.

"Moreover, the abuser engineers impossible, dangerous, unpredictable, unprecedented, or highly specific situations in which he is sorely needed. The abuser makes sure that his knowledge, his skills, his connections, or his traits are the only ones applicable and the most useful in the situations that he, himself, wrought. The abuser generates his own indispensability." This Edward has not done purposefully. At first, he is of the greatest danger to Bella, but quickly becomes her best defense. Did he somehow entice enemies (James, Victoria, the Volturi) to Bella in order to have the opportunity to save her? Don't be silly. He defends her completely, hates that he has to, and blames himself for exposing her to his world in the first-place (cue self-loathing).

III. Shared Psychosis (folie a deux) (Not Edward's Fault)

"The abuser creates a fantasy world, inhabited by the victim and himself, and besieged by imaginary enemies. He allocates to the abused the role of defending this invented and unreal Universe. She must swear to secrecy, stand by her abuser no matter what, lie, fight, pretend, obfuscate and do whatever else it takes to preserve this oasis of inanity." The fantasy world that Bella and Edward inhabit is real (at least to them). However, it does call for secrecy and solidarity. This, in part, is what makes Edward so enticing to Bella and other (real) women.

"Her membership in the abuser's "kingdom" is cast as a privilege and a prize. But it is not to be taken for granted. She has to work hard to earn her continued affiliation. She is constantly being tested and evaluated. Inevitably, this interminable stress reduces the victim's resistance and her ability to "see straight"." Again, this is not engineered by Edward, but by the nature of Vampires and Bella herself. She has never fit in anywhere, and suddenly is welcomed in by the most beautiful, strongest, fastest, "coolest," people around. So of course, when Edward leaves and tries to "save" her from herself, she only craves him more. Soon he becomes her be all, end all. She cannot live without him.

Can you imagine what it would have been like if Stephenie Meyer ended her series showing Bella and Edward in some mental institution and you realize that he made the whole thing up! I probably would have been mad, but it would have been awesome in a creepy way.

IV. Abuse of Information (Edward's Fault)

"From the first moments of an encounter with another person, the abuser is on the prowl. He collects information. The more he knows about his potential victim – the better able he is to coerce, manipulate, charm, extort or convert it "to the cause"." Edward did this. He wanted to know everything about Bella, partly because he couldn't read her thoughts, and partly because he was in lust with her (at that point, I don't think he loved her, physically he's still seventeen, but I could be wrong). While we know his intention was not manipulation, on page 208 of Twilight Edward says, "I do want to know what you’re thinking — everything," and on 245, "You fascinate me." While he does care what Bella thinks, that doesn't always affect his actions. As long as she is happy and satisfied, where's the harm? Dangerous situation coming to town? Don't tell Bella, just take her to visit her mother.

"The abuser does not hesitate to misuse the information he gleans, regardless of its intimate nature or the circumstances in which he obtained it. This is a powerful tool in his armory." While Edward does not seem manipulative for the sake of manipulation, he is willing to stoop that low if he believes it is for Bella's own good. He insists that she will lose her soul if she becomes a vampire (though he doesn't really know), but she won't drop it, so he offers to make a deal. He offers her what she wants in return for what he wants. Compromise, right? But is it an accident that he asks for something that she is afraid to give? Did he infer this fear, and use it against her? Or was he unaware of it? Even though her fears are unfounded, it makes her rethink her original request. For a while, it looks like he might get his way. (Of course, she later turns things back on him, and proves that she can be just as devious, and in the end they both get what they want almost by accident.)

V. Control by Proxy (Edward's Fault and Not Edward's Fault)

"If all else fails, the abuser recruits friends, colleagues, mates, family members, the authorities, institutions, neighbours, the media, teachers – in short, third parties – to do his bidding. He uses them to cajole, coerce, threaten, stalk, offer, retreat, tempt, convince, harass, communicate and otherwise manipulate his target. He controls these unaware instruments exactly as he plans to control his ultimate prey. He employs the same mechanisms and devices. And he dumps his props unceremoniously when the job is done." Remember when Alice "kidnaps" Bella for that forced slumber "party?" Remember all those times when Charlie gets over-protective and Edward agrees with him when it keeps Bella where he wants her? True, he is trying to protect her from her own impulsiveness, and he definitely doesn't "dump" his allies (Alice is probably his best friend, and he has a lot of respect for Charlie), but he does overrule her in logical matters. He insists that he knows better.

"Another form of control by proxy is to engineer situations in which abuse is inflicted upon another person. Such carefully crafted scenarios of embarrassment and humiliation provoke social sanctions (condemnation, opprobrium, or even physical punishment) against the victim. Society, or a social group become the instruments of the abuser." This is not Edward, but, as above, we have seen that his world has caused this. The Volturi, random nomadic vampires, and even the local gossip mill all cause Bella grief.

Desire

As stated above Edward believes he knows what is best, or rather safest, for Bella, but is he wrong in trying to overrule and protect her? In truth, he is usually (but not always) right. Not because he is a man, not because he is older, but because, as a vampire, his brain works on a higher level. His synapses fire more rapidly, he has a perfect memory, and he's been to college several times. In comparison, Bella's mind is like a child. Is is wrong for you, as an adult, to see a child wandering the streets and take them to Child Protective Services? You have no authority over that child, yet what you did would be seen as heroic, even if the child prefers living on the streets. Many have complained that this kind of behavior is proof that Stephenie Meyer is anti-feminist, but she insists that she is merely, "anti-human." (stepheniemeyer.com) Looking at some of her other characters (Alice for one) does seem to make this argument viable. However, this "anti-human" sentiment is present for three books, books that are written in the first person. This can make it dangerous to those who may misinterpret the author's intentions, as Bella generally seems reasonable to herself and, therefore, the reader.

Conclusions

Despite his inclination to jealousy, self-loathing, and his own acknowledged "God complex" (Midnight Sun, p. 11) Edward Cullen is merely a borderline ambient abuser. He allows his desire to protect Bella to overcome his respect for her individuality. However, when the object of his concern (namely, Bella's human frailty) is extinguished, he begins to trust her more completely. He doesn't like to see her in dangerous situations, but stops being deceitful in order to keep her from them.

While it does seem as though Bella was experiencing all of the above abuses, few of them were actually caused, let alone intended, by Edward. However, had Bella remained human, we can only assume that the inequality of their relationship would have continued.

Perhaps we can assume that any human-vampire relationship would be, by nature, abusive in addition to dangerous.

Arguing that Edward abuses Bella is feasible, but not really fair. We are attempting to judge a cross-species relationship in a fantasy world. Now if you want to try to argue that Bella is abusing herself....

To all you women who wish for an Edward in your life....you may want to think again.

_______

Please don't shoot me:

To fellow fans of Twilight, please allow me the enjoyment I've had playing devil's advocate. As stated above, I like Stephenie Meyer, her books, and characters, but that doesn't mean we should accept everything she's written as a perfect dream to pursue without some serious consideration.

To all you Twilight haters, don't begrudge me the harmless fun of my escapist tendencies. I've overcome my obsession and lived to laugh at myself. I know it's hard to accept that so many people are so obsessed with something you find so valueless, but please, at least it's not High School Musical.