I believe so.Looking at it from a infautuation angle I think that he was just was in love with the egg inside of Bella but thought it was Bella who he loved?
We also don't know how strong imprinting really is so. I'm thinking in eclipse when bella had a vision could it have been Renesmee doing that she does have the power to show or picture what she thinks and wants.I wonder if the Renesmee was actually Jacob's Bella?
But this is my belief or opinion so ill respect what you say but probably will not agree with it.
They were not soulmates. Why? - because Bella did not understand Jacob. She struggled, blamed himself depressed guy and did not see how he manipulates her ..
Its not like soulmates do.
he said something like tat when bella was screeching at him.
strange, he hated ness so much before she was born.
What if he wasn't in love with the egg inside Bella but instead put his yearning for someone he could imprint on out in the universe (sort of like a prayer)? What if the universe (or a Higher Power such as God) provided The Solution (Renesmee) through someone who loved him and deeply wanted to make up for hurting him but didn't know how (Bella)? What if the solution broke down barriers between groups of people such as the Quileutes and the Cullens to allow them to more peacefully co-exist?
Okay, I have been here nearly two years and I came because I wanted to talk about Jacob and Bella's relationship with people I thought would actually know more about the story than I did. I said then in my first thread that they were never in love. I never really explained that because I got caught up in arguments. I did not understand the issue as I do now but I believe I finally understand why there were and still remain so much differences on this story. Now that most folks have moved on, I simply want to speak my mind on the topic. It will be said in parts so I will start now and add on later.
First let me explain something I think matters in what we all think and that is HOW WE READ!!!!
I tried to explain this once before and those around did not get it but I will try again. I will try to explain first the Three Reading Levels.
LEVEL ONE are readers who read what ever is on a page and that is all they give most attention. If the writer puts in on the page, then that is all they need see for it to be true. In an example, Meyer writes in eclipse:
"He smiled a faint, half-smile. “Normal humans run away from monsters, Bella. And I never claimed to be
normal. Just human.”
For the level one reader, this is enough to say Jacob IS human.
LEVEL TWO reader will take this comment and see if it is consistent. They would possibly compare it to when Jacob said in new moon:
Jacob freed one arm so that he could cup his big brown hand under my chin and make me
look at him. "Yeah. It was easier when we were both human, wasn't it?"
The level two reader would say which comment do we follow as to what is true of Jacob's status? Is he human because it is written in eclipse? Or that he is not human as he suggested in new moon? Do we count people who turn into something as human? If so...WHY? Because turning into a wolf is not realistically human so why should we accept that as true other than it was written though we see the writings contradict?
LEVEL THREE readers would see how often these types of inconsistencies occur and weigh them as either the genius of writing or reason to reevaluate the writing and based on that determine which to apply. (human or not human)
Now I mean no disrespect to participants here but for nearly all I read...level one is how most folks read twilight. Sometimes it has actually included a mixture of book and films which of course is reason to find even more contradictions. These readers read the words on the page and it was wonderful and that is all there is to say as far as they are concern. This makes complete sense if you read the story at level one. It was written so you accept it as is.
That is NOT how I read. I understand that level and that is FINE to do, but I prefer those who read on levels two and three because they see beyond the page to the fuller story and THAT is where my discussions come from when I post. If you can not or do not like that, then I will not appeal to you. For those who can appreciate that, I will offer something to consider. Neither views are wrong...just DIFFERENT. So I will post how I saw all of this hoping you all will keep how differently we read in mind?
So much of this story line simply did not add up.
Did Charlie not tell Alice that Bella had not fallen in love with Jacob? To have Bella not see herself is one thing. To have other characters support that is another. Charlie would need not be able to say her status when talking to Alice about the effect their leaving had on Bella.
If Bella was in love with Jacob too and this happened in new moon, then the love for him should had been present when Marcus read hers and Edward's bond. Can Bella have a aura as described by Marcus to Aro had she been in love with another?
We know that Alice can not see wolves. We are told if Bella had chosen Jacob, then Alice would never see her future. So when she is contemplating kissing Jacob in the truck or in the house just before the call in new moon, Alice would had seen things had changed and that Bella had moved on past her brother.
Why was Jacob allowed to be seen as virtuous in his fight to save Bella when he worked far less to stop her than Edward did!
If Jacob was trying to save Bella, why so much anger at Edward and not all the vampires who could change her?
Why is it acceptable that he learns that Edward saved her from James not enough to prove he(Edward) was not going to harm Bella?
Why did some readers and maybe Meyer, not acknowledge that Edward could have had Bella be a vampire without breaking the treaty in twilight by merely allowing JAMES' venom to seep through her?
Jacob is made aware of all this but his focus is only on Edward! If Edward wanted to, he could have asked a family member from Denali to do the transformation in the presence of his family to protect things going wrong if the treaty mattered. This does not happen and it did not need to happen because Edward did all he could possibly do to STOP Bella. Jacob pays no attention to all six of the other vampires who are just as capable of transforming her. He pays no attention to the fact that it is SHE and not Edward who is insisting on the transformation. He has one person as an aim. Edward. Jacob is NOT acting out of love for her, but hate for Edward. He is aiming HER choices at Edward because she does what she does FOR HIM!!!
Jacob loathes her commitment to Edward and the extinct of her convictions, but rather than see it as Bella's choice...he falsely blames Edward. Jacob had who wanted the change wrong from day one and would always be ignorant of that mistake...consumed by hatred...which of course is NOT LOVE!!!!!!!
I find it interesting that once Nessie arrives, he is more than willing to allow Bella to love Edward. It is only after he has love that he sees love in its truth. He imprints and all is well and right with the world. How awful....he does not accept her love of another until he has imprinted. Until then, he does all he can to thwart her relationship. I believe this is written this way because we are learning the characters as seen by Meyer and the limits of how she defines love is all the characters can show as well.
The level at which I read Twilight has never been important to me but I respect that reading levels might be important to others. No judgement. Live and let live. Hopefully we can each enjoy our own experience and allow others to do the same.
We can thank the author for creating a story that allows characters to find the love they seek, gain new understanding and which brings antagonists to a higher level of peace.
Love is not rational:
A supreme love, a motive that gives a sublime rhythm to a woman's life, and exalts habit into partnership with the soul's highest needs, is not to be had where and how she wills: to know that high initiation, she must often tread where it is hard to tread, and feel the chill air, and watch through darkness. It is not true that love makes things easy: it makes us choose what is difficult.
GEORGE ELIOT, Felix H
[and maybe the right thing to do..]
The level at which I read Twilight has never been important to me but I respect that reading levels might be important to others.
No judgement taken and hopefully none received. Rather it is important is not the issue, it still exist for all of us and it does influence HOW we read rather we want to acknowledge that or not. Knowing there are levels should not offend but clarify why we differ and in that allow us to see why one person would read a story and say it means one thing and another person read it and see another. Depth of thought matters and when something is influential, I would differ with anyone who says how we read does not matter.
Twilight is a story we all enjoyed but enjoyed in how WE chose to read it. This is mine and I am not asking others to agree...I am merely stating it as mine and as a choice to others who may want to read with understanding why some of us differ from them or agree with them. It does not have to be a statement of comparison to your way of reading but just an view point for you to either consider or at least know exist for others. It is information past on to better inform.
The poem is lovely though I do not agree. Still if that is how you or George defines love, that is fine with me. I have another book I use for how to define love and to be honest, the more I see people define love outside of the book of my choice, the more I do understand why Meyer's love story and other posters and I differ. For me, and I speak only for me, the story presented for Jacob and Bella could never be love in reality but I also believe because so many are confused about what is love...this could read for those people as acceptable. I am not saying that is how you feel Barbara. I do not know you and I have no interests in defining love for you or anyone here. I only do so for me and my level of what love is and how it behaves is far different than what Meyer and Eliot and some fans seem to define as realistic.
I have another book I use for how to define love and to be honest, the more I see people define love outside of the book of my choice, the more I do understand why Meyer's love story and other posters and I differ. For me, and I speak only for me, the story presented for Jacob and Bella could never be love in reality but I also believe because so many are confused about what is love...this could read for those people as acceptable. I am not saying that is how you feel Barbara. I do not know you and I have no interests in defining love for you or anyone here. I only do so for me and my level of what love is and how it behaves is far different than what Meyer and Eliot and some fans seem to define as realistic.
The name of the book is.....?
I was referring to the Bible, but what does it matter? I am NOT trying to sway or convince you or any one. I am stating how I define love in the story and not what you or anyone must accept or agree with. I honestly do not mind that we differ and if you differ I am fine with that. If this is leading up to tell me reasons why my standards are wrong, then that for me is the same circle of people getting upset because I differ from Meyer or how they read and want to take aim at me for it. I am not aiming my views at any one. I am merely stating why I differ from many here. If you are asking for my examples because you want to poke holes in them, Barbara, that is nothing unknown! I already know most here do not agree. I get that and accept that. I am not going to argue that. It is ESTABLISHED. What is not expressed as often are those who DIFFER so I am putting that aspect out there for those who either agree OR like reading other ways to read a story just like I enjoy reading a story in a variety of ways. I am sharing this because while I fully know what Meyer wrote and how it can be accepted as how we all read the story (Bella and Jacob are in love), I do not limit my thoughts to only one option or tunnel vision or lack of objectivity or influence having more meaning than how something is written or my own views. Because of that, I can easily see and agree with those who ask the question of why it was ever said to be love and all the more agree with those who say it was not!
In sharing more honesty? When I have people challenge this, it comes off more like they are taking it personally. That my views in some way means something about their views and I fail to see why that is. If this is love to you by any measurement...be it because Meyer said it was or you feel this way personally? I am NOT trying to change your mind...but you will not change mine either. I can accept that without argument and hope others who differ will offer the same courtesy.
You said: I was referring to the Bible, but what does it matter? I am NOT trying to sway or convince you or anyone.
I have one of those books, too. Great book! Please share what passages you're referring to regarding love so that I may read and understand better what you're saying and know why you find the views Stephenie Meyer's seems to espouse so objectionable.
While I would like to believe I have not been as crass about Stephenie as your comment makes me feel, to answer you more directly, I was referencing I Cor. 13. in the way I was taught its meaning. I have added them already so I think eventually you will see them. If not let me know.
Pinkie, I had to be away today and came back to many posts.(I may still not have seen all of them.) I see that you added the lovely passage from the Bible describing love. Thank you.
I believe that Jacob came way closer to these ideals once he'd had his very spiritual experience of imprinting on Renesmee. They are ideals, though, so none of us masters them while in human form. We can always improve. Jacob's all too human foibles made the book so much more readable to me, I have to say.
I apologize if trying to quickly finish a reply before leaving home allowed my impatience or sarcasm to get the better of my heart. I have a long way to go to get to ideal loving expression, even if I have the time to think through a response.