Using "The Twilight Saga" to study Stephanie Meyer's writing style. Analyzing the literary strengths and weaknesses of her works.

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by ShannonP on August 16, 2010 at 10:03am

Thank you to all of you who said nice things about my analysis and explanation of the first person debate and Bella's character. And also, thanks for not mistaking my explanation for my own opinions, which most of you know are vastly different from the ones expressed by critics.

When people say to me that Bella is a static character, I disagree and I can give examples. When we meet Bella in Twilight, we see that she is very self aware, but it is the type of awareness where she sees the world in relation to herself. If someone scowls, she thinks it's because of something she's said or done. By the time time we get to Eclipse, we start to see a different Bella--one who is recognizing that sometimes things are a result of what she says and does, but that sometimes things happen or people are the way they are without it having anything to do with her. So she's getting a wider perspective on the world, learning to accept the things she can't change (to paraphrase, "That's how it is, but I don't see what I can do about that").

Another change we see in Bella is that her opinion of herself is changing. Gone is the subservient daughter who orbits around Charlie, taking care of his home and his needs like a mini-wife and telling him only what he wants to hear because she doesn't like to upset him or have confrontations with him. Also gone is the Bella who will do anything Edward says because Edward knows best. She's learning to stand up for herself.

And she begins to see--especially with Jacob--that sometimes her actions and words are selfish. She's never seen that side of herself clearly--she's always seen herself as the loving and giving type of girl. All her life, she's given to everyone else. She's made herself into whoever, whatever was needed. She became responsible and practical because Renee needed her to be. She pasted herself into the edges and corners of Charlie's life like a dish-washing, meal-cooking ghost so that he could continue to live his life uninterupted and undisturbed by her presence. She holds her tongue with Edward many times because she's afraid to say something that will upset him or disturb the flow of their relationship--even though he loves her just as she is, she tries to be what she thinks he wants her to be. With Jake, she knows what he wants from her, and that makes her feel good about herself at a low point in her life. And she grabs hold of that, but she still tries to talk herself into being what she knows Jake wants from her, into feeling for him the way he feels for her (Romeo versus Paris in NM). This is typical Bella. But in Eclipse, once Edward has come back and she knows in her heart that she can't give Jake what he wants, she still holds onto him because he makes her feel good, and she has no doubts about his feelings. It's selfish, and it's unfair to Jake. And she realizes that, and she admits that it's the most selfish thing she could do. And she knows that keeping Jake around bothers Edward, but for once she's not willing to put his feelings above her own and she puts her foot down--Jake is part of my life, take it or leave it. So she's learning to put her own needs first (even though sometimes that means she hurts people she cares about, like Jake. But she's learning, so hasn't got it all figured out yet).

I think that critics (both professional ones and antis) confuse the fact that her love for Edward doesn't change with the idea that Bella herself doesn't change. She does, very much so. She learns to see herself more clearly. She learns that people aren't going to leave her if she asserts herself, that she doesn't have to be a doormat in order to please the people she loves. So Bella does very much grow and change as a character, in my opinion. Just because she doesn't stop loving Edward, doesn't mean she remains the same girl throughout. She really learns to define herself as an individual part of their relationship instead of being consumed by that love.

When people argue that Bella is a mary-sue, an ill-defined character with only vague characteristics, I have to laugh. The fact that I could just write all that I did about Bella and argue my points about her growth as a character is proof enough to me that she is actually quite well-defined.

Permalink Reply by ShannonP on August 16, 2010 at 10:36am

On a side note, and talking specifically about narration, I tend to think of Bella as an unreliable narrator. She doesn't see herself clearly, so sometimes the things she says about the story and the other characters doesn't ring true to me.

Unreliable narration is always a question in first person stories. To quote one of my favorite writing texts, Janet Burroways' Writing Fiction: A Guide to Narrative Craft: The answer to the question Who speaks? may itself necessitate a judgment, and again this judgment may imply opposition of the author (and reader) on any scale of value--moral, intellectual, aesthetic, physical, educational, and experiential. If the answer to Who speaks? is a child, a bigot, a jealous lover, an animal, a schizophrenic, a murderer, a liar, the implications may be that the narrator speaks with limitations we do not necessarily share.

What Burroway is pointing out--in terms of Bella--is that we're talking about a story told through the experience of a girl aged 17-19, experiencing love for the first time, and trying to define herself as a young woman. The things Bella presents as absolute truth in the story are all being told to us, the reader, through the lens of Bella's experience. So when she tells us that Edward is the most gorgeous creature on the planet and the perfect man, well . . . plenty of us have pointed out plenty of flaws in Edward. Even Edward points out that he's not perfect. But Bella sees him that way, so that's what we're told. It's up to us as readers to decide whether we believe her.

When Bella describes Alice as pretty much the best friend a girl could ever have, do we believe her or do we also notice that there are times when Alice manipulates Bella, lies to her (or doesn't tell her everything), and sides with Edward even when he's being controlling and ridiculous? How much of Bella's view of Alice is based on the fact that Alice is basically the first truly close girlfriend (aside from her mother, Renee) that Bella has had? How much of it is based on the way Alice and Edward interact? Again, we as readers know what Bella thinks but we have enough facts to judge for ourselves.

It's also our job as readers to decide if Bella is actually as she describes herself--plain, ordinary, smart, shy, a good student, a good daughter, all of these things are told to us as facts but it's really up to us to decide if we believe those facts. When Bella says she's plain and not all that attractive, for instance, there is plenty of evidence to contradict that. Mike, Tyler, Eric, Quil, Jake, Edward, all find her attractive. So do we believe Bella, or do we believe all those guys?

For me, when people criticize the books--the narration especially and the choice of first person--I say they're missing part of the genius of Stephenie's writing style. The books--and Bella's narration--is exactly what I would expect of a girl like Bella (with her life experiences) living in Bella's shoes. By telling the story through her point of view, with her narration, there is enough room left for readers to doubt, to question, to interpret the facts of the story for themselves even as Bella might be telling us something completely different about a character or situation.

Virtually every single thing we're told in The Twilight Saga can be pulled out, examined, and accepted or discarded as factual because Bella's narration, while true to her, may not be reliable to the rest of us. That's the key that allows us to discuss and debate so many points about the books! It's part of what makes the books so good.

Permalink Reply by Doc B MD on September 13, 2010 at 11:00pm

From Hermione Cullen:

Well as for myself I fell in love with Twilight the moment I read the first couple of pages. Its funny but I remember picking up this book with the red apple on the front in book stores and when I first saw it was a teen vampire story I put it down. I love vampire novels but kept thinking well how good can it be if its for a younger audience? It was awhile and I forgot what the book was even about until I picked up again and decided to actually read a little and can't believe how hooked I was. I had to buy the first two right away because even then I knew I wasn't going to put it down. To me I feel that Twilight was a great read because it was fun and I liked the fact that the books always had a happy sweet ending. For a romantic like me, I felt it was just nice to read a story that made you feel happy instead of depressed.

After awhile though I've been starting to feel that the books really are only meant for enjoyment and nothing more. I have to agree that the books lack something. I do feel that the emotions of the characters are not where they should be. Bella I felt didn't grow enough, characters need to change and I felt it was the same song and dance over and over again. I kind of felt that there was not enough comprimise between her and Edward. The sad thing is I loved Stephanie's characters but only wished they showed more emotion. I feel like the Twilight books could never be no where near as good as Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings when you can actually feel something, that you can actually get into the story on an emotional level. Twilight I feel gets points for making you feel good and happy, but nothing else. With other books I've read, I can reflect and let my mind expand to new ideas that the book proposed. In other words you can learn from other novels unlike Twilight.
I also felt that writing more then one book may not have been a great idea either. Twilight is my favorite and felt it was great on its own, which was Stephanie's original intention. New Moon I kind of liked because it was a what if kind of a story, what if Edward left what would happen? Eclipse I have to admit I enjoyed but still felt that it was playing the same song and dance, great Bella is in danger again, Edward is acting over protective, Jacob wishes he can be with Bella and that's it. I felt that the twists could have been written better, I felt I could have written it better! Breaking Dawn that was a real disappointment. If they had ended Eclipse with the wedding then the whole story would have been the happily ever after which I felt was the whole theme of Twilight. But all that was added was more unexpected twists which ended still on a happy note but left us all thinking "what that's it?" The Volturi was just going to let this go? Bella was actually turned into a vampire when she should have taken what Edward and Rosalie said seriously on not becoming one? I understand the circumstances gave her no choice, but wait a minute, Stephanie gave her no choices! She made is so Bella would have to be a vampire, saying that immortally was the most important thing. Is this something she strongly believes in? Because other stories tell us that life goes on and that people will die eventually but its what you do with the time you have that counts. Why did Bella have to become a vampire? The lesson should have been that it doesn't matter how old or young you are, love would never die. Instead we have two teens who remain young and beautiful forever what kind of lesson is that?

Dear Hermione:
Like you, I bought "Twilight" for ONLY one reason, to see how ANY book series could be selling 16% of all the books sold in America at the same time. And the moment I started reading it, I was hooked. And I read ALL the time. I never have read a book (And later a series) quite like it.
It made you (like me happy) I think that since it is about love. That, that is the primary driving force of the Twi-haters. As Paul said "Before love can bring you joy, it will first convict you (show you ) what a miserable person you really are. (PP)

You make an excellent point. To me "Twilight" stands alone. Stephanie originally only wrote other Twi-novels because Hatchett (AKA Little and Brown) only offered her a contract IF she would write three books.

As always, thank you for sharing.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page