Could you imagine if edward had just been some regular dude like fucking around with bella and she said with the utmost confidence “i know what you are…..you’re a vampire” and he’s just out there alone with her in the middle of the forest like

the funniest thing in twilight is when bella thinks that the guy she has a crush on might be a vampire so she goes home and just googles the word “vampire” it’s ridiculous but also exactly what I would do in that situation

I am sorry for the non-book related post but its been 10 minutes and I am still laughing.

This is what Bella’s reaction should have been.

Mary Sue, what are you? or why the concept of Sue is sexist

Looks like this essay was needed, so I went ahead and did it. Not sure I said everything I wanted to say, but I tried.

So, there’s this girl. She’s tragically orphaned and richer than anyone on the planet. Every guy she meets falls in love with her, but in between torrid romances she rejects them all because she dedicated to what is Pure and Good. She has genius level intellect, Olympic-athelete level athletic ability and incredible good looks. She is consumed by terrible angst, but this only makes guys want her more. She has no superhuman abilities, yet she is more competent than her superhuman friends and defeats superhumans with ease. She has unshakably loyal friends and allies, despite the fact she treats them pretty badly.  They fear and respect her, and defer to her orders. Everyone is obsessed with her, even her enemies are attracted to her. She can plan ahead for anything and she’s generally right with any conclusion she makes. People who defy her are inevitably wrong.

 God, what a Mary Sue.

I just described Batman.

  Wish fulfillment characters have been around since the beginning of time. The good guys tend to win, get the girl and have everything fall into place for them. It’s only when women started doing it that it became a problem.

TV Tropes on the origin of Mary Sue:

The prototypical Mary Sue is an original female character in a fanfic who obviously serves as an idealized version of the author mainly for the purpose of Wish Fulfillment.

Notice the strange emphasis on female here. TV Tropes goes on to say that is took a long time for the male counterpart “Marty Stu” to be used. “Most fanfic writers are girls” is given as the reason. So when women dominate a genre, that means people are on close watch, ready to scorn any wish fulfillment they may engage in. This term could only originate if the default was female.

 In fact, one of the CONTROVERSIES listed on the TV Tropes page is if a male sue is even possible. That’s right, it’s impossible to have an idealizied male character. Men are already the ideal.

 In our culture, male tends to be the default. Women take on the distaff parts. “Him” and “mankind” are what humanity are, “her” and “womankind” are secondary. Yet this isn’t true for Mary Sue as a term. That name was created first. It was a Star Trek fic that coined it and the female desigination was likely a big reason it caught on. This female is name the default to use when describing idealized characters. Marty Stu and Gary Stu are only to be used if you’re discussing men specifically.  Heck, there isn’t even an agreed upon term for them. So the only time female can be default is when discussing a badly written character, someone who is more powerful or important or liked than they should be allowed to be, someone the plot focuses on more than you would like, someone you don’t want to read about. Hmmm.

 What’s really wrong with a thirteen year old girl having a power fantasy, even if it’s badly written?  Who is it hurting? Men have baldly admitted to writing power fantasies and self inserts since the beginning of time. How many nerdy, schlubby guys suddenly become badasses and have hot girls chasing after them in fiction? See: Spiderman- blatant everyman who happens to  stumble across amazing powers and catch the eye of a supermodel.  Mary Sue is considered the worst insult to throw at a character as it renders them worthless. But since when are idealized characters automatically worthless? Aren’t all heroes idealized in some way? Don’t all heroes represent the author in some way? Aren’t these characters supposed to be people we look up to, people who represent human potential, the goodness that we strive for? Fantasy by nature is idealized, even the tragic ones.

 If you look at the TV Tropes page for Mary Sue, it’s ridiculous. You can be a sue for having too many flaws, or not enough, for fixing things or messing things up, for being a hero or a villain. And of course, this is specifically pointed out as a trope related to the Princess and Magical Girl genres- genres aimed towards women are naturally full of Mary Sues.  Magical girls are powerful and heroic and actually flaunt femininity as a good thing. They are a power fantasy designed for girls. So of course, a girl using traditionally feminine traits to dominate and triumph means she’s a sickeningly pure Mary Sue who makes everything go their way. Feminine traits are disdained and look down on, so when the positive feminine traits are prominent, the reader has an aversive reaction. How can a character be so feminine and triumph? She must be unrealistic, she must be badly written, because everyone knows it is impossible to be feminine and powerful.

 Let’s look at what kinds of Mary Sues people will point to. People will claim a female character is a Mary Sue if she is a love interest. Put a female character within a foot of a male character, and people will scream “Mary Sue!” Why does someone falling in love with her make her a Mary Sue? Well, she hasn’t “earned” this awesome dude character’s love. What has she done to show she’s worthy of him? Fans miss the irony that this line of logic makes the male character seem more like the Sue in Question, as he’s apparently so perfect one has work for his coveted love and praise.

  The idea that woman has to “earn” any power, praise, love, or plot prominence is central to Mary Sue.  Men do not have to do this, they are naturally assumed to be powerful, central and loveable. That’s why it’s the first thing thrown at a female character- what has she done to be given the same consideration as a male character? Why is she suddenly usurping a male role? “Mary Sue” is the easiest way to dismiss a character. It sounds bad to say “I don’t like this female character. I don’t like that this woman is powerful. I don’t like it when the plot focuses on her. I don’t like that a character I like has affections for her.”  But “Mary Sue” is a way to say these things without really saying them. It gives you legitimacy.

 If a character is badly written, there’s generally something much more problematic than idealization going on. The plot will be dull and the character will perpetuate harmful stereotypes while other characters act oddly.  For instance, Bella Swan is one of the only characters I’d even begin to classify as a Mary Sue, yet it’s not really her supposed Mary Sue traits that bother me. I don’t mind that she gets what she wants and everyone loves her, that she’s Meyer’s power fantasy. What I actually mind is that Stephenie Meyer has her perpetuate harmful anti-woman stereotypes- women need to be protected, women are shallow, women’s worth rests in desirability. That’s what’s actually harmful about her and worth discussing. I would criticize that rather than even get to the fact Bella got to be “too perfect and powerful”- that’s just a tiny, insignificant thing not worth mentioning in a huge pile of problems.

 And that’s why I don’t call characters Mary Sue anymore. There’s really nothing bad about a power fantasy or wish fulfillment. It’s what’s fiction’s about.  If one of my characters is called a Sue, I’ll proudly say “yep”, because that must mean that she broke out of that box a female character is supposed to be in.  So I’ll go and say it: I love me some Mary Sues.

NPR’s Linda Holmes reviews Twilight Breaking Dawn, Pt. 1 (via diandrabird)

Amen.

(via allieharch)

I put this quote up on my Facebook while a bit ago, and it’s actually generated quite the debate among folks there.

Here’s my take (if you don’t feel like hearing my ramblings, feel free to move along to the animated gif above this post or the latest pro/con OWS post below on your dash.  I don’t mind):

It concerns me greatly that moms all over the world will be taking their pre-tween, tween, and teen daughters to the cinema to see this film.  We live in a culture where one in four women have been the victim of some form of domestic abuse, whether it be from a spouse, boyfriend, or other family member.  And those are the ones that we actually know about, where they’ve actually either been reported to authorities or provided by womens’ shelters that protect victims and their families.

A very common message these women hear from their abuser is the line: “I’m so sorry.  I really didn’t mean it.  It won’t happen again, I promise.”  And they hear this over and over and over and over again.

Ok, admittedly, I am hyper-sensitive to this issue because I’m the father of two beautiful young girls.  I know as they get older that they are going to be bombarded with messages like:

Twilight has been specifically targeted, marketed, and packaged in a pretty little blood-stained bow towards young women.  Sadly, it’s also been heavily embraced by many of these young women’s mothers as well, who read these books and see these movies right alongside their girls, seemingly placing their stamp of approval on the content within.  It’s heartbreaking.

This post isn’t to try and convince people how to parent.  Hell, I’m still learning, and most days feel like I have no idea what I am doing.  Consider this more of a plea.  An appeal, rather.  I look at my role as Arwen and Greer’s father as the single most important thing I will do in this life.  How I treat them, what I say, and how I treat my wife, their mother, not only in front of them, but behind closed doors, will be the things that will stick with them throughout their entire life.  I need to be a model of what love and respect really looks, sounds and feels like.  Stacie and I have a huge responsibility to them to model what that looks like, and teach them that their worth doesn’t come from clothes, money, looks, a romantic relationship or lack thereof.  And we need to be making sure that when they are exposed to messages, images, whatever, that is contrary to those things, that we remind them of how beautiful, precious, special, and amazing they are.

I could go on and on.  But I’ll end here.  Twilight sucks.  Only take your kids if you want to show them what NOT to do.

Reporting from Helm’s Deep with Hugs and Unicorns,

Ralph

(via helms-deep)

I agree. The Twilight Saga does not offer positive themes; in fact, it offers detrimental themes. It teaches girls to be weak and dependent instead of strong and independent. It’s depressing how many girls really revel in the horrible story-line of an abusive relationship. Please think about Twilight and you’ll realize how fucked up it is. Whether or not you find it entertaining, I ask you to evaluate its worth. Evaluate what it teaches the youth. It’s not a positive influence. Boycott Twilight.

(via simplyopinions)

helms-deep’s commentary was 100% spot on.

(via sanityscraps)

There was also the fact that Breaking Dawn shoved a pro-life message into the mix.  The fetus was killing Bella, but she refused to have an abortion (her choice, but seriously, the message is there for impressionable girls, the life of a fetus is worth more than the mother’s).  Anytime the fetus was called anything but a baby, the speaker was usually corrected immediately.

Breaking Dawn, and the Twilight series in total, is a lesson in how to subjugate women and keep them as nothing more than pretty princesses that need men to help them.

(via timholtorf)

To all of you:

Truth

mundanemundie:

^YES TO ALL OF THE ABOVE

TROLL IN THE DUNGEON!!