|
Post by queencherryfairy on Nov 25, 2010 17:49:46 GMT -8
...I thought that the egg imprinting thing was just a fan theory, and not canon? Sadly, it started out as fanon, but Smeyers heard about it and loved it so much that she made it canon. *facepalm*
|
|
|
Post by Lady Phoenix on Nov 25, 2010 17:51:11 GMT -8
...I thought that the egg imprinting thing was just a fan theory, and not canon? Sadly, it started out as fanon, but Smeyers heard about it and loved it so much that she made it canon. *facepalm* Facepalm indeed *does so*
I mean, if the kid turned out to be a boy, or if Blla became Jacob's wife and the kid turned out to be his son/daughter, could you imagine this being romantic at all?
YUCK!
|
|
|
Post by thewizardofoz on Nov 25, 2010 19:31:25 GMT -8
I mean, if the kid turned out to be a boy, or if Blla became Jacob's wife and the kid turned out to be his son/daughter, could you imagine this being romantic at all?
YUCK! ( vomits) Thank you, Phoenix, for making me lose my wonderful turkey dinner. @_@ (Maybe there should be a rule: Don't ingest anything Twilight-related after 4:00pm. @_@) But in all seriousness... hrm. ( puts on thinking cap) Edward's Claim He Killed Fifty-One PeopleFifty-one people is a lot of people. For example, in the Virginia Tech shooting, only one person died, and it was a manifestation of hatred and grudge harbouring over the process of several years. He planned out the shooting for weeks, and people suspected him of doing it for months.Obviously, Edward was very flipping mad that Carlisle changed him at the beginning, ("Why should I rather not die and go to Heaven than be sent to an immortality of Hell?" The Expectorium, Chapter 2, p. 95) so he allegedly went out and killed people: 1) To disobey Carlisle. 2) Since he's a fucking human blood-drinking vampire, and a young one at that. However, there are several problems with this. If it takes several years to learn how to drive to kill somebody, then why was Edward gone for only twenty to ten years? I wouldn't be surprised if someone said he killed fifty-one people in one hundred years unless he or she was a mass murderer and planned group shooting. So, let's say Edward killed people from 1917 to 1937. He would have had to kill two to three people every fucking year by draining them of their blood using his teeth; for starters, don't you think he would easily get caught considering America was a densely populated area back then both in urban and rural areas? There were a lot more farming communities back then than in the 1970s, for example. Everyone knew everything, everyone would grab hold of everything, and everybody would tell everybody. Someone would snitch, or it'd be released to the police by word of mouth, and Edward would be caught. But still, let's say he did get his filthy, grubby hands on somebody. Do you really think he or she (I'm looking at you, Meyer.) would go down without a fight? They'd be screaming, kicking, and throwing their arses off just to get away, and somewhere, someway, somehow, there must be a way to fight off a Meyerpire, and someone has done it. Otherwise, why would TS exist? You see, it's really fucking hard to kill somebody, but two to three people per year? That's insane; triple homicide in one year alone. Still, we are expected not to sympathize with Edward because "they're all a bunch of homicidal scumbags". Edward's Claim That His Kills Were JustifiedEdward, first things first. You are not Rorschach, who believed in "Ends Justify the Means". Sure, you can call it a God Complex, call it whatever you like, but it's a very Machiavellan way of doing things. "Ends Justify the Means" basically means, "You were in my way. Now you're not, so I tripped you and you fell down in the mud." The "ends" of that situation ("Oh, thank God he left!") were beneficial, but he used calculatedly mean ways to get to it (by pushing him in the mud). Now, that is quite different than actually going out of your way by killing somebody. Sure, criminals are scumbags, and if they died out in the streets by their own incompetence, I would have no sympathy or empathy for them. But still, you have to work within the system. Don't just kill people willy-nilly because they pissed you off. That's an example of psychopathic neurosis. Just grip them by the neck and drag them to the nearest police officer. Believe me, you'll look like a savior, and the people you saved will be very grateful for you. Of course, there is something we didn't discuss. Edward Actually Saved The Victims Because Their Blood Smelled AppealingThink about it... the reason why Bella's life was saved from an oncoming van was because Edward thirsted for blood like hers since he was born, and that's the most extravagant method he used to save her life. Why not be a quiet hero and simply jump into the car, and drive the van out of the way? However, "he just stood there, shocked," like anyone else would, which makes me think he's incompetent, but he was actually debating whether or not to save her life. Some boyfriend you've got there, Bells... and he didn't even know why he saved you. But I'll tell you why. Bella's blood was hardly the first to appeal to Edward's heart. As he exampled in MS: Apparently, the "victim" was frightened by Edward draining the blood out of someone's body. Even after a "century of experience," he still considers that surprising. But honestly, maybe the bloodlust in his eyes suggested that he wanted to nom on his real target: The helpless innocent. Edward has a strange predilection for "helping" people who claim to be or appear to be in danger, and occassionally, actually are. He has some kind of fetish in regards to that, but in actuality, wants nothing more than to totally kill a person from the inside out, i.e., draining their very blood. That's what he is at heart: A steely, psychopathic killer. But honestly, it's his choice. Who am I to dare disagree or even question his opinions or motives? You never know on the Internet, I could be a fat, old, lonely bald guy who never got lucky in love or life. However, you would be wrong, and I would only want to help anyone, some soul who may be reading this, and could quite possibly change his, or her, life.
|
|
gisbon
Member
[Mo0:9]
Posts: 494
|
Post by gisbon on Nov 26, 2010 4:56:07 GMT -8
^ Whoa, very nice.
|
|
|
Post by Lovely Kiss on Nov 29, 2010 23:19:06 GMT -8
I just want to say as a quickie that, yes it's never explained how Edward "gets it up." But to be fair, is it explained in any vampire book or movie how the other vampires "get it up?" I always figured it was just that unexplainable thing or plot hole that everyone decides to ignore because it's been around for ages. But I could be wrong, I'm not that deep with mythology.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Suede Shoes on Nov 29, 2010 23:36:52 GMT -8
Maybe I'm just not understanding it right, but I see a fair number of plot holes in the concept of Alice "watching people's decisions."
For one thing, not all decisions are monumental. We make tiny decisions constantly. Turn left or right? Paper or plastic? Am I going to type it as "decisions" or "choices"? Am I going to glance across the room or keep my eyes on the screen? How about now? How about now? And on and on.
Don't most actions, or even most types of inaction, require some type of decision? What determines if something is important enough for Alice to see it?
Wouldn't watching all of someone's decisions be pretty much a full time job? So how could Alice watch Victoria and Aro at the same time, let alone watching them both and having some semblance of a life herself? Decisions are made by the minute, by the second, by less.
Also, sometimes the decisions we make are related to our location. How could Victoria ever be missing, since some of her decisions would be-- for example-- predicated on being in Seattle instead of somewhere else?
And while we're at it, isn't deciding that Riley is going to decide instead ultimately still a decision?
*head explodes*
|
|
|
Post by Elentari on Nov 30, 2010 5:32:38 GMT -8
^ This. Alice's visions are some bunch of inconsistencies. How come she's never wrong about some very important thing? If she is right, everyone praises her, but if the things she sees doesn't come true, it's just that her visions are "subjective". Still, everyone acts like her visions are some Great Truth Carved On Stone. Just take Midnight Sun when she sees that Bella will get either killed or vamped, and everyone thinks that surely will happen.
Alice's visions are supposed to be based on decisions. How can she predict weathers, then? How could she see Carlisle or Jasper when none of them hadn't even made any decisions about meeting her? Then again, she can't even see Bella having the papercut of DOOOM, although there were plenty of decisions to base a vision on. If she can't see such a small thing, how on earth can they let Jasper go to the high school, where small accidents like that happen all the time? We make all kinds of small decisions all the time, so she would have had to see Tyler's van coming, too. What Alice can do seems to change a lot of time - one moment she is supposed to predict the future based on decisions, and then suddenly she sees stuff even before anyone has even done anything. And what about the case with James? When she sees the trio coming, she can't even say if it would be more reasonable to whisk Bella away or let her stay.
Later on, when Bella has had her infamous swandive, Alice comes rushing back to Forks. Apparently she has told her not-family that Bella is dead, yet when she sees that the little idiot is alive she doesn't even bother calling home. She'd have plenty of time to do that yet she decides it would be great to have a sleepover with Bella. Then she goes as far as blaming Rosalie for telling Ed even though it's all her own fault. Conveniently enough her visions are fuzzy about Bella, but then she can precisely tell where Wardo is going and what he is going to do. Same goes with Breaking Canon. She shouldn't see anything about all the immortal child -fiasco, because it was all about the hell spawn. So according to the canon, she wouldn't have had seen anything because of Renesmonster's presence. Yet she can tell everything that is going to happen, and then she goes as far as providing some idiotic deus ex machina solution to the so called conflict. Also, how come she didn't see Victoria in Eclipse? Sure, Victoria kept changing her mind, but then again she always had one ultimate goal - to kill Bella. Logically that would have given a lot to Alice to work on.
There are so many questions and contradictions about Alice's visions. It doesn't even begin to make sense to me and it just shows what a poor writer Meyer is - she can't even get her own canon right.
|
|
|
Post by vampirekites on Nov 30, 2010 18:52:01 GMT -8
I just want to say as a quickie that, yes it's never explained how Edward "gets it up." But to be fair, is it explained in any vampire book or movie how the other vampires "get it up?" I always figured it was just that unexplainable thing or plot hole that everyone decides to ignore because it's been around for ages. But I could be wrong, I'm not that deep with mythology.
It's more due to the fact that in other vampire stories, it's never explained scientifically, so there is that "magical" or unexplained aspect. Plus it's sort of a universal thought that vampires are also sexual creatures by nature, mostly due to them shrugging off conventional human qualities for more animalistic behavior.
The problem with Edward is that not only is it not explained, Smeyer's own scientific explanation doesn't add up to it either. It's more like a loophole/contradiction in her own canon just so Edward and Bella can have a baby.
|
|
|
Post by Lovely Kiss on Nov 30, 2010 23:41:58 GMT -8
I just want to say as a quickie that, yes it's never explained how Edward "gets it up." But to be fair, is it explained in any vampire book or movie how the other vampires "get it up?" I always figured it was just that unexplainable thing or plot hole that everyone decides to ignore because it's been around for ages. But I could be wrong, I'm not that deep with mythology.
It's more due to the fact that in other vampire stories, it's never explained scientifically, so there is that "magical" or unexplained aspect. Plus it's sort of a universal thought that vampires are also sexual creatures by nature, mostly due to them shrugging off conventional human qualities for more animalistic behavior.
The problem with Edward is that not only is it not explained, Smeyer's own scientific explanation doesn't add up to it either. It's more like a loophole/contradiction in her own canon just so Edward and Bella can have a baby.To be honest, if she really wanted them to have a baby, she didn't have to make it scientific. Hasn't she ever heard of Dhampirs before? Isn't Blade a dhampir? You can be a human and have a vampire/human baby with your vamp-man. Why did she have to go all "scientific" with it?
|
|
J.Day
Member
It's not a date but rather a pie slash coffee summit. You know, fix the economy, settle world peace.
Posts: 523
|
Post by J.Day on Dec 1, 2010 7:50:05 GMT -8
^ Because Stephenie Meyer wanted to sound OH SO FREAKING SMART. She should have just gone with the dhampir idea instead of her half-assed incubus explanation, but she didn't. Meyer always sticks her shoe in her mouth and sucks on all the dirt, hoping that no one would notice her stupidity.
|
|
|
Post by Elentari on Dec 1, 2010 8:03:56 GMT -8
^ Yeah, and the problem with the incubi is that they themselves can't father children. It's with the human semen that was collected by the succubi they can have offspring with human women.
|
|
|
Post by Lovely Kiss on Dec 1, 2010 22:37:29 GMT -8
^ Yeah, and the problem with the incubi is that they themselves can't father children. It's with the human semen that was collected by the succubi they can have offspring with human women. I wondered at first when I read that whether Meyer was going to turn around and say Edward is actually an incubus [like she said the "werewolves" are actually shapeshifters] I mean was that even necessary?
|
|
SoulOverSmile
Persistent Member
LOOK AT ALL THE DAMNS I GIVE. LOOK.
Posts: 2,890
|
Post by SoulOverSmile on Dec 2, 2010 2:59:27 GMT -8
The Casino 'Outtake'.
In that scene, Bella, Edward, Alice and the others go to the casino while Bella recovers. They use fake IDs to get in, naturally (1).During their time there in the casino, Alice has her Deus Ex Machina powers flare up. Why? Fuck logic, that's why.
In any case. Bella describes her walking past a row of slot machines, and Alice casually puts coins in random slot machines and pulls on the lever. The slot machine she chooses just happen to hit the jackpot before simply walking away (2) It's hinted or even outright started by Bella that she can do this because of her powers. (3).
1: The fact Edward, who apparently looks both a kid and an adult, got in surprises me. People under 18, I believe, are not allowed in casino. If you look young but your ID says you're older, the guards (from where I'm from at least) will not let you know. They will not take the chances and just shoo you away. And if they get a whiff of 'fake' on your ID, they'll rain down your ass so hard.
2: You cannot do that type of shit in a casino. Is SMeyer seriously trying to tell us that Alice can just do that and not have people go 'WTF? Bitch is cheating!' instead of 'Oh look! She keeps getting slot machines that hit jackpot. That's cool'. The moment the guards, who are always roaming the casino, sees Alice 'seemingly' win a slot machine by pure luck twice they would have thrown everyone that came with her out the damn door. Or, worse, call the cops thinking something was going on. They'll all be exposed and Bella will actually get in trouble.
3: How do her powers work in this type of situation? The machines are not sentient or have thoughts, so it's impossible of her to know what the 'choices' these machines will make. There's a reason why slot machines are categorized in the 'Jackpot' line.
I can see why this 'outtake' had to be removed. Even the editor couldn't ignore this level of fail.
Jacob apparently choose Nessie, Bella's infant vampire/daughter daughter (1), under the pretense that she'll be a good mother to his future children (2).
1: He chooses an infant, of all people/things/monsters. Must I really explain this aspect? It's like a tom cat choosing to stick with a kitten because it wants to bear its' litter. Nature does not work like that at all, goddamn.
2: On the subject of nature - Mother Earth is the biggest cockblock to interspeices romance. Bigger than Dumbledore when Harry was all but willing to whip out his wand for that girl in the underground area. It uses something called 'reproductive isolation', you see, and it is a set of complicated rules concerning your taboo romance with the square when you're a triangle. Do anything funny, and your offsprings - the squangles - die due to said rules.
So, my dear people: there's a fucking good reason why lions are not boning lambs.
|
|
|
Post by vampirekites on Dec 2, 2010 10:06:55 GMT -8
SoulOverSmile. Yes and yes. There is no way that Alice could just know what machines are going to be winners, especially more than one machine at a time. Also, having Jacob imprint on Nessie, who is half vampire, is ridiculous. You can say he imprinted on the human part of Nessie, but the reality is even if she's half there still is little chance she can reproduce. Her body ages quickly, and in only 7 years she looks 18 years old. Then, she stops aging. If she's technically seven, does she even get her period? When she stops aging, wouldn't she stop her period? If Jacob wants to have babies with her, he only has a small window of opportunity to have sex with her, meaning she'd have to be younger than 18 to do it (if she can even have her period. She could be like Leah and be infertile).
|
|
|
Post by WolfBloodRei on Dec 2, 2010 15:58:14 GMT -8
SoulOverSmile. Yes and yes. There is no way that Alice could just know what machines are going to be winners, especially more than one machine at a time. Also, having Jacob imprint on Nessie, who is half vampire, is ridiculous. You can say he imprinted on the human part of Nessie, but the reality is even if she's half there still is little chance she can reproduce. Her body ages quickly, and in only 7 years she looks 18 years old. Then, she stops aging. If she's technically seven, does she even get her period? When she stops aging, wouldn't she stop her period? If Jacob wants to have babies with her, he only has a small window of opportunity to have sex with her, meaning she'd have to be younger than 18 to do it (if she can even have her period. She could be like Leah and be infertile).
I didn't think it was possible, but that just made the whole Nessie/Jacob thing even more disgusting and disturbing than it already was...
|
|
Catalpa
Persistent Member
A full minute of stunned silence means "My God, what did you do?" not "Please continue."[Mo0:0]
Posts: 1,294
|
Post by Catalpa on Dec 4, 2010 11:03:42 GMT -8
On the topic of the hellspawn, just how long did it take for Bella to give birth after getting pregnant? Because if the hellspawn ages in a linear manner, then according to math, it would take about three and a half months.
18/7= 2.57 dhamphir years to 1 human year 0.75/2.57*12= 3.5 months gestation.
I thought the antichrist was born in a matter of weeks? It could be that she ages in a inverse exponential manner, in which her age rapidly approaches the asymptote of 18 but never actually reaches it. Which would allow for slightly more baby-making time, since she spends proportionally more time in her adolescent years than her prepubescent ones.
Still, going on the assumption that she ages in a linear manner, and attempting to optimize the amount of little hellspawn she can produce...
The average age for girls to get their period is 12 (or 4.7 for Resnesmee), so that's when she becomes fertile. Jacob would probably want to start boning her around that time. Allowing for 3.5 months of gestation, along with 1.5 months recovery time, Renesmee can have about 5-6 children before her biological clock stops ticking. And that's assuming that the introduction of the werewolf genes don't slow down the aging process of the kids.
If Jacob waits until she's at least physically the legal age of consent, though, that number drops down to one or two. Which really isn't the best for passing on your genes.
|
|
|
Post by queencherryfairy on Dec 4, 2010 11:52:31 GMT -8
^ Smeyers probably intends for them to only have one or two children (because it fits in more with the white-picket fence image of an American family,) even if it's less convenient for passing on genes.
|
|
limelightqueen
Persistent Member
You know how to whistle, don't you?[Mo0:0]
Posts: 2,741
|
Post by limelightqueen on Dec 4, 2010 13:09:41 GMT -8
Vampire Kites pointed out an interesting plot hole I hadn't thought of earlier: when Nessie reaches 7 she'll stop aging (looking 17). Now, does that mean she's frozen in time? Sounds that way. And what was the reason Smeyer gave for vampire women not having babies? They are frozen in time. So, it stands to reason that Nessie at age seven/seventeen will be rendered infertile as well. So, um, how is she the perfect baby-making machine for Jacob?
Unless, as said before, he's planning to bone her when she reaches sexual maturity at age four/twelve, meaning he's even more of a pedophile than we thought!
|
|
|
Post by vampirekites on Dec 4, 2010 13:53:59 GMT -8
Vampire Kites pointed out an interesting plot hole I hadn't thought of earlier: when Nessie reaches 7 she'll stop aging (looking 17). Now, does that mean she's frozen in time? Sounds that way. And what was the reason Smeyer gave for vampire women not having babies? They are frozen in time. So, it stands to reason that Nessie at age seven/seventeen will be rendered infertile as well. So, um, how is she the perfect baby-making machine for Jacob? Unless, as said before, he's planning to bone her when she reaches sexual maturity at age four/twelve, meaning he's even more of a pedophile than we thought!
I'm actually thinking Smeyer may have changed how imprinting works, at least in regards to Jacob. All of this time, Jacob was really in love with Nessie, even though she didn't even exist when he loved Bella. Scientific and biological fails aside, there needed to be a way to explain his love of Bella and have a quick pair-up for him in the end. Since Leah was blacklisted from the "good people" list, her and Jacob couldn't be an item. Since Smeyer wanted Jacob to have a happily ever after like Bella and Edward, plus still have a connection with Bella, she had him "imprint" on Nessie.
But (in regards to Jacob), it's not about keeping the wolf gene in the line, but just to have someone to love without doing any work. It's all worked out perfectly. Nessie already feels possessive about Jacob, and vice versa, but that doesn't mean they are together to make babies. It could be another loophole or magic canon change that Smeyer loves to do so well since she can't figure out a logical way of doing things.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Phoenix on Dec 4, 2010 14:15:37 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by vampirekites on Dec 4, 2010 15:59:00 GMT -8
I don't think it was ever intended to be a mating thing, she just stuck that on there as an excuse to have it in the first place. I mean, there even is imprinting between Edward and Bella, it's just not called that, it's called fate or whatever. Everything in Twilight comes to an easy solution cause Smeyer is an amateur hack.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Phoenix on Dec 4, 2010 16:04:41 GMT -8
I don't think it was ever intended to be a mating thing, she just stuck that on there as an excuse to have it in the first place. I mean, there even is imprinting between Edward and Bella, it's just not called that, it's called fate or whatever. Everything in Twilight comes to an easy solution cause Smeyer is an amateur hack. Exactly. Instead of CXHARACTER DEVELOPMENT and CHEMISTRY, Meyer takes the tash novel romance way out by saying "Oh, it's just destiny"
This is the WORSE cop out for romance. There's no build up, there's no personality, there's no passion, they're just an item
At least in Sailor Moon, Serena and Darien bickered when they first met and were kinda at the "friends" stage
This "destiny romance" is just LAZY. And absolutely BULLSHIT. They don't have ANYTHING in common to put them together, and destiny is not the glue that should stick them together. Destiny, like I said, is happenstance, coincidence, events just happening. It's not Cupid's Arrow.
|
|
|
Post by queencherryfairy on Dec 4, 2010 16:18:08 GMT -8
^ It really is a trash novel way out, isn't it? At least in trash romance novels, you get to read some sex scenes. In Twilight, all you get is copious amounts of eye-sex and a fade-to-black wedding night.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Phoenix on Dec 4, 2010 21:45:58 GMT -8
Did I mention the Tyler Van incident? If I did, too bad because I'm explaining it again.
TYLER'S VAN SHOULD NOT HAVE SPED TOWARDS BELLA.
Here's why: 1. Why would someone speed around in the middle of winter? 2. If he had snow tires, I believe his car can't speed a certain milage 3. WHY WOULD YOU SPEED IN A SCHOOL PARKING LOT/AROUND SCHOOL?! 4. Schools have a designated driving speed that is enforced. Usually in parking lots, you're not gonna go anywhere above 10 mph, and around schools you can't go faster than 30-35 when school is out
This scene should have NEVER happened.
|
|
|
Post by Elentari on Dec 5, 2010 6:07:34 GMT -8
Did I mention the Tyler Van incident? If I did, too bad because I'm explaining it again.
TYLER'S VAN SHOULD NOT HAVE SPED TOWARDS BELLA.
Here's why: 1. Why would someone speed around in the middle of winter? 2. If he had snow tires, I believe his car can't speed a certain milage 3. WHY WOULD YOU SPEED IN A SCHOOL PARKING LOT/AROUND SCHOOL?! 4. Schools have a designated driving speed that is enforced. Usually in parking lots, you're not gonna go anywhere above 10 mph, and around schools you can't go faster than 30-35 when school is out
This scene should have NEVER happened. The whole scene is so confusing, anyway. It reads like Bella was just standing there, waiting for the van to crush her when she had the time to hear the van, turn around, spot Ed amongst all the people in the yard and then turn towards the van. Also, it sounds like Wardo was throwing the car around, not just stopping it. The way it was written, it sounded like the van was purposefully attacking Bella. And what about that "sea of faces"? How come they didn't see Wardo basically making an origami out of the van?
|
|
|
Post by Lady Phoenix on Dec 5, 2010 8:09:38 GMT -8
Did I mention the Tyler Van incident? If I did, too bad because I'm explaining it again.
TYLER'S VAN SHOULD NOT HAVE SPED TOWARDS BELLA.
Here's why: 1. Why would someone speed around in the middle of winter? 2. If he had snow tires, I believe his car can't speed a certain milage 3. WHY WOULD YOU SPEED IN A SCHOOL PARKING LOT/AROUND SCHOOL?! 4. Schools have a designated driving speed that is enforced. Usually in parking lots, you're not gonna go anywhere above 10 mph, and around schools you can't go faster than 30-35 when school is out
This scene should have NEVER happened. The whole scene is so confusing, anyway. It reads like Bella was just standing there, waiting for the van to crush her when she had the time to hear the van, turn around, spot Ed amongst all the people in the yard and then turn towards the van. Also, it sounds like Wardo was throwing the car around, not just stopping it. The way it was written, it sounded like the van was purposefully attacking Bella. And what about that "sea of faces"? How come they didn't see Wardo basically making an origami out of the van? Exactly.
With all that, this scene should have NEVER happened at all. It's stupid, it makes no sense, it comes right the fuck out of nowhere, and it would NEVER happen.
This is an ASSPULL. Meyer couldn't find any interesting way for Bella to get in danger so pulls one right out of her ass.
And there was no real point to this one anyway. Bella knew nothing of Edward, so the van wasn't a "you've seen to much" attack. It's just plain random, and like I stated before, purely IMPOSSIBLE!
|
|
|
Post by vampirekites on Dec 5, 2010 12:29:01 GMT -8
That's why the "rapist" scene would have been a better reveal situation than the van.
Edward was already getting interested in Bella, stalking her and climbing in her window at night. Bella was interested in him cause he's hot and a bit aloof (somehow an attractive quality). If the Tyler van thing didn't happen, they could probably have a better "get to know you" type thing without the curiosity of him being a vampire. Edward was starting to play nice with Bella. With the van incident, Edward just pulled back again and acted like an ass to Bella. Asking question and knowing he might not be all what he seemed intrigued Bella, but it didn't really give them a chance to, you know, form any sort of plausible romance.
She could have just been wandering around Port Angeles, get lost, have the guys try to attack her and have Edward rescue her. He would show too much of his strength and speed or whatever, Bella can ask too many questions, then he starts to tell her about what he is. No dumb ass van attack and that would develop the relationship without it solely because Edward's a vampire.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Phoenix on Dec 5, 2010 13:02:40 GMT -8
Even the rapist scene is half assed. We didn't even know WHAT the guys wanted to do with her? For all we knew, they just wanted to ask her what she thought about their new haircut.
They could of had James or some of Jame's underlings attack Bella because of her scent and stuff.
This would bring in the James conflict AND develop Bella and Edward.
And another thing, why would Bella travel around a city, in the middle of the night, ALONE?! I know she's antisocial, but it's kinda common sense that a woman especially should never walk around a city at night.
Once again, Bella is an idiot, despite how much the book tells otherwise.
|
|
limelightqueen
Persistent Member
You know how to whistle, don't you?[Mo0:0]
Posts: 2,741
|
Post by limelightqueen on Dec 5, 2010 13:07:27 GMT -8
I have another, not plot hole exactly but a lack of logic hole.
In the climax of Twilight they all decide to go to Phoenix because they think that'll be the last place James would ever look. Because they figure that he would never expect them to go to them place they said they were going to. Here's the flaw in that plan: if he figures that out he knows exactly where you are. Whereas if they had said they were going to Phoenix and instead went to say, Milwaukee, he has no way of knowing that. All he knows if that they aren't in Phoenix.
|
|
|
Post by vampirekites on Dec 5, 2010 13:23:26 GMT -8
@phoenix. True, and it would tie in with James. I think the novel could have been shortened significantly if he was brought in earlier.
If it was written as a regular 3rd person story, and not Bella's POV, we'd be wary of Edward's intentions. This could ultimately be the conflict of the story or maybe a red herring. Instead, we're supposed to see Edward in a good light, and since there was no actual conflict, James and The Gang were tacked on as a last minute protagonist.
@limelight. One should never assume about another person's actions, especially if one is a highly skilled tracker vampire. That whole plan was flawed from the get go.
|
|