My Meyer's thoughts.

[kippurbird]

I was kindly directed to Meyer's FAQ for Breaking Dawn in which Meyer's discusses things like Feminism and other things when writing her book.

Some Highlights and my own personal opinions follow.


Why the big build-up for a fight that didn't happen?

I'm not the kind of person who writes a Hamlet ending. If the fight had happened, it would have ended with 90% of the combatants, Cullen and Volturi alike, destroyed. There was simply no other outcome once the fight got started, given the abilities and numbers of the opposing sides. Because I would never finish Bella's story on such a downer—Everybody dies!—I knew that the real battle would be mental. It was a game of maneuvering, with the champion winning not by destroying the other side, but by being able to walk away. This was another reason I liked the chess metaphor on the cover—it really fit the feel of that final game. I put a clue into the manuscript as well. Alice tore a page from The Merchant of Venice because the end of Breaking Dawn was going to be somewhat similar: bloodshed appears inevitable, doom approaches, and then the power is reversed and the game is won by some clever verbal strategies; no blood is shed, and the romantic pairings all have a happily ever after.

No. I'm sorry. You do not do that. If you are setting up your readers for the Big Fight then you deliver the Big Fight. This is not setting up a twist ending but instead pulling the rug from under your reader's legs and giving the a completely different story. If you don't want to have the Big Fight, you should hint through out the story that it may not happen. Not only that, just because there's a Big Climatic Battle doesn't mean that everyone has to die. Look at the Lord of the Rings. They have a HUGE Epic Battle, and not one of the remaining Fellowship dies. If you want it to be a battle of wits, then you make it a battle of wits from the very beginning, even if you are hinting at bloodshed. Hinting at both is probably the best way to do this as it allows the reader to wonder which way is it going to go! How will it be resolved. Finally bloodshed =/= romantic pairings being unable to live happily ever after. Though, happily ever after kinda sounds boring.



Why the name Renesmee?

Well, I couldn't call her Jennifer or Ashley. What do you name the most unique baby in the world? I looked through a lot of baby name websites. Eventually I realized that there was no human name that was going to work for me, so I surrendered to necessity and made up my own. I don't approve of such shenanigans in real life, I don't even believe in getting creative with spellings for real kids! But this was fantasy, and no human name fit, so I did the best I could. I named Renesmee so long ago—Fall 2003—that the name now sounds really natural to me. It wasn't until people started mentioning it that I remembered, "Oh, yeah, it is a weird name, isn't it?

Jennifer or Ashley would work pretty well, it would make her more human and less a Sue. By a smidgen. And just because it's fantasy doesn't mean you can't stick to normal naming conventions. The more fantastic something is, the more grounded in reality something has to be. Otherwise it just gets silly and unbelievable. And believability is what an author strides for. You want your readers to be able to believe that this world is true, that maybe it could happen. That maybe you could fall in love with a perfect vampire who's made of stone and will do anything for you. (Not that I'd want to, but everyone has their own kinks.) By shrugging it off as just "it's fantasy I can do what I want" you spoil the effect for the reader by saying I don't care if you want to believe this is real, I'm not going to bother to try.


Vampires and pregnancy: when did that idea occur to you? How does that work?

The first seed (no pun intended) was planted when I did Bella's computer research in chapter seven of Twilight. Bella reads about several real vampire legends—the Danag, Estrie, Upier, etc. In the novel, I only mentioned a few of the many legends I read through. One that I didn't mention at this point was the entry on the Incubus. The unique feature about that legend was that the incubus could father children. Hmmm, I said, and I filed that kernel of an idea away for later. When I decided to write the first sequel to Twilight (Forever Dawn), I knew it was going to revolve around a hybrid baby from the outset.

Umm... Research Fail. An incubus is a male sex demon. Not a vampire at all. Yes, the can father children, it's one of the things that they do. But they are not vampires. They are not undead. They are quite alive and able to have bodily fluids.

When my editor and I decided to go back and really develop Bella's last year of high school, I did so with the knowledge that it was all going to end up with the events in Breaking Dawn. Everything I wrote was pointed in that direction.

I was always very careful when I answered the "Can vampires have babies?" question, because I didn't want to say anything incorrect, but I also didn't want to make the future super-obvious. I focused my answers on the female half of the equation—female vampires cannot have children because their bodies no longer change in any aspect. There is no changing cycle to begin with, and their bodies couldn't expand to fit a growing child, either. I purposely evaded answering the question, "Can a male vampire get a human female pregnant?" to preserve a tiny bit of surprise in the last book. There were many statements on this subject purported to have come from me, but I never made those comments because, obviously, I knew where this was going.

There's nothing wrong with saying something is wrong if the characters believe it to be true. Still, I never liked the idea that female vampires can't get pregnant but male vampires can get people pregnant. These vampires are able to move, so they must be able to expand. They breath, which requires the chest to expand out and in, their muscles move which requires bunching and lengthening of tendons. If they can do that, then it's certainly possible that they could expand.

Now, on to the "how is this possible?" question. First of all, of course it's not possible. None of this story is possible. It's a fantasy story about creatures that don't actually exist. Within the context of the fantasy, however, this is how it works:

Vampires are physically similar enough to their human origins to pass as humans under some circumstances (like cloudy days). There are many basic differences. They appear to have skin like ours, albeit very fair skin. The skin serves the same general purpose of protecting the body. However, the cells that make up their skin are not pliant like our cells, they are hard and reflective like crystal. A fluid similar to the venom in their mouths works as a lubricant between the cells, which makes movement possible (note: this fluid is very flammable). A fluid similar to the same venom lubricates their eyes so that their eyes can move easily in their sockets. (However, they don't produce tears because tears exist to protect the eye from damage, and nothing is going to be able to scratch a vampire's eye.)

I'm not really sure why it would be flammable. Though if they really are that flammable, Bella should have been told and then brought a lighter with her when she met up with James. Also, if the body is all rock hard inside, why would they need it to be protected? All their cells are hard. This lubricant... I'm not to sure about, it makes me think that they should be slimy. And it seems rather impractical. They must be able to produce this lubricant somehow which would require that some of the cells are squishy. It would need moving part, which stone cannot do. And wouldn't the lubricant be made out of cells? After all it is organic.


The lubricant-venom in the eyes and skin is not able to infect a human the way saliva-venom can. Similarly, throughout the vampire's body are many versions of venom-based fluids that retain a marked resemblance to the fluid that was replaced, and function in much the same way and toward the same purpose. Though there is no venom replacement that works precisely like blood, many of the functions of blood are carried on in some form. Also, the nervous system runs in a slightly different but heightened way. Some involuntary reactions, like breathing, continue (in that specific example because vampires use the scents in the air much more than we do, rather than out of a need for oxygen). Other involuntary reactions, like blinking, don't exist because there is no purpose for them. The normal reactions of arousal are still present in vampires, made possible by venom-related fluids that cause tissues to react similarly as they do to an influx of blood. Like with vampire skin—which looks similar to human skin and has the same basic function—fluids closely related to seminal fluids still exist in male vampires, which carry genetic information and are capable of bonding with a human ovum. This was not a known fact in the vampire world (outside of Joham's personal experimenting) before Nessie, because it's nearly impossible for a vampire to be that near a human and not kill her.


Umm... if the venom acts much the same way as blood and thus made out of cells then why can't there be venom that acts like ovaries. After all there is fluids that act as semen. And if the lubricant acts as a way for the skin to move, it surely should be able to stretch out a belly.


I didn't get into all of these details at my signings because it's a long, complicated mouthful. Also, it's hard to be clearly heard with all the screaming. Mostly, though, I waited to do this in writing because I have an immature, Homer Simpson-like tendency to giggle when I say the words "seminal fluids" in public.

Actually I think that would be more Beavis and Butthead. XD


Is Bella an anti-feminist heroine?

When I hear or read theories about Bella being an anti-feminist character, those theories are usually predicated on her choices. In the beginning, she chooses romantic love over everything else. Eventually, she chooses to marry at an early age and then chooses to keep an unexpected and dangerous baby. I never meant for her fictional choices to be a model for anyone else's real life choices. She is a character in a story, nothing more or less. On top of that, this is not even realistic fiction, it's a fantasy with vampires and werewolves, so no one could ever make her exact choices. Bella chooses things differently than how I would do it if I were in her shoes, because she is a very different type of person than I am. Also, she's in a situation that none of us has ever been in, because she lives in a fantasy world. But do her choices make her a negative example of empowerment? For myself personally, I don't think so.

I do not think Meyers realizes what she is saying here. You may not mean for a character to become a model for what people should do, but they will. If they like what the character does, they will try to emulate them. Of course this doesn't mean that a writer should try and write every character as how they want people to act or mimic, it's just something you should be aware of. If you don't think, however, that people should emulate a person's choices then you shouldn't put it in a positive light.

As for being in a situation no one has been in before because she lives in a fantasy world? Bullshit. Completely and utterly bullshit. Bella is confronted with the choice of giving up her wants and dreams to be with this one person. Sure he maybe a vampire, but that doesn't mean anything. The situation is still the same. She has a dangerous pregnancy, the question this is, should she terminate it. These choices have nothing to with the world being fantasy, but instead normal human choices.

One of the problems with a lot of fantasy heroes/heroines is that they don't have to choose. They are just right. They're never faced with a real decision. Everything falls into their lap. Eragon needs to find the Varden but doesn't want to leave his uncle? Kill off his uncle! Now he has no reason to stay. Anita is worried about what happens if she's pregnant? Poof! She's not. She doesn't have to make any hard choices. And Tristan? He's told that EVERY SINGLE CHOICE HE MAKES will be the RIGHT ONE. The one that will help save the world. With that, you have no worries. You can just do.

Bella is faced with normal, human choices. But just because there's a vernier of fantasy on top, doesn't mean they're not the same.

In my own opinion (key word), the foundation of feminism is this: being able to choose. The core of anti-feminism is, conversely, telling a woman she can't do something solely because she's a woman—taking any choice away from her specifically because of her gender. "You can't be an astronaut, because you're a woman. You can't be president because you're a woman. You can't run a company because you're a woman." All of those oppressive "can't"s.

One of the weird things about modern feminism is that some feminists seem to be putting their own limits on women's choices. That feels backward to me. It's as if you can't choose a family on your own terms and still be considered a strong woman. How is that empowering? Are there rules about if, when, and how we love or marry and if, when, and how we have kids? Are there jobs we can and can't have in order to be a "real" feminist? To me, those limitations seem anti-feminist in basic principle.

Being raised as I was, I never really thought about things I can and can't do. I've always taken for granted that I can do whatever I want to do. With in reason of the law. Going off on a killing spree is wrong no matter one. I think, however, one of the things that feminism is trying to do is make it so that in instances of -for example- rape it's not considered the woman's fault. That they don't need to sleep with the boss to get the promotion. That they don't have to dress up as a "slut" or be stick thing to feel like they're worth something to men. It's about making a woman realize that she doesn't need to compare herself to what a man wants, but instead what she wants. My two cents.

Do I think eighteen is a good age at which to get married? Personally—as in, for the person I was at eighteen—no. However, Bella is constrained by fantastic circumstances that I never had to deal with. The person she loves is physically seventeen, and he's not going to change. If she and he are going to be on a healthy relationship footing, she can't age too far beyond him. Also, marriage is really an insignificant commitment compared to giving up your mortality, so it's funny to me that some people are hung up on one and not the other. Is eighteen too young to give up your mortality? For me, any age is too young for that. For Bella, it was what she really wanted for her life, and it wasn't a phase she was going to grow out of. So I don't have issues with her choice. She's a strong person who goes after what she wants with persistence and determination.

Okay, that whole age thing? Bullshit. People have been marrying others that are younger or older than them and they still have good relationships. Hell, not so recently women used to get married when they were just out of puberty to men sometimes twice their age and they still made it work. Their relationships were still on healthy relationship footing. The fact that she feels that Edward's physical looks and how she looks is more important than her education or Edward's true age makes her seem shallow. What does it matter if she looks older than him if they're really in love? Love has no boundaries. People fall in love with people who would to others seem utterly wrong for them. It's the ability to look beyond the physical facade to who they are that makes relationships. Bella being worried about being older looking than Edward means that she doesn't think he'll love her if she's older looking than her. That he likes her purely on her looks.

As for giving up her mortality? She's only doing it so that she does look like Edward. Never mind the fact that he's about a hundred years older than her.

Meyers doesn't have a real understanding about how writing works, from what I've read here. Yes, she can write a story, with plot, characters and background, but she doesn't know that characters need to act and behave just like real people, if they're human. Non-humans? Well that's a whole other ball of wax.

Comments

[subieko.livejournal.com]

You know, reading Meyer's explanation of vampire biology...that just doesn't make sense to me. I'm not claiming to be some expert on biology, but I did take AP bio in high school at least, so I have at least a little knowledge, and I know that you can't MOVE without flexible skin. I don't care what she says about the lubricating venom letting the cells slide around--that's not how it works. To see proof that you need flexible skin to move, all you need to do is move your fingers around. That flap-ish bit of skin between the thumb and the index finger? That's what allows the thumb to move around so we can grip things. If the skin became rock-hard and was unable to stretch and flex, you couldn't move your fingers.

Hell, just try gently squeezing your arm. The skin gives under your fingers. A statue can't move because it's made of stone, which is a rigid material. Rigid materials BREAK when they're stretched too far. Skin is flexible because we couldn't survive if it wasn't.

Also, the nervous system couldn't work if the cells suddenly became made of stone or something. It requires fibers and membranes and stuff...and the eye is a very liquidy organ. There's no way around it. Honestly, the body just doesn't work without cells, and cells are liquidy and flexy, not rigid and stone-like.

I mean...I dunno, am I just missing something here? Her biology stuff just seems way off!

Also, I don't understand why she thinks Bella is making any of these choices. In what I've read from the books (excerpts here and there, basically, I'll admit that I haven't actually read them), she repeatedly has her choices taken away from her by other people, and doesn't mind this. She very rarely chooses anything at all, and when she does choose things, she chooses them because of Edward. Her life revolves around him in an extremely unhealthy way.

I could see a buildup to a fight and then a sudden not-fight working, if it was written well. It could be this very sudden, jarring thing for the characters, where what they thought was about to happen is suddenly totally different, and they lose their footing, so to speak.

But I just can't buy the explanation that they couldn't have the fight because characters would get killed. If you don't want any of your characters to get hurt or die...don't put them in violent, combat-oriented situations! Sheesh. Don't act like you're putting them in danger if you're just gonna yank them out of harm's way.

Well, that's just my two cents, anyway.

[kippurbird.livejournal.com]

To see proof that you need flexible skin to move, all you need to do is move your fingers around. That flap-ish bit of skin between the thumb and the index finger? That's what allows the thumb to move around so we can grip things. If the skin became rock-hard and was unable to stretch and flex, you couldn't move your fingers.

Exactly. Skin needs to be squishy to move. Which is why we have squishy cells. Plants have ridged walled cells which is why they break when you bend them. And rocks don't have them so you can't bend them at all.

I mean...I dunno, am I just missing something here? Her biology stuff just seems way off!

No, that's about it.

She very rarely chooses anything at all, and when she does choose things, she chooses them because of Edward. Her life revolves around him in an extremely unhealthy way.


BUT she CHOOSES to have her life revolve around Edward in an unhealthy way. Duh. XD

But I just can't buy the explanation that they couldn't have the fight because characters would get killed. If you don't want any of your characters to get hurt or die...don't put them in violent, combat-oriented situations! Sheesh. Don't act like you're putting them in danger if you're just gonna yank them out of harm's way.

Most writers don't want their characters to be killed (unless your Paolini who thinks it makes things EXCITING or some such nonsense)But sometimes? Shit happens. I ended up creating a fantastic character, loved him to death. He died. Heroically and tragically, but he died. And I TRIED to save him. Didn't work. Hell, I tried to save him in the sequel. But it's kinda hard to save someone who's been buried under ground in a huge landslide.

And yes, don't put them in danger if you don't want to face the possibility of them getting hurt or killed. But if there's no danger it's boring. Even if it's not physical danger.

[(Anonymous)]

Meyer is taking too much liberties with fantasy, methinks. "It's fantasy" is not an excuse. And did she explain that vampire biology shtick in the actual books? I dislike being forced to find background information outside of the books.

Yeah, and incubus research fail. If she read further on, she would have found his counterpart, the succubus, who uses male seed to get pregnant with demonic babies. However, maybe that is dreadfully close to Lillith, who birthed the race of demons and possibly vampires. Hmm, I wonder how succubi have their babies without caesarian?

[kippurbird.livejournal.com]

"It's Fantasy" is never an excuse. Beyond saying things like there's two moons, dragons and purple grass. But to explain away the physics of the world (not having a coherent magic system) or how a person acts? No. It's not.

Hmm, I wonder how succubi have their babies without caesarian?

They're not made of cement.

[jacedraccus.livejournal.com]

She's a strong person who goes after what she wants with persistence and determination.

These words she say, I do not think they mean what she think they mean.

[thelastmehina.livejournal.com]

If you have to say your character is a strong person, you've already failed as an author. I hate it when people describe a woman or a female character in a story as 'strong.' It's like the "We're not sexist! See!" As if the default for a woman/female character is 'weak', and this individual person is special/reveals the enlightenment and liberalism of the author or speaker because they are liberated enough to be able to describe a woman as 'strong.' It's the token word people use to try and not be seen as sexist. *Especially* because no one would bat an eye if a male character did everything the 'strong' woman did - they'd just be doing what guys did. But when a woman does it, it makes her special. Gag me.

Not every feminist character has to be 'strong.' They just need to be human beings, with flaws and merits and mistakes and good things about them.

[jacedraccus.livejournal.com]

Not only that, but the description sounds nothing like the actual portrayal of Bella.

It's like Paolini saying that the relationship between Eragon and Saphira is important in the books. It's just not supported by the text.

[kippurbird.livejournal.com]

If you have to say your character is a strong person, you've already failed as an author.

Yes. Your reader should be able to realize this by themselves if it is inside the text.

Not every feminist character has to be 'strong.' They just need to be human beings, with flaws and merits and mistakes and good things about them.

Not any character should be described as strong, unless you're talking about physical strength, but instead it should be shown in the text what sort of person they are

[kippurbird.livejournal.com]

It is not presented that way in the text. Which automatically means fail.

[jacedraccus.livejournal.com]

Yup.

[shmeiliarockie.livejournal.com]

It's not just female vampires who are sterile. The one female "werewolf" is as well, even though the male "werewolves" are super verile. On it's own this could be forgiven, but when coupled with all the other ways in which her female characters fail, it becomes extremely sexist.

Everything about her biology explinations do not work by any logical stretch of the imagination. (Chromosomes don't work the way she thinks they do, for one thing.) She should have just stuck with "it's magic".

She totally pulled that incubus thing out of her ass in order to validate the Sue-spawn, when IT SHOULD NOT EXIST. That's like pounding a puzzle piece into a spot where it doesn't belong. Renesmee IS Breaking Dawn. The whole book revolves around that demonic thing. Total wish fulfillment on Meyer's part: Bella marries the man she always wanted, gets a perfect Sue baby that she doesn't have to take care of, AND becomes a super hawt vampire with remarkable strength and grace.

I also agree with everything you've said about feminism. Yes, technically, Meyer is correct. A woman has every right to choose being a housewife and a mother over being a bread-winner, as long as that's what *she* (and not merely her husband) wants. But when her whole world revolves around making her man happy... No, that just doesn't work. Bella has absolutely NO life or agency of her own and THAT is why she's an anti-feminist character.

[kippurbird.livejournal.com]

It's not just female vampires who are sterile. The one female "werewolf" is as well, even though the male "werewolves" are super verile. On it's own this could be forgiven, but when coupled with all the other ways in which her female characters fail, it becomes extremely sexist.

It is, beyond not even making a lick of sense. It's like she's intentionally beating down her characters to make Bella that much more special, because she can't figure out how to do it otherwise. Instead she brings the other women down to make Bella look higher.

But when her whole world revolves around making her man happy... No, that just doesn't work. Bella has absolutely NO life or agency of her own and THAT is why she's an anti-feminist character.

You need to be able to chose not to do something as much as you can chose to do something. If her entire life revolves around one thing then she has no choice in what she can do.

[chaosarmoury.livejournal.com]

Alice tore a page from The Merchant of Venice because the end of Breaking Dawn was going to be somewhat similar: bloodshed appears inevitable, doom approaches, and then the power is reversed and the game is won by some clever verbal strategies; no blood is shed, and the romantic pairings all have a happily ever after.

This is wrong in so many, many ways. That ending works because it resolves the tension present in Shylock's plot. Shylock wants revenge for the shitty life he had to endure because of the Christians and the loss of his daughter. Bassanio wants to save the life of his friend/patron/pimp. One of them has to win and the other one has to lose and Shylock's the one that gets horribly screwed over.

The ending to Breaking Dawn is what, another half-vampire shows up and everyone just walks away? That doesn't resolve anything, it just dissolves the plot.

[kippurbird.livejournal.com]

Not having read Merchant of Venice in a while, what I can recall is that Shylock's purpose was as you say to extract revenge. But as a Jew and not a good Christian he automatically loses.

Shylock would never resort to violence, it would automatically get him thrown into jail and lose. He may wish he could, but he couldn't.

Breaking Dawn's excuse of the sudden turn around is just a lame way of trying to explain why violence didn't break out. And then, as you say, tosses everything out the window.

[kunolacarai.livejournal.com]

I suppose playing "bait-and-switch" with the big fight scene might be acceptable for humor. For example, the death-bots all collapse into a massive argument when one of the heroes asks them "Why?"

Of course, the joke could very well be on the reader.

[kippurbird.livejournal.com]

It reminds me of a Spider-Man comic where he and X-Man (Nate Grey) meet for the first time and they both realize that they're powered individuals so standard procedure is for them to fight in some sort of random misunderstanding.

Spidey (who is sheer awesome) points this out and suggest they go for coffee instead. And this works. Spider Man points out, this is what they should do because everyone else does, but it's silly, people could get hurt and they have no reason to. It's explained as opposed to just randomly WHEE no fight.

[kunenk.livejournal.com]

To Meyer:
Remember Chekhov's Gun. In fact, learn about Chekhov's Gun.

What do you name the most unique baby in the world?
… I'm not certain why, but this sentence makes me want to kick something in the head.

Besides, there're plenty of unusual names! Besides, with parents 'Bella' and 'Edward', why wouldn't something somewhat traditional sound suitable? Hell, why not after one of the characters in Wuthering Heights?

First of all, of course it's not possible. None of this story is possible.
But on some level, it should be possible, because for those characters, it is a reality.

On top of that, this is not even realistic fiction, it's a fantasy with vampires and werewolves, so no one could ever make her exact choices. … Also, she's in a situation that none of us has ever been in, because she lives in a fantasy world.
HOWEVER. Art reflects life- it rises out of the social and cultural norms of the time, so there will tend to be a reflection of ideas that the community exhibits- and that can then be taken by readers of the piece and used to construct aspects of their own lives and identities. Therefore, there may not be a direct correlation, but it still reflects a particular set of ideas and appears to be aimed at a particular audience which may not yet have the skills to deal with and sort out which aspects are appropriate for their own lives and which are not, and may therefore set a particular model for the members of that audience.

More simply, people can relate to and understand people living in very different circumstances.

But do her choices make her a negative example of empowerment?
Personally, I'm not sure I'd say that Bella is an example of empowerment at all.

[kippurbird.livejournal.com]

Remember Chekhov's Gun. In fact, learn about Chekhov's Gun.

Chekhov's Gun is Important. It's important part of set up.

… I'm not certain why, but this sentence makes me want to kick something in the head.


I just pretend like it doesn't exist. Denial! More than just a river in Egypt!

[x-trickster-x.livejournal.com]

Y'see, as a vampire fiction writer, attempts to explain the biological structure of vampires in such depth annoy me a little. Okay, it's good to make sure everything is covered and you're not just shrugging it off as 'OMGMAGIC' but... is it really necessary? Does all that really matter when we're already okay with the idea that near-immortal people who drink human blood to survive and can't go out in sunshine exist? Unless it's a plot point, I don't think it mattters.

And whilst I do agree that feminism is the choice to do whatever you want, it doesn't excuse portraying Edward controlling Bella in a positive light. In fact, I think it does quite the opposite.

[jacedraccus.livejournal.com]

It annoys me more that she gave her vampires such an extremely bizarre biology which NEEDED to be explained in such detail in an attempt to make sense... which it still doesn't.

[kippurbird.livejournal.com]

Does all that really matter when we're already okay with the idea that near-immortal people who drink human blood to survive and can't go out in sunshine exist? Unless it's a plot point, I don't think it mattters.

If you're going to accept vampires then it doesn't matter how they work, or at least in the details.

And whilst I do agree that feminism is the choice to do whatever you want, it doesn't excuse portraying Edward controlling Bella in a positive light. In fact, I think it does quite the opposite.

Oh but you see, Bella CHOOSES to let Edward control her life.

[authoressarktos.livejournal.com]

Word to everything here.

(/is dead from party and cannot think)

[kippurbird.livejournal.com]

:D

[veriun.livejournal.com]

Please tell me this was a troll trying to impersonate Smeyer. I mean, there's no way anyone would buy that truck of massive biology fail. Or that "happy ending" bullshit.

...riiiiiiight? D:


"It's fantasy." *Snicker* Because that's automatically much more plausible than "it's magic".

[kippurbird.livejournal.com]

I wish. But it's on her official site. And apparently she does.

*pats*

I utterly hate the it's magic excuse. With the burning passion of a thousand fiery suns.

[gehayi.livejournal.com]

You and me both. I've ranted about that to fanfic writers. Hearing a writer of canon--I refuse to call Smeyer a professional--spew the "It's MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGIC, it doesn't need an explanation!" excuse just makes me want to spit.

[acdragonmaster.livejournal.com]

You know, I think the whole weird vampire cell thing is a misunderstanding of how things like scales work- that is, it IS possible to have many sections of individually relatively rigid or hard pieces that are jointed and articulated in such a way that allows more or less free range of movement. Or take chain mail, for example- each individual link is extremely hard and rigid, but altogether there's considerable flexibility. But the explanation of having some lubricant as the medium for this seems rather... odd. In theory it may not be impossible to have an organism with these extremely hard yet movable body parts, but that's not the best way to go about it.

On another note, regarding the name Renesmee, the true problem is evident if you reread her comment and pause to think about it a moment- it's a name Meyers chose, not Bella. If it were in character for Bella to name a baby that and generally made sense in the context of the story, that's fine, but just naming it for the sake of naming it is forced and OOC. Just the author dictating to the characters how things will be rather than letting them develop on their own.

[dove-cg.livejournal.com]

Hrmm... scales would have worked better, yes.

Now I'm imagining scale-mail and chain-mail vampires. And it is much more awesome than sparkly marble vampies. :D

[acdragonmaster.livejournal.com]

Scales at least actually EXIST in nature.

Or alternatively, articulated exoskeletons.

[jacedraccus.livejournal.com]

I think that she has a fixation on statues, and tried to come up with a biological justification for making her vampires into living statues. It's really not clear to me whether it's just their skin that is crystalline, or their flesh in total. She DOES say that nothing can scratch a vampire's eye. Not to mention the fact that it's not just lubricant, it's _cellular_ lubricant... And yes, some form of scales, or just super-dense flesh, would have been much better than making them out of stone.

As for the name. Yes.

[acdragonmaster.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's still a misunderstanding of biology (cellular bonds aren't necessarily the same as those on a larger scale), but a smaller one than it looks at first glance. Just getting the wrong idea and then failing at properly researching it. It could even be scales with properties that resemble stone, if you really wanted, I suppose, but fantasy-science only works if it's mostly believable to begin with.

[kippurbird.livejournal.com]

Chain mail is created with large gaps in between that aren't as tightly packed as cells need to be. The lubricant just makes no sense.

regarding the name Renesmee, the true problem is evident if you reread her comment and pause to think about it a moment- it's a name Meyers chose, not Bella. If it were in character for Bella to name a baby that and generally made sense in the context of the story, that's fine, but just naming it for the sake of naming it is forced and OOC. Just the author dictating to the characters how things will be rather than letting them develop on their own.

Naming characters is difficult, on the one hand, yes you are choosing a name for them, on the other hand it has to be a logical reason for them to have it. To fit in. And in the case of babies, yes, it has to be in character for someone to name a baby XYZ

[acdragonmaster.livejournal.com]

Right, but Meyers' is thinking that those gaps and her "lubricant" are interchangeable, when that's not really how it works.

And yeah, character names are difficult, but making them fit in is ALWAYS important. Just choosing a name arbitrarily and not considering it within the scope of the story is ridiculous. (I once spent a long time debating just how to spell a character's surname once so the phonetics didn't conflict with other names in the region, before I decided that the difference could be account for by the fact of it being a much older name than most, for example...)

[dove-cg.livejournal.com]

... INCUBUS?! YOU... IT'S DHAMPHIR! DHAMPHIR, you little ass-hat of a pointless writer! I'm sorry but as someone who spent half her life reading about mythological things for fun and retaining much of the information (not to mention having a simple basic knowledge of how to do research), I'm disgusted with her mistake. Even if she knew the right word and simply said/typed the wrong thing. -_-;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhampir

Not to mention, I have a character loosely based on Inccubi and Succubi. She's actually more of a combination of Nightmare, fire elemental, and Succubus but I like her. She's sexy for a humanoid with hooves, she's capable of tapping deep down into human fear, and she consumes everything in the same manner as a fire... yet she was raised by a human sorcerer from childhood... technically abducted, the sorcerer couldn't/wouldn't return her, so her biological Incubus/Fire elemental father took over any home this guy could ever own and forced him to roam the world until he agreed to give her back... but by then the sorcerer viewed her as being adopted. So she tries to act as human as possible, with sometimes comical and other times annoying or deadly results. It's like I Love Lucy only stupider and mine. XD

Er... I'll stop rambling now. Back on topic!

I hope her books lose popularity within a few years and fall by the wayside. I really hope. Because if she produces more books that get huge numbers of raving fans (and she already has one stand alone book called Host though it's about aliens and plausibly less popular), I will be horribly depressed. ;P

[jacedraccus.livejournal.com]

I thought she was saying the Incubus inspired her to have Edward able to father children?

Dhampir would be the right term for Renesmee though, yeah...

And yours sounds interesting. :)

[dove-cg.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I was too upset at that time to respond correctly. You're right, I was thinking of what Renesmee was. But the point is, IF she had done good research, she should be mentioning how the legends of the Dhampir inspired the idea of a MALE VAMPIRE being fertile! Not an Incubus, which (as Kippur mentioned), is not a vampire at all. But then again, I believe the website Meyers the Dumbass went to was also previously mentioned by Kippur or others as being full of misinformation. So clearly that was the only place Meyers actually looked. XD

And thank you! :D

[jacedraccus.livejournal.com]

I feel obliged to comment that if you're leading up to a Big Fight only to realise that the only possible outcome is for 90% of your cast, heroes AND villains, to DIE...

... there is something seriously fucking WRONG with your story.

[dove-cg.livejournal.com]

It depends on if there is an apocalypse going on. Otherwise, I agree with you. 90% is incredibly high and makes me think she wasn't examining her own ideas clearly enough. Or that she was exaggerating. Or that her vampires were too fucking unrealistically powerful. XD

[jacedraccus.livejournal.com]

Well, it's one thing if 90% die off as the story progresses. It's common for horror stories, after all.

Or if it's, as you say, some sort of apocalypse story and it's sort of expected that pretty much everyone is going to die. Most works I know of don't do this unless it's some kind of morality story or something philosophical. I think Evangelion is an example of this...

But if 90% of your characters will die in one battle... I pick options A and C. She obviously hasn't examined any of her own ideas clearly enough, and they're too unrealistically powerful.

[indongcho.livejournal.com]

Okay, that whole age thing? Bullshit. People have been marrying others that are younger or older than them and they still have good relationships. Hell, not so recently women used to get married when they were just out of puberty to men sometimes twice their age and they still made it work.

I don't have much time for commenting, since it's really late, but...I love you for saying that.

And the issue of fights...sheesh. I think it's fine not to have a big climatic battle...but, yes, only if it's reasonable for that series. For instance a very political series. After a book of mostly political maneuvering and political marraiges, it stands to reason that a new conflict is most likely going to be resolved that way. In a book with super-powerful vampires? Either a fight or decent history explaining why they tend not to fight- maybe the difficulty in killing each other has led them to seek other methods of resolving problems. Something besides trying to force your characters away from harm.

And Bella being a strong character? That's as depressing in its own way as Meyer's explanation of why Edward isn't abusive.