How many characters imprinted on girl-children other than Jacob, Real Fan? None? Then how do you know what was going through Stephenie Meyer's mind when she chose to link Jacob the Indian to a child?
In fact, how do you know she didn't make an unconscious association based on race? Even she may not have been aware what she was thinking.
I've talked about aversive racism before. The idea is that even people who insist that they're "colorblind," that they believe all races are equal, are unconsciously prejudiced. When they're tested, they generally favor whites over minorities. They generally think blacks are less qualified for jobs, more likely to commit crimes, less attractive and more unlikable.
Again, these are people who insist that they view whites and blacks as equals. The studies demonstrate that what they consciously say doesn't match what they unconsciously think and feel.
Although researchers usually don't test attitudes toward Indians, I've experienced enough to know what most people think. To confirm this, consider the tidbit I posted in The Harm of Native Stereotyping: Facts and Evidence:
Wilson asked participants where they got their first view of Indians or Native Americans, with the common answer being television and/or movies.
As for your "Because Native Americans are oh so unhappy" comment, I don't know what you're talking about. From what I've read, Meyer didn't cast any aspersions on Natives. Not consciously, anyway. All she did was portray them as animals.
For more exchanges with Real Fan, see Noble Savages in Twilight and Twilight's Missed Opportunity. For more on the subject, see Quileute Werewolves in Twilight.
Below: Bella and Jacob--i.e., the white beauty and the Indian beast.
44 comments:
"How many characters imprinted on girl-children other than Jacob, Real Fan? None?"
Well, there is another. This "imprinting" happens earlier in the series, also.
To answer your question, yes, another character did imprint on a girl-child, and yes, it was another Native American.
Sadly, this is because only the Native Americans can imprint, but in a way, the Edward-Bella romance rocks a bit of pedophilia-love since Edward has over 100 years of life experience to Bella's seventeen.
Two Indian man-wolves imprint on two white girl-children? Sounds like double the problem to me.
If you're trying to convince me this is part of a pattern of subtle racism, you're doing a good job of it. I believe you!
Quil imprinted also, but it doesn't say specifically 'a white infant'...
Also, I think you're over analyzing the story. Honestly, I don't believe she did it on purpose, but who cares? Everyone's a little bit racist, whether you like it or not.
Did you read this posting's title, Kizzy? "Meyer's Unconscious Racism?" refers to the possibility that she didn't do it on purpose.
I posted an item titled Everybody Is Racist, so that idea is nothing new. The point is that many people didn't think Meyer was racist until people like me raised the issue.
ok seriously? imprinting is not a bad thing! i'm sure if it was the other way around and vampires could imprint and jacob won, edward would imprint on bella's baby. it's just a story. indian boy falling in love w/ little white girl doen't mean stephenie is racist unconciously or not.
also, sam imprinted on indian and quil imprinted on indian soo.. ya the whole racist thing is totally bogus!
stop freaking out. meyer only used the native american factor to help the storyline. there was no racism meant, and it makes me mad that that's the conclusion the entire world jumps to whenever a black, hispanic, or indian character doesn't win . no one ever gets touchy when a white man loses to a black man. I'm not racist at all, but it still insults my intelligence and dignity as an Irish-German-Native American person.
omg!!!!!!!!! jaob imprinting has nothing to do with stefanie being racist and why do you even care are you even indian cuz if you are i cant tell by the picture of you
seriously get a life and stop causing problems were they dont exsist twilight is a great book just get over it and stop over-analizing it!!!!!!! and yes this is atemail
Well i think that it was unfair that Meyer portrayed that Jacob was the bad guy. She made it seem like racisim yes but that doesn't mean that it actually was.
She also did it again when she made Bella mad that he had imprinted on Renesmee so I do think that something was going on in her mind but it might not be racisim.
Racist or not...imprinting is the worst idea to ever be dreamt up.
What kind of person sits there and thinks
'oh hey, I have an idea. I'll have these pack of wolves who are FORCED to love a person on first sight. Yeah, it won't matter if they are already in love with someone/married/twenty years older. Lets just forget about the young girl whose heart was broken by the man she loved. We'll make her cousin nice and homely so everyone forgets that she's a man stealing ho.
I mean, imprinting has nothing to do with wolves but if we make it some mystical, Native American mumbo jumbo then nobody will question the fact that these men have been wiped of every ambition, desire and feeling they CHOSE to possess."
I worry for anyone who buys into the twisted idea that this is any kind of love.
It's one thing having soulmates...it's another being denied the choice to stay with them.
I seriously thing that's just stupid. It's not racist. She didn't have any racist idea coming out of it its just how she wrote it. If she was trying to make it racist she would have written it differently. Its like Miley Cyrus being racist to asians she never meant anything hurt full. neither does myers.
I think you all are just racist, your over-reacting to two Indians imprinting on white girls? It happens all the time duh. Maybe you guys are the racists not Stephanie Meyer
No two Indians don't imprint on two white girl children. One imprints on a white half-vampire child and one imprint on a Native girl. Not much better but to clarify.
Oh and there are 2 more - one imprints on his fiancee's cousin leaving the girl (both girls native) in a terrible situation. The jilted girl goes on to become a wolf herself ... only female wolf in the groups. (This was the Sam, Emily, Leah triangle).
The other instance was a fourth member who imprinted on a native girl his own age (Kim and Jared).
The other 2 I mentioned before were Quil and Claire(native child). And Jacob and Bella's daughter. Jacob is the only one to imprint on a white child.
But the whole imprinting idea sucks period... I agree.
To clarify not all the tribe are wolves and imprint. Only certain descendents. In another post about Billy Black Rob said he lacked the gene to be a wolf (Gil Birminghams character). But he doesn't. In fact he is the tribal leader and direct descendent and could have changed if the situation was right. He didn't change because when he was of a certain age (I think puberty - god what will be read into that?) there were no vampires around so Billy did not change. Only Jacob and his friends change (direct descendents of 2 bloodliness as I recall) and they only changed because the vampires were around so they could protect humans.
Writing it all out sounds ridiculous and I am beginning to understand why people are taking offense.
Ok you got me. Touche....
i think he whole 'meyer's unconscious racism' things is just dumb it's just a book people!(a very good book i might add) Meyer portrayed the descandants of the Quileute's as wolves not as a insult!(wolves were pretty much sacred to quileute indians) and its not like she had the wolves all imprint on white girls/children, if i remember correctly Sam and Quil imprinted on indian girls! it's a book, its fictional (even tho i kno a few ppl who wish it wasn't) i've read books with worse racism and similar topics!!so dont be all like " stephanie meyer's a racist" cuz she's not. get over it. that's all i have to say
*/twilightfan/*
Re "Sadly, this is because only the Native Americans can imprint": Right, because Meyer thinks Indians are more beast-like than whites. Which was and is my point.
Re "Honestly, I don't believe she did it on purpose, but who cares?": You and your fellow fans, apparently, since you cry whenever I criticize Meyer.
Re "Everyone's a little bit racist, whether you like it or not": Tell it to your fellow Twihards. I have no problem saying Meyer is a bit racist.
Re "indian boy falling in love w/ little white girl doesn't mean stephenie is racist unconsciously or not": It means she unconsciously supports pedophilia as well as stereotypical notions of Indians.
Re "stop freaking out": Stop whining about my criticism. Meyer isn't a god or saint. She's a fallible human being who knows little or nothing about Indians.
Re "there was no racism meant": Hence the title "Meyer's Unconscious Racism?" How many times do I have to point this out?
Re "are you even indian cuz if you are i cant tell by the picture of you": I'm a WASP, not an Indian. And...so? One doesn't have to be an Indian to care about Indian issues.
Re "just get over it and stop over-analizing it!!!!!!!" No. Make me. In other words, spare me your childish tantrums. My criticism stands whether you like it or not.
Re "imprinting has nothing to do with wolves but if we make it some mystical, Native American mumbo jumbo then nobody will question the fact that these men have been wiped of every ambition, desire and feeling they CHOSE to possess": Bingo! We have a winner...someone who has actually thought about the issues. Congratulations, Dani.
Re "Its like Miley Cyrus being racist to asians she never meant anything hurt full": Many Asians thought Miley's actions were racist. So what if she didn't "intend" them to be hurtful? What matters is the result, not the intent.
America has a long history of caricaturing blacks, Jews, and other minorities. Most Americans didn't consider their actions "hurtful" at the time. Are you seriously arguing that we shouldn't consider their racist portrayals bad because they didn't intend them to be bad?
Re "it's just a book people!" I guess you haven't heard of book reviews or literary criticism? Well, this is just a criticism of the book. Grow up and get over it.
P.S. Check your spelling, everyone. I'm not "analizing" Meyer, I'm analyzing her. There's a big difference.
Look it up. The werewolf legend is a tradition of the Native Americans in the area where the story takes place; in Forks, Washington. La Push and the surrounding area is real. Meyer made her story seem incredibly believeable, not to mention well written, by simply making the legends into something larger than life. I don't see anyone complaining that Bella eventually ended up with the white vampire. If you recall, Quil, one of Jacob's friends and pack mates, imprints on Claire, who if I remember correctly is a Native American- Emily's cousin. Emily is (I'm pretty sure) from the Makah tribe, making Claire of Native American blood as well. The fact that Jacob imprinted on Renesmee' is nothing more than the fact that Meyer wanted to tie Jacob to Bella more, but in a different way this time.
It's a story. Not to mention an amazing one. Quit overanalyzing things and find a real job.
"The fact that Jacob imprinted on Renesmee' is nothing more than the fact that Meyer wanted to tie Jacob to Bella more, but in a different way this time."
Exactly, so she basically forces Jacob into loving Nessie (Bella version two) whether he likes it or not.
The vampires are described as being elegant, refined, cultured, beautiful...while almost every description of the werewolves has them snuffling food like there is no tomorrow and walking around half naked.
Honestly, I can overlook any *unintentional* stereotyping and put it down to a lack of education and knowledge on the authors part, except for the ridiculous concept of imprinting.
Anyone who advocates and even romaticises a FORCED bond is a needs serious mental help.
Meyer's saga...is FICTION. Got it, people? When authors try to tie "real world" terms/ideas into stories and then spin them into pure FANTASY...the narrow minds of the world go crazy! It's entertaining....to say the least. Poor Stephanie Meyer...poor Dan Brown....shame on them for writing make-believe... GET A LIFE, people!
Re "Look it up. The werewolf legend is a tradition of the Native Americans in the area where the story takes place": I already looked it up. I wrote about it in Twilight vs. Quileute Legends. Read it and learn how Meyer bastardized the legends she found.
Re "I don't see anyone complaining that Bella eventually ended up with the white vampire": I complained about it in Jacob Black's Final Fate. You must not be paying attention if you think there's some Native aspect of Twilight I haven't covered.
"Meyer's saga...is FICTION. Got it, people? When authors try to tie "real world" terms/ideas into stories and then spin them into pure FANTASY...the narrow minds of the world go crazy! It's entertaining....to say the least. Poor Stephanie Meyer...poor Dan Brown....shame on them for writing make-believe... GET A LIFE, people!"
If you can't understand the concept of subtext then that is your problem.
Even 'pure fantasy' has to have some grounds in reality otherwise it becomes entirely unrelatable and you are left reading gibberish.
It's almost funny that you call those who are thinking about the underlying text 'narrow minded.'
I'd say that insult would be better saved for someone who blindly praises a story without considering a deeper meaning.
Granted, it's a little hard to do with Meyer since her stories are badly written FICTION with a bundle of warped, childish ideas, but it's still worth a shot.
Or you could fall back on the same old excuse (It's not real, get a life blah blah)
If you write a story in which your main protaganist vehemently supports child abuse and you even romantize this it, then as an author you have to take the balme for the sheer stupidity of your idea.
An extreme analogy but the same concept nonetheless.
As it has been said by many people in previous comment posts, Jacob is not the only one to have imprinted. His friend, Quil, has, as of Eclipse, imprinted twice, one of those times with a two year old girl. Jacob imprints with Renesmee in Breaking Dawn, but is not recorded to have done so at any other time. Wolves in this series are the only characters who have this ability. This tribe of natives is an actual tribe of this region and most things said about the reservation and the culture are mostly true to Meyer's limited knowledge of this in her writing.
Dani: I concur. This series is a sad excuse for a romance series. I was going for Jacob and Leah to be together since the beginning. Instead Meyer gives him a baby girl. Which (and I don't care what anyone says) is creepy.That's like a man adopting a daughter and when she comes of age, becoming her lover.
Not saying that Edward doesn't have years on Bella, but he didn't raise her and/or watch her grow up.
As for her being unintentionally racist: Obviously not. It was intentional from beginning until the end.
Stephanie Meyer chooses to YET AGAIN romantacise(sp? -.-) the native culture by making them mystical wolf spirits and eventually completely depriving them of their humanity by, as someone pointed out, stripping them of all human reason and FORCING them to fall in love beyond their control, transform when they get too angry, attack the ones they love on instinct.
Way to go, Meyer. The Natives are still the savage semi-humans, and the pale people are still "civilized and beautiful".
What a crock.
to be honest this entire descuion has been a bit of an eye opener for me. I am not agreeing nor am i disagreeing that stephenie meyer is racisist in any way (intentional or unintentional). I enjoyed the entire series and never had it once occured to me that the book had some racial topics in it, until i read this. I am probably to young to understand ALL of this but since i am young(young enough that i needed parental permission to read breaking dawn) i am happy that these subjects are voiced. When me and my friends read this it really let us see tha book through a new light and i feel as though it was good for us to be able to hear about some of the aspects of the book that we might not have picked up.
ROB, i truley think u r an idiot. Stephenie is not a racist. Why don't you ask her? And i don't (along with most people) care if i spell stuf wronng :P I did it on purpose. 2 bad u can't appreshate the good things in life (TWILIGHT).
sorry, that was mean. i just felt like i was about to explode. i still think ur an idiot and a doushe bag (whatever that is).
*♥twilight fan♥*
hey check out this AWESOME website, ROB:
http://www.thetwilightsaga.com
or
http://www.stepheniemeyer.com
on steph's website they have an awesome new moon trailer WHERE JACOB IS A WOLF. awww, but thats to RACIST for u, that he turns into an animal :(
Now, I agree Stephanie Meyer isn't perfect, many things about her book and views annoyed me (I still adore the books but I like a lot of other things!) but she is not racist. For one thing, like so many have already said, many of them impirnt on native girls and adults.
On yet another note, why go picking on an out-and-out fun teenagers book? the whole genre is a little stereotypical and amusing, but people pick on this one because it is popular, correct?
Now, about her bastardizing legends; most legends become bastardized anyway, and it was just her interpretation and modification. its like, most popular conception of werewolves/vampires/zombies etc etc etc are all wrong.
Personally I'm actually team jacob, and I think the vampires are pants. I am white, but I tend to think other cultures have a lot more things right than english/americans.etcetera.
Anyway, wolves are always kind and familial in the books, and vampires are very often cold and cruel, what does that say about the whole racist theory? vampires destroy lives all the time, and that is definitely portrayed as a bad thing, but wolves are very kind and nice.
I am a fan of twilight, I read it in just over a week, but it is not my favourite book/series of all time. I am 12,white, female and I enjoyed it as a fun yet sometimes emotional read.
One last thing. indians and native american are different things. DIFFERENT CONTINENTS! sorry, that bugged me a lot throughout the whole article. why, oh why pick apart racism and twilight, when you're not a modern teenager and still get races mixed up?
I enjoyed the article immensly, its given me something to talk about/ laugh about. I wouldn't mind debating with you sometime! (yes, I really am twelve!)
P.S my mum said you shoul get a life, LOL!
um just so you know smart one...
your statement is false....
Quil arterra ALSO imprints on a child
emily (sam uley's fiance')'s neice clair, so do your homework before you judge thank you!
<3,
a true twihard
p.s clair is NATIVE AMERICAN!
"Now, I agree Stephanie Meyer isn't perfect, many things about her book and views annoyed me (I still adore the books but I like a lot of other things!) but she is not racist. For one thing, like so many have already said, many of them impirnt on native girls and adults."
It's not the fact that they imprint on these girls that has people considering possible, unitentional (IMO) racism. It's the fact that these men imprint AT ALL.
Imprinting is, as Meyer tells us, an instinctive action. One that, say an animal may be better known for. Add to that the fact that these lads are mostly seen walking around shirtless and stuffing their faces every second.
There is something about all the above actions that is almost raw and primitave and even interesting. But in a book where other characters, who are supposed to share this same animal instinct, yet come across as very culutred, refined and sophisticated, then there ARE grounds to argue that Meyer has relegated her Native American cast to little more than a pack of wild beasts, in comparison to the elegant vampires.
"On yet another note, why go picking on an out-and-out fun teenagers book? the whole genre is a little stereotypical and amusing, but people pick on this one because it is popular, correct?"
Books are books, regardless of who they are written for. And books written for teenagers are the ones that should be discussed the most. Critiquing a book is not the same as 'picking on it'. Once authors recieve money for their work, it becomes public domain and everybody and anybody is free to discuss, criticise or praise it as they see fit. If this hurts Meyer's feelings, then she should consider another career.
And generally, people don't like to see badly written books full of cliches and warped, romanticised ideas receive worldwide praise. It makes me sad that a lot of people can't realise when they are being fed rubbish.
"Now, about her bastardizing legends; most legends become bastardized anyway, and it was just her interpretation and modification. its like, most popular conception of werewolves/vampires/zombies etc etc etc are all wrong."
I think really, she has a responsibility to get the legends right. They are not only stories, they are part of this tribes culture. For her to bastardize them and warp them until they fit her story just shows a lack of respect that is astounding. Now as someone who knows nothing about the legends, I can't say whether she did this or not, but if she did then it was seriously out of order.
Imagine if someone wrote Bob Marley's life story and made him a white man?
"Personally I'm actually team jacob, and I think the vampires are pants. I am white, but I tend to think other cultures have a lot more things right than english/americans.etcetera."
I agree with the first two points. I think the last is a case of grass is always greener.
"Anyway, wolves are always kind and familial in the books, and vampires are very often cold and cruel, what does that say about the whole racist theory? vampires destroy lives all the time, and that is definitely portrayed as a bad thing, but wolves are very kind and nice."
Yet these cold, cruel vampires (like the Volturi) are marked as more civilised and cultured than any of the other characters.
vampatheart123 said"um just so you know smart one...
your statement is false....
Quil arterra ALSO imprints on a child
emily (sam uley's fiance')'s neice clair, so do your homework before you judge thank you!"
Yes, there is a clear subtext of pedophillia. People argue that Claire and Nessie get a choice but Meyer herselk has stated that imprinting is about reproduction.
To reproduce, a couple must have sex. So while Jake and Quil will be their friends, brothers etc while they are young, they still expect to have a sexual relationship with these girls when they are older.
This is called CHILD GROOMING. Don't believe me, look it up. And if you need proof of this, re-read the part in Eclipse where Jacob notes that Quil has a good few years of monki-tude ahead of him until Claire is old enough....TO HAVE SEX WITH HIM.
Honestly, what book have you people been reading?
i achully wish all you twilight haters would just get over the fact that twilight is achully a very well written, popular books. Vampires are not always portrayed as the most civilised creatures, just the cullens. to be honest, i wish you would just stop making excuses and say the truth, that you hate twilight. i for one am a great fan. maybe, instead of criticizing steph., you should read some of her other work, like the host. and how about you TRY to start reading that(and twilight, just so you know what your hating while you critisize)with an openmind, something you obviously don't have(as of yet). And on the imprinting, this whole blog was started on RACISM.not IMPRINTING, THE AMAZINGNESS OF TWILIGHT and VAMPIRES VS WEREWOLVES. i think you should try seeing our point of view(by that i mean all the twifans, twihards). stephenie meyer wasn't being racist, and even if she unintentionally was, like the title of this blog suggests, why would you blame her. "its the result that matters, not the intent" is an unclever way of saying: i hate steph. so i will get at her in any way possible, then make up excuses.
And no matter if its been used in other places, in this context, thats what it means. saying that the wolves are being portrayed as beasts is stupid and desparate, because if you actually READ the books, they PROTECT us. i think beasts are often the ones that DESTROY us. and what's wrong with walking around shirtless, you'd do it on the beach, and on a sunny day, there is probably more ppl there than in La Push. And they have to eat alot. If you did as much exercise as them, you'd scoff to. see, steph. has good reasons for what she writes. and after i've done all that defending of the werewolves, i'd like to point out i am, TEAM EDWARD. oh, and also, it's a fictional book, so does it really matter if the legends are correct or not?
Thank you so much for wasting my time, i thourouly enjoyed it.
"i achully wish all you twilight haters would just get over the fact that twilight is achully a very well written, popular books."
Yes it is popular but that does not make it well written. In fact, a lot of fans admit that Meyer's writing is not very good and a large number of them claim it as a guilty pleasure, as opposed to a well crafted book.
"Vampires are not always portrayed as the most civilised creatures, just the cullens."
When are they not? The Volturi, though they kill humans, basically represent vampire royalty. Victoria was described as having catlike grace. Even James, whom Bella thinks of as 'average' is still described as more beautiful than any human.
Not to mention the fact that all her main vampire characters are innately beautiful, intelligent, graceful and practically invincible. When do you hear any of these things attributed to any of the werewolves (and, no, Jacob's rippling muscles don't count)
"To be honest, i wish you would just stop making excuses and say the truth, that you hate twilight."
I'm not making excuses. I don't hate Twilight but I do dislike it. If anyone is making excuses, it is the fans who blind themselves to the negative aspects of the book because they A)can't be objective or B)Can't stand criticsm of something they love.
"i for one am a great fan. maybe, instead of criticizing steph., you should read some of her other work, like the host."
Good for you. I've read The Host and though it was a less irritating read than Twilight it still wasn't particularly well written.
"and how about you TRY to start reading that(and twilight, just so you know what your hating while you critisize)with an openmind, something you obviously don't have(as of yet)."
See above. And I thinks it's obvious by now that I have read Twilight and the other books. To be honest, your defensive attitude makes it easy for people to deduce that you need to take your own advice.
Do you even understand what you're talking about? I have pointed out parts in the books that back up my assessment. You seem to be the one blindly reading the book without thinking any deeper than how hot Edward Cullen is.
Out of curiosity---what is your take on the pedophilic/abusive/sexist or racist subtext?
Let me guess, you don't see any evidence of such things? *rolls eyes*
"And on the imprinting, this whole blog was started on RACISM.not IMPRINTING, THE AMAZINGNESS OF TWILIGHT and VAMPIRES VS WEREWOLVES."
Part of the original argument was that Meyer was relegating the wolves to a bestial state BECAUSE of things such as imprinting. So it is relevant, despite the fact that you can come up with an argument against it---which I think is the basis of your capslock hissyfit.
"i think you should try seeing our point of view(by that i mean all the twifans, twihards)."
Oh, I'm well aware of the blind devotion shown by certain fans.
"stephenie meyer wasn't being racist, and even if she unintentionally was, like the title of this blog suggests, why would you blame her."
So in other words, even despite your utter adoration to this woman, you can't say with certainty that there isn't rasicm in the subtext. The 'even if there was' arguement is basically just a way of saying 'Yeah, maybe the book has negative points but Edward Cullen is hot so I'm going to A)ignore them or B)Belittle them and pretend it doesn't matter.
And yes, she is to blame for her own ignorance.
""its the result that matters, not the intent" is an unclever way of saying: i hate steph. so i will get at her in any way possible, then make up excuses."
Now you are beginning to show your limited intelligence and maturity. To make that assessment from the above statement is nothing but pure stupidity.
So, because I criticize a book (and back it up with evidence from that book) I must have it in for the author? Please grow up. I don't know Stephenie Meyer. I have never met her and have nothing to say about her outside of the work SHE presents to the public.
I don't need to make excuses because my arguments are sound and backed up with proof. Yours is delusional ranting and finger pointing.
The intent IS what matters. If your husband batters you because he thinks it is for your own good, then the reason why doesn't matter. Only his actions do. It is a simple concept to grasp, even without the extreme analogy.
"And no matter if its been used in other places, in this context, thats what it means. saying that the wolves are being portrayed as beasts is stupid and desparate, because if you actually READ the books, they PROTECT us."
Okay, first of all--they do not protect 'us' because they are not real. You are trying to back up your non existant argument with only the surface context of the book.
Yes, we all know what Meyer WANTS us to think---they are protectors etc but it still doesn't elminate the subtext of the story. Try reading between, over, under the lines...form your own thoughts instead of taking Meyer's word as law.
"i think beasts are often the ones that DESTROY us."
You are confusing beasts with monsters. To be in a beast like state is to be uncultured, uncivilised---an animal. Compared to the vampires, the wolves are presented as such.
"and what's wrong with walking around shirtless, you'd do it on the beach, and on a sunny day, there is probably more ppl there than in La Push. And they have to eat alot. If you did as much exercise as them, you'd scoff to."
I'm honestly not sure whether you are joking or not. If not, I can see that my previous argument (and perhaps every other one here) has gone right over your head.
Wearing clothes is noted as a human thing, a civilised thing. Animals don't wear clothes, humans do because in human society, nudity of certain kinds is taboo. Now, a man walking around with no shirt on doesn't cause much of a stir but when that a bunch of men are walking around with no shirt on, not because they are too warm or having fun on they beach, but because they are werewolves then it becomes something else.
The guys are defined by their shirtlessnes and even the same type of shorts they wear. Meyer has literally stripped them of something that we equate with human society.
In the hands of a better author, it could work as a exploration of man and beast---societal restrictions and raw, primitive freedoms. Here, it doesn't.
The food is the same thing. Humans generally show more restraint about what they eat, how much they eat and even how they eat it. Again the werewolves are defined by their huge appetites.
So what do we have? A bunch of men who walk around naked and gorge themselves silly with whatever they can lay their hands on.
How is it really not obvious?
"see, steph. has good reasons for what she writes."
She has reasons. Whether they are good is a matter of opinion.
"and after i've done all that defending of the werewolves, i'd like to point out i am, TEAM EDWARD."
Never would have guessed *rolls eyes*
"oh, and also, it's a fictional book, so does it really matter if the legends are correct or not?"
Yes, it does matter when the legends are not just stories but part of peoples culture. Well, it matters if you have a least an ounce of respect anyway.
"Thank you so much for wasting my time, i thourouly enjoyed it."
You wasted your own time, sweetheart. Nobody held a gun to your head and told you to reply.
I don't believe this is an issue of racism.
Jacob imprinting on Bella's child is a quick and easy solution to stopping Jacob's infatuation with Bella.
It's controvertial, unexpected and therefore an easy plot device that's going to get a lot of attention.
Meyer using Native Americans as werewolves is not an intentional stab at them 'being animals' or whatnot; she uses myths as the very basis of her series.
Vampires are a myth, stereotypically, they are white but given the nature of their tranformation; anyone can be a vampire.
Werewolves, in Meyer's story, are born that way, with the potential to become one in their genes.
She is just playing off myths and stories of Native American mysticism, and there is no doubt a lot of legends.
She is using preconcieved notions and ideas but not in a racist way.
You can't deny that, in the past, mysticism was a huge part of the Native American way of life. There are so many legends and you can see Meyer's tale seeming quite genuine.
Imprinting really is a terrible idea but Meyer tries to lessen the pedophilia aspect of it by defining the type of love Jacob feels for the child while it is small as almost a family type of love.
Still, I can't see him waiting 'til she's of legal age to be with her. And what choice does she have?
What if she doesn't love him like that?
Terribly written series but undeniably engaging.
To continue my above comment (I don't think I explained myself very well).
The way she portrays Native Americans is not very nice.
I can see how using a culture's legends could be very offensive; honestly, I'm not sure how she could have done it in a way that would not offend a lot of people.
Putting a huge disclaimer would be very nice but it could be argued that the damage is already done.
Some of the ways the werewolves are portrayed; the not wearing of shirts, the sameness, etc, I can see being offensive, but personally I think this is more about them being in a group mentality (I could have said pack mentality but I wanted to clarify it as being a human thing).
It feels good to be part of an exculsive group and this shows in all of that.
The shirtlessness would be easier for them but also is a good way for them to show off their new found buff muscles. Human ego at its best.
They would also like feeling so powerful and primal and this comes out as an external expression of this.
I could go on and on with this, there are so many facets of issues and such that the debate could rage forever.
It all comes down to personal opinion and all that.
I believe that there are some good points and issues in the story but they probably haven't been handled as well as a better author could have.
I hope I haven't offended anyone; I really do suck at expressing myself and am pretty much sitting on the fence with this issue.
ATTN Rob... here is what really burns me about your article. You change your wording between the article and your comments to suit what you are trying to spew. While I don't think that Stephanie Meyer was trying to consciously or unconsciouly be racist you raised some interesting points; however, when you change questions and words around just to perpetuate your skewed views, you lose any creditility.
Here is my example... you state the following question in your article (I am copy and pasting directly as not to skew your words)... "How many characters imprinted on girl-children other than Jacob, Real Fan? None?"
When commentors (Adultish and dmarks) point out to you that Jacob is not the only one of the pack to imprint on girl-children, as your original question states, you change your wording in a comment to make your claims (which tend to seem to grow more and more ridiculous as I continue to read and think)seem more "plausable." (I use that word loosely as I would hope that anyone with some intelligence would see through your weak and insulting attempts to twist the words of your readers/commentors into expressing yout view point.)
The wording change in your comment is as follows (once again, copied & pasted to maintain accuracy): Rob said...
"Two Indian man-wolves imprint on two white girl-children? Sounds like double the problem to me.
If you're trying to convince me this is part of a pattern of subtle racism, you're doing a good job of it. I believe you!"
You then change thw wording of your question to "two white girl-children." First, the commentors were addressing the original question is was essentially (see your original article or I have even copied and pasted it above for you as evidence): Were two girl-children imprinted on by members of the wolf pack? To which, if you had read the series or even did a slight bit of research on (this exact information is located in Wikipedia at the link I will provide of by searching Quil Ateara. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Twilight_characters).
While Jacob does imprint on Renesmee Cullen, the hybrid daughter of Edward and Bella Cullen; there is a wolf pack character and friend of Jacob's named Quil Ateara who imprints on Claire, who is the 2 year old niece of Emily (the imrpinted mate of wolf pack Alpha, Sam).
Not for nothing, while the imprinting on someone so young seems disturbing, Jacob does explain to Bella that there is nothing romantic about it at first. That Quil (and ultimately Jacob to Renesmee) will be anything she needs at any point in her life. That includes a friend, a brother, a protector and eventually a lover once she is older and anything else that she ever needs. There is intereaction in the story with Quil and Claire and it is endearing. He takes her to the beach to search for shells and the scene in the book if warm and you see the connection between them as spiritual and nothing out of the way.
Anyway, just my two cents. If you want to be taken seriously then you may want to think about how you want to word your statements from the get go... this way you don't have to change them just to suit your own needs.
Wow Dani... this is a work of fiction! Do you have nothing better to do then sit around and rant about this series? I mean, seriously, you seem to need some help as much and probably even more so than you stated others do in one of your posts.
As I continue to read your posts, I just get this mental image of your head exploding from pent up anger and frustration! It's fiction! Tt's not that damn serious... get a grip and a life...
I realize that debate, of an intelligent nature, is healthy; however, you seem to be taking this as seriously beyond that healthy point.
And Rob... mr author man... yeah you need to slow your roll too! Many of your posts in response to readers seem to have become increasingly defensive and some are down right rude to those who choose to have a different opinion than you or choose to question your thoughts or motives. If you are going to write a blog that allows readers to comment back then you need to be able to take the heat. While I realize that not all of your commentors are able to debate in a mature and intelligent nature, you cannot take all your commentors on in the way you would those people. Not only do you seem to flip-flop points and words to suit yourself... you are getting defensive and that is a sure sign that you be starting to see the holes in your theory (although given the ego that I see pouring from every sentence you write, you would NEVER admit to anyone, especially, yourself that there are in fact holes).
I have to wonder if after reading this article, many of your comments to posters and many of your other articles tonight, if you are not the one who is unconciously or even actually consciously racist!
Also, if you are going to bring into the mix that it is offensive for her use myths and legends of the Quiluetes for her stories then the same could be said for the fact she used the vampire in her story. The vampire of our popular culture is of mostly Eastern European decent, as far as it's myths. While all over the world there are different versions of vampiric myth, the one most widely used in modern fiction, TV, movies and such is that of the Eastern European vampire that was brought into the mainstream with Bram Stoker's Dracula. That Dracula was based largely on Romanian and other Eastern European legends regarding vampiric creatures. Is that not insulting then to hat culture? Just saying.. playing devil's advocate here...
Also, I feel the need to mention that recently I saw a special on TV about the Quiluete tribe (sorry I am unable to remember the channel at this moment, it is not one that I normally watch adn happened to be surfing when I stumbled on this special). The tribe members that they talked to weren't offended; actually many of them were happy that the series has brought attention to their tribe and they now have people who are interesting in them and learning more about them. They have a lot of visitors to the reservation in La Push that are there for Twilight pilgrimages but also want to learn more about their culture. Also, they have found a way to turn this into great revenue for the reservation. They have La Push gift shops that sell a mixture Twilight inspired items and native items that are hand made, like jewelry, masks and other carvings. Many on the reservation seem to have embraced this as a way to assert their culture and to help the people financially. While I am sure there were intially from reservations to all of the attention and probably even some people still offended or unhappy... it seems to be something that, overall is pleasant to the tribe. (They also have a professional spokeperson for the tribe now, who is Native American but not of the Quiluete tribe.)
I can say that from my view point... I have become more interesting in their culture after reading the series. I honestly, had not heard of the Quiluetes before the books but now I am ver interested and wanting to learn so much more. Especially after the TV special that I have grown very interesting and am actively looking for more information about their culture, land, history and such.
After reading this argument, I can say that you all seem childish. You are taking things way out of hand and making them seem what they're not.
People saying Meyer is 'unconsciously' racist or in favour of pedophilia: I believe you are the childish of all in this dicussion. Just because Jacob didn't win Bella's love and that he is a 'beast', a world that has been used in the discussion to describe Native Americans, doesn't make the author a racist. YOU are the ones who thought it and said it, so that makes YOU the racist ones for jumping to that conclusion, even if you're trying to seem like you're not. As for the pedophilia that supposidly in the story, grow up and get your head out of the gutter. Edward and Bella's love is pedophilia? Grow up. This doesn't make the author a 'subconscious' supporter of pedophilia either. It's more a support of true love, if anything.
For the people who defend the author, you are the ones talking sense but at the same time you are stooping to the others levels. The fact that it's 'just a book' or 'just fiction' doesn't mean it can be let off the hook for any offense it causes. And to sadly agree with the agrument for, it is right that intentions do not matter, results do and if the results offended Native Americans or anyone else that doesn't automatically make it racist so you are right there.
Still, both sides cannot win as they have over analysed, attacked people they're arguing against without facts to bring up why and you're labeling someone who cannot defend themselves and even if they could, you probably wouldn't let them as I can see from this arguement. The fact that "Everyone is racst" isn't true. Nowadays if something offends one black person it's marked as racist but it's not the same for white. If someone offended one white person, it would just be offensive to them as a person, not a race. So it should be the same for black people.
I don't know why I comment here because I now find it a waste of time and it seems like I'm trying to defend a book i hate. I admit I hate Twighlight with a passion and have since reading the books. I find the plot very lazy, especially for a 'novel'. Still, just because I hate the book, plot or characters, doesn't mean I'm going to label the author as 'racist'.
I wouldn't bother replying to any of this because it will probably just more prove my point of childish ways to 'win' and I'm not replying back as I would rather not waste any more time.
"Jacob imprinting on Bella's child is a quick and easy solution to stopping Jacob's infatuation with Bella"
So besides being subconcious prejudice, it's also bad writing. Well done on picking up that point. (I'm not being sarcastic here)
Nobody is saying that Meyer is being intentionally prejudice, but to deny that the possibility of predjudice is there is ridiculous. It couldn't be more obvious. The question is, do you have faith in Meyer as an author to believe that she considered how her work would come across when she edited? My answer is no, because Meyer has proven she is unable to accept cristicsm and that her concepts are immovable.
"Imprinting really is a terrible idea but Meyer tries to lessen the pedophilia aspect"
How do you lessen pedophillic subtext? You can't do it. It is far too disgusting in its own right that a mere hint of it is bad enough.
"Some of the ways the werewolves are portrayed; the not wearing of shirts, the sameness, etc, I can see being offensive, but personally I think this is more about them being in a group mentality"
Like I mentioned, there is nothing wrong with them walking around buck naked if they wanted too, but Meyer so obviously favours the vampires that the wolves are in effect relegated to almost second class to them. They are sold as being the only real threat to the vamps but are still genetically inferior, less powerful etc. That coupled with Meyer's portrayal of them as beast has them playing savages to the sophisitcated, cultured vampires. I think this was Rob's point from the beginning.
"I believe that there are some good points and issues in the story but they probably haven't been handled as well as a better author could have."
Exactly.
"Not for nothing, while the imprinting on someone so young seems disturbing, Jacob does explain to Bella that there is nothing romantic about it at first."
Yeah, well...the text tells us something else entirely. We are told that Quil doesn't think of Claire at all sexually yet Jacob then goes on to reference the fact that Quil is saving himself for when Claire grows up. He might not have sexual feelings while she is a young child, but he is anticipating a sexual relationship with her in the future. And who even thinks about being a brother/uncle to the girl they expect to have a romantic relationship with? Your references just serve to show how truly messed up Meyer's ideas are.
"Wow Dani... this is a work of fiction! Do you have nothing better to do then sit around and rant about this series? "
If it is just a work of fiction, then why are you intent on discussing it so passionately? It is attitude like this that just proves you don't have the intelligence to even think about what you are reading. Authors like Meyer thrive on people like you to get their money because you don't think for yourself. They can feed you crap all day long and as long as one of the characters says it is true, then you will believe it.
"I mean, seriously, you seem to need some help as much and probably even more so than you stated others do in one of your posts."
You are showing yourself to be a hypocrite, my dear.
"As I continue to read your posts, I just get this mental image of your head exploding from pent up anger and frustration! It's fiction! Tt's not that damn serious... get a grip and a life... "
That's funny because I get the same impression from you. You are so intent on defending Meyer whether you have an actual arguement or not.
"I realize that debate, of an intelligent nature, is healthy; however, you seem to be taking this as seriously beyond that healthy point.2
Man, did I expect this or what. It's usually the fall back plan for silly little girls who can't for the life of them figure out what to say when their shallow arguments have been picked apart.
"YOU are the ones who thought it and said it, so that makes YOU the racist ones for jumping to that conclusion, even if you're trying to seem like you're not. As for the pedophilia that supposidly in the story, grow up and get your head out of the gutter."
The subtext is there. You really can't argue against that by trying to throw it back in people's faces. The you must be a racist to spot and address potentially racist themes is basically, a stupid comeback. Take your own advice, honey. If we all had your attitude, important issues would be brushed under the rug and their existence denied.
"The fact that it's 'just a book' or 'just fiction' doesn't mean it can be let off the hook for any offense it causes. automatically make it racist so you are right there."
Smartest thing you've said yet. I think some people here need to find themselves a dictionary, so they can discover the meaning of the word "unconcious" and therefore learn the concept of unconcious racism, which Rob clearly defines in his title.
He is not talking about Stephenie Meyer donning a white hood, joining a Nazi party and plotting to portray her NA characters as beasts.
What he is addressing is the fact that Meyer portrays her vampires as superior. Physically superior, mentally superior etc while also telling us that the wolves are supposed to be on an even keel with them.
That is the point.
Post a Comment