Team Rosalie (a guest post by Allie Garcia)
Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight saga has become a household name. Mothers and daughters alike—and even some fathers—have fallen in love with the romantic vampire novel. However, as Carmen Siering points out in her article “Taking a Bite Out of Twilight,” fans typically fall for either of the two main male characters—Edward or Jacob. The female protagonist of the saga, Bella Swan, does not seem to draw as much of a fan base and many fans actually seem to be annoyed by her. She is always in need of being rescued by a male—typically Edward—and rarely makes her own decisions. The few times that she does make decisions, she tends to make bad ones and again is in need of saving (Siering 52). Bella plays into typical female gender roles throughout the saga. She is quiet, submissive, domestic, modest, and dependant on the men in her life.
Bella is not the only female character that plays into these roles. Most of the other females—human or supernatural—fit into these roles as well. However, there is one female character that resists these gender roles. Rosalie, one of the female Cullen vampires, is the only female who seems to “break free of the male-dominated power structure” in the saga (Torkelson 14). She is the only female character who does not seem to mind voicing her opinion. In Twilight, Rosalie makes it clear to Bella and the entire Cullen family that she does not want Bella around. In this way, putting herself before Edward’s happiness (which, of course, should never be allowed considering that Edward is a man). Rosalie is far from modest. She is not afraid to admit that she is incredibly gorgeous and she seems to find pride in her looks. She also shows agency when it comes to choosing a mate. Inside of becoming Edward’s mate—which is what Carlise had intended when he changed her—she chose Emmett as her mate. In addition, Rosalie is the only female vampire in the Cullen coven who does not fully accept her life as a vampire (Torkelson 13), thus acknowledging that she had no choice in the matter, but rather her fate was left up to a man. To add to Rosalie’s power as a woman, she takes action to avenge herself once she becomes a vampire. Although Esme and Alice faced similar abuses in their previous lives, Rosalie is also the only one of the female characters who sought revenge on the men who raped and abused her while she was human (Torkelson 13).
It is interesting that the one female character that is actually seen standing up for herself, making her own choices, and not falling into the typical gender roles that the other female characters do is the one that is portrayed negatively. Rosalie is portrayed as being very snobbish, rude, and arrogant. In Twilight, she refuses to switch clothes with Bella to distract James from tracking her, which makes her seem like a cold-hearted, selfish person. In the film adaptation of Twilight, Rosalie is made out to be especially rude and stuck up. The scenes in which Rosalie is featured typically show her giving Bella dirty looks and being the only Cullen who is not welcoming or friendly. Even Jasper, who has the hardest time resisting human blood, is portrayed as being kind and welcoming to Bella. So why is it that the one female character that can actually be seen as empowering women is the one character that is portrayed in a negative fashion? Meyers’ development of her characters and portrayal of Rosalie highly reflects the way that our patriarchal society views women who resist gender roles. Rather than drooling over Edward or Jacob, more mothers and daughters should be sporting “Team Rosalie” shirts. By supporting Rosalie, they will be empowering themselves to be independent, outspoken, and to question the structures that oppress them.
Works Cited
Siering, Carmen D. “Taking a Bite Out of Twilight.” Ms. Magazine Spring 2009: 51-52.
Torkelson, Anne. “Violence, Agency, and the Women of Twilight.” : 1-24.
Seduced by Twilight 
I am Team Rosalie I think she is the only female in the book who is aggressive in a positive way. She knows what she wants and isn’t swayed by the decisions or views of others. When it comes to her background she strived to move up in one of the only professions open to her, marriage. She is aware of her own beauty and it’s affect on people and seems to be punished for this. She is unable to procreate and have children which seems to be a theme in the book. Leah, Esme and Rosalie can’t have children. Esme is content to have adopted children but both Rosalie and Leah voice their pain in being unable to conceive and raise their own children. Leah worries about her body no longer menstruating, she describes herself as a ‘genetic dead end.’ I think that we are encouraged to feel no sympathy for these characters. Leah is seen as a bitter woman who cannot feel happiness for her cousin Emily who has found happiness with her ‘true love.’ Rosalie is portrayed as selfish because she is the only character that is not caught in in Bella’s dilemmas. I do still feel sympathetic for these characters and wished they had been given a chance to have children as Edward was. I’m not sure about how other people feel about Bella but I hate they way she treats Jacob, especially during Eclipse where she leads him on.
Kimberly,
I think you make a very important point that we are not encouraged to feel sympathy for Leah or Rosalie — two of the potentially strongest women in the series if you ask me. Also, I wish Alice would have been given more of a voice within the saga as she too has the potential to be a very strong female character (whose strength is sadly somewhat hidden via all the textual focus on her love of fashion and make-overs…)
I do agree with you that Rosalie goes against the grain, but there were a couple things I was skeptical about.
1) I remember Emmett being attacked by a bear and Carlisle saving him. She chose Emmett later, I believe, but that was after Edward was not interested in her. She stated she wasn’t interested in him but not used to guys not liking her, so it sounds like she chose Emmett as second best instead of who she wanted. Had Edward been interested in her, I think she would’ve ended up with him.
2) Rosalie was seen as rude and arrogant because she actually was. She told Bella she was used to guys going after and that was the life she wanted to leave. Even the guy she chose before she became a vampire was because of his status and looks, not much for his personality. I wouldn’t wear a Team Rosalie shirt ever because of her initial views. She was way too into herself and pouted CONSTANTLY in “Midnight Sun.”
3) Bella stood up for herself repeatedly in “Breaking Dawn,” but you are right about her making bad decisions when she did finally stick up for herself. She was far more rude to Charlie than Rosalie was through the entire four-book collection.
4) I’m wondering why Alice wasn’t a choice. Alice wasn’t submissive to Jasper. Actually Jasper was more submissive to Alice because he was trying to be a vegetarian. Even when they practiced fighting in “Eclipse,” Alice was the only one who could really win a fight with him because she knew his next move. Edward wasn’t really winning as long as the fighter didn’t think about his next move first. Alice knew it regardless. Alice was also the one to give Bella the necessary details to get fake IDs in “Breaking Dawn.” While Jasper was the connect, Alice was the one to leave information behind. Didn’t she rescue Jasper from the vampire women, too?
Typo: I meant “life she wanted to live” not “leave.” If not for her vampire fiance, she would’ve lived a superficial human life with a guy she barely knew. I tried sympathizing with her beef for Bella since Bella did put the Cullen family in danger and constant drama, but when it turned out her reason was about jealousy because Edward liked Bella more than her although she was less attractive, that shut me down from Rosalie altogether.
Shamontiel,
Great points about Alice – as I’ve said elsewhere, I wish we heard more from (and about) her character. I feel all the emphasis on her as “pixie-like” and into party/wedding planning detracts from her more “grrrrl power” aspects as a character.
I like Rosalie a lot but her motivations were no because she was going against the grain out of any sense of feminism, but because that is the way she is. I do adore but Bella and Rosalie but I disagree that she is supposed to be portrayed negatively, her reasoning had sense in many ways even if she was motivated by jealousy of both Edward liking her and she being able to have babies.
Also everyone forgets that Bella wanted to be a vampire against Edward’s wishes, her father wishes and Jacob wishes. The three most important men on her life were against that wish and she fought teeth and nails for it till she get it and in the end she protected the Cullens from the Volturi. Just because she is not outspoken doesn’t make her any less standing up for herself. I mean Gandhi didn’t used weapons to free India, not everything had to be accomplished by speaking louder than everyone or using violence.
Also Rosalie was the only one that seeked revenge because she was the only one that was in position to do so. Esme had left her abusive husband for a while before what happened to her baby so there was not related to him and Alice didn’t remembered anything, and didn’t had actually anyone to blame about her condition, also her powers allowed to be able to have hope into a better life with her future mate and her future vegetarian family.
I will proudly wear a Team Rosalie T-shirt, but I would do the same for Team Bella, Team Alice, Team Leah, Team Esme…Why not all women can be individuals and embraced differently? This idea that just one type of women should be admire and cherished is really problematic to me. I adored Xena, Scully, Chloe Sullivan, Buffy and Bella. They are all great females in my book with different traits and attitudes and different worlds to manifest them, in the same vein I couldn’t see Buffy doing a good job on Scully’s place doesn’t mean that there is something wrong with her. Interchangeable female characters is not something I would like to see on fiction…It would be boring for starters and unrealistic for seconds.
Ana,
I agree that many other females also resist/show strength in addition to Rosalie. However, I wish that their strength was not always so tied to their status as wives/mothers/future mothers. It would be nice if we had one character not paired up with a male partner and/or that did not view motherhood as primary that was a good character rather than a villian (such as Jane and Victoria). I love Buffy too – and Xena – and Wonder Woman – but where is their equivalent in Twilight? Where is the Sidney Bristow or Hermione Granger? Yes, there are a lot of female characters, all with SOME good traits/strengths, but I don’t see any character that compares to the strength, wit, independence, intelligence, and ambition of Buffy… And that almost all the female characters define their lives via heteronormative coupling and mothering, that indeed seems not very 21st century empowering to me…
I don’t understand why not? Are women that wants to be mothers are heterosexual and in love somehow less powerful? I though the point was that all choices as long as made freely were powerful for women. Its almost like being a mother is something to be suspicious of while being childfree is not. Why is that just because feminism helped a lot of women trapped on their domesticity be free that all women consider domesticity a jail of some sorts.All choices should be supported and promoted as valid and not consider some choices invalid or less empowering. Alice loves fashion some women love fashion are they underpowered for it? She also contributes with a lot of money to the household and is the dominant one on her relationship with Jasper. Also I said above I don’t need copies of Hermione’s and Buffy’s to consider a female character powerful, within the universe I would say Bella was as witty as Hermione (figuring out that Victoria was behind the attacks for example) and more ambitious given that instead of chicken out after all the issues she had working against her wish to become a vampire she was strongth enough to endure them and get what she wanted. Its all a matter of the universe at hand and the context.
Another thing I don’t understand is that Twilight is a romance in romance all the characters are supposed to be paired up. Its a definition of the genre so I was expecting all characters get their pair at some point. I don’t think how anyone could expect anything less is the same issue people have with the happy ending. Its another thing that defines romance genre. Here is a definition by Wikipedia:
“According to the Romance Writers of America, the main plot of a romance novel must revolve around the two people as they develop romantic love for each other and work to build a relationship together. Both the conflict and the climax of the novel should be directly related to that core theme of developing a romantic relationship, although the novel can also contain subplots that do not specifically relate to the main characters’ romantic love. Furthermore, a romance novel must have an “emotionally satisfying and optimistic ending.” Others, including Leslie Gelbman, a president of the Berkley Group, use a more shortened definition, that a romance must make the “romantic relationship between the hero and the heroine … the core of the book.”[2] In general, romance novels reward characters who are good people and penalize those who are evil, and a couple who fights for and believes in their relationship will likely be rewarded with unconditional love.[1] Bestselling author Nora Roberts sums up the genre, saying “The books are about the celebration of falling in love and emotion and commitment, and all of those things we really want.”[3] Women’s fiction (including chick lit) is not directly a subcategory of the romance novel genre, because in women’s fiction the heroine’s relationship with her family or friends may be equally as important as her relationship with the hero.[2]”
Of course there are variations on this but is pretty much the whole point of the romance genre to have everyone on romantic pairings and in Smeyer book the only one that have no romantic partner is Leah and she will get her whole book to probably get one.
Another point I disagree is that Rosalie or Leah are depicted un purpose negatively or encourage the read as negative characters, they both are antagonist to Bella but it doesn’t mean that they are negatively portrayed even when hating Bella, Rosalie supported her choice of being with Edward and defending him when he kidnapped her, her issues with the maternity and humanity were coloring her relationship with her but aside from that she helped to protect her during the events of Eclipse even before Reneesmegate and even Bella sympathized with Leah when she found out about what happened both with Sam and with her father. I think if Smeyer wanted to make anyone look bad she had Bella to do that and she never did, not even with Rosalie that she always called beautiful and who she tried to make amends as much as possible as well. And I would say that Rosalie was rewarded with a family that loved her, a good man and later the kid she never had and even Leah became a happier person after leaving Sam’s pack so And I would say that Rosalie was rewarded with a family that loved her, a good man and later the kid she never had she counted as one of the good ones as well and even Leah became a happier person after leaving Sam’s pack. So given that the good guys get a better life on this type’s of books I think Rosalie or Leah are in the good say. Not all to happy at the beginning but they both had their journey’s to fulfill.
Oh I wanted to bring a quote about feminism regarding to Bella that Stephenie placed on her site. I think it will be good to see her POV about it.
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.
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.
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.
Ana,
Thanks for citing this. I write about this at length in my book and realized perhaps a post on this quote of Meyer’s is overdue…
I agree that Rosalie is more independent than some other female characters in the saga and that she’s the only one taking revenge and questioning her existence. It is interesting that she is portrayed so negatively for the fact that she took revenge – that’s an intersting point!
But I think it’s dagerous to present Rosalie as the great feminist role model! She is still very much tapped in traditional gender roles: the great grief of her life is that she will never be a mother, which seems to be the only thing she builds her identiy on. She is also constantly obsessed with her looks and being desirable for men. I she questions her life as a vampire mainly because this very traditonal life as mother and wife has been taken away from her. The fact that the transformation can also be seen as an act of rape is less emphasized. I think she would be happy as a vampire, if she could have a child? She also tells Bella to have Renesmee, even when the pregnancy almost kills her….not very empowering I think…
It’s an interesting perspective, but I think it’s dangerous to use Rosalie as an icon of empowerment for young women. I think Alice would be a better role model?
AstiE7,
I don’t know that any character is an icon of empowerment in the saga — I wish their were one! It is great that we are given so many female characters, but I wish there was one semi-Buffy in the mix…
@ Shamontiel: That is exactly the point – Rosalie was behaving rudely and arrogantly, but she was because her author made her. Why is it that Meyer makes her only female character who is not self-sacrificing appear snobbish and selfish? (Remember that in New Moon it is also Rosalie who is made responsible of Edward’s almost killing himself and Bella’s and Alice’s almost dying with him.) There is a scene in Eclipse where Edward and Bella talk about Wuthering Heights and Heathcliff’s and Catherine’s character flaws. In this scene, Bella argues that everything that went wrong between the two characters was Catherine’s fault alone because nothing is worse than a selfish woman. I find this statement so stupid it would be almost ridiculous if this way of argumentation was not dead serious for some people today still. Not only is Meyer’s definition and evalutation of “selfishness” questionable, but the author also sets double moral standards for men and women.
@ Ana: Of course, nothing is wrong about choosing to be a stay-at-home mom if that is what you really want to. The problem is that in Bella’s “choices”, one side was always desribed as morally wrong. It would have been immoral to have sex with Edward without being married to him, so Bella “chooses” to marry him first. It would have been cruel and cold-hearted to abort the baby, so she “chooses” to keep it. All these choices were choices between good and bad, so Bella only had one option if she wanted to remain “morally intact”, which somehow takes away the key feature of choice.
“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.” – Yes, of course. Stephenie Meyer married at 21, had three children in five years, and I believe having read that she never really planned on pursuing a career after college. Sometimes, I get the feeling that with Bella, she is just trying to justify her own life choices.
I never saw Bella’s choices as moral or immoral. Edward always said it was practical so he wouldn’t kill her and call it a sin HE didn’t committed and that is explained to how HE was raised. That is again a perception that can be shared by many and unshared by others including me.
Edward and Jacob both heroes of the story were in favor of the abortion so I don’t think the books try to sell the pro-choice more than in the way that it was Bella’s choice and the end.
Err Stephenie Meyer went to college and had a degree in literature. I think her and her husband actually went to the same college. So I have no idea where did you read that.
Also why would she need to justify her choices? She lives on a community where people marrying young is common, reflecting a personal believe that worked for you is I think a prerogative that all writers have I mean JK Rowling places a lot of importance to a mother’s love on her books, maybe because she is a mother herself I fail to see how is that supposed to be wrong or right. Its a choice many child free writers don’t have their characters marrying at all and having kids so should we think they are justifying their choices?
Re: Rosalie, immorality-morality choices.
First, Meyer DID present Rosalie as the only female character who was bold, assertive, snobbish, self-centered, egotistical and a bitch. But, after the birth of Renesmee, Rosalie softened; hence, the message here is “having kids improves character.” Rosalie’s role also became less prominent from that point onward in the book. She didn’t disappear, but she became, well… insignificant. Personally, I find that offensive. Why didn’t Rosalie remain “all that and a bag of chips?”Answer: because by doing so, Meyer would be violating her own personal code.
Like it or not–accept it or not, Meyer’s writing, just like any other author, let’s proverbial cats out of the bag. Meyer is a white, Mormon, married mother. She writes from that perspective. Renesmee is the result of that thinking via Meyer’s Mormonism. I won’t go into detail about her religion, but I will make a later post on the biology of Twilight’s vampires and how inane Meyer’s concept of vampire reproduction is.
There is one huge problem with the construct of sin throughout the saga. What is the sin against? Who is sinned against? Why is sex so much more of an issue in the books than murder (Edward, Rosalie, Jasper) and using one’s precog skills (Alice) in order to make money from the stock market. If I’m not mistaken, people have gone to jail over “insider information.”
Without a standard with which to compare sin, then what exactly makes sex a sin? Concupiscence? Edward and Bella have both succumbed to lust, but that is not a sin. Sex is a sin outside the institution of marriage and there is such a big deal made about the act that until Bella evolves into a supernatural being, sex will cause her injury and death. Bella must be better than human, married, and possess fantastic powers before she can enjoy sex. But again, why must all of this occur without a definitive standard of morality?
If you say morality for morality’s sake, then how can you justify that idea? If you say that Meyer “assumes” everyone knows what she’s referring to in the act of sinning, then you must acknowledge her Mormonism. I find it quite a quandary and I agree with Karoline. There are double standards afoot in the novels, as well as a play on what is good and what is bad. And we never know the ideal, the touchstone, or the criterion that determines that murdering bad people is okay, but sex before marriage is not.
Lin,
I am sitting her mentally clapping to your comment. Thank you for your thoughtful, well-argued, and detailed response!
I do agree that Rosalie is a strong female character, but I do not agree that she is the only one. Beyond Alice’s obsessions with fashion and shopping, she is actually quite outspoken. I agree with whoever it was above that said Jasper is actually submissive to Alice. In Midnight Sun Jasper is all for killing Bella to protect them from the threat, but it is because of Alice that Jasper backs down. She is also the one that followed Edward to Italy to save him, not allowing Jasper to go with her so she could protect him.
My issue with Twilight is that I feel Meyer does not do a good job with characterization. I feel many of her characters fall flat. Esme is supposed to be the most loving character and wonderful mother, but I think she has about four lines of dialogue and zero personality. Renee is the most pathetic character in the world to me. Bella references Renee as her best friend and then seems to be annoyed that she has to keep in touch with her. Charlie goes from being mildly over protective to pathetic in Breaking Dawn with his “need to know” rule.
My biggest issue is with the characterization of Bella. At first read I thought wow she is so relatable. I understand where she is coming from. Even the second read I still bought into her characterization. The third read I was more critical and because of that, I see why Bella seems so relatable. She doesn’t have a real solid identity. In a way she is like most girls in high school. She has low self-esteem and defines herself by her relationships. She seems to exist solely to be Edward’s girlfriend/wife/soulmate. She has no dreams beyond being with Edward. In Breaking Dawn because the tracker can’t track her, she technically could run off with Renesmee to protect her, but she chooses not to because if Edward is going to die, so is she. Bella never seems to outgrow this and mature. The younger readers of the series are as confused as Bella, and she offers them the notion that this is the way to happiness. Absolutely it is a fantasy, but in a world where the divorce rate it so high and girls are being taught to find love fast and get married too young, this is the wrong message to send them. For three books Renee is said to be against this, you expect her to be a voice of reason for this situation because she lived through it. She is like many other statistics, married too young and divorced because she wasn’t ready. There isn’t a voice of reason in the books. The characters who aren’t happy about the pairing like Rosalie and Leah are made to seem like angry, bitter, non-sympathetic characters. Personally Leah is one of my favourite characters. I love how angry she is. She is the result of what many young girls who make Bella’s choice end up as. The all-consuming love they are lost in, ends up hurting them and they develop trust issues and can’t let go of their emotional baggage. If anything Leah is actually the character girls should be identifying with and seeing as a type of heroine. She is almost the only character in the book who isn’t paired up at the end. All of the Cullen’s are, even the baby of the family has met her mate (Don’t get me started on imprinting), Charlie is paired with Sue. The only other characters I can think of off of the top of my head are Seth and Embry, but Seth is portrayed as childlike, almost prepubescent in his naivety, and Embry was never really a main character.
First let me clarify: Embry imprinted as well, Seth didn’t imprinted possibly because he was too young to be considered old enough to have any kind of mate or because in the book of Leah he will have also his own romantic line.
Second: So Bella should had let the Cullens and her husband to die when she finally had the chance to return the favor and protect them, after all the times they all risked their existence to protect her to show that she was a strong independent woman? Really?
I’m Team Bella and if after all the times she referenced as wanting to become a vampire to stop being a liability and actually help she would had run away like a coward from the fight I would totally be anti-Bella and ask for a vampire divorce right away.
Reneesme was innocent on this events and didn’t had the capacity to protect the Cullens so it made sense to Bella to sent her to safety with Jacob and to find trusted guardians like Alice and Jasper, that was the most she could do a this point. Turning away from the fight and leaving her husband, her new family and all her witnesses that were also willing to fight to save her daughter, to save number one makes no sense and would had made Bella look like an ungrateful brat and a coward. No power in running from a fight to save your butt IMO, whether male or female.
Had Bella made the choice to leave with Renesmee to protect their daughter, it would have made her a stronger mother in my opinion. She up and decides that she has to die because Edward is going to, rather than be the one to run off with Renesmee because she cannot be tracked. Personally I think it’s better to leave Renesmee with one parent, than to orphan the child because Bella can’t live in a world without Edward. That is pathetic to me. If I was the best chance to keep my child safe, than I would do so and I would hope that if the situation were reversed and my husband stood the best chance to keep our child safe that he would do so. At that point Bella expected there to be no hope and yet she still chooses to trust someone else to protect her child so she doesn’t have to live without Edward. I don’t find that a particularly mature decision. If Rosalie had been Renesmee’s best chance, do you think she would have hesitated to do what she had to so she could protect her? I doubt it.
Embry did not imprint. At the end Jake imprinted on Renesmee, Paul on Rachael, Sam on Emily, Jared on Kim and Quil on Claire.
Well done! Very interesting indeed.
And, hey, you mention thay Esme and Alice went through similar abuses when human. Are we saying that “something” happened to Alice, meaning that James wanted more than blood? I don’t know, I’ve always had that theory, and since you’re discussing this “rape culture” it would be interesting to know your opinion about this.
Rosalie is indeed a wonderful woman, strong and determined. However, I think the others shouldn’t be considered weaker because their dream lives consist on more feminin wishes.
Women nowadays are more focused on a career, job, etc., and tend not to appreciate the good old things such as marriage and motherhood, instead regarding them as old-fashioned and even negative, a view with which I totally disagree. In my opinion, the concept of feminism is now overrated and taken to extremes.
I’m Team Jalice. not Jasper, not Alice, Jalice. I see them as a whole, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with depending on your partner. Maybe it’s not that obvious with Jalice, but if we take a look at imprinting, can we really criticize the devotion that the wolves and their girls (or boy, if Leah imprints) feel for each other?
Embry imprinted on a girl that sat next to him on class for a whole year before he phased and who had a crush on him. It was mentioned whether or New Moon or Eclipse.
And we have to agree to disagree on the issue of Bella staying to fight alongside her husband that risked his own family several times to save her as well.
I don’t quite know the literary rules for this, but I consider Bella to be an unreliable narrator. The reader can (and mostly likely) often figures out what are otherwise mysteries to Bella. I know I found myself waiting for her to catch up several times.
Therefor, I don’t consider Bella’s interpretation of certain characters to be always correct. Although they are Meyer’s words, I think Meyer believes this too considering that she wrote ‘Midnight Sun’ which fills the reader in on things Bella didn’t/couldn’t know or just didn’t notice.
While Rosalie does prove with her own words that she is self-centered and shallow, she is not inherently bad & “bitchy” as portrayed in Bella’s observations.
Personally, I am TEAM LEAH as Rosalie diminishes significantly due to her baby lust in the last book.
Well even though that I agree that Bella is not a reliable narrator (see Bree or Midnight Sun) Bella never called Rosalie bitchy and in fact tried to win her approval in various occasions and if anything Midnight Sun placed her on a worst light given that her jealousy over Edward liking (not even in a relationship with her yet) Bella got so petty that she was willing to kill her after the accident (something she only did for revenge in all her existence). I won’t call her bad because of this but a moment of weakness that she snapped on (and I personally thing that she wouldn’t go through with it if she ever got to that point)