Twi-fans' counterarguments: rebuttals (and rants) « Thread Started on Jul 21, 2008, 8:54pm »
Edit 4/26/09 If you want to use my essays in another article, Youtube video, or any other kind of media then I ask that you do the following:
1. Cite me as your source. 2. Do not pass my words off as your own. Use quotations. 3. If you want to paraphrase or expand my arguments, still cite me. 4. Send me a link to your work via pm!
Thanks.
EDIT 10/14/08: Here's an index of the arguments I've made so far: 1. "Edward is abusive" 2. "Fantasy does not excuse a lack of realism" 3. "The books are sexist" 4. "The books (Twilight specifically) have no plot/character development" 5. "Bella and Edward are in lust, not love" 6. "Bella is an idiot (aka Meyer tells and doesn't show" 7. "Imprinting IS sexual no matter what (aka imprinting is sexist and pedophilic)" 8. "Twilight sends bad messages... and it DOES matter" 9. "Science: Why Nessie can't exist" 10. "Science: Meyer fails at it" 11. "Choice: What Feminism isn't, and what Bella doesn't have"
Concerning common counterarguments made in defense of ‘Twilight’ (and subsequent books)
A common trend I’ve seen in the development of debates on Twilightsucks.com is that the Antis tend to argue in terms of the conceptual; the idea of sexism or the theme of misogyny. In converse, most of the Twilight fans I’ve come across rebut those cerebral arguments with semantics ones; i.e., they argue the plot (ha!) point of fact as opposed to the foundation of ideas at the root of those plot points.
Here are some of the arguments in particular that I’ve seen most often.
Example 1:
Anti: “Edward is abusive”
Support for this argument includes the following (and you may find more detailed reasoning and support here):
1. Edward is controlling and domineering 2. Edward has an unequal share of authority over the relationship 3. Edward threatens suicide 4. Edward manipulates Bella into marriage 5. Edward actively attempts to prevent Bella from seeing her friend 6. Edward encourages Bella’s isolation from others
Now, I’ve found that the most common argument in rebuttal for “Edward is abusive” is “But he only does it because he loves her” or “He’s trying to protect her” or “His intentions are good” or “He recognizes that he makes mistakes/overreacts”.
Let me just say this once to make it clear: intentions (good or bad) do not matter. It’s an instance of the classic phrase acta non verba, or “actions, not words.” It doesn’t matter if I tell you “I love you so much!” if I immediately follow that statement by trying to kill you. It doesn’t matter if I honestly DO love you and I STILL try to kill you; the action of attempted homicide still stands (and I’ll be charged with that) regardless of how I feel about it. If I kill someone and then say “I made a mistake” or “I loved him/her”, the fact that I feel bad about it in retrospect does not change the irreversible fact that I did, in fact, kill someone.
So if Edward removes the engine from Bella’s truck and then replaces it later, the fact that he replaces it later is irrelevant to the issue at hand; the fact that he performed the abusive act in the first place. I don’t care if he felt bad about it or changed his mind; he still performed the act to begin with.
If Edward only does anything “in order to protect Bella”, it’s again an instance of the irrelevance of intentions. Simply put, he doesn’t have the right to upend another person’s life or to attempt to control what that person does, even if he cares about them. It is not my roommate’s place to lock me in our room to prevent me from going out and getting trashed, even if she thinks she’s doing it to “protect me” or “because she cares about me.” Likewise, it isn’t Edward’s right to decide who Bella sees, when she sees him, where she sees him, and for how long. Just because he decided NOT to kidnap Bella for the weekend a second time doesn’t make the fact that he kidnapped her for a weekend for the first time moot.
Basically, intentions don’t matter. Actions matter. Even if Edward changes his mind or feels bad about it, that doesn’t erase the fact that he performed the act in the first place. If he feels bad about it, it doesn’t mean that his character isn’t an abusive one; you don’t judge a character based on the person he is by the end of the novel (or series); rather, you judge them (and form an understanding of them) by incorporating EVERYTHING you learn about them throughout the series. So while Edward DOES change and DOES make different decisions, his good decisions don’t negate the bad ones. He performs an abusive act = he is abusive, even if he feels bad about it. Capiche?
Example 2:
Anti: “[x] doesn’t make sense”
For the sake of argument, you may replace “x” with the lack of realism (in terms of plot and setting and especially the various relationships), the sparkly issue, the biology issue, contradictions and hypocrisies, the abandonment of traditional vampire lore, etc.
The response to this is either a) an attempt to prove that [x] makes sense using a minutiae of plot point and semantics; b) “It’s fantasy; it doesn’t have to be realistic!”
Since point a varies from debate-to-debate, I’ll stick with point b for the time being.
“It’s fantasy; it doesn’t have to be realistic” is so completely and utterly wrong on so many levels that I almost don’t know where to begin.
Let’s start with definitions.
“Fantasy” from Wikipedia:
Quote:
The identifying traits of fantasy are the inclusion of fantastic elements in a self-coherent (internally consistent) setting. Within such a structure, any location of the fantastical element is possible: it may be hidden in, or leak into the apparently real world setting, it may draw the characters into a world with such elements, or it may occur entirely in a fantasy world setting, where such elements are part of the world. Within a given work, the elements must not only obey rules, but for plot reasons, must also contain limits to allow both the heroes and the villains means to fight; magical elements must come with prices, or the story would become unstructured. American fantasy, starting with the stories chosen by John W. Campbell, Jr. for the magazine Unknown, is often characterized by internal logic. That is, the events in the story are impossible, but follow "laws" of magic, and have a setting that is internally consistent.
“Realistic” from Merriam-Webster:
Quote:
3: the theory or practice of fidelity in art and literature to nature or to real life and to accurate representation without idealization
In short, just because something is fantasy does not mean it is unrealistic. The object of writers is to make you believe the story they are telling; whether that story is a crime drama or Lord of the Rings is irrelevant. The point is that the author tries to immerse its reader so fully into the story that not only does the reader understand the complexities of the world they have created (like Trekkies translating the Bible into Klingon, for example) but can use the imagination to "believe" that that world exists. Realism does not mean that everything is exactly how it is in the real world; it means that the media (the book, the movie, the play) is so well-crafted that it seems real. Good writers make their readers believe.
How does the writer do this?
1) Create characters to whom readers can relate; characters who are complex and representative of three-dimensional people (and have complex, three-dimensional relationships);
(Since no one is perfect, Edward fails this test *g*)
2) Create a world with rules (and don't contradict those rules);
3) Use reason and logic to determine the course of plot and character arc.
Basically, giving "it's fantasy" as an argument against the total lack of realism in Edward and Bella's one twu luv-ness is just wrong. A good fantasy can utilize the idea of soulmates (like Richard and Kahlan in Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series) while still taking time to develop the relationship and the characters in a believable fashion. Attraction =/= everlasting love. Everlasting love happens when you get two people who understand, respect, and enjoy the other in terms of personality and character. Edward's hotness and Bella's delicious blood do not a soulmate make. And justifying the pitiful relationship development with "it's fantasy" is only a crude cop-out reserved for those with no understanding of good storytelling.
More examples to come, but I'm running out of time.
"There must be some way out of here..." said The Joker to The Thief.
Joined: Jul 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 1,792 Location: ^ Life: You're doing it wrong. Karma: 9,011
Re: Twi-fans' counterarguments: A rebuttal (and ra « Reply #2 on Jul 21, 2008, 10:41pm »
This is just...just wonderful.
I mean really, if I thought that any twilight fans would even give this article a chance, I would have a newfound sense of hope in humanity.
Thank you so much for touching on the "It's just fantasy!" argument. Hearing people say this irritates me in an extremely violent manner, and it's always been hard for me to calmly express the complete ignorance within that statement.
Joined: Jun 2008 Gender: Female Posts: 2,493 Location: Luleå, Sweden Karma: 250
Re: Twi-fans' counterarguments: A rebuttal (and ra « Reply #3 on Jul 21, 2008, 10:57pm »
That is...AMAZING!
Honestly, it really got to me. Your points are so well thought out and true it just astounded me. This is why I'm not one of those writers who thought, "well fuck, if Meyer can get published with shit writing I'm just going to resort to being a sell out, create some cliche marysue mess of 'fiction' and get it published solely to feed off the mindless youth of today's society", instead I want fans who are smart and well thought out as you.
This also furthers my belief that making this site and allowing like-minded individuals to allow themselves to reason and analyze this wretched series was a wonderful thing
Re: Twi-fans' counterarguments: A rebuttal (and ra « Reply #4 on Jul 21, 2008, 10:59pm »
Thank you for the rebuttal on the 'fantasy' argument. Now I have a place to direct people who try to tell me "But it's fantasy! It doesn't matter!" Oh yes it does.
I mean really, if I thought that any twilight fans would even give this article a chance, I would have a newfound sense of hope in humanity.
That was my object in starting this thread/article - again and again we get the same arguments and I wanted to shut them down all in one place. Glad you're enjoying it so far.
Honestly, it really got to me. Your points are so well thought out and true it just astounded me. This is why I'm not one of those writers who thought, "well fuck, if Meyer can get published with shit writing I'm just going to resort to being a sell out, create some cliche marysue mess of 'fiction' and get it published solely to feed off the mindless youth of today's society", instead I want fans who are smart and well thought out as you.
This also furthers my belief that making this site and allowing like-minded individuals to allow themselves to reason and analyze this wretched series was a wonderful thing
yay!
Keep it up! I look forward to reading more ^^. <3
Thanks! 100% agreement on the "I want good fans" business and I'm super pleased you liked it.
Thank you for the rebuttal on the 'fantasy' argument. Now I have a place to direct people who try to tell me "But it's fantasy! It doesn't matter!" Oh yes it does.
The "But it's fantasy!" argument has been driving me up the wall lately and I hope to get a Twilight fan's comment on that particular issue so I can talk about it some more. Genre does not preclude good writing, people. Anyway, glad you liked it.
Joined: Oct 2008 Gender: Female Posts: 382 Karma: 9
Re: Twi-fans' counterarguments: rebuttals (and ran « Reply #6 on Jul 21, 2008, 11:54pm »
Oh Goddess, thank you for this! This has completely made my day. I can't tell you how many times people have whipped out the 'but it's just fantasy!' argument, like a sword they had stuck in their back pocket. They all seem to think that it being fantasy is the be all and end all of realism, and it isn't just Twilight that I'm referring to, either. I've seen that argument used to defend countless crap stories. It truly gets irritating in the extreme.
Re: Twi-fans' counterarguments: rebuttals (and ran « Reply #8 on Jul 22, 2008, 12:59am »
The arguments that you apply to the fans defending Edward being abusive also work for Jacob physically forcing himself. Ultimately, both are abusive toward Bella. Edward is controlling and condescending; Jacob is physically violent and manipulative. Neither is justifiable.
Generally, the antis argue the following points: 1. Bella
- plays the weak 'damsel in distress' role; - Bella is weak-willed morally (wants to have sex but Edward, the good, upstanding, moral man wants to wait until marriage); - Bella has no ambitions outside of Edward (doesn't want to go to college); - Bella cooks and cleans for her father - Bella forgives Edward instantly for the New Moon fiasco ("forgive your man no matter what") 2. The other females are inferior to the male characters across the board.
- The "shallow" friends (Jessica, Angela, etc.) are not given as much screen time as Mike, let's say, and Bella writes them off as basically Barbie dolls. - Bella's mom is flighty and inconsistent whereas her father is solid, dependable, caring. - Rosalie had shallow ambitions as a human, was a damsel in distress, and has a victimized backstory as opposed to say, Jasper, who was kickass. - Esme does nothing. 3. The werewolves
- They're shocked when Leah becomes a werewolf, but instead of becoming kickass like the rest of them she's a "burden" and a "harpy" because of Sam. - Imprinting. The women get no say.
I'd call these the three main points that are argued, with the possibility of several more variations and much more support.
What the Twilight defense usually says in response to these arguments is the following.
1. "Bella doesn't mind", "Bella knows that Edward loves her", "Bella offers to cook and clean", "Bella DOES have ambition--marrying Edward"
2. "But Alice is strong, so therefore the books aren't sexist"
3. "They're just surprised that Leah is a werewolf, and wouldn't you be mad at Sam if you were her? That's not sexist!", "Imprinting is romantic, like soul-mates"
I mentioned the trend that I've noticed in the pro-Twilight versus anti-Twilight debates, that the Antis tend to argue in terms of the conceptual while most of the Twilight fans I’ve come across attempt to use semantics rather than philosophical rebuttals. The sexism debate is a perfect example of that.
Let's look at the "Bella doesn't mind" and "Bella offers to cook and clean" arguments.
"Bella doesn't mind"
The point that the books are sexist is not whether or not BELLA thinks they're sexist; the closest she gets to thinking about feminism is her essay on whether Shakespeare is misogynistic or not. It doesn't matter if Bella likes playing the damsel in distress or if Bella appreciates Edward telling her what to do--rather, what matters is the essential message of the book: the subtext, theme, and suggestions.
Even if Bella excuses Edward or Jacob's bad behavior, it doesn't mean that a) the readers should forget it or b) that the behavior isn't sexist. Who cares what Bella thinks? Meyer gives us ~1500 pages full of Bella's whiny rambling and TELLS us that it's not sexist or that it's not misogynistic, but what is SHOWN contradicts that.
In brief, even if it doesn't occur to Bella to say, "Hey! I want some gender equality!" or "Hey! I don't need some sparkly vampire to save me!" or "Charlie, cook your own food, you've been doing it yourself for fifteen years!", it doesn't mean that the sexism doesn't exist. In fact, the idea that "Bella doesn't mind" actually becomes an argument for the Anti-Twilight side--Meyer uses her main character to basically shout out from the rooftops that sexism isn't a big deal. Bella SHOULD mind, especially if she's supposed to be a strong, smart, independent female character.
It's the ACTIONS, not the intentions that matter. Bella does offer to cook and clean for Charlie, but again I say who cares what Bella thinks? Why couldn't she have offered to mow the lawn or fix the roof instead of pigeon-holing herself into the traditional female role? The part the matters is the fact that it's the female who performs the "female" duties as though it's expected of her. It's the subtext which tells the reader "this is what good, dutiful daughters do" that is the problem, NOT how Bella feels about it.
"But Alice is strong, so therefore the books aren't sexist"
I can't tell you how much I hate this argument. In short, 1 sort-of strong female character does not cancel out an entire book's worth of weak, pathetic female characters. Not only that, but Alice is only a strong character when compared to Bella or Jessica--if you pitted her against Buffy or Willow or Drusilla or Hermione Granger or Claudia (from IWTV (Anne Rice)), how do you honestly think she'd fare? Answer: not well. Just because 1 crappy female character is lightyears better than the rest of your crappy female characters does not make her a strong character independently. Even within the Twilight universe, how would she do if you put her up against Edward or Jacob (he'd rip her apart; she wouldn't be able to foresee his moves) or Jasper?
"But she can see the future!" is not an argument for her strength as a female character. In comparison to Edward and Jasper's gifts, hers is by far the most inconsistent and the most limited--for example, her visions don't always come true and she's unable to "see" the werewolves whereas Edward's gift does not err and he can read the werewolves' minds. Why is the female vampire's gift so inferior to the males'? Why is hers inconsistent (females=unreliable?) whereas Edward's and Jasper's are completely reliable?
Yes, Meyer tells us that Alice is a strong character (she can fight, she's physically strong), but other than that what do we really know of her? Instead of giving her some meaty interests like, I don't know, science or literature or art or history, Meyer turns her into a vampire version of the "shallow Barbies" whom Bella detests. She's 100 years old and Alice still likes playing dress-up and going shopping and planning parties? Why not give her some REAL qualities rather than the vapid and uninteresting activities of the boring, stereotypical fifteen year old girl?
So, just because Alice is a cut above the rest does not make her a good character. Just because she's stronger than the rest of the female characters does not make her a strong character. Just because she's more powerful than the rest of the female characters does not make her powerful. It's all relative, and if you judge Alice on her own merits she does not make the cut as a strong female character.
"They're just surprised that Leah is a werewolf, and wouldn't you ]be mad at Sam if you were her? That's not sexist!" and "Imprinting is romantic, like soul-mates"
I think the naked fact that Leah turned into a werewolf is great. It really interested me. The problem is how Meyer handled it. Instead of Leah becoming a functioning, useful, and integral part of the pack she becomes a nuisance and drives the pack crazy. Why? Because she's broken-hearted. So what does this say? A) allow your heartbreak to completely take over your life and make you a vindictive harpy bitch and B) your happiness is dependent on your love life. Why is it that Jacob gets sympathy for his heartbreak but Leah is just considered an annoyance? Certainly Sam's betrayal of Leah was worse than Bella's rejection of Jacob (though that's a topic for another day). The fact that Bella, who just lived through a terrible experience (New Moon) is unsympathetic to Leah is just another example of the rampant sexism in the books. Why does the only possibility for a strong female character have to be made into a petty and vindictive annoyance?
Concerning imprinting. It is not romantic. It completely removes the power of the female half of the relationship--rather than build a relationship on mutual interests, trust, and personality, the male imprints on the female and it's OMG! TRUE LOVE FOREVER! If you're going to use the idea of imprinting, a) why does it have to be romantic and b) why can't it be mutual? More interesting to me would be a male werewolf imprinting on another male--not necessarily in a romantic sense, though that would be interesting as well--to emphasize the "two halves of one soul" bit. Instead, we get the creepy Quil-imprints-on-a-two year old. Granted, it's not sexual or romantic but as Jacob explains it, Claire will practically be raised to become Quil's lover. Where's her free will? Where's her right to choose when she's able? Meyer thought it was a funny, shocking way to show how unpredictable imprinting was, but instead the reader gets the impression of the female having no chance at any point to make a decision her herself, now or in the future, and a solidification of the typical vanilla heterosexual relationship that is rampant in the series.
Joined: Jun 2008 Gender: Female Posts: 2,493 Location: Luleå, Sweden Karma: 250
Re: Twi-fans' counterarguments: rebuttals (and ran « Reply #11 on Jul 22, 2008, 11:45am »
example 3 was very well done ! Love it! I may take this type of approach in the more serious parts of the 'Fangirl Survival Guide'. This is very inspiring ^^!!!
![[Home]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif)
![[Help]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif)
![[Search]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif)
![[Login]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif)
![[Search This Thread]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/search2.gif)
![[Send Topic To Friend]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/buttons/sendtopic.gif)
![[Print]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif)
Author
![[avatar]](http://s42.photobucket.com/albums/e326/arzimraphel/th_bats2.jpg)
![[aim]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/aim.gif)
Logged![[image]](http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e326/arzimraphel/gastontwilight-1.jpg)
![[avatar]](http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m4/Xulicote/Icon.jpg){kind=icon}
![[homepage]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif)
![[image]](http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m4/Xulicote/Reading.png)
![[image]](http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m4/Xulicote/Cullenism.jpg)
![[avatar]](http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/supcom/images/2/2e/Cybran_icon.png){kind=icon}
![[avatar]](http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/2534/marsavxe2.png)
![[msn]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/msn.gif)
![[image]](http://www.squiby.net/view/129677.png)
![[avatar]](http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a212/ianaavatars/CURE/approve1.jpg)
Glad you're enjoying it so far.![[avatar]](http://www.twilightsucks.com/images/JKRSM.jpg)
![[avatar]](http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n148/graphia_album/jotooktime.gif)
![[avatar]](http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c159/erinn_agras/nessie.jpg)
![[avatar]](http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i117/IShallRuleTheWorld/955f1101-ghostbee.png)
![[image]](http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i117/IShallRuleTheWorld/1232019644625.gif)
![[avatar]](http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/w/wollstonecraft/mary/wollstonecraft.jpg)
![[avatar]](http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a121/ChaosxAlchemy/icon-1.jpg){kind=icon}
![[image]](http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a121/ChaosxAlchemy/color.jpg)