Explorations (**BD2 Movie Spoilers!**)

[Jazz Girl]

I have always found it such an interesting idea that readers identified so completely with Bella Swan. I suppose it can be said that one of my original attractions to the series was this everygirl finding out that, in fact, she isn't every other girl and that is what makes her so special to so many. I always found such a deep parallel to the reality of most adolescent girls. But, in truth, I never really did identify with Bella, as much as enjoy her story of triumph. It was always actually Edward with whom I identified most strongly. Granted, there are moments, situations where Bella is completely understandable to me, where her joy is my joy and her pain is my pain. But, for the most part, it was always Edward I "felt" the strongest. It's the reason why, in Eclipse and also in Breaking Dawn, I had to physically restrain myself from hurling my book at glass objects just for the satisfaction of the impact. I have never been able to understand a person who intentionally hurts the person they claim to love. Oh, yes, of course the argument can be made that that is what Edward did when he left. But, there's the rub. He never intentionally hurt her. His actions were intended to save her. Her broken heart, he posited, would be temporary at best and she would be the better for it. But, at every turn, she disregarded his feelings, even denied him the right to feel them at all. And, each time I revisit Eclipse especially, I have a stronger reaction than the first. So, it got me thinking. Is this a pattern? Can I look back at other books that I have loved and read inumerable times but have hated that female protagonist? After all, this isn't my first go 'round in the romantic drama genre.

Scarlett O'Hara Hamilton Kennedy Butler is probably the most notable of all my hated heroines. But, then again, Scarlett is just wretched, period. I never understood how she could be counted amongst the great romantic heroines. The majority of Shakespeare's romantic heroines are at least slightly spiteful and vindictive. Most YA romantic heroines go through some sort of phase where they are purposely out to hurt their love interest. It honestly just has me shaking my head. What is the attraction to a heroine who loves with one hand and wounds with the other?

[corona]

...But, at every turn, she disregarded his feelings, even denied him the right to feel them at all. And, each time I revisit Eclipse especially, I have a stronger reaction than the first.

I would have to agree. I find Eclipse the least satisfying of the books, because that is where I get the most frustrated with Bella and cannot relate to many of her actions. This is probably the unintended consequence of SM linking Bella’s right to become a vampire in NM with choosing between Edward and Jacob in EC. This forces the rivalry conflict to be dragged out for the entire book until you get to the point where you wonder where the girl you thought you knew from TW and NM went to. One minute she would sacrifice her entire life just to hold Edward one more time, and the next minute she is gleefully running off to find Jacob. This is kind of ironic, considering the whole point of EC seemed to be about making Bella more relatable by forcing her to consider the consequences of her decision.

Regardless, Eclipse would have been much more palatable and Bella more understandable if she had actually learned something and grew from it, but BD starts off with her constantly harassing Seth about the whereabouts of Jacob. And then, at the wedding, Jacob assaults her and threatens to kill Edward, which apparently gives Bella the idea that “Jacob” would make a nice middle name for a boy.

[Jazz Girl]

This is kind of ironic, considering the whole point of EC seemed to be about making Bella more relatable by forcing her to consider the consequences of her decision.

And here's the rub. Bella never is allowed to make her decision. That decision is completely taken away from her. Throughout literary history, we have examples, time after time, of the hero or heroine choosing their fate, example after example that it is those who walk into their future with full understanding who stand the best for it. Everyone from Frodo Baggins to Harry Potter can be included in the mix. They stand and choose their fate. And yet, Bella is never allowed that. To me, part of the power of their love story is that, yes, it is fated to be so, but the same time, a last act of conscious thought is required for their happily ever after. Clearly, the hand that fate deals them is meant to be played together. But, they each must make a decision to stay in the game. But, when the game is called, Bella isn't given the opportunity to fully say, "yes, I choose an immortal life with my love and partner." Rather, she says, "I know he'll save me anyways." And Edward is also denied that opportunity. In stead of saying, "I choose to keep my love with me forever," he is forced to say, "I choose saving her over letting her die." It is because of that that I am honestly, at times, conflicted about the whole end game of The Saga. I love it as it is. But, a part of me feels cheated at times.

[December]

Oh, I know! And on some level...don't you think that's exactly what Stephenie saw when she ended up writing NM and EC?

Because, look, she already had an ending to the story. She had FD, where the whole morally-fraught notion of Bella's deliberately choosing to become a vampire -- and of Edward's acquiescing to, conniving at it -- simply isn't in the picture. Bella can be wholly absolved of throwing away her sacred human life, of making a Faustian bargain for immortality. She's on the point of death, death selflessly courted for love of her child. She has no choice, as you so eloquently point out. Happy ending for everyone, guilt for no one -- perfect resolution.

But Stephenie DID write the whole story of NM and EC. She evidently saw, as we do, the beauty of a story in which Edward and Bella choose to claim each other forever; went so far as to begin to picture for us ("I liked the idea that his lips would be the last good thing I would feel" etc.), the moment when she gives herself to him and he takes her for eternity. Stephenie's an amazing storyteller -- look at the Host. She knows all about the power of stories about choice and sacrifice. And she's spoken at length about the importance the notion of choice has for her. She saw exactly what you saw.

Her only mistake was supposing that she could somehow hang onto the story she tells in NM and EC through the plot turns she was committed to (both imaginatively and pragmatically -- no time to rethink the entire ending!) in BD. That she could have her cake and eat it: allow Bella and Edward to freely choose the path she'd set their feet on without incurring the responsibility of that actual, dreadful and perhaps theologically unpardonable moment of choosing to take away Bella's life. She'd worked us round in NM and EC -- and herself, and Edward -- to believing it would after all be morally acceptable. (Even Carlisle, our moral compass in matters vampire, who would never change anyone who still had their human life to live, thinks it's the right choice). But with the ending of FD in her pocket, it wouldn't after all be necessary.

And there are many, many readers for whom her solution works. For whom it seems unimportant, once we've seen Edward and Bella make their choice in EC, whether or not the actual moment takes the form of some deliberate, final reaffirmation of their decision. They've made their commitment, they've chosen their path; so long as the outcome is what they chose, does it really matter if fate sends them there via a shortcut? If Isaac had tripped and hit his head on the way to the mountain, would that make us rethink Abraham's willingness to sacrifice him? If Harry, after making up his mind to go after Quirrell, had been snatched by Voldemort down to the chamber where he is waiting, would it make his determination any less heroic?

For me, as you know, the answer is; yes. It makes a difference that we see choices not only made but carried through. Morally it may be the same, but aesthetically, it's not nearly as satisfying. You've articulated beautifully exactly what we lose in the ending Stephenie has given us in BD. Stephenie clearly didn't think we would lose it. However -- if this makes sense -- I think she'd agree with you 100% that if we do lose it, it's a great loss.

[Jazz Girl]

I suppose that is the greatest issue for me in the end. It is, to me, reprehensible to take away from anyone, their choice in how to live their own lives. It is, perhaps, the main reason why I can never understand or forgive Jacob his actions. That is essentially what he is doing. He is forcing his belief and desired outcome on another person. But, more than that, personally, I don't find Bella's choice to join Edward in immortality akin to sacrificing her life, to killing herself. In evaluating Edward's actions, were he to openly choose to bite Bella, I would not see him as killing her or taking anything from her. To my way of thinking, they are alive. They may not have a heartbeat, or have to breathe. They may not have the same biological processes (although they certainly have some) that we do. But, more importantly, they are thinking, feeling, sentient beings who believe and feel deeply, who value their lives and the lives of those they love. To me, that is the more important definition of "alive".

To that end, I never saw any moral ambiguity in Bella's or Edward's choice, or Carlisle's for that matter. Yes, they are changing her life and the way she must live it. But, if she walks into that future with eyes wide open and full understanding, where is the question? You do, of course, have the question of taking her soul. But, even Edward, the most vehement and dedicated of believers that he doesn't have a soul has trouble holding on to that belief when the chips are down. I suppose the answer to that question lays in what type of God you believe in. Is one's fate absolute? Or, is there the possibility of redemption through concious effort and good deeds? I, personally, believe the latter. So, by that argument, in so long as Bella never intentionally and maliciously takes a human life, she's still in good stead. And, even if she does, can she not be redeemed in her later years through other efforts or by making amends?

Someone asked me once if I would feel differently if the Cullens were "traditional" vampires, if they were changing Bella into a killing machine who lived for human blood. Well, that would be a very different Saga altogether. But, by the same token, if that is Bella's choice it is hers to make. Granted, I would probably root a lot harder for Edward to stay away, for Jacob to convince her to remain human or for her transformation to kill her. But, just in making the choice... it is her right. In the end, as with most things in life, there is very little black and white.

For me, as you know, the answer is; yes. It makes a difference that we see choices not only made but carried through. Morally it may be the same, but aesthetically, it's not nearly as satisfying. You've articulated beautifully exactly what we lose in the ending Stephenie has given us in BD. Stephenie clearly didn't think we would lose it. However -- if this makes sense -- I think she'd agree with you 100% that if we do lose it, it's a great loss.

As you said, in the end, while I love The Saga for what it is, and I love the conclusion for what it does, there is still a sense of loss. For me. For Bella. For Edward. And mostly, for the story itself.

[December]

But, more than that, personally, I don't find Bella's choice to join Edward in immortality akin to sacrificing her life, to killing herself. In evaluating Edward's actions, were he to openly choose to bite Bella, I would not see him as killing her or taking anything from her. To my way of thinking, they are alive. They may not have a heartbeat, or have to breathe. They may not have the same biological processes (although they certainly have some) that we do. But, more importantly, they are thinking, feeling, sentient beings who believe and feel deeply, who value their lives and the lives of those they love. To me, that is the more important definition of "alive".

Oh Lordy. I think we've probably been round this question on various occasions before, and I can't exactly argue with you. Clearly this is basically true. "Undead" is, well un-dead, not dead -- especially in the case of Stephenie's vampires, who are more like sparkly superheroes with problematic cravings than the soulless, night-dwelling, half-alive monsters of the Bram Stoker tradition. When Stephenie talks about the Cullens as effectively another species (cf. PC12), she's pretty much putting the same point: not lesser creatures, just different and very much alive. And to equate what Bella is choosing to dropping down stone dead is obviously silly. And yet, and yet....

If I thought that Edward wasn't taking anything away from Bella in biting her, I just couldn't make sense of their story. If what Bella is choosing is just an adventurous leap into the new, all the fuss of NM and EC seems pointless. Ok, maybe one can read NM simply as the story of Edward coming to see reason: getting over a groundless fear that changing Bella would harm her. And I guess one could see Bella's dithering in EC as pure indecision between two guys she loves. But for me, the Stephenie's story shines brighter if I take seriously the idea that Bella's choice is a real sacrifice, freely given and in the end freely accepted, for love. It gives a kind of nobility to all the characters' decisions -- Jake, Edward and Bella -- which can so easily seem shabby, or self-serving, or high-handed or fickle if one doesn't give proper weight to the gravity of Bella's choice. And at least for me, it makes Edward and Bella's love just that bit more resplendent. Giving up everything for love.

Now there are times when I stand back from this ur-swoony take on the story and think: ok, so that's very romantic, but aren't we really meant to read the story more along the lines suggested above? Certainly nothing in BD remotely supports my view of what it means to become a vampire. But then I also think of this remark of Stephenie's, made in an interview on the Twilight Moms website back in early 2008.

"When you're a vampire, things are pretty much over."

Which I guess just goes to show what a capacious story this is, with room for all the different narratives we find in it.

[Jazz Girl]

Oh, I agree with you completely. A huge part of the beauty of their love story is in the cost of the choice they are each making. I in no way believe it is as simple as her just taking the next step in a now much longer journey. She is giving up a lot, enduring sacrifice and hurt along the way. She will suffer three days of unendurable pain. She will have to give up her entire life... family, friends, aspirations, even her abilities to cry and to sleep. Her life, as she knows it, is over. And Edward.. well, Edward has to, once again, be the cause of the most pain she'll ever suffer. He has to do the one thing he swore he would never do and turn his back on his most strongly held belief. But, as you said, it is the beauty of the sacrifice fully accepted and consequences freely endured for the ultimate joy and love that will stretch into their very long future that makes their story so moving. Except, and I guess this is what I keep coming back to, that they didn't really get to fully accept those sacrifices and consequences, did they? I suppose, it's a bit of a circular argument. I just wonder what the feeling would be... let's say NOTHING changes except the fact that Bella, after delivering Renesmee, heals fully and recovers and then makes the choice to join Edward and he makes the choice to change her. Would we feel differently and, if so, how?

[December]

Except, and I guess this is what I keep coming back to, that they didn't really get to fully accept those sacrifices and consequences, did they?

No, they didn't. And it just isn't the same story if they don't. We are SO in agreement here....

I just wonder what the feeling would be... let's say NOTHING changes except the fact that Bella, after delivering Renesmee, heals fully and recovers and then makes the choice to join Edward and he makes the choice to change her. Would we feel differently and, if so, how?

Do you mean: imagine that the rest of BD's fairytale HEA stands -- the sacrifices Bella's prepared to make never materialize (bloodlust not a problem, keeping in touch with family not a problem, childlessness obviously not a problem) -- but at least she does get to choose them, believing this is what she is sacrificing? Now that is a very percipient question. I've been sort of lumping together two separate issues, haven't I: whether the actual moment of choosing is crucial, and whether it matters if the bitter consequences of the choice are subsequently remitted.

And I think my feeling is, yes: both matter. As you so eloquently put it: it is the beauty of the sacrifice fully accepted AND the consequences freely endured for the ultimate joy and love that will stretch into their very long future that makes their story so moving. The consequences freely endured do matter for me -- not because I'm some dour puritan who likes to see pleasure paid for, but rather because I'm not quite seeing this as a transaction at all. Or at least, if it's an opportunity cost (as Edward might put it), it's not quite in the form of: bad stuff now in exchange for good stuff later, sacrifice amortized across a longterm eternity of joy. The suffering isn't the route to happiness; it's sort of bound up with -- the otherworldly measure of -- the happiness; in exactly the way that it has been for Edward all along. It's torment to him just to sit beside Bella, to hold her, kiss her; but he is so deeply, ecstatically in love that he counts the pain as nothing. Edward's suffering isn't an investment for the future: if it were up to him, this is how things with Bella would remain always, without hope of remission. It's just the essence of his love for her, that it drives every other consideration, even searing pain, out of the reckoning. Not: suffering now for reward later; but suffering now, utterly cancelled out right now by measureless joy. And that is how we see just how measureless the joy is: that everything else shrinks to insignificance.

Would I rather see him spared that suffering? Well as a person, yes of course. One of the hazards of fandom is that characters come to seem all too alive to us (*grin*); I wouldn't wish anyone to endure what Edward puts himself through, let alone someone I was so fond of. The same goes for Bella: if I think of her as a real person I'm as tenderhearted as Stephenie, and thrilled to see her escape the difficult future she was signing on for and get her fairytale bliss. But as a reader, I can't help but respond to the romance of Edward's sufferings for Bella; TW just wouldn't be as magnificent a love story without it. And I guess I feel the same about BD. I don't grudge Bella her pink-frosting-with-bows-on joy, but it's just not as romantic a story as one in which she actually lives the life she has chosen -- the bloodlust, and the isolation and the childlessness -- and still finds incomparable happiness. This series turns on Bella's choice to give up her human life for love. I want to be told that she chose rightly, that her love for Edward really does totally outshine everything else she is losing. Not just that the choice she made happened to come out right.

Because that's how much of a romantic I am.

[Jazz Girl]

And I suppose here is where I turn into a total hypocrite. Don't get me wrong. I'm completely with you. I believe irreversibly that that would make the story just that much more romantic. Were we to see their struggles, the full consequences of their very deliberate choices brough to bear yet go almost unnoticed because of the depth and breadth of their love, the tale would be nothing short of rapturous. At the same time, a part of me sees the reprieves given them almost as a gift of fate rather than a cheat of the reader. Fate set every obstacle in front of them. But, in the end, fate gifted both of them for their devotion and love. Sometimes faith and perserverence and love earn you a reward or two. That was how I've always viewed the ending of their story, anyways. And, in all honesty, it is hard to hold a grudge that Bella didn't truly have to bear her consequences because Edward doesn't either. As you said, I'm much too tenderhearted towards my characters. In this instance, Edward's suffering completely ties me in knots. I'll endure almost any contrivance when I see him as ecstatically happy and GUILT FREE as he is at the end of BD.

Honestly, though, we don't see far enough into the future really to know what consequences they suffer. I'm going on a bit of a tangent, but this is one major issue I have with many of the critics of The Saga who constantly harpoon the lack of sacrifice and what Bella gives up etc. We think in very human terms... 50, 60, 70 years. We know, of course that they have a child, that Bella does not have to give up her ability to have a child (though I still take issue with those who say she wanted one without Edward, but that's a whole other issue). But, we do know that, eventually, she will have to give up her human relationships. She gave up Renee from the very beginning. Granted, it was not a huge sacrifice, but still. And, eventually, Charlie and Sue and Billy and Angela and the entire rest of her entire human circle will die. And Bella will suffer that. And, we don't know for sure that Bella never suffers the bloodlust. Her ability to withstand it is unknown, could be related to any number of things. It is possible it was delayed or that it developed later. We see a grand total of 4 months into their immortality. And yet, we say with utter finality that we know how the story ends. No wonder Edward finds most human exasperatingly simple.

[corona]

I am enjoying this discussion tremendously. I would like to add some observations of my own, but I keep getting stuck on one particular point in the series, particularly Bella’s “choice” in Eclipse. I am hoping that you “pros” can shed some light, so I can add other comments.

After the Volturi demand that Bella be changed, doesn’t Bella own that decision following the vote in NM? For me, that was a perfect resolution, but then I get really, really, REALLY confused in Eclipse. The word “vote” never appears in the text of EC; Bella only refers to that scene briefly in chapter one along the lines of winning an argument. The Volturi demands are downplayed, at least as much as possible, and suddenly Bella has this real choice materialize between choosing Jacob or Edward. SM even states on her website that Jacob would be a really good choice for Bella, and she could have a family and a future with him.

But what would have happened if Bella had actually chosen Jacob? I would think the Volturi would have gotten to her eventually and a lot more people would have been killed along the way. I simply don’t understand. Trust me, I love Eclipse as part of this story, but it isn’t my favorite because I simply don’t see Bella as actually having another choice. The fact that she assumed ownership of the Volturi demands in NM solves that issue, but then it looks like it gets opened up again and Bella has a complete redo on the whole matter. SM says she does, but events in NM don’t appear to support that. I just don’t know how to take EC. Depending on one’s interpretation, Eclipse could be taken as simply being cruel.

Help me out here, show me the path of understanding! Is there something I’m not seeing, or are there real logical conflicts in this choice that Bella supposedly has?

P.S. From the review of the Eclipse DVD on Amazon: “But the unfolding of this love triangle is even clumsier than it was on the page; you're never really convinced Bella has romantic feelings for Jacob, even during their climactic kiss on top of the mountain. This is likely to confuse non-readers of the book series, as Stewart emotes nothing that intones there's a real competition here (clearly, she's Team Edward).” JazzGirl – I recall that your sentiments are about the same, except you didn’t think this was being “clumsy”, but that it actually worked better on film than in the book.