Atom £12.99
Breaking Dawn, By Stephenie Meyer
The heroine of this vampire tale is woefully anaemic
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Mixx
Independent Minds
It started with a sniff. In Twilight, the debut instalment of Stephenie Meyer's vampire love saga, the introverted teen Bella Swan moves in with her dad in the rainy town of Forks, Washington. On her first day at school she falls in love (she at first sight, he at first whiff) with a beautiful vampire called Edward, who lives with a community of good bloodsuckers who hunt animals rather than humans. Breaking Dawn, the fourth novel in the series, concludes the romance with some clearly drawn dilemmas. Bella is 18, pregnant and ill. A lady vampire covets her unborn child. She must make the choice between immortal vampire love and existence as a relatively boring human. And then there's the challenge of telling her dad that she's marrying Edward.
There are many things to admire. The town of Forks is rendered vividly and the details of Bella's daily life are spot on. There is deep intelligence behind the stories of Edward's family history, and a masterful cohesion between the fantasy and its smalltown moorings. The incidentals are all perfect.
The problem – and there's no diplomatic way to say this – is that it's shockingly, tackily, sick-makingly sexist. Weak, inert, prone to falling over, crying and fainting, Bella Swan lives to serve men and suffer. When not cooking and cleaning for her father, she gapes with gratitude whenever Edward saves her from harm and turns to querulous jelly when he's harsh – which is all the time. Edward stalks Bella for her own good, he says, prowling her house while she's asleep and making decisions for her. The series runs on Bella's thraldom to an undead jerk while the warmer character of Jacob Black, her werewolf best friend, lingers hopefully on the edges. It is depressing to read of a young woman who is treated like dirt for four books, yet faithfully worships Edward because of his hilariously clichéd "perfect face".
The novel's climax is jaw-dropping in its conservatism and it's a shame that Meyer's imagination, speed and energy should be wasted on such a backward story. It is the sense of wasted promise which makes the insidiousness of Breaking Dawn all the more galling because, like her thirsty protagonists, Meyer has special gifts.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
I don't believe Bella is treated like dirt, its the whole part of Edwards character to try and push her away because he is trying to do what is best for her because he has seen the future and doesn't want to kill or hurt her. She looks after her father because she wants to. Ok i guess Edward watching her sleep is scary but once again this is a story and its part of his character... Also, is it so wrong for a daughter to want to look after her dad and cook him dinner etc. maybe she feels she owes it to him for not being around most of her life. Why does this mean she is his slave???
There are many teenage pregnancies world wide so why is it so bad that Bella is pregnant (not to mention it is with her husband) and wants to keep her baby. I was so protective of my baby when I was pregnant and it only gets worse when they're born. I would do anything to protect and save my baby so I don't understand the wrongness of Bella willing to lose her life for her unborn child...
Once again I understand that everyone is entitled to their own opinion but what I don't like is giving the author a hard time about you not liking the book.
1) Edward's someone who is capable of protecting her with all his might, love her for who she is, what she is and how she is.
2) A father who struggled hard to learn to take up fatherhood role, to be tolerant over everything as long as she knows bella's well and happy.
3) Jacob as a best friend in needs and in deeds,
i think, if a dirt could live a life like that, i might as well wish i'm a dirt myself. And after reading the fourth book twice, i couldn't help but fully in awe at all those chosen words of Meyer's that can trully in shaken all our emotional nerves into action. Thumbs Up, Meyer!
no offence, but how can you insult genius???
i totally disagree with you and if my friends saw this they would freak.
i hate this review, but i have nothing againt the people who like it; just the person who wrote it.
Let's put aside for a second the fact its written like a 13 year old girl's fanfiction and devoid of any true literary merit. I'll let you argue that, I still read PerezHilton so I don't have much room. (But in my defense over my dead body would I defend that blog as good literature). Instead let's focus on the blatantly sexist crap that's being forced down the throats of young readers (women my age, shame on you for buying into this, you should know better).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-men
Medelson's starting argument is a good base. (Don't get me started on his conclusion, I like the point he makes until he falls back on well, it's okay because it's just allowing specific genders to escape into their predescribed gender roles. Even in my wildest fantasies, getting raped by a hot vampire just doesn't sit well with me. e'll deal with that later.)
We have a weak female protagonist, completely defined on her sexuality (omg, she's soooo "bookish" and "clumsy" but Lyke evvery1 including her dad's creepy pedo friend hits on her...) So young girls, you can be "clumsy" (really this died as a personality flaw in Victorian era work, how pitifully cliche) but as long as you're pretty you're okay.
Also, we have a female protagonist with uncontrolled forbidden sexual urges (lock on your chastity belts girls, sex is teh evil). But of course such a weak female can't exercise self restraint and must rely on the protection of a sexy man. Oh but his uncontrolled sexual urges are okay, as they often are with men. Female sexuality= dangerous. Male sexuality= romantic and attractive. Ah the blatant hypocrisy of traditional patriarchal morality strikes again!
We also have vampirism used as a metaphor for f'inig rape (yes girls nothing is romantic like allowing a hot guy to sexually take advantage of you). Then we have weak female who can only fulfill herself by getting with the male, then falls victim to male's unrestrained urges and gets pregnant, with you know, a baby that will kill her. But being the weak female cliche she has to sacrifice herself. YAY BODILY INTEGRITY. Not.
Equally bullshit? These parents that are like, well it's okay it shows my girls to restrain from sex unlike mainstream pop culture (I'm not going to touch that with a 3 foot dildo) and well at least my kids are reading, LolZ. Right. By that logic they should support consensual safe sex among their kids because it's good exercise!
And the other literary comparisons? Harry Potter=awesome. A smart female lead who was not attractive, nor was her male controlled sexuality the point of the books. And you know, they WERE WELL WRITTEN (funny how something like plot and syntax plays into a good book, who would have thought). If kids want to read these books, great. But to then use them to glorify the perverse "morals" and "romance" they promote is irresponsible and, in my opinion detrimental to young girls. We've been spending years telling girls it's okay to say no to unwanted sexual advances, to control their own destinies as strong individuals and trying to equalize gender archetypes. Now little Cindy will think it's hot when Bobby grabs her in the lunchroom because Edward was hot and couldn't contain his feelings for Bella and it was soooooooo cool.
These rags are just encouraging a generation of young girls, many already brainwashed by their parents patriarchal religions (another side point), to submit even further to this pitiful weak female romantic archetype.
http://headtripcomics.comicgenesis.c
Thanks Meyer for taking us back to 1906. Buying into cliche female archetypes and glorifying sexual violence and oppression against women is not romantic, not cool and should not be making you the star you are. I hope the LDS church sends you on a mission trip to the moon.
I also find it interesting that these complainers will almost always have finished the entire book ? despite being ?appalled? by the writing from the very beginning.
The female protagonist is not weak. She is an incredibly independent and strong willed young woman. She is yes weaker than a vampire but she is not happy with that situation and eventually becomes (through her own insistence) stronger even than the male protagonist. She becomes the strongest person in the entire series of books.
The rest of the points about cliché are so tiresome. Can anyone really claim they were that unsuccessful as narrative devices? Unsuccessful? Really? I always find that people who leap on flaws such as these usually have a failed author seething poisonously inside.
Vampirism as rape? Ridiculous. The vampirism is sex. The books are basically a metaphor for chastity. I don?t agree with the lesson but it?s pretty harmless. I doubt anything is going to stop all her teenage readers from having sex with each other. Especially as the books celebrate eroticism and passion. They do however urge young people to be responsible and careful. To think carefully about the consequences. A pretty damn important lesson as any teenage mother will tell you.
Edward never molests Bella. Telling a story about passion, desire and sexual tension is not irresponsible. A lot of people find it quite horny. Even if it were irresponsible; sometimes horniness is. My sexuality is certainly not a politically correct area of my life. Maybe teaching women to celebrate and revel in their sexuality is an important message in itself. Bella is never ashamed of her desire for Edward. Bella is never subjected to anything she does not want (very much) to happen. If anything she pesters him for sex. She is not a victim. She is the complete master of everything that happens to her with Edward.
Who would Bella be without Edward? No one. Who would Edward be without Bella? Essentially a blank vampire. The characters aren't who they are without each other. Where's the conflict in the Twilight series? If you really think about it, as far as a love story goes, the conflict comes in with their love triangle, but that's soon fixed so effing perfectly with Jacob's imprinting on Nessie.
I read the books -- I wanted to know what the conclusion would be. In book 3, I skipped sections of the story because I got bored -- I didn't miss anything. Is Meyer a great writer? No, she's not a good writer. Can she craft a good story? Yes, she can, but that doesn't mean the story and characters aren't quite flawed.
Well, if you don't finish the book, you can't really have a strong leg to stand on when bashing it, can you?
"The female protagonist is not weak. She is an incredibly independent and strong willed young woman. She is yes weaker than a vampire but she is not happy with that situation and eventually becomes (through her own insistence) stronger even than the male protagonist. She becomes the strongest person in the entire series of books."
Very rarely does Bella provide us with any examples of her being "strong willed". The only instance I can think of that really stopped me and made me think "Wow, maybe she's not a doormat" was the end of New Moon. But pretty much the rest of the series (Eclipse mostly) killed it for me. She is, in fact, a doormat.
"The rest of the points about cliché are so tiresome. Can anyone really claim they were that unsuccessful as narrative devices? Unsuccessful? Really? I always find that people who leap on flaws such as these usually have a failed author seething poisonously inside."
So tiresome means they're ineffective arguments? The argument "Killing is bad" is also tiresome, but that doesn't detract from its truth. And they weren't so necessarily unsucessful as they were eye-roll inducing and annoying. And your finding about failed authors actually only helps to prove the points you were trying argue; a failed author is able to recognize literary mistakes very clearly, having made plenty themselves. Twilight has plenty to offer.
"They do however urge young people to be responsible and careful. To think carefully about the consequences. A pretty damn important lesson as any teenage mother will tell you."
Yes, because Bella really stopped and considered the consequences of abandoning her human life and leaping into the arms of her emotionally abusive vampire boyfriend who has the potential to very easily kill her.
"She is the complete master of everything that happens to her with Edward."
This is the only line in that whole paragraph that truly bothered me, because it is not true in the least. Edward is undeniably controlling (engine removal?). Bella rarely ever has a say in anything that goes on in their relationship. I'm not saying it never happens, but to say that Bella is in control is an outright lie.
The people who love the series hate people like me. Why? In their words, "You're too ugly to be beautiful."
Twilight teaches people that it's okay to judge on looks alone. Edward is handsome. On Smeyer's terms, that also makes him a moral individual with a great understanding of what it means to be in love. Really? Edwards stalks Bella, sneaks into her room AT NIGHT, makes decisions for her, and tries to scare her into loving him. But he's pretty, and according to Smeyer, that makes everything forgivable.
Bella's not a good person either. SMeyer makes her out to be a smarter individual than the rest of the humans. How? Well, she already read all the books on the list from english (because, apparently, small towns have a poor library of good literature, a fact that is LITERALLY mentioned in the book. Seriously, that's insulting.) and she's better than everyone in biology. But, in reality, she's quick to judge and condescending. In the first chapter of the first book, she LITERALLY forgets a very friendly person's name. She can't be bothered by lower, less beautiful people. I would be glad to have friends on my first day; she can't be bothered.
But does she suffer for her poor attitude? No she gets EVERYTHING she wants. SMeyer thinks she deserves everything. Why? Because Bella is her. She doesn't want to hurt the person she'd like to be. SMeyer wants to get everything she wants without suffering for her own flaws. But she can't get that. So, she inserts herself as Bella Swan so she can live out her fantasies.
Fangirls also want to live her dreams. So they become condescending people who honestly think they don't have any flaws. But no-one can dislike the series in their eyes. If someone does, they go on attack. From remarks like, "Shut up, retard! Like you know anything about love!", to threats like, "Anyone who dislikes the series deserves to die!", to physical punching, kicking, and slapping. They don't even think the RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH applies.
I've seen girls rot into demons because of this book. That's not good.
Unless you are suggesting that Twilight fans have less than the definition of superior intelligence, I would say we are all people. If you ARE, well now, isn't that judgemental of you? I love the Twilight SAGA. I have a grade point average of 4.0 and recently took my ACTs in EIGHTH grade and scored a 28. Out of 36. Which is very good, in case you were unaware. Wow. I have less than the definition of superior intelligence. Huh.
2. By your definition, saga means having a climax. Climax: the highest point of anything conceived of as growing or developing or unfolding.
Notice nowhere in that definition from princeton university does it say the word(s) action/fight/death scene. A climax is the turning point of the story. If you read twilight, new moon, eclipse, or breaking dawn, you should see the turning point of the story. AKA: the climax. MEANING: Twililght is a saga. By your definition, of course.
3. I love the saga. I happen to be dating someone (for thirteen days less than a year) who despises it. Oh yes. I hate him. I hate all Twilight haters. Down with them! DOWN, I SAY!
4. Oddly enough, I say again: I happen to be dating someone (for thirteen days less than a year) who despises it. He's so ugly. And I'm so shallow that I care. And his dislike for the Twilight saga just messed with his genetics, twisted his features so that he's repulsive. Gasp. We have a scientific anomaly on our hands!!! Call the presses! And, oh my gosh, your opinion on a book automatically means your ugly! I had no idea of the connection there!
5. Edward is beautiful. Edward is kind, loving, caring. Looks = just a bonus. Edward wasn't created beautiful, making him kind. He was created kind, but also happened to be beautiful because of his "condition". If you noticed, if you read the books, Rosalie was a complete jerk. Yet, she was incomparably beautiful. And jerks, well, yes. They are moral individuals with a great understanding of what it means to be in love. While, yes, Rosalie was in love with Emmett, it didn't mean she was morally correct. Love doesn't equal moral. It is a strong, positive emotion felt toward another. Check out Heathcliff. The guy was pure evil, but he DID love Catherine.
Edward has Bella's permission to be in her room at night. Do you think if she had known she would have told him to get out? She loved him the first time she saw him. Maybe you don't believe in love at first sight, and that is completely fine. In the book, however, that is what happens. So don't read it. Don't comment on it. Don't entwine yourself in its life. Okay? The same goes for the stalking. Edward is making sure Bella isn't getting hurt, and I'm sure she wouldn't mind having a protector. Also, HE LOVES HER. Completely, totally, irreversibly, irresistibly. He's drawn to her. That's the power of love.
Edward does NOT make decisions for her. Bella makes her own decisions, and for those of you who say Edward pressured her into sex, READ. THE. BOOKS. Bella was the one that pressured Edward into it, not that he didn't want it in the first place. If you are not completely oblivious, you would pick that up. And he is not forgiven because he is pretty. He is forgiven because love overrules everything for them. Why hold a grudge over something ridiculous when you could be happy? Only masochists hold onto that.
Bella is not quick to judge. If you notice, she bases her thoughts on people's actions. You seem to follow your own words, though, if I may say so. And do not tell me that you have not forgotten someone's name before. If you haven't, kudos. But try to understand that not all of us have that capability. "She can't be bothered by lower, less beautiful people." Bella doesn't think of herself as beautiful, and puts herself on the very bottom of her priorities. No one is lower to her. Edward makes the top of her list because, again, she is IN LOVE WITH HIM. He IS her world. No one can top true love. Try to understand that.
What do you MEAN, Bella doesn't suffer? In New Moon, she lost her one and only true love. TRUE love. She became, LITERALLY (to quote you), a walking zombie. Imagine losing half of your body and trying to live like that. That alone is worse than anything else you could face. Bella bears a VAMPIRE hybrid child that is so strong it can crush her. It does. It KILLS her. Bella doesn't suffer?
Wow. Stephenie Meyer really seems to enjoy suffering then. Those darned masochists. You know, because EVERYONE wants to lose their true love, EVERYONE wants to trip over their own feet every five seconds, EVERYONE wants to die while giving birth, EVERYONE wants to break their ribs and have to drink blood to save their baby. You know. That's the standard dream vacation. I know I'M looking forward to it. Definitely.
7. Like I said, Bella thinks of herself as nothing BUT a flaw. So fangirls that want her life would be going around underestimating themselves, am I right? Not honestly thinking they don't have any flaws. And AGAIN. I have multiple friends that absolutely HATE the Twilight saga. I think they deserve to die. Go to hell, Twilight-haters! ARG! FELLOW TWILIGHTERS, GRAB YOUR TORCHES AND PITCHFORKS! ATTACK! We are SICK and TIRED of those who DON'T like Twilight automatically assuming that we hate their guts. We heavily disagree with you, we don't want you to die. Nor do we hate you. Sorry. We're not all crazy. Stop clumping us in a mental facility. Although, if there ARE people punching, kicking, and slapping because of Twilight disagreements (and I want solid evidence), they are out of hand. I apologize for them.
8. I've seen girls become better people because of this book. That is good.
As you can see, I've countered every argument you have, ten times more politely than you have. Would you like to continue? I do enjoy a good debate. I'll be waiting. I'll check up on this consistantly. You may refer to me as Taylor-V.
"Notice nowhere in that definition from princeton university does it say the word(s) action/fight/death scene. A climax is the turning point of the story. If you read twilight, new moon, eclipse, or breaking dawn, you should see the turning point of the story. AKA: the climax. MEANING: Twililght is a saga. By your definition, of course."
Might I ask what your definition of Twilight's climax is, then?
"Edward is beautiful. Edward is kind, loving, caring. Looks = just a bonus."
I'm sorry if I sound rude, but I really can't understand how anywhere in the series you got the impression that Edward's looks were supposed to be just a bonus. His looks are all that are ever described. And he's truly not all that kind; he's dangerously possessive, controlling, and I've read and provided many arguments supporting the claim that he is abusive.
"So don't read it. Don't comment on it."
So we're not allowed to state our opinions if they're negative? How does Smeyer expect to grow as a writer if she doesn't get any critique on what she's done wrong?
"Also, HE LOVES HER. Completely, totally, irreversibly, irresistibly. He's drawn to her. That's the power of love."
Smeyer only tells us he loves her. What she shows is an obsessive, possessive stalker, and a teenage girl who falls for the first pretty face she sees. A good writer shows what she wants the reader to know, and doesn't have to rely on the characters to explain it.
"He is forgiven because love overrules everything for them."
I'm sorry, but I find that a very poor argument.
"Bella is a good person. She is in an advanced program. Despite what people would have others believe, some people ARE smarter than others. That's why advanced programs exist. Your argument would suggest that because I am in advanced classes and have a high grade point average, I am a bad person. Well, lock me up."
That is not at all the argument we're making. We're simply saying that we are constantly being TOLD how wonderful, good and incredibly smart Bella is, but her actions never support this. This is just another indication of Smeyer's lousy writing and habits of inconsistency.
"Sorry. It's not that ridiculous. It's not that insulting."
Some people would actually find it very insulting, and would have good reason to do so. I would be insulted as well.
"Bella doesn't think of herself as beautiful, and puts herself on the very bottom of her priorities."
Again, this is just Smeyer telling us what she wants us to think as readers, despite how her characters act. Lazy writing.
"Edward makes the top of her list because, again, she is IN LOVE WITH HIM. He IS her world. No one can top true love. Try to understand that."
I still do not at all believe that they are in love. Not at all. So this argument also does nothing to sway me. And even if they were in love, there are plenty of things that can top "true love" if you have a life outside your partner.
Complete exaggeration, nothing more. Again, I'd probably be more sympathetic with Bella if I actually believed she and Edward were in love.
"Bella bears a VAMPIRE hybrid child that is so strong it can crush her. It does. It KILLS her. Bella doesn't suffer?"
That's not suffering because that's essentially the road to getting exactly what she wants. Which is all she ever gets, is exactly what Bella wants. Her mutant vampire demon baby is just an extra little something Smeyer tossed in for her so she can have her perfect life.
"Wow. Stephenie Meyer really seems to enjoy suffering then."
No, she enjoys pretending to be a deep writer.
"Like I said, Bella thinks of herself as nothing BUT a flaw. So fangirls that want her life would be going around underestimating themselves, am I right?"
Again, Smeyer TELLS us how Bella views herself, but her actions speak very differently. Kids and teens are not as dumb as people might think; they can pick up on those sort of characteristics in people, even if they're told otherwise.
"Although, if there ARE people punching, kicking, and slapping because of Twilight disagreements (and I want solid evidence), they are out of hand. I apologize for them."
There are indeed. I suggest a visit to TwilightSucks.com. That should explain heaps.
"I've seen girls become better people because of this book. That is good."
I am also very curious as to what your definition of "better people" is in this case.
Absolutely hypnotic!
Women from the age of 7 to 77 are lusting after Edward and now the actor who plays him - lucky guy, it could have been any handsome hunk, once you let this script into visuals on the big screen, it was going to blow everyone away.
I don't think we can blame Meyer for what she has done - she has created a mini masterpiece of arch type energy that all women crave and wish for and never can have. there are no men so handsome, so virile, so devoted as Edward and even Jacob Black. Bella represents the yearning in us all for true and everlasting love and beauty and health and devotion from a god like man. It is beyond truth, it can never happen, but these books tap into the dream. Of course this could be quite destructive for some impressionable young girls, and could lead them into dreams and fancies, they'll grow out of it.
You won't find ANY fit, healthy young normal guy liking these books because real men could never buy into it! They are too busy looking for another arch type energy in the form of a Marilyn Monroe lookalike or a girl that is eternally sexual and keeps them constantly amused and looks after them like their mother, also not real. we all do not like to grow up and these books tap into dreams and fantasy.