![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Repost #3
Repost #3! Arghhh...I don't have the specific address on Ana's blog to link back to. BUT! I at least have the link to her blog overall, so I don't remember the specific prompt (but, yes, it's related to Twilight). Besides, you should all get a taste of her awesome-sauceness in the long run. ;)
http://www.anamardoll.com/
Apologies ahead of time and much love to one and all!
Hmmm…I think I just came up with a new theory about Bella’s snark, whining, etc…
For my theory, I’m going to go with the assumption that Bella is an idealized self insert for Stephenie Meyer. Now, Mrs. Meyer herself grew up in a place where being a ‘good girl’ was not only expected but considered natural, right? And with the Curse of the Good Girl, you do not speak the way Bella does to everyone in her life.
And this is where I think her snark is part of a fantasy: it’s the gift/ability to be able to speak and act as Bella does…and not have any consequences that come with it. You can hold your hands up to your dad in ‘warding off’ manner and slam his cruiser door; he won’t say an admonishing word to you, much less slap you in the mouth. You can act like you’ve got PMS with your future boyfriend/husband; he, too, won’t do/say much but storm off in a rage similar to your own. You can basically refuse to comfort and reassure your mom over the phone; hell, she’s never done/said anything to you for your behavior in the first place. So what is a threat over the phone going to be? And besides, she owes you more respect than you do her; you’re the one that was bringing the bread and butter in. And then you even had to be the one to cook that bread and butter. What power does Renee have? None. Overall, I think we’re looking at a fantasy of someone who was taught to bear the Curse of the Good Girl all her life.
Therefore, Bella’s neuroticism isn’t meant to be seen as immature, childish, or unlikable. We’re meant to see her as Stephenie Meyer probably sees her: empowered. Very, very, very empowered. In this fantasy, you answer and bow to no one. Yet despite your lack of amicability, you’re still loved and made the center of everyone’s universe.
Now, as Neytiri says, I think this is sad. Very sad, only. Bella Swan isn’t the first female protagonist to be ‘empowered’ in this way, and she certainly won’t be the last. This trope that females are only so powerful as their ‘bitchy’ or ‘like a diva’ is taken by many as one of the main keys to feminism. Now of course, this is terrible and clearly not even close to the definition of feminism and empowerment (at least, for me). Like Ana said, it only makes the character appear immature, childish, petty and overall selfish.
I think this also ties into Charlie and Renee’s apparent lack of proper [non-hesitant] communication. Again, this is part of Bella’s empowerment; Charlie and Renee’s communication is in the backseat because everything that is said and done is on Bella’s terms. If you think about it, most parents would burst out laughing if their child started demanding that they fork out about ten grand (that was your estimate, right Ana?) to go back and forth between Arizona to California and Washington to California. Yet, it seems that Bella gets her way in that department-and others-seamlessly. And I think the best part for Stephenie Meyer is where you don’t even have to say thank you or consider what the costs of accommodating you when you ‘put your foot down’ are.
Essentially, you get to turn that strict, parental-centered environment on its own table; the parents become the children and the children become the parents. That’s what I read when Bella mentally refers to her parents as ‘Charlie’ and ‘Renee’. They’re not really her parents, just overgrown children that have given her power. Therefore, they forgo the honorifics and affections of ‘mama’ and ‘daddy’.
http://www.anamardoll.com/
Apologies ahead of time and much love to one and all!
Hmmm…I think I just came up with a new theory about Bella’s snark, whining, etc…
For my theory, I’m going to go with the assumption that Bella is an idealized self insert for Stephenie Meyer. Now, Mrs. Meyer herself grew up in a place where being a ‘good girl’ was not only expected but considered natural, right? And with the Curse of the Good Girl, you do not speak the way Bella does to everyone in her life.
And this is where I think her snark is part of a fantasy: it’s the gift/ability to be able to speak and act as Bella does…and not have any consequences that come with it. You can hold your hands up to your dad in ‘warding off’ manner and slam his cruiser door; he won’t say an admonishing word to you, much less slap you in the mouth. You can act like you’ve got PMS with your future boyfriend/husband; he, too, won’t do/say much but storm off in a rage similar to your own. You can basically refuse to comfort and reassure your mom over the phone; hell, she’s never done/said anything to you for your behavior in the first place. So what is a threat over the phone going to be? And besides, she owes you more respect than you do her; you’re the one that was bringing the bread and butter in. And then you even had to be the one to cook that bread and butter. What power does Renee have? None. Overall, I think we’re looking at a fantasy of someone who was taught to bear the Curse of the Good Girl all her life.
Therefore, Bella’s neuroticism isn’t meant to be seen as immature, childish, or unlikable. We’re meant to see her as Stephenie Meyer probably sees her: empowered. Very, very, very empowered. In this fantasy, you answer and bow to no one. Yet despite your lack of amicability, you’re still loved and made the center of everyone’s universe.
Now, as Neytiri says, I think this is sad. Very sad, only. Bella Swan isn’t the first female protagonist to be ‘empowered’ in this way, and she certainly won’t be the last. This trope that females are only so powerful as their ‘bitchy’ or ‘like a diva’ is taken by many as one of the main keys to feminism. Now of course, this is terrible and clearly not even close to the definition of feminism and empowerment (at least, for me). Like Ana said, it only makes the character appear immature, childish, petty and overall selfish.
I think this also ties into Charlie and Renee’s apparent lack of proper [non-hesitant] communication. Again, this is part of Bella’s empowerment; Charlie and Renee’s communication is in the backseat because everything that is said and done is on Bella’s terms. If you think about it, most parents would burst out laughing if their child started demanding that they fork out about ten grand (that was your estimate, right Ana?) to go back and forth between Arizona to California and Washington to California. Yet, it seems that Bella gets her way in that department-and others-seamlessly. And I think the best part for Stephenie Meyer is where you don’t even have to say thank you or consider what the costs of accommodating you when you ‘put your foot down’ are.
Essentially, you get to turn that strict, parental-centered environment on its own table; the parents become the children and the children become the parents. That’s what I read when Bella mentally refers to her parents as ‘Charlie’ and ‘Renee’. They’re not really her parents, just overgrown children that have given her power. Therefore, they forgo the honorifics and affections of ‘mama’ and ‘daddy’.