Time (pg. 84-93)

We've got a short one today, but I know that upon writing that I've just jinxed myself. One of the problems in writing this blog is that sometimes I have to make choices about what I want to write about. Last week's entry covered a rather large portion of the book but there was one central idea that occurred in the section. This week we have a short section, but it isn't really a section at all since absolutely nothing happens. We left off with a Bella's incoherent, but not out of character, rambling after being dumped by Edward. We must remember that the reason that Edward dumped Bella is because they are different creatures, not because he didn't love her or anything else. His reasoning is actually valid, their relationship would be like that of a snake and a rat. One of them just really wants to eat the other.

Out of this breakup we discover that before it happened Edward broke into Bella's room and stole the picture of himself. Because somehow that will make the breakup easier. Bella is shocked by this but regards it with some admiration. She's just had her heart broken for a reason that was apparent when they first met, so at this point it's pretty arbitrary, and still she can't assert herself enough to admit that he might not be perfect. She goes to sleep. And then we have today's actual section. This happens in September, which we know because the new school year had just started.

This is the entirety of pg. 85 "October."

Alright, it is a chapter heading...but then here is the entirety of pg. 86"        "

Here's pg. 87 "November"

This continues to January on Pg. 91 and on 93 the story resumes. That's eight pages discussing the passage of time. with four words on those eight pages. At first I thought it silly, then stupid, now utterly pointless as a waste of time. Granted it only wasted a minute or two but those are minutes I want back. The problem for me is that I understand why Meyer did it, and that's because I understand what sloppy writing is through my own early attempts at writing fiction.

We start out with October, which is fine if something happens in October. Since nothing does we quickly skip over to November and on and on until January. What we should have read after Bella goes to sleep on pg. 84 was "January" on pg. 85 and perhaps a line in the very beginning of that paragraph which read something like "It was now winter, and going back to school after winter break was going to be difficult..." or even a more trite "four months had passed and it still wasn't getting easier."

Placing those eight pages like she did reminds me of Lord of the Rings. No, not the books or the Peter Jackson trilogy but rather the, uh interesting Ralph Bakishi animated version that comprised the first two books of the trilogy. People who only know the Jackson movies miss the fact that the story takes place over a period of many years. Between Bilbo's leaving the Shire and Frodo leaving the Shire a number of years pass, 17 in fact. It is 3001 of the third age when Bilbo turns 111, it is the 3018 when Frodo leaves the Shire with Sam and the ring. This is glossed over in Jackson's movies because it lends to a sense of panic--that Gandalf made haste to determine whether or not Bilbo's ring was the one they were looking for. Bakishi goes a different route. He has an external shot of Bag End in the summer and then runs through a change of seasons, eight or nine times at high speed. Just so we get the sense of the passing of time. The only time that passes is ours, because a simple subtitle would suffice both in Meyer's book and in the movie.

The other problem with this abrupt time shift is that are we really to believe that nothing of any importance happens to her in the next four months? Our main issue with Bella is that she has no life outside of the person that she is attached to, in this case Edward. Bella identifies herself solely as Edward's girlfriend now that he is gone, she has to establish her identity. Even less philosophical, she was just dumped by a person who, for some reason, is the love of her life. Wouldn't a chapter or so of immediate post break up psychological exploration be something teenage girls would be interested in? Maybe it's just me, but wouldn't writing for your audience be a good thing? It's why Kevin Smith works in at least one star wars reference in every film, while it may seem pandering it works. Here it ought to be necessary we have many questions to ask about what happened in October:

1) did she go to school?
2) how did her friends react?
3) what exactly did she do to pass the time?

Instead we are left to make assumptions about these four months in which I guess she just laid in her bed. It sounds pretty lame but if there's no water we have to drink something.

The Plunge (Pg. 65-84)

After Bella is done considering how ugly she is in the mirror, she decides that she might as well face the music and deal with Edward. First though she has a plan, "I decided that, if I couldn't talk to him today, really talk, then I was going to see Carlisle tomorrow. I had to do something."

While it's hard to be accurate (mostly because I'm not going back and counting) it's been a couple of days since the party where Ed almost killed Bella. In that time, Edward has gotten distant leading Bella to doubt her future with the god among men which has motivated her to do--nothing. She's done nothing, she hasn't really tried to corner him into a conversation. I mean, she sort of has, but then he waves it off as being nothing dropping the subject. Bella, of course, can't bring it up again for fear of displeasing her master, er boyfriend. During the last novel I discusses many times that Edward was an abusive boyfriend, he made all of the decisions for the two of them and for her alone, but also that she's at the point where she's obviously in fear of displeasing him. So much so that she won't even confront Edward about the distance between them, but would rather go behind his back to his "dad" to figure out what is going on. That's either indicative that she is psychological enthralled by him or that she's such a chicken shit that she won't even try to talk to the source of the problem. Instead she's going to go the backdoor method in order to not make him mad, but what does she think is going to happen when Carlisle tells him?

The problem with the book is that we are supposed to think that Edward is the ideal mate for our girlish hearts. However he seems to lack two things that every woman I know has claimed to want in a guy: sense of humor and ability to listen. I'm not going to make some hackneyed 80's stand up joke about how women are lying about it, what I'm going to say is that Edward isn't funny. Not at all, in fact there is an incredible lack of levity in the story so far. Edward, not only misses that sense of humor, but also he never listens to her. Not once does he really have a conversation with her wherein her viewpoint is discussed in some way without him correcting her or basically telling her how to think. Again, I ask, what does she get out of this relationship?

The four worst words strung together in the English language are, 'we need to talk.' Nothing good ever follows that phrase, otherwise why would you need to talk. Here Edward goes about it differently, "Come for a walk with me." It sounds normal but to Meyer's credit, she does well in the atmosphere sense--it just feels bad. Anyone that has ever been dumped has said some silly things or made some ridiculous assumptions about the other person in order to avoid the inevitable. During this walk Edward talks about how it is time for the Cullens to move on, to transfer locations as Carlisle is no longer seeming reasonable to pass for 30. Eyebrows, according to Edward, are being raised.

This is how Edward dumps her. He's not straight with Bella, it's all about the moving. Bella does something odd here, instead of pleading with him not to move--which would be the obvious course of action she just assumes that she's going with them. It's another example of how bad of a role model Bella actually is. She has no identity of her own, everything regarding her existence is wrapped up in Edward. She's prepared to drop her only family members, her actual life, and whatever aspirations she made have had just to be with this one guy. In some ways I get it, I've been there thinking that the person dumping me would come around if only I would change every last thing about my life. That reality though hits home, and you realize that what the other person needs is not reasonable. That realization hurts but it's what helps you get through the break up. Bella doesn't get it and finally Edward spells it out, "Bella, I don't want you to come with me."

I've literally had those words said to me (with a different name of course).

Edward then does the excuse making. He tells her that he's no good for her, that she ought to find someone else, that his life is too dangerous, etc. The one thing that he never says to her is that she'll find someone better. Which is curious because usually that is something said, but Edward's pride won't let him say it. What Edward actually means is that she doesn't belong in his world, a much better world as he's portrayed it. Bella just kind of takes it like a whipped dog. The only thing that Edward does do right is perceive her sadness at the break up and fear for her safety. He tells her not to do anything stupid, but then does something rather clever. She can't kill herself because of any intrinsic self worth, or Kantian/religious argument against suicide but because she has a responsibility to her father. It's clever because a person who wants to kill themself in such a state won't perceive that they are worth anything, that the self can't be improved by its own destruction, or that God/god/gods don't approve. He instead heaps a responsibility on her that he knows she won't ignore.

He finishes by telling her to forget about him, that it would be like he never existed...aside from her memory of course, and then vanishes in the forest. What happens now is around 12 pages of rambling incoherent thought processes coupled with her fainting. It's tough to dissect because on one hand her inability to make any sense reflects her pain at being dumped. On the other hand I can't say that it's on purpose. Especially because she's currently unconscious on the floor of the forest so the incoherence is at one time a bit too coherent for her being unconscious and at the same time too incoherent for the thought of a person still possessing rationality.

The rain wakes her up as well as the sound of a large creature, like a dog, nearby. When she gets up it's a person looking for her, not a dog. A bit of obvious foreshadowing there as the person is one of Billy Black's friends from the reservation. It's then revealed that Carlisle has told everyone that he's moving to Los Angeles, a fact that we know is wrong from what Edward had said earlier and seems only to be there so that Bella can be smug about knowing something that the other people don't. Finally there's a brief conversation with Charlie where we find out that the Blacks on the reservation are having a party because the Cullens have left. It adds nothing to the plot, but what's curious is that the Charlie is called at all. Reservations are zones that operate with their own legal systems. In other words Chief Swan isn't going to be called if the kids on the reservation are doing something on the reservation, there's a different Sheriff for that--probably Sheriff Black. Now the Reservation Sheriff might give Swan a call out of courtesy but he wouldn't be the first one notified. In either case the Reservation is celebrating because the Cullens have left Forks.

Which brings us to a plot hole. In the previous book Charlie and Billy had stopped talking because Billy wouldn't allow the reservation kids to go to the hospital with Dr. Cullen working there. When we first meet Billy it's the first time that Charlie and he have been together in several months. So it seemed that Carlisle was only working in Forks for the same amount of time. Yet the Cullens seem to be so established in Forks that they must have been there longer. Carlisle's replacement talks about what a great loss he was, but he couldn't have been that integral unless he had been there for a long time. So which is it?

Prelude to the Fall (Pg. 59-65)

I had a student write in a paper once, "break-ups don't end nearly as sweet as they begin." I'm not sure what exactly she was going for, maybe "break-ups" was supposed to be "relationships" or maybe she was really really looking forward to dumping someone and it just didn't work out the way she planned. Like all of life's little problems nothing ever goes the way we assume that they would. That's cliche of course, if things always went the way we planned, we wouldn't have problems. What we ought to see however, or perceive, is that deep breath before the plunge. Seeing the decline before the drop off is one aspect of intelligence, not to say that we should always be able to prevent it but that we should be prepared for it.

To Bella's credit I think she sees what is going to happen, but she has that most horrible of human tendencies--hope. She sees the break up coming but she has hope that it's something else--what else it could be is anyone's guess but Edward has gotten distant since the birthday party, since he, made a paper cut much worse than it needed to be. She's home with Charlie and Edward watching the sports highlights on television, she's in her room looking at the camera she received for her birthday, "trying to ignore the butterflies in my stomach as I thought of the strange distance I didn't want to see in Edward's eyes."

While she's being paranoid and whiny fretting about something that is so far only in her head, this is entirely normal. In fact the only abnormal thing about this is how accurate the portrayal is. I've been there, I am sure we all have. The train of thought was the entirety of an episode of Seinfeld where George Costanza thinks he can keep his girlfriend who wants to dump him if he can only avoid her until the dinner party that he wants to bring her to. Bella's avoiding Edward and only interacting with him in happy things, like expending a significant amount of film in her camera.

"You don't have to use the whole roll now." I just wanted to point out the word "roll," and how there is a segment of the population who will never have to know what that word refers to in the sentence. "Is it like memory or something" I'm sure I'll be asked if my daughter ever reads these books. This book was written in 2006, so the idea of a film camera had long been lost to anyone that wasn't holding on for nostalgia purposes, however the book takes place around 2002 (the latest I've seen is 2004) so film is beginning its decline as a medium of choice. I think a 2mp camera in 2002 would have cost around 500 hundred dollars. Nothing to fault here, I'm just saying that technology can really date a story that was set only 9 years ago. We can also ask why does she have a camera that isn't part of her phone, or where is her phone?

Moving on...sort of. See back in the old days it was more than just plugging your phone into your laptop to get the pictures, or doing the same with the memory card, or through bluetooth or whatever. The thing is she has to get the film developed. She has to drop the camera off and then return later to grab her pictures. It's pretty needless and in this section there is a lot of needlessness. The whole deal with the camera, for me anyway, is to see whether or not he would show up on film. It's important because vampires aren't supposed to give off reflections, that goes back to Dracula, whether or not they show up on film is a different thing altogether.

"When I pulled it out, I gasped aloud," there's a lot of unintentional porn dialogue in these books, and I do like to quote out of context to emphasize it. Here Bella is commenting on Edward's image in the photograph. Yay, mystery solved after so much waiting. What follows is some more bullshit about how good looking he is, which my new policy is to ignore from now on except  for this interesting piece of information she observes about herself in comparison to Eddie, "I looked very average even for a human."

It's subtle but it's there. First off we can ignore the self-deprecating comments regarding her appearance. Edward has said that every guy in the high school wanted her when she first showed up, she's played by Kristen Stewart who isn't exactly average, but we set that aside. The problem is that she views the Cullens as having "otherworldly looks" i.e. that their striking appearance is because they are vampires. The problem with that is that their appearance is entirely based on the fact that they were human. Vampire fiction tends to do this the vampires are all horribly sexy in appearance wearing the most revealing or figure hugging clothing possible, I think the world latex supply almost ran dry for the filming of the Underworld series. Yet there isn't too much in the world that gives us ugly vampires. Which is odd because Count Dracula was portrayed as being very ugly in Stoker's Novel, and Count Orlock from "Nosferatu"--the very first Vampire movie* was bald and hook nosed. Let's actually take a look at Stoker's description, "His face was a strong-a very strong-aquiline, with high bridge of the thin nose and peculiarly arched nostrils; with lofty domed forehead, and hair growing scantily round the temples, but profusely elsewhere. His eyebrows were very massive, almost meeting over the nose, and with bushy hair that seemed to curl in its own profusion. The mouth, so far as I could see it under the heavy moustache, was fixed and rather cruel-looking, with peculiarly sharp white teeth; these protruded over the lips, whose remarkable ruddiness showed astonishing vitality in a man of his years. For the rest, his ears were pale and at the tops extremely pointed; the chin was broad and strong, and the cheeks firm though thin. The general effect was one of extraordinary pallor."

Dracula looks sickly, but with an Eastern European bent. Every vampire since Bella Lugosi and Christopher Lee have been attractive. If the Cullens are hot now as vampires it's because they were hot as humans. Bella entirely misses the connection, if the one of the Cullens turns her into a vampire she won't suddenly be hot like they are, she might lose some color in her face but that's it. She'll still be miserable Bella, only she won't be able to go backward. If she looks average now she'll look average in the future. Being a vampire isn't going to make her life better but it will give her what she wants, a permanent connection to Edward.

 
______________________________
*And the source for the fact that sunlight kills them.

Anxiety (pg. 53-59)

I'm sure that if you are reading this blog you've probably been there. You wake up in the morning, unsure of where you are, where you were, and where your clothes are but one thing is for certain: you are pretty sure that something you did last night was a mistake. Or it would have been a mistake but again, there is that memory lapse. Time brings back those memories once the fog clears, you've gotten your butt off to the Greek diner for something involving eggs, lamb, and feta all dripping with grease and salt as well as the obligatory coffee and at least three refills. If you haven't been there, uh, take that preceding sentence as a guide for what to do when you do get there. People will always tell you that a hangover is the product of too much drinking, but it's not--don't hate. What a hangover is, is the product of dehydration. Alcohol leeches the water out of your system which is the reason that mild dehydration and hangovers have the common symptoms: headache, nausea, loss of balance, inability to focus...etc. The reason you vomited? That wasn't too much alcohol, it's because you were drinking draft beer, or bottled beer, or doing that one other thing that you normally don't do.

Bella wakes up after the party and she's worked herself up a bit. She's convinced herself that something is wrong based on a second hand memory of a look that Edward might have had the day he sent Bella off with Jasper and Alice to go kill James, or whatever. That day, Edward was grim and said that he would have no contact with her, and now Bella seems think that he has the same look last night before he left, before he returned to watch her sleep at night. She has a nervousness in her stomach that she can't shake, and when Edward picks her up in the morning to go to school he is quiet. Which leads to Bella to examine the silence in a million different ways that should be familiar to readers of Cosmo, because they are told that silence means something. I guess I'm being unfair, the silence does mean something--it means he doesn't want to talk. And he certainly doesn't want to hear, "what's wrong Edward?"

What works for Edward now, as has worked for him so far, is that he's pretty much got Bella convinced that she is beneath him to the point where she is unsure about herself and can't commit to action. Last night's "my blood or my body" question was out of character for her, and she's returned to normal, "I didn't want to bring up last night, but I wasn't sure if avoiding the subject would be worse."

The thing is that when she begins, she'll phrase it completely wrong. She'll ask Eddie, "what's wrong with you?" or "what is the problem?" etc. Instead what she should say is, "I've become suddenly uncomfortable around you and I don't know why." This way if it's a simple perception issue with her they can talk about it, but if it's something real than she's opened the door in a non-accusatory manner. Which is good, but she won't do this. She's too sheepish and under his thumb to ever get confrontational with the dream boat. 

Her inner monologue is funny though, because as she tries and tries to deal with her "problem" (I put it in quotes because we don't know if it is real or not, and she's unreliable narrator) the more she describes herself--headache, anxious, noises are echoing in her head, she is little patience with anyone; the more I think she had too much to drink the night before. She ought to just hit the lunch table and grab some coffee.

We find out that Jasper and Alice have gone to Denali. They've gone there because Jasper was upset at his behavior the night before at the party, and Denali is where the other vegetarian smug vampires live. I'm thinking it must be like Seattle or Modesto full of vegans who are just 'with it' and 'tight.' The kind of place i would like to bring a chainsaw and forty pounds of thermite to. My question is, why did Alice go? She's so far my favorite character and now she's out of the story. Actually I know why she had to go, she'll ruin the story. Bella has already indicated that she was looking forward to talking with her about the "problem," so she's off to somewhere else. The only trouble is that story-wise her leaving doesn't make any sense. She doesn't have an excuse other than taking care of her brother...ok so I guess that's something.

Bella, who instead of talking to Edward, has decided to take the long run around and sneak in through the back door rationalizes, "She (Alice) would have to come back for school right?"

No. This is one of those points in the book that the author, and narrator, seem to forget that the Cullens aren't actually in school to be in school. They are only there for a reason that is unsatisfactorily given as 'need to blend in.' Of course hiding their true natures would be a lot easier if they never interacted with anyone, but they're idiots, the whole lot of them. Even Alice who should be constantly shaking her head in a littany of "I told you so's" as Edward et. al make a stupid decision after stupid decision. Alice never has to come back and Bella decides that if her and Edward don't talk, i.e. if he doesn't bring it up, she'll go to Carlisle.  Which is much better than talking to the person she has the problem with I'm sure.

The motivation behind every single one of Bella's rationalizations makes sense. She's afraid that Edward is going to dump her and leave her back to the normal life she can't go back to. In a way she's a lot like the Dr. WHo companion Donna Noble from a couple of seasons ago. She got a taste of time/space travel and couldn't go back, it makes sense. Her actions thus, ought to be clouded by her sense of panic. Remember, this is a one way relationship, she adores and worships him so everything she does she feels must be carefully planned and dissected before action. Sometimes she reasons correctly, "compared to last spring, it (the wound on her arm from the party) seemed especially unimportant." I said it last week, they were all in the dance hall and Bella almost died of blood loss but no one batted an eye then. Now the paper cut sets off a reaction that results in a large gash on her arm.

What's funny is that all of her craziness works out for Mike. Mike asks her how her birthday party was, a normal question, and she replies that she was glad it was over and Mike, "looked at me like I was crazy." Which he ought to, and he ought to retry Jessica.

That was all after school and during her job where she works with Mike at his families sporting goods store. A job that she has absolutely no qualifications or business working at. She can't play Badminton for Odin's sake she shouldn't be selling shin guards. At home Edward's car is waiting for her and inside he's watching ESPN with her dad. So far so good, but she takes it as a sign that something is really wrong and describes a situation where it sounds like she almost threw up out of nervousness. She reasons, "what's the worst that can happen?"

This is solely in reference to the two of them sitting watching the baseball (I assume) highlights. No other context, she takes a breath because thinking of the worst possible scenario scares her, but then she corrects herself, "what's the worst that can happen that I can live through?"

Huh?? So the first situation that she thought of was of her not living through it? What did she think the two of them were going to do tie her to the rack?

I have that thing I do with people, if anyone ever asks me to do something 'by all means' or 'by any means necessary' I double check with them to see if they really want to give me that kind of blank check permission. A boss of mine once told me to fetch a case of paper by all means, and I walked out the front door saying that I was going to buy a gun and the ingredients for thermite. I figured those were all the means I needed to get that case of paper from the back room.* Bella is like that here, she asked herself to consider the worst possible situation that her father and Edward could do together and it scared her into thinking of a scenario that didn't involve her death. Tension is a killer. 

Amnesia (pg. 37-52)

Amnesia is an awfully convenient story telling device made into quite the cliche for soap operas. I'm not even sure that soap operas even use it anymore but that whenever there is a satire of a soap opera one character always has amnesia. There is some forgetfulness here as well, but the difference is that in those stories and the satires thereof, the amnesia is purposeful. In this book some things are forgotten but no one chalks it up to amnesia. It's just simply told as what happened.

Carlisle is finishing up stitching Bella's arm, which as we remember was caused by Edward who threw her into a glass table. The non-sequitor discourse on religion continues, but it's given a point here. It takes awhile to get to it, and its one of those conversations where they have put the cart before the horse. The whole religion conversation takes place as Carlisle explains it, "Edward's with me up to a point. God and heaven exist...and so does hell. But he doesn't believe there is an afterlife for our kind."

There's one problem with this, and that is that neither Carlisle nor Edward through Carlisle here have given a reason for this belief. Carlisle was raised by a Pastor so if his reasoning is based on that then he should say something. In this book it's said as a given, same with Edward's belief that there is no afterlife for a vampire. He has as much reason for believing this as anyone does for believing that there is an afterlife for them. Maybe Edward will talk about it later for now the only link we have for this is that Edward doesn't believe that Vampires have souls.

Then we come to the point of the whole thing. The reason that Edward won't turn Bella into a vampire is because he doesn't want to take her soul away. How does Edward know this, or even think it? We, again, aren't given any reason for it. The idea of the soul isn't new, in fact, it's one of the oldest theological questions going back to the days of the Pre-Socratics. I may be mistaken but I think the philosopher/mathematician/cult leader Pythagoras was the first in Greek to mention the idea of souls. The Egyptian had a conception of the afterlife but their mythology seemed to dictate that the body was coming with them, I don't know if that implies soul so I'm going to chalk it up to the Greeks. Carlisle's point about Edward's belief is that if Bella was the vampire, "If you believed as he did. Could you take away his soul?"

It's a great question. One that Carlisle frames in such a way that it shuts up Bella. She admits this as well. This is the first time that we have actually been shown Carlisle's wisdom, instead of just being told about it. It's good writing, this brief exchange. Not only do we get resolution on the Vampire question, but we get satisfying resolution as well as some character development. Unfortunately it's too brief and we go back to the story of Edward.

It was mentioned in the last book that he was turned during the flu outbreak of Chicago near the turn of the century (1900). Edward's father was dead, his mother and himself dying. Carlisle's lonliness was getting the better of him when stumbled upon Edward "burning with fever, his life slipping away with each tick of the clock...I shuddered again and forced the picture from my soul."

The above quote isn't Carlisle talking, it's Bella. Which I think is unnecessary. Why not just have Carlisle tell us the damn story since it's his? The shuddering she mentions isn't Carlisle shuddering, it's her dreading the (now defunct) possibility of Edward having died. I might be cold hearted here, but seriously, she's shivering with dread at something that not only didn't happen, but didn't happen over a hundred years ago. It doesn't seem realistic given its remoteness.

Apparently Edward''s mother made such an appeal that Carlisle had no choice but to turn him into a vampire. He felt she knew what he was and that's why he did it. She was so forceful about it, like any mother on the planet would be if they thought someone could save their child. I wonder how many other people Carlisle talked to who pleaded for their children's lives and he thought 'meh, she's just not that serious about it.'

The deciding factor was when Carlisle looked at Edward's face and saw that, "there was something pure and good about his face."

Ok, we get it. He's a good person. Stop telling us this. Instead show us that he is good. It's a fundamental principle of writing and whenever it needs to be displayed that Edward is good we are simply told "he's good." At best he's on the plus side of morality when it comes to protecting people in danger, but that doesn't make him a good person. It makes him an average one. He rescued Bella from a car accident, something that I think we would all do if we had the chance. In fact, it might even be a moral duty as long as our lives are not also in danger. Which in the case of Bella and Edward, his never was.

Bella is done getting stitched up and needs to go home. Edward of course takes her. It's awkward in the car as Edward clearly wants to say something but won't and Bella won't stop worrying about what he thinks. I've been in that situation it's annoying, and here it's annoying too. But it's accurately annoying so we can't fault our author for it.

Finally the conversation opens up and it's all about the blame game. The first round of blame goes to Bella who defends Edward by explaining that the whole party mess wasn't his fault. Are you sure about that Bella? The way it read was the she cut herself on some wrapping paper, after being assisted by Edward (?), in which Jasper growled and then Edward threw Bella into the wall cutting her arm in a more serious manner. That paper cut, could have been just Bella, but she had help from Edward in opening the present. At best we can't assign blame to the paper cut since it was purely accidental, at worse we can fault them both because the two of them contributed. In either case if anyone is to blame for the paper cut Edward is one of those people.

Secondly, the real problem is the arm. The arm was definitely Edward's fault. The small drop of blood in the room may have made Jasper growl, but everyone got hungry when she sliced her arm open. Edward had other options, he could have whisked her out of the room, or whisked Jasper out of the room, or literally did anything other than what he did. I'm not saying that he intended for her to get cut to hell, but that is what he did. It really is his fault, but all he ever does is apologize for his family's behavior, the behavior which is pretty normal given what they are.

Bella is continuing to beat herself up about it and Edward reassures her, "Bella you gave yourself a paper cut--that hardly deserves the death penalty." Never once does he apologize for gashing her arm open.

Home we might consider Charlie, but since he "was never surprised to see me bandaged" it's just blown off. He asks her about her arm and then shakes his head. That silly Bella, he must think, always going around and needing stitches.

They make out a bit on the bed and then Edward stops. Something is bothering him but he won't say. Bella thinks its temptation and for once bluntly asks, "which is tempting you more, my blood or my body?"

It's a good question and one that deserves an answer. We don't get it, but for once Bella is being the assertive person that she tells us she is. I guess she forgot that this is completely out of character. 

Non-Sequitor (Pg. 30-36)

I've taught critical thinking both in my days as a lowly academic slave, er...teaching assistant, and as an adjunct professor. One of subjects that takes up most of the class (at least when I teach it) is the extremely long list of mistakes known as informal errors. Whereas formal errors are those that are mistakes in logic, informal errors are mistakes in evidence. One of the informal errors that I've covered is the non-sequitor. Roughly, "non-sequitor" means "it does it not follow." A person is guilty of committing the non-sequitor fallacy when they have a conclusion that is not at all related to the argument they are using as evidence. In other words what we are presented with now is unrelated to what came before it.

Chapter 1 ended with Bella facing down six ravenous vampires, after receiving a paper cut. Of which then Edward made worse by throwing her into a glass table. He did this because Jasper scented the blood and was becoming unable to control himself. That doesn't make a great deal of sense given that he was attending high school. What we are being told, in order to maintain consistency, is that for Jasper's entire tenure in school no one had ever received a paper cut, a scrape, or anything of the sort. This is not only during his time at Forks but in the other times that he had gone to school. Also he was oblivious to the blood in the dance studio where Bella was attacked by James.

Six vampires. Carlisle we know controls himself and Edward is protecting her. That means that all of the others are about to attack. The beginning of the Chapter 2 downplays the excitement of the end of chapter 1. Everyone stands around only to be dismissed by Carlisle who "was the only one who'd stay calm."

This reads almost like Oliver Twist where Dickens ends every chapter with a suspenseful scene. We forgive Dickens though because he was writing a serial story for a newspaper, and those types of hooks were necessary to keep readers (and for him to keep his writing job). Here, it's a let down. Instead everyone files out, "Esme's heart-shaped face was ashamed. 'I'm so sorry Bella,' she cried as she followed the others into the yard."

That's pretty believable, and seems like a normal reaction that she ought to have. The mood is not one of frustration but of embarrassment. They are almost portrayed as recovering addicts who just gorged themselves on whatever drug their choice is. I like it as it shows them to be wrestling with addiction. It's done quite well, albeit too briefly.

Alice brings over Carlisle's medicine bag, which he probably has left over from when doctors used to do house visits and Carlisle asks Bella if she wants to go to the hospital or have her gash fixed at the house. He's giving her a choice but it seems odd for him to do so if he can just fix it up right there. I'm being kind of nit-picky on that, it is after all a courtesy that he would probably try and talk her out of if she did decide to go to the hospital.

"Here please,' I whispered. If he took me to the hospital there would be no way to keep this from Charlie." I would probably choose to have him fix me up as well, but for the reason of expediency and not secrecy. The real trouble is that Bella tells us that Carlisle is stitching her wound, how is she going to hide that from Charlie? Right decision wrong reasoning.

What follows is a nice dialogue between Bella and Carlisle, that shows us more of Carlisle's character than Bella's. Everything we have learned thus far about Carlisle is that he's a doctor and really good looking. However, he also reveals himself to be quite thoughtful as befitting someone as old as he is. Bella asks him how he can stand the blood and he replies that it's been so long that "I barely notice the scent anymore." Just like someone who used to drink and now can barely remember why they drank in the first place.

He follows this decent thought up with "Even the sense of smell is a useful diagnostic tool at times.' One side of his mouth pulled up in half a smile."

I suppose he is talking about smell generally but in the context of the same paragraph it appears as though he just contradicted himself. Leaving that aside I want to know what the deal is with the half smile. There's no context or justification for it. I guess he's just a smiling fool.

Bella hounds him about why he doesn't eat people, which is probably not the brightest conversation that you want to have while he's stitching you up. Carlisle explains that his dad was a firebrand preacher in England (probably a Puritan), but he doesn't continue this conversation the way we expect. It would seem obvious that his father gave him a sense of morality or that life is sacred, or something, and that is why he doesn't eat humans. However, he goes on a religious monologue about the belief in God, "But never in the nearly four hundred years now since I was born, have I ever seen anything to make me doubt whether god exists in some form or another. Not even the reflection in the mirror."

It's completely out of the blue. The religious subject, isn't out of place necessarily, but it's completely unconnected to anything. What does belief in a god have to do with not eating people, it may seem obvious, but he's got to connect the premises. He explained that he was questioning his father's worldview but that would imply that he was going the other way, toward unbelief into my realm. I would suppose that Carlisle's faith in god must be pretty strong because he's seen some shit in four hundred years that ought to make him at least question the belief. The Lisbon earthquake of 1755, one example of nature annihilating an entire city, led Voltaire to question not only the existence of God but also to begin an attack on Leibniz theory that this had to be the best of all possible worlds.

The non-sequitor is established and Bella runs with it, "my own life was devoid of belief." Do we need "devoid" or can we just use "void" I've heard it both ways. Bella explains that her father is a Lutheran but only in name, as he never went to church. Her mother was a dilletante in many different ideas and theories, I get the impression of new age-y pseudo Buddhism about her, but this only means that Bella's life was devoid of religion not belief. The difference is important because if you think there's a god but aren't a member of a religion, you still have a belief. You are classified as being an agnostic along with all of the people who are unsure that there is a god or some higher power. Bella can still believe in it she just lacks anything specific.

Given the time spent on the religion discussion perhaps this section ought to have been titled "Straw Man." 

Contradictions (Pg. 18-29)

"You humans have it so easy! All you have to do is throw down one tiny vial of plant extract..."

Edward is commenting on the end of Romeo and Juliet and how Romeo dies so easily from poison, his remarks are pointed at the fragility of human beings and their ability to commit suicide. What I hate about this sentiment is how it is so closely similar to how the abortion debate is framed by the pro-life crowd. Just because something may be easily available in method doesn't mean that it's easily done in motivation. Women aren't, despite the claim by possible American Presidential candidate Michelle Bachman, just popping in for an abortion in between manicures and haircuts, just like we all do when we go to lenscrafters. Edward makes the same mistake, Romeo didn't commit suicide off the cuff, he planned it because his rebound girl was "dead." This leads me to wonder if Edward is being serious, why would he want to end his life?

Apparently, at the end of the last book as Edward was chasing down James and Bella's location he wanted to save her but just in case, "part of my mind was making contingency plans." Plans, you say, "well I wasn't going to live without you."

So romantic this is, until you begin to really look at it. For most of the first book, the relationship between Edward and Bella has been framed by Edward as being dangerous for her. He repeatedly has mentioned to her that she ought to stay away from him because of the inherent danger in dating a creature that feeds off of human blood. All of that makes some sense. So it would also seem that if Bella had been killed by James his guilt would compel him to kill himself. That, again would make some sense. Yet, that is not what he is saying. He's saying that he couldn't live without her, it's not about her it's about his own happiness. I'll give him that love is kind of a selfish emotion, but there are better ways he could phrase it. Or despite that, there are better ways that he could have said it, he comes off as being flippant. Which isn't the condescending nature he usually says things to Bella, but that he's only really saying it so that she hears it. Like the abusive boyfriend who once in awhile remarks, "I just don't know what I would do without you."

What is good is Bella's reaction. She's horrified to think that he would kill himself just because she died. Now part of that is rooted in her depression, she doesn't get why she's so important to him. Still though, she makes a really good point about him not being able to move on in his life, they've only been dating for what, nine months or so? This is another contradiction in the story, although it's not one specifically stated. Edward has been alive for around a century or so, and in that time he's never made any significant relationship outside of his family. Even a casual relationship, anything that would innoculate himself against what the cold hand of time does to us mortals. One of the Cullens mentioned that they routinely go to high school in different cities, Jasper and Rosaline have been married three or four times, and in all of that time they've only invited each other to the weddings, parties, and such? I find that hard to believe.

Secondly he has to know how to kill himself, because they killed James. The troubling thing for the story is that these vampires don't seem to have any weaknesses. They heal from any damage, or are immune to it, water doesn't kill them, sunlight doesn't kill them, garlic has no effect (at least from Edward's ability to eat at an Italian restaurant), are we left with just stakes and silver then?

Edward actually apologizes for his comment. Something we had yet to see him do. Bella's motivation is strange though, she thinks the world without Edward would be a worse place, even if she wasn't in it. So far I can't see why that would be the case, the world with one less douchey sad sack seems like it would be a better place.

The fight over, Edward takes Bella to his house for the birthday party. Non-entity Charlie, who by the way is addressed by Edward as "Charlie" (something this father will not allow his daughter's boyfriend to do), has decided that the ballgame is more important than his girl's 18th. The odd thing is that if the Cullens are throwing the party why didn't they invite Charlie to it? Seems a bit rude.

Then we get to the un-intentional sexual subtext, or at least I think it's unintentional. Edward asks Bella what she wants for her birthday and she tells him that he should already know that. The whole book series is based around the sexual metaphor. According to Caitlin Flanagan in The Atlantic Monthly, the series is about a girl who wants nothing more than for her boyfriend to defile her while the boyfriend loves her so much that he won't. Frankly were talking sex here. It seems that whenever it's brought up this metaphor can hardly be considered a metaphor because it's so obvious. Bella and Edward have already had this conversation and Edward is justifiably tired of having it, "not tonight, Bella. Please." Aww poor Edward has a headache.

Bella's reply, "Well maybe Alice will give me what I want." I know I've seen that movie. Is this an innocent mistake that the warp and weft of my mind is twisting or is it completely on purpose? I'd be more impressed with our writer if this was a conscious decision rather than an accident, because then she's at least aware of the metaphor.

Before they enter the party Bella asks Edward, "If I develop this film...will you show up in the picture." Edward laughs, but I'm not laughing. I really want to know the answer to that question. Would he show up? Would just his clothes? What is this word "develop" and "film."

Jokes aside, the party proceeds with her getting some gifts whereupon she gets a paper cut and all hell breaks loose. Edward for some reason shoves her away violently into some decoration which slices her arm up. It seems that Jasper was going to be unable to control himself with the paper cut and the single drop of blood it presented, but then Edward made it worse by throwing her, "Dazed and disoriented, I looked up from the bright red blood pulsing out of my arm into the fevered eyes of the six suddenly ravenous vampires."

Bullshit. She bled all over the dance studio in Phoenix and no one had this reaction. Unless James beat her into the mirrored wall without cutting her? How is this what is happening right now? How does Dr. Carlisle work at the hospital? It makes no sense at all.