Rumble-Jumble

I should never make open-ended promises that are online where no one (except myself) can hold me accountable. Remember poems? I might actually do them someday (who knows), so I won't apologize for not doing them, just in case.



Remember how I'm pregnant? So far it's great. I'm not going to blog about that either. This blog is mostly for philosophizing and puking up angst and so far I haven't needed to do that. (Thank goodness).



Confession: I have never seen Forest Gump. Or Grease. Which do you find more shocking?



Confession II: I don't usually let myself get excited for movies. Either I have confidence they'll be good, so why get excited, or I have a sneaking suspicion they'll be sub-par and I don't want to get my hopes up.

Still, there are two movies in the "Summer Blockbuster" category that I'm actually excited about. Sadly, they'll probably both be very cheesy and have bad dialogue, but hey, I'm still excited cause, well...they look cool.

There's The Last Airbender (See two awesome previews here). Doesn't that just look awesome? I'm excited for way they combine martial arts with the elements. These look like fight scenes that will be enjoyable to watch, in that they are actually beautiful. (Like those space battles in Star Trek. Thank you Mr. Abrams.)

And, of course, The A-Team (trailer). I have such fond memories of that show. The creative element is so fun (and probably the reason I like Burn Notice so much). I love Liam Neeson, and I've heard good things about the guy playing Murdock. I have a special place in my heart for Dwight Schultz, so this new guy better live up to expectations!!

Those films will probably not be my favorite of the summer, but since most people don't talk about or show previews for the types of movies I love, who knows what they will be.



I've been on a non-fiction kick (very strange for me). Right now I'm reading Understanding Child Development by my old professor A. Lynn Scoresby. Great man, great book. I saved it from college. Nugget for the day? Did you know that your brain grows two ways? It grows based on biological cues (that you have no control over), which continue until you are fully grown/developed. But also from mental stimulation (which you do control) that can continue over a lifetime. In fact, research shows that when you keep your brain active it stops aging.

Cool huh?

The other recent thing I learned is about the sensitive periods that exist for human beings. These key opportunities for learning coincide with rapid physical growth. Scientists have theorized that the sensitive period for emotional growth is from birth to five years, for mathematical, birth to five years, and linguistic, birth to ten years. These things can still be learned after that time, but children are more susceptible to them during their early years. As an educator, this kind of makes me sad, because it is easy to pick out the children that do not have one of these learning needs met in their home.

So, parents of the world, don't wait for your kids to start Kindergarten and expect them to thrive when they get there. If they're ready to learn something, go for it!

Two most important things you can do? (in my opinion)
1. Teach them about books by reading to them and making books available to them.
2. Have conversations with them on many subjects (i.e. people, behavior, the world).

I'm not a parent yet, but I've studied a lot about children and how they work/think/learn. You've just received my two cents.



That's all for now folks. I wrote this post to prove to myself that I always have something to say and should write more....who knows, maybe I will.

But I'm not making any promises.

Byronic: Jane Eyre as told by Alanis Morissette

If you're not familiar with Alanis Morissette, you can listen to the original here.

And in case you wanna sing along, here's the karaoke version:




(Spoilers ahead)

"Byronic"

A young man brooded alone
Waiting for someone to speak to his soul
Until here you come a quiet fool
And before you know it into his arms you’ve flown
And isn't it Byronic... don't you think

Then a man shows up on your wedding day
Your dreams are shattered cause your fiancé
Has a wife in the attic that he’s hidden away
Who would've thought... it figures

No matter what you do what is right
You pack your suitcase and tell him goodbye
He’s so confident that you’ll do what he says
But you sneak out in the middle of the night
And isn't it Byronic... don't you think

Cause the man showed up on your wedding day
Your dreams were shattered cause your fiancé
Had a wife in the attic that he’d hidden away
Who would've thought... it figures

Tall, Dark, and Handsome face, doesn’t mean that it’s alright
When he won’t give you space, and has arrogance to match his charm
But ”Mad, Bad, and Dangerous” doesn’t mean he can’t love
You till the end of time and through all obstacles
In your way

A secret cousin who takes you in
A random inheritance gives you freedom from him
Then you’re hearing voices that change your life
Your love’s been blinded by a fire
Set by his crazy wife
And isn't it Byronic...don't you think?
A little too Byronic...and, yeah, I really do think...

When that man showed up on your wedding day
And dreams were shattered cause your fiancé
Had a wife in the attic that he’d hidden away
You should've thought... it figures

Tall, Dark, and Handsome face haunting your dreams at night
”Mad, Bad, and Dangerous” ways telling you he’s no white knight
He’s no white knight

If this guy can get published, so can you!

Interested in reading something truly awful? Awful, as in, horribly, grotesquely funny, but somehow still a published work of fiction??

Click HERE. And don't forget to read the introduction.

(By way of warning, some of you may find this a tad indecent. I find it too ridiculous to be titillating, but if you're worried, I would recommend you stay away from the second link that leads to pages 98-99)


And please tell me: Which is your favorite metaphor?

Happiness

"I can never forget the night I thought you were dying, Gilbert. Oh, I knew--I knew then--and I thought it was too late."

"But it wasn't, sweetheart. Oh, Anne, this makes up for everything, doesn't it? Let's resolve to keep this day sacred to perfect beauty all our lives for the gift it has given us."

"It's the birthday of our happiness," said Anne softly.



You're up too late. Husband gone to bed, and you finishing a children's book just after midnight. It was cute, funny even, but left you wishing for something more. You rise, head to the bookshelf for a midnight snack. What will it be? Frederick Wentworth's life-altering letter to Anne? Mara and Sheftu's dance of misdirection turned devotion?

You sit, eyeing your old friends, waiting for one to speak, and come to a boxed set, untouched, unread, a Christmas gift from your mother. Unconciously, you have been saving them. You know why she wanted you to have them. You'd grown up hearing stories of her, reading Laura Ingills Wilder to get through nausea, and knew, when she presented you with a different (but equally beloved) series for your own, what they were for. There was a laugh in her eye, and you smiled. Each of you knew the other knew.

So they sat, untouched, on the shelf, waiting for the terrible, wonderful days of change. You would read them straight through, in order, something you've never done. Yet, your hand hovers over the third volume, the one you read most as a younger adult, in those eyes, the most romantic.

Pulling it from the box, you open the book around page two hundred. You skim through the Heroine's denial, graduation, realization, homecoming, family, friends, and then revelation.

"There is a book of revelation in everyone's life, just as there is in the Bible. Anne read hers that bitter night, as she kept her agonized vigil through the hours of storm and darkness."

Unconsciously, you have been trying not to break the spine, but, telling yourself not be silly, you open the book, your book, wider, relinquishing a portion of your dream. This may not count for a first read, but broken spines do not equal broken traditions. Or so you tell yourself.

There are two statements on the final page that you have heard others quote, but your eyes find something new, something you've never noticed before, and well with emotion at the words, "the birthday of our happiness."

You remember such a day of your own, a day of decision, a day upon which you were finally ready to step from fifteen months of darkness into the light of the rest of your life. Happiness is a gift, but it is also a choice. That day you were afraid, but you finally knew what you wanted, and had the courage to take it anyway.

And as you bask in the sudden peace of gratitude and love, you remember the man in the room next to you, the one who shares that birthday. The light is still on, so you are not surprised to find him as he is, asleep on his knees, head on the bed, arms still in the attitude of prayer.

You wake him, turn out the lights, get him under the covers, and hold him close to you.

Often, when you see the two of you reflected in a mirror, your mind seems to disown your body and, for a moment, you wonder who you are, who he is, how you came to be together. But tonight, as he pulls you close, you fall asleep remembering how it all happened, warm in your surety, safe in familiarity, spirit settled in the present.

You've had many special days since then, a day of promise, a day of covenants, but your heart turns fondly to that day, the dawning day, of the birthday of your happiness.

Tuesday (July 9)

My Dear Aunt,

What pleasure it gave me to return from my morning walk and find your letter waiting for me! Yes, I assure you we are quite well and am glad you are all the same. I can hardly believe it is an entire year since quitting my parents home and coming to D------ with my Dear Husband!

As to your inquiries about our neighbourhood, I can assure you our set is extremely pleasant. Only this morning Mrs. L---- and I went on our daily stroll. We are determined (like many a modern woman) to "avoid all sedentary amusements." Though I shall miss our strolls when she enters her confinement, I shall still keep company with our dear friend Mrs. S--------. (Mrs. S is a charming lady also much interested in health and sport.)

Things are a bit slow just now, as it is summer. We have been to a few dinner parties, but I am no longer working in the church-school. Still, I visit Grandmama each Wednesday and have read so many books that, were I not married, I'd likely become a qualified bluestocking!

Of course you are aware that my dear brother was visiting from the East. What a dear their little Eva is. Nearly a year old and we had never laid eyes on her! Mama and I wish they had not settled so far away, but I suppose one must go where there is a living to be had.
Speaking of Mama, she and Papa leave tomorrow for their tour of the Northern Coasts. They are traveling in rather a grand fashion and have had to get new clothes for all the parties and dinners they will attend.

I do hope you will call on Grandmama while they are away, she gets quite lonely. My DH and I will be up in town for a few days, but we have several parties to attend and won't be very good company I'm afraid.

Please give our best to all the family.

Your affec. neice,
M. E. P----

Mrs. B----, Sunnyvale Park
Inland Rivers, Kent

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....

My Favorite Redheads

It's a fact. I have always wanted to be a redhead. It is simply unfair! What is the purpose of this complexion, if not to be rewarded with red hair! Still, I do love my dark locks, it's just difficult when all the greats are redheads!

Some of these were my childhood heroes or friends, some are new acquaintances.


Redheads in Fact:

*Elizabeth I (A Fabulous Female! Talk about power and not letting anyone control your destiny)
*Katherine Hepburn (I love a gutsy lady! My favorite actress of all time, she could do drama or comedy)
*Vincent Van Gogh (one of, if not the, greatest painters of all time. I know Starry Night is over-used but, seriously, have you seen it? Also, just had to share, my husband recently purchased this lovely alternate Van Gogh shirt: a "what if" affair.)


Redheads in Fiction:

*All the Weasleys, especially Ron and Ginny ....and the twins...and well....all of them.
*Dr. Crusher (These commercials brought to you by the airforce. That's right kids, stay in school and you might get to meet aliens one day! ahuhu)
*Anne of Green Gables (best moment at 1:45) (Is it weird that I've felt spiritually uplifted from reading these books? And also from the first two movies? Anne is my hero!)
*Mara Jade (Proof that I am an uber dork! Another redhead that kicks serious butt! There's something awesome about a badguy that doesn't know they're really a goodguy. If you like Star Wars, don't read any SW book that isn't written by Timothy Zahn.) (if you click the above link, you will see that I am not as big a fan as I thought!)
*Freckles, the sweet Irish orphan with an angel's voice, he triumphed over his disability and background to gain his heart's dearest wishes while teaching me the beauty, power, and sacredness of nature.


Fact/Fiction:

*Mr. Bingley, as portrayed by Simon Woods, did not fit into the fact OR fiction category, so I've placed him here. (I'll never forget when Grannie turned to me in the theatre and said, "Who is that actor?" "I don't know," I replied. She paused, "He's very lovely, isn't he?" Yes Grannie. He certainly is.

Why Are so Many of Us Obsessed with Twilight?, Or: Why People Read Books

Warning: This post comes as close to PG-13 as I've ever been. It's not explicit, but may be too frank for some.
Warning II: Twilight spoilers ahead (duh).




_________________

In order to discover why people (mostly women, but some men also) are so obsessed with Stephenie Meyer's best-selling series, we must first look at why people get obsessed with romances and books in general.

So what is it about a book, that can draw someone in? Even books that are not well written?

Remember these?





Basically, something intriguing happens, and attracts your attention. You begin reading (or watching, listening etc.) and tension builds, keeping your attention and engaging your mind and/or emotions. Finally, the tension is paramount, reaches a climax, and then everything winds down to the conclusion.

Now pretend for a moment, that you saw one of those charts up there for the first time (Gardner's for example). Pretend that it was free of words. Follow the line with your finger, inhaling with the upward motion, exhaling with the downward....

Remind you of something?


....Nothing? Really?



It seriously doesn't remind you of anything?




Maybe it's just me.


Think about it....something that, like a story, stems from initial attraction, builds until you thirst for more, climaxes at the best part, and then relaxes, leaving you satisfied but eager for another such encounter.

....

Just in case anyone is still not sure of my metaphor, let me spell it out. Incentive Moment = Attraction, Rising Action = Foreplay, Continuing Tension = sex, Climax = ....er....Climax, and Denouement (Falling Action) = Cuddling, Sleeping, or whatever (who knows, maybe even a sequel....).


For those of you who have never been obsessed with reading in general...perhaps now you understand how a bookworm is made. Basically....reading is like sex for your brain.

Now don't freak out on me! I'm not saying people like books for sexual reasons, I'm merely comparing two things that seem to follow a similar pattern.

I love books and consume them with an appetite. Everyone has their little pleasures. I imagine your enjoyment follows a similar pattern when you meet a deadline at work, teach a successful lesson, or help someone solve a problem.

For all of you who have done any of these things, you know what it's like to build up to something, enjoy the process, have the moment of achievement, and then the relaxing euphoria of a job well done.

However, we are human. Euphoria wears off. We have fond memories of accomplishments, but the feelings fade. Fortunately, there are plenty of books to read, problems to solve, people to help, and....well, you get the idea.

Writers have their little tricks to keep tension (and interest) high. Anne Perry, renowned for her Victorian mysteries, skips the Denouement. Almost as soon as the killer is revealed, the action completed, the book ends. There is no gracious explanation by the detective, no revelation on how "elementary" or "the 'leetle' gray cells" saved the day, and certainly no fluffy epilogue to explain which minor characters got married. Instead, you have to wait for the next book (which may or may not mention said minor characters), or figure it out yourself.

Romances, as a genre, have an especially difficult time following dramatic structure in a unique way. The purpose of a romance is (generally) to document a love affair. However, in order to build the proper tension, authors must include stumbling blocks to the two lovers. Many authors, through lack of creativity, ability, or mere interest utilize the same ones over and over again.

There are only so many detours on the path of "true love" : Misunderstanding, Shyness, Anger and Jealousy, Self-Doubt, and Mr. Wrong seem to be the most common.

Many creative, able, and deliberate authors choose to pad their romances with non-romantic plots, allowing those story-lines to incite the tension instead (or in addition). Of course this makes a case that such books are not actually romances, but some other genre. In truth, I find it hard to think of any romance I have enjoyed, that can not also be counted in some other category.

For example: Family Drama, Social Satire, Historical Fiction, Fantasy, Action Adventure, Horror and Mystery, Comedy etc.

The above genres can still be butchered, but they give the author more leeway. A specific example would be Jane Austen. While I would not consider her books to be romances, romance was a key aspect of her writing. However, instead of populating her stories with flat leads and completely unmemorable minor characters (like some stories I've wasted time on), Austen took time to develop her characters. We learn, not just of a hero and heroine, but of their families, friends, and neighbors. We know their quirks, foibles, and tastes. This allowed Austen to make subtle commentaries on society, politics, family dynamics etc. that kept her audience entertained while her main characters figured out how to be together.

So how do romantic stories (good and bad) affect the obsessive? Imagine the mental and emotional response you have to the building tension and climax of your favorite movie or book. Now, add the mental and emotional response you have to new love. Remember how exciting new love is?

Most people in the world are not currently experiencing this phenomenon. They are either seeking someone worthy of, and willing to receive, their attention, or they have committed themselves to someone, and are moving toward a deeper communion.

But does that mean they can't experience the exciting enticement of new love without cheating, or wasting time? It depends. If you are the sort of person who can be swept away by a good story, who can suspend disbelief, and enter a new world in every book, then perhaps, for you, vicarious new love will always be within reach.

(*Note: The Author is neither advocating, nor opposing the escapism implied in this concept, she merely sympathizes with you all, and reminds herself to remember the words of our Old Friend: "It does not do to dwell on dreams, and forget to live.")

This vicarious new love can be exciting, but it fades more quickly than a real (typical) infatuation. Some romances (the smutty ones), also try to vicariously induce other responses. These can be especially enticing to women, as it provides an emotional context for eroticism, that pornographic imagery often (I assume) lacks.

(*Note: The Author wishes to make it very clear, that she believes pornography in any form is detrimental to relationships, families, and individuals. Here she recommends strict self-control.)



Finally, we arrive at Twilight, a series that combines two genius tension builders.

First, Danger: One morning Stephenie Meyer awoke from a Dream involving a girl and a Vampire with two problems. One, they were in love, and two, her blood was (somehow) more enticing to him than any other. For those of you who have not read Twilight, Stephenie Meyer's Vampires do not merely enjoy drinking blood, it is a constant, raging, painful thirst. To deny themselves, as the Cullens do, is torture. In addition, it is occasionally possible for certain blood to attract certain Vampires (as is the case with Edward and Bella). Therefore, Bella is in constant danger from the Vampire's around her, and specifically from the one she has fallen for.

Second, Sexual Tension: While most modern romance novels (even many written for teens) contain sexual encounters, Twilight, and two of its sequels, do not. By making Edward chivalrous and a bit old fashioned, Stephenie Meyer was able to reconcile the modern romance with her own personal beliefs. Whether or not she also intended to draw out sexual tension, is unknown.


The Result
The combination of these tensions allow the author to break some of the rules of her genre, beginning by allowing the two main characters to be together. They immediately show interest in each other, and, after some initial ignoring, they spend all their time together. This is allowable because, where most romance series keep you asking, "When, when, when will they [hero and heroine] get together," Twilight makes you ask, "How, how, how will this ever work?"

Because we are constantly, morbidly curious to see if the hero will kill the heroine, there is no typical let down after the milestones in their relationship. Innocent moments like the first date, first touch, and first kiss become passion ridden, dangerously critical trials of endurance and love.

Edward explains that Bella would especially be in danger if they experimented sexually, and tries to keep them as far from that situation as possible. Eventually, it is also revealed that he wants to "wait" for marriage. By giving her characters a boundary that they must avoid as widely as possible, Meyer can have Bella and Edward flirt inch by dangerous inch along the path of their desire, exploring forms of affection (like cuddling) that the modern romance often completely ignores (They can't even french kiss, for fear of Bella cutting herself on Edward's sharp teeth). With each fractional increase, the danger intensifies, and Edward must find new depths of self-control!

Talk about tension!!!



Okay....breathe.

So there's your answer: tension and euphoria. (And welcome to the Denouement of my post.) As humans, we've learned, the greater the tension, the greater the euphoria, right? I'm not going to tell you if Twilight payed off, you'll just have to read the books for yourself.

Also, I wanted to add that, while I have illustrated what might make the works of Stephenie Meyer attractive and popular, I do not mean this to be a review of their literary merit. I leave that up to professional and personal opinions.

Hopefully I've answered some questions, I certainly enjoyed trying.


The End


(Why do I suddenly feel like having a cigarette....?)

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.