This is from Chapter 16 of Twilight.
A plot recap for those who need a brushing up.
Bella moved to Forks, met Edward, nearly got smushed, nearly got raped, declared herself in love with Edward, they went to school, they sat in a meadow and gazed into each other’s eyes, and then they went over to Edward’s house.Skip ahead a little in the chapter.
We are 340 pages, 81,100 words in. We’ve only got 170 pages left. I have seen exactly one hint that the events outlined in the prologue will be happening any time soon, and that was in the last chapter. I have seen zero hints as to what the hell the Bible quote at the beginning is supposed to mean. I’ve seen Bella hold an apple, which, while a literal translation of the book cover, does very little to tell me why she put it there. Was it to signify lunch?
Bella asks if Edward has always been with Carlisle. He says not quite. Bella has to prompt him again, because he doesn’t seem to want to explain that answer.
Folks, it’s a large quote. But it needs to be here.
He sighed, seeming reluctant to answer. "Well, I had a typical bout of rebellious adolescence — about ten years after I was… born… created, whatever you want to call it. I wasn't sold on his life of abstinence, and I resented him for curbing my appetite. So I went off on my own for a time."
"Really?" I was intrigued, rather than frightened, as I perhaps should have been. He could tell. I vaguely realized that we were headed up the next flight of stairs, but I wasn't paying much attention to my surroundings.
"That doesn't repulse you?"
"No."
"Why not?"
"I guess… it sounds reasonable."
He barked a laugh, more loudly than before. We were at the top of the stairs now, in another paneled hallway.
"From the time of my new birth," he murmured, "I had the advantage of knowing what everyone around me was thinking, both human and non-human alike. That's why it took me ten years to defy Carlisle — I could read his perfect sincerity, understand exactly why he lived the way he did.
"It took me only a few years to return to Carlisle and recommit to his vision. I thought I would be exempt from the… depression… that accompanies a conscience. Because I knew the thoughts of my prey, I could pass over the innocent and pursue only the evil. If I followed a murderer down a dark alley where he stalked a young girl — if I saved her, then surely I wasn't so terrible."
I shivered, imagining only too clearly what he described — the alley at night, the frightened girl, the dark man behind her. And Edward, Edward as he hunted, terrible and glorious as a young god, unstoppable. Would she have been grateful, that girl, or more frightened than before?
"But as time went on, I began to see the monster in my eyes. I couldn't escape the debt of so much human life taken, no matter how justified. And I went back to Carlisle and Esme. They welcomed me back like the prodigal. It was more than I deserved."
Edward Cullen, after ten years of living with Carlisle, got mad that he wasn’t letting him go out and kill and eat people. So he left for three or four years and just went off, killing people left and right, justifying it easily by saying he was only eating BAD people. After all, he can read their thoughts, so he can tell that they are pure evil and can never be redeemed and deserve to die. Besides, he’s saving innocent people. So it’s perfectly all right if he wants to eat the leftovers.
He didn’t accidentally start eating people and realize how great it was and have a fall from grace. He says it right there—he resented Carlisle for trying to teach him that killing people is wrong. RESENTED. RESENTED. Do you even know what that word means, Meyer? It means this: “ to feel or show displeasure or indignation at (a person, act, remark, etc.) from a sense of injury or insult.” Edward Cullen, who himself used to be a human being, got huffy with Carlisle because he didn’t want to eat animals. He wasn’t a human anymore, so now he should have the right to kill all he wants. They smell good, he wants to eat them, so he’s going to. This was not an accident, like when Emmett smelled a bacon person. This was deliberate. Edward deliberately flounced off and started murdering people. Because he wanted to. And he always wanted to, for the entire ten years he was with Carlisle before he left. From the moment he woke up as a vampire, he apparently wanted to go out and slaughter human beings.
Oh, but it’s justified—he was saving innocent people from being killed by bad men. No. He wasn’t. He can claim he was doing that by singling out only the bad guys, but what was he ultimately doing it for? Himself. He was killing these people for his own selfish reasons. On the same note, who gave him the power to decide who lives and who dies? The men he killed—oh, they were evil, he says. So that gives you the right to suck their blood and give them no chance at redemption? To act as judge, jury, and executioner? I have seen your power in action—you only read surface thoughts. What if you happened upon someone who was just down on his luck and was desperate? What if somebody was driven to stealing out of desperation to feed his family? What if you murdered someone who had a wife and daughter at home, and he was their only source of income? Going even more into the realms of what if, what if one of the men you killed would have realized he was in error, served his time, and went on to be a decent man? Those men you selfishly murdered were the sons of mothers, Edward. You can claim they were evil, but you don’t know them. All you read are surface thoughts—Midnight Sun proved that. You just hear random inner dialogue.
But it’s better. He didn’t just do this a few times before realizing it was wrong. He did it for “a few years”. He also had his flounce in 1928—that is not too long before the Great Depression hit. That means he was going around slaughtering people who were most assuredly driven to desperation, and slaughtering men who were most assuredly the only source of income for families in a time of serious need. While people were starving, he was eating like a king, heartlessly deciding who deserves to live and who deserves to die—who deserves to be his meal, all while claiming he was simply carrying out justice, while claiming he was doing it to save helpless women from evil people in alleyways.
Finally, there’s the part where he claims he realized the error of his ways and went back to Carlisle, and that he’s all remorseful for killing all those people (a number which, we find out later, is into the hundreds). Going back over what I said previously, he ostensibly saw that what he was doing was wrong—but never acknowledges that all of the people he was murdering could have done the same thing. He holds up to the end that it was justified, but that it was just too much. They still deserve to die, he just apparently has reached his bag limit. And that leads nicely into the fact that, dearest Edward, to your claims of remorse and reform, I say unto you,
BULLCRAP
You aren’t sorry, you psychotic murderer. Midnight Sun is proof enough. You stalked the PEOPLE, you caught them, you terrorized them, you hurt them, you tortured them, and you did it all for your own selfish amusement. Considering all you’d like to do to the Evil Rapists, you also were pretty damned inventive, using your gift to find all kinds of ways to hurt people.
And, on top of it all, you didn’t want to tell your girlfriend all of this not because you are ashamed or guilty over what you did, but simply because you were afraid she would think ill of you. You’ve been hiding it this whole time just to make sure she’d still think you were a perfect little saint, to make her feel safe, to make sure she keeps thinking that you have the strength to keep from murdering her.
YOU’RE. NOT. SORRY. YOU WANTED IT, YOU WENT OUT AND GOT IT, YOU LIKED IT, YOU STILL LIKE IT, YOU STILL WANT IT. YOU’RE A PSYCHOPATHIC, SELF-CENTERED, MURDERING KILLER.
Well, doesn’t that last point in Edward’s section lead nicely into the next one? Because you needn’t have worried about Bella thinking you sick for killing hundreds of men—she likes it just as much as you do.
Edward did not pull any punches—the only thing he kept from Bella was the implications that he indulged in some good old-fashioned cruel and unusual punishment before eating all of the men he killed—or at the very least, enjoys thinking about it. He made it more than clear that he thinks killing people is fun, delicious, and nutritious; he just quit because, well, people don’t think well of him when he does that. He just informed her that he deliberately, knowingly, willfully, and eagerly left Carlisle to indulge in something he’d apparently wanted to do for a very long time. He speaks very frankly of it, and even laughs during this “confession”. He sounds casual.
And what is her reaction? To be interested.
That’s right. She’s fascinated. She wants to hear all about it. There’s no fear, no appalled horror that he would go do this. Oh no. And she feels this keen interest before he says he was only killing Bad Guys. At that point, for all she knew, he’d been out eating babies. Not only does she express an interest and fascination with the fact that Edward went off for a few years and killed people, but when he asks how she feels about that, what is her response? I think I need to drive it home, so here it is again.
"I guess… it sounds reasonable."
It sounds reasonable. IT SOUNDS REASONABLE. Bella Swan thinks it is perfectly reasonable that Edward got huffy that Carlisle wouldn’t let him kill everyone he met and flounced off deliberately to go suck the life out of lots of people. REASONABLE. She doesn’t think it’s appalling, doesn’t think it’s a terrible choice, she doesn’t even think it was wrong. By saying it was reasonable, she thinks he was perfectly justified to go off and murder hundreds of people, and all of this is before she finds out he was killing only Bad Guys, so Edward actually seems to have more of a moral compass than she does—as far as Bella’s concerned, he’s justified in eating anything he wants, from the guilty to the innocent. That lady he was saving in the alleyway? Bella would not have cared if he’d have gone for her instead of the Bad Guy. Because it’s REASONABLE. To Bella, the world literally should be Edward’s menu. He shouldn’t restrict himself to Bad Guys, because we’re all just lousy humans, after all.
After she finds out he was limiting himself only to “evil” people (again, how would you know they were evil, Edward, when you can’t see very far into their minds?), her reaction is to fantasize about it. And how does she fantasize about it? By thinking of how beautiful and glorious Edward would be, coming down From On High like a Guardian Angel—nay, she doesn’t call him an angel, she calls him a god, to save the life of an innocent girl. From her flowery language, she describes him as literally a holy being, raining down his divine wrath upon a deserving victim, sucking out his life to sustain his own.
In other words, she doesn’t merely find his murderous tendencies reasonable. She thinks they are attractive. She thinks they are awe-inspiring. She didn’t describe him with her usual staple of an angel of destruction when she spun this little fantasy—she jumped right into god territory. She called him a god, meaning she applied the divine and ultimate authority to him, just as he himself apparently believes he has.
Of course, there is the third and final player in this little scenario. That would be Stephenie Meyer. She wrote it. Edward Cullen is her dream man, and Bella Swan is her self-insert. It has never been more apparent here.
3 comments:
Thank you for posting this, I think some interesting points are brought up, but I disagree with a number of them, so I'd like to meet the debate.
It seems that the author often argues from other's potential to change, but then writes off Edward's own potential for redemption. If it is going to be claimed that he shouldn't have killed those who were at the time bent only on evil deeds (and lets assume for the moment that those he killed were actually so) because they could have later in their lives turned around and recognized their wrong, then it's not logical to condemn Edward now if he has likewise turned around and recognized his error. Doing so is denying him the same ability to change and find redemption that it was asserted those he killed should have had. This act puts the author in the same judgmental position he or she condemned Edward for, since the author is effectively condemning him based on the past when he might now have already reformed.
The following statement, I think, is important in this discussion: it's possible that we may have a desire, but not condone that desire in ourselves. It is true that Edward, from the time he became a vampire up to the present, has had a desire for human blood. This is true of all vampires, if we take the general legend at its word. But the difference, here, is that Edward, at present, believes this desire to be wrong. It's not possible for him to get rid of the desire, any more than it would be possible for a starving person to just decide they aren't going to feel hunger. But what he can do is recognize the negativity of his desire, and act to control it. That is exactly what he currently does. And in the present, that should place him in a just position. If you argue otherwise, it returns the discussion to the above paragraph, since you would be using his past actions to continue to condemn him regardless of his change, effectively denying any recognition of his ability to change. And if you apply this to Edward, then it doesn't make sense not to apply it in general, and then there would be no argument against his past killing of those who were at the time bent on evil actions (assuming, for now, that they really were).
Bella is interested in this story of his past because she already completely claims Edward's current state as just. If she thought he still believed killing people was 'ok' her reaction would be completely different. It is true that she doesn't really have enough evidential grounds for this belief, but nonetheless, she does believe it, and that is the reason for her non-repulsed response. She shows this interest before he notes that he only killed bad guys because she already assumes that it was so. Due to her beliefs about his current state of good morals, she wouldn't have thought it would be any other way.
The argument here also states, "as far as Bella’s concerned, he’s justified in eating anything he wants, from the guilty to the innocent." This is just not true, based on the response she has to Jacob's change in New Moon. She has trouble accepting him because, at the time, she believes that the wolves are responsible for the deaths of people in the woods. "It's not what you are, it's what you do" she argues, and until he explains that he wasn't responsible for those deaths, she isn't comfortable with him as a friend. This illustrates that she does have a 'moral compass'. Thus, the fact that Edward tried to hunt only bad people, and had the intent to act as an extension of justice, whether or not he was really completely capable of doing that, is key. His current view of killing humans and of his prior actions as wrong is even more important. Those things in mind, she views him as at least fighting for his redemption through his 'vegetarian' ways with Carlisle.
(continued in next comment)
What is "awe inspiring" about the story of his past, also, isn't the killing, but the characteristics of a vampire that are displayed. What are the primary characteristics usually applied to the idea of a god? Immortal, extremely powerful, and dealing in judgment. It might be tempting to state that a god should also be good, but this would be unsupportable, when the Grecian gods are referenced, because plenty of them were vindictive enough. And attempting to assert that other gods are completely all-good is a task too large to be useful here. So, by those criteria, Edward is like a god. This comparison isn't the same as stating that he is one, but the similarities exist based on the ideas associated with a god.
To return to the statement that Edward could never have been entirely sure that the people he killed in the past were "completely evil", I don't think this really has any bearing on the situation, here, since he himself is asserting that those actions were wrong. He is not trying to claim that he was justified in killing them, whether they were evil or not, which is why he describes his guilt ("the monster in my eyes" - the guilt within his own conscience). Given this, the argument that he was wrong to kill them because he couldn't have been sure of their moral state is not really an argument at all, but an agreement with his own conclusion on the matter.
To look into the matter a bit more, though, just for interest, I don't think it is possible for anyone to ever be "completely evil". And whether they can or not is irrelevant since we, as humans, can never know with absolute certainty what someone else's moral state is. But, if that fact is allowed to paralyze us into never making judgment (since we can't know with absolute certainty), where does that leave the justice system? Am I claiming that it would be right for one person to take judgment of life and death into their own hands? Not so quickly, but this isn't really so different from the way our justice system actually does work, if the individual took the time to try to differentiate between degrees of wrongdoing. It still ends with a judgment, whether that judgment is made by one, or by a committee of several.
If I can, I would like to reference an outside source, because it approaches very similar ideas. "Death Note" takes its plot directly out of moral difficulties just such as these. One of the central characters, Light, finds a note that gives him the power to kill whoever he wills, if he has only an image of their face, and their true name. The question, then, is whether it would be right for him to kill those he knows have committed wrongful acts. Or, would it always be wrong for him to kill with the death note, based on negative idea of one human killing another? It's not a question easily answered, because given the right situation, it could be claimed that it would be just as wrong for him not to act (not to use the note to kill) as it would be for him to act.
(continued in next comment)
The moral difficulties of Angel, from "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", would also be relevant to explore here.
The question of Edward's morality in terms of this argument, though, seems fairly settled, based on his own condemnation of his past. Most of the argument posted claims that his past actions were wrong, and this is easily agreed with, since Edward claims the same thing. In the quote used, he states that there was a "debt of so much human life taken, no matter how justified," which like the argument, points out that it was wrong to kill, regardless of the moral states of those he killed. As to the accusation that he still harbors the same murderous intent he did then, his realization of his past as wrong is clear in his statements. It is clearer still in his present actions, and refusal to continue killing humans as he had done before. If he did not realize how wrong it was, there would be no reason for him not to continue killing, so the actions he takes (or doesn't take) are evidence towards his beliefs.
Every one has their faults: no one is either perfectly good or perfectly evil. This is the basis for claiming that his killing others is wrong, and it must also be the basis for allowing that he can be redeemed. His failings may be greater than those of the average person, but those who fight with the greatest adversaries (his being his desire for human blood - an internal conflict) are the ones who must find the most strength, and perhaps are, if they succeed in the end, more or at least as worthy as those of us who never fought and were never tested by such battles.
Also, could you provide a link to the original posting of this argument? I'd like to place my response there as well.
Post a Comment