So a lot of people are ‘team’ Coco or Conan and against Jay Leno which I am really confused by because If you knew the facts you wouldn’t be blaming Jay for ‘stealing’ the Tonight Show. So here are the facts:
Five years ago back in 2004 NBC executives approached Leno in his office. Conan O’Brian’s contract was up and his people pushed NBC into promising him the Tonight Show. Now at the time Jay was the number one show on late night but the executives didn’t think that would last so they forced Jay out and Jay being a pretty decent guy decided to say he was retiring instead of telling his viewers what jack asses he was working for. That was pretty classy of him in my opinion. For those of you claiming that Jay is stealing the Tonight show from Conan well actually Conan kind of took it from Jay first and Jay has ABSOLUTIY no power to take back anything he does not own him name he is a talent for hire so he didn’t take anything from anyone. Jay did not steal Conan’s dream, Conan’s ratings did and if you still think Jay did well then you are either not listening to facts or are a slave to your emotions.
So then in 2008 the network came to Jay. He was still number one, something NBC didn’t expect. Jay was getting offers from other networks and NBC got greedy so they devised a plan: keep Jay and Conan. They offered Jay the primetime show and because Jay likes to work and because he wanted his staff to keep their jobs he accepted against his better judgment and NBC promised him one year.
In 2009 the show started and Conan took over the Tonight show. I gave the show a chance, but I still couldn’t get into Conan’s humor it just isn’t for me so I started watching the Colbert Report(I can’t stand Letterman he comes off as a bitter, rude, old man). The Tonight’s shows ratings started to slip. Now cut to Jay’s new show which premiered in September, everyone was watching in anticipation because if NBC pulled this off they would be the future of tv. You see it cost about 3-5 million dollars to produce a drama such as Law and Order and Grey’s Anatomy while talk shows and reality shows are much less ergo this was a business decision about money and Jay’s show if it worked would save lots of money. Unfortunately, Jay’s ratings slipped about 14%. For those of you that claim that Jay was not a good lead in for Conan in actually if that were true Conan’s ratings would have slipped around 14% as well instead Conan’s ratings slipped 49% for the first time in decades the Tonight show was losing money for the network.
Conan had seven months and to a lot of people that may not seem fair you say he needed more time, but a lot of tv shows don’t get seven months. Let me put it another way, if you are hired for a job and you lose 49% of the company’s revenue do you think they would have given you seven months to try and do better? Not really you would probably be fired really fast. So now to what happened when NBC pulled to plug on Jay’s show even after they promised a full year for the show to work and had him in a two year contract. The network went to Jay again who asked to be released from the contract. The network declined even after they fired him twice. They proposed a half an hour show from 11:35-12:05 and Conan would still have the Tonight show for an hour. Jay asked if Conan would go for it and the executives replied “sure were like 75% sure he will take it.” Now for those of you who argue he should have quite well he loves to work and I don’t care if you 28 or 117 if you’re not done and you still have work to do then you’re not done and if they offered him 30 to do what he loved then wouldn’t you take it? He loves his job. Who else here can say that?
NBC then went to Conan and told him the plan to push the Tonight show back. He declined and it was his right to if he felt that that was unfair. It was unfair what NBC did to Jay 5 years ago and it was unfair what they were doing to Conan now, but business isn’t fair. Jay and Conan weren’t bringing in the numbers and for those of you who say your pro Conan well if you all watched the show this wouldn’t even be an issue. So now Conan is refusing the deal so NBC bought out his contract for a whopping 45 million dollars. Hell I’ll do something for 7months for that much money just to chill for a while and in three months I’m sure Conan will get another job. So NBC offered the job as the Tonight Show host back to NBC and he took it because he loves it and if he didn’t someone else would have. If you were fired from your dream job and then it was offered back to you wouldn’t you take it?
The real issue here is emotions. People can identify with Conan because he was fired from his dream job…but Conan’s people forced Jay out of his dream job five years ago so how is that fair. Also for those who complain that Jay should have reached out to Conan, well how is that his responsibility? Is it your job to talk with the guy who the guy who hired you just fired to make sure his feelings aren’t hurt? I don’t think so. It sucks what happened to Conan, but it was business. He didn’t bring in the numbers and he was losing money. It was his dream job, but at least he got to do it for a time. Not many people get to say that.
Jay Leno is going back to the Tonight show starting in March and I for one and happy about this. The real problem with all of this for me is people ignorantly blaming Jay for something he didn’t do. He didn’t want to retire and he shouldn’t have to. It’s not about the money it’s about the fact that he still loves his job and his numbers on the Tonight show prove that he can do his job. He’s a good guy whose reputation has been dragged through the mud. If there is any blame it should be on NBC who handled the entire situation wrongly and who should have left their number one in his time slot to begin with instead of trying to read a crystal ball about what the ratings would be like so far in advance.
This is a win win situation. Jay get’s his job BACK and Conan gets a big pay out and a new job so can’t we all just shut up and get along? The people who loved the Tonight show with Jay can go back to watching it (sorry Stephen I’ll tivo you) and Conan lovers can catch him on his new gig. These guys will be just fine and there both good men so stop calling Leno selfish because you don’t know the guy. He doesn’t touch a penny of the money from the Tonight show. It goes to charities. He only lives off the money he earns doing stand up which he does every weekend. He hones his craft and he’s good at it. It’s really unfair that the real villain NBC isn’t getting as much as the blame as Jay is which is really not deserved.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Bella and Edward love each other????
Wait….why do Bella and Edward ‘love’ each other????
I really don’t get it. Maybe I’m a cynic, but I just don’t think you can fall in love at first sight because love isn’t about appearance. It’s about trust, respect, and communication. I don’t really see this in the Bedward pairing. I’ve read the entire series and I have read Twilight a couple of times and I don’t see why Bella loved Edward or vice versa. One, they besides them both liking music (who the hell doesn’t like some type of music?) they have nothing in common. For those of you say ‘they are destined’ well then love is undermined. Love is about choice. You don’t chose who you fall in love with but you do chose who you stay in love with. When you have a fight with someone you chose to go back or you don’t. You chose to accept them as they are or you don’t. Love is a choice. Claiming that Edward and Bella are destined to be with one another is undermining free will which is essential to love.
I am also offended when Edward says in Eclipse that Sam and Emily love each other ‘almost’ as much as he loves Bella. Number one, Sam and Emily is a forced ‘destine’ union like yours so it’s not love and number two comparing your love to other peoples is a sign of insecurity and general ignorance.
Now let’s get to the heart of the matter. Bella is initially attracted to Edward because of his appearance-which isn’t a bad thing but it is if that’s the reason why you’re in love with someone. They don’t share any values or common interest and no Bella is NOT mature. As a seventeen year old I take offence when someone says Bella is mature. No really she’s not. She disrespects her father constantly, doesn’t have any real friends outside of Edward and when she does befriend Jacob she strings him along for selfish reasons. She complains constantly like a whiney bitch about living in Forks when she made the decision to move! She then gets married at 18 and then gets pregnant. Does this sound mature? I don’t think so and there are many more examples.
Now onto Edward being ‘in love’ with Bella. You expect me to believe that this guy goes like 100+ years without being attracted to anyone and then he just falls for oh so special Bella? Yeah I don’t buy it. The only reason for Edwards interest is because he can’t hear Bella (probably because she’s mind numbingly stupid) and she smells good. That’s a really deep relationship there. Also Edward is jealous and non trusting to an almost pathological degree. I’ve come to the conclusion that Edward and Bella are not in love. There in love with the idea of love. They project their desire to be in love with someone onto each other. Here are some differences between being truly in love and being in love with the idea of love.
1. You care about the other's person's life and the details of his or her life. Again, you don't live in a fantasy and just talk romantic, you find out what they do, how they feel, what's going on in their heads, with their families, their work, etc.
- Everything they talk about suddenly turns into some big romantic lovey dovey purple prose. They make everything out to be romantic and real love can’t carry on like that. It gets really exhausting.
2. You put the other person's needs and wants above your own. Unconditional love is the foundation of being in love. Lust is not love. Infatuation is not love. If all you do is think about having sex with this other person, and don't really care to make them a part of your life and you a part of theirs, then you're in love with love, not the other person.
- Does anyone remember how Bella went on for four books about wanting to get laid?
3. You pay attention to how they make you feel and how you make them feel. You're sensitive to not jumping to the wrong conclusion. There is trust. There is understanding. There is a real connection that isn't threatened either by the past, present or future. The relationship is secure...not one of ups and downs continually based on whether or not they call, write or show up on time.
-About the wrong conclusions thing, Bella always assumes Edward can’t ‘love’ her as much as she ‘loves’ him.
-Edward doesn’t trust Bella with Jacob. He doesn’t understand her feelings. Apparently their ‘destined’ romance connects them to a past, present, and future.
4. You actually like them, not just love and want them. Many times people who are in love with love do not even LIKE the person they've "attached their in love feelings to." If you spend half your time trying to change the other person, you don't really love them. You love yourself and are trying to make them fit your idea of perfect. Acceptance is a big part of true love.
-‘ Bella I don’t like Jacob so don’t hang out with him.’ ‘Bella your breakable we need to change this.’
You do not consider yourself better or worse than the one you love. You continually strive to be at one and at unity with the one you love, but many times it happens naturally because of the connection you share. There is nothing fake about the relationship.- This is one of the biggest points. A ‘love’ that makes you feel less than or superior is NOT a healthy relationship to have. Bella always feels less superior to Edward and Edward even says as much and encourages this when he goes on and on and on and on about how he could out run her, and kill her and how his perfect features enamor him.
You don't pretend to like what they like to make them believe you're like them. Why would you do that anyway? Being in love with love often causes people to lose their identity and try to be like the other person. When you're in love with the other person, each one respect's each other's hobbies and interests without forcing themselves to be like the other person.
-Bella has no life outside of Edward and Edward doesn’t have a life outside of Bella. Bella is always begging to be a vampire to be more like Edward and his family. Edward doesn’t like the fact that Bella likes riding motorcycles. He even tries to force his way into this hobby even though he likes cars not motorcycles.
It really seems that Edward and Bella’s love is based on their love of the emotion of love and lust rather than deep, meaningful, unconditional love. If this were real life instead of the puke worthy ‘and they lived happily ever after bit’ we got from Breaking Wind, Bella would be a clichéd version of her mother. She would be stuck with her kid and divorced because lush burns and consumes until there is nothing left and love based on that cannot last.
I really don’t get it. Maybe I’m a cynic, but I just don’t think you can fall in love at first sight because love isn’t about appearance. It’s about trust, respect, and communication. I don’t really see this in the Bedward pairing. I’ve read the entire series and I have read Twilight a couple of times and I don’t see why Bella loved Edward or vice versa. One, they besides them both liking music (who the hell doesn’t like some type of music?) they have nothing in common. For those of you say ‘they are destined’ well then love is undermined. Love is about choice. You don’t chose who you fall in love with but you do chose who you stay in love with. When you have a fight with someone you chose to go back or you don’t. You chose to accept them as they are or you don’t. Love is a choice. Claiming that Edward and Bella are destined to be with one another is undermining free will which is essential to love.
I am also offended when Edward says in Eclipse that Sam and Emily love each other ‘almost’ as much as he loves Bella. Number one, Sam and Emily is a forced ‘destine’ union like yours so it’s not love and number two comparing your love to other peoples is a sign of insecurity and general ignorance.
Now let’s get to the heart of the matter. Bella is initially attracted to Edward because of his appearance-which isn’t a bad thing but it is if that’s the reason why you’re in love with someone. They don’t share any values or common interest and no Bella is NOT mature. As a seventeen year old I take offence when someone says Bella is mature. No really she’s not. She disrespects her father constantly, doesn’t have any real friends outside of Edward and when she does befriend Jacob she strings him along for selfish reasons. She complains constantly like a whiney bitch about living in Forks when she made the decision to move! She then gets married at 18 and then gets pregnant. Does this sound mature? I don’t think so and there are many more examples.
Now onto Edward being ‘in love’ with Bella. You expect me to believe that this guy goes like 100+ years without being attracted to anyone and then he just falls for oh so special Bella? Yeah I don’t buy it. The only reason for Edwards interest is because he can’t hear Bella (probably because she’s mind numbingly stupid) and she smells good. That’s a really deep relationship there. Also Edward is jealous and non trusting to an almost pathological degree. I’ve come to the conclusion that Edward and Bella are not in love. There in love with the idea of love. They project their desire to be in love with someone onto each other. Here are some differences between being truly in love and being in love with the idea of love.
1. You care about the other's person's life and the details of his or her life. Again, you don't live in a fantasy and just talk romantic, you find out what they do, how they feel, what's going on in their heads, with their families, their work, etc.
- Everything they talk about suddenly turns into some big romantic lovey dovey purple prose. They make everything out to be romantic and real love can’t carry on like that. It gets really exhausting.
2. You put the other person's needs and wants above your own. Unconditional love is the foundation of being in love. Lust is not love. Infatuation is not love. If all you do is think about having sex with this other person, and don't really care to make them a part of your life and you a part of theirs, then you're in love with love, not the other person.
- Does anyone remember how Bella went on for four books about wanting to get laid?
3. You pay attention to how they make you feel and how you make them feel. You're sensitive to not jumping to the wrong conclusion. There is trust. There is understanding. There is a real connection that isn't threatened either by the past, present or future. The relationship is secure...not one of ups and downs continually based on whether or not they call, write or show up on time.
-About the wrong conclusions thing, Bella always assumes Edward can’t ‘love’ her as much as she ‘loves’ him.
-Edward doesn’t trust Bella with Jacob. He doesn’t understand her feelings. Apparently their ‘destined’ romance connects them to a past, present, and future.
4. You actually like them, not just love and want them. Many times people who are in love with love do not even LIKE the person they've "attached their in love feelings to." If you spend half your time trying to change the other person, you don't really love them. You love yourself and are trying to make them fit your idea of perfect. Acceptance is a big part of true love.
-‘ Bella I don’t like Jacob so don’t hang out with him.’ ‘Bella your breakable we need to change this.’
You do not consider yourself better or worse than the one you love. You continually strive to be at one and at unity with the one you love, but many times it happens naturally because of the connection you share. There is nothing fake about the relationship.- This is one of the biggest points. A ‘love’ that makes you feel less than or superior is NOT a healthy relationship to have. Bella always feels less superior to Edward and Edward even says as much and encourages this when he goes on and on and on and on about how he could out run her, and kill her and how his perfect features enamor him.
You don't pretend to like what they like to make them believe you're like them. Why would you do that anyway? Being in love with love often causes people to lose their identity and try to be like the other person. When you're in love with the other person, each one respect's each other's hobbies and interests without forcing themselves to be like the other person.
-Bella has no life outside of Edward and Edward doesn’t have a life outside of Bella. Bella is always begging to be a vampire to be more like Edward and his family. Edward doesn’t like the fact that Bella likes riding motorcycles. He even tries to force his way into this hobby even though he likes cars not motorcycles.
It really seems that Edward and Bella’s love is based on their love of the emotion of love and lust rather than deep, meaningful, unconditional love. If this were real life instead of the puke worthy ‘and they lived happily ever after bit’ we got from Breaking Wind, Bella would be a clichéd version of her mother. She would be stuck with her kid and divorced because lush burns and consumes until there is nothing left and love based on that cannot last.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
My Favorite tv shows from 2000-2009
My picks for the best shows of the decade. Note that some shows started in the 1990's but they extended into the 2000's.
10.)True Blood (June 14, 2009-)
This hot new HBO show is sexy, fun, and it has vampires!
9.) That 70's Show (1998-2006)
The show was diffrent and fun and showed people around my age just what our parents were up to...
8.) Dead Like Me (2003-2004)
Yeah this Showtime show only lasted two seasons but it was a damn good show! The main character Georgia (George) Lass is hit by a falling toilet seat and becomes a Grim Reaper. Her dark humor makes her an endearing character and its fun to watch her and her fellow reapers try and live the best un-life they can. At least we got a movie.
7.)Arrested Development(2003-2006)
This Fox show only lasted three seasons, but still has a cult fan base. It was smart, whitty, and it made us feel better about our family drama. It was like the Royal Tenanbaums meets prime time. It may be over but there is still a chance for a movie in 2010!
6.) Law and Order Special Victims Unit (1999-)
It's the spin off that proves to be better than it's parent show. Law and Order SVU deals with the dark relaity of sex crimes and finds its strenght by focusing on the detectives who have to deal with their hard jobs.
5.)Dexter (2006-)
In it's fourth season finally showed rating breaking numbers for showtime. Dexter went up 40% in it's latest season, the season I started watching after catching the previous seasons on Sunday nights. Dexter is unlike anything on tv right now and will have you sympathizing with a killer...weird. With the shocking season finally I hope that Dexter has a few seasons left in it.
4.) Grey's Anatomy (2005-)
Yes some complain that it's not as good as it used to be, but you can't deny that is was a huge sucess when it first aired. It was a fresh take on the old concept of the hospital dramas and of course who wasn't invested in the Meredith Grey and Derek Shepherd drama?
3.)Weeds (2005-)
A pot dealing suburban mom? Follow Nancy Botwin on her crazy journy through the life of a drug dealer who is now married to a drug lord. Weeds is crazy, fun,drama-y and gives you the muchies!
2.) Friends (1994-2004)
This show got me though some hard times. The NBC show provided a half our of laughs with some good F.R.I.E.N.D.S every thrusday night.
1.) Buffy The Vampire Slayer (1997-2003)
Buffy lasted seven seasons on Fox and really changed tv. It was one of the first shows to have continuing arcs and it had strong female characters on television where there were little to none. A lot of shows owe a lot fo Buffy. Buffy was more than just a tv show it was art. Although Buffy is no longer on t.v. it's creator Joss Wheadon is now helping with Buffy season eight at Dark Horse Comics along with Angel after the fall.
10.)True Blood (June 14, 2009-)
This hot new HBO show is sexy, fun, and it has vampires!
9.) That 70's Show (1998-2006)
The show was diffrent and fun and showed people around my age just what our parents were up to...
8.) Dead Like Me (2003-2004)
Yeah this Showtime show only lasted two seasons but it was a damn good show! The main character Georgia (George) Lass is hit by a falling toilet seat and becomes a Grim Reaper. Her dark humor makes her an endearing character and its fun to watch her and her fellow reapers try and live the best un-life they can. At least we got a movie.
7.)Arrested Development(2003-2006)
This Fox show only lasted three seasons, but still has a cult fan base. It was smart, whitty, and it made us feel better about our family drama. It was like the Royal Tenanbaums meets prime time. It may be over but there is still a chance for a movie in 2010!
6.) Law and Order Special Victims Unit (1999-)
It's the spin off that proves to be better than it's parent show. Law and Order SVU deals with the dark relaity of sex crimes and finds its strenght by focusing on the detectives who have to deal with their hard jobs.
5.)Dexter (2006-)
In it's fourth season finally showed rating breaking numbers for showtime. Dexter went up 40% in it's latest season, the season I started watching after catching the previous seasons on Sunday nights. Dexter is unlike anything on tv right now and will have you sympathizing with a killer...weird. With the shocking season finally I hope that Dexter has a few seasons left in it.
4.) Grey's Anatomy (2005-)
Yes some complain that it's not as good as it used to be, but you can't deny that is was a huge sucess when it first aired. It was a fresh take on the old concept of the hospital dramas and of course who wasn't invested in the Meredith Grey and Derek Shepherd drama?
3.)Weeds (2005-)
A pot dealing suburban mom? Follow Nancy Botwin on her crazy journy through the life of a drug dealer who is now married to a drug lord. Weeds is crazy, fun,drama-y and gives you the muchies!
2.) Friends (1994-2004)
This show got me though some hard times. The NBC show provided a half our of laughs with some good F.R.I.E.N.D.S every thrusday night.
1.) Buffy The Vampire Slayer (1997-2003)
Buffy lasted seven seasons on Fox and really changed tv. It was one of the first shows to have continuing arcs and it had strong female characters on television where there were little to none. A lot of shows owe a lot fo Buffy. Buffy was more than just a tv show it was art. Although Buffy is no longer on t.v. it's creator Joss Wheadon is now helping with Buffy season eight at Dark Horse Comics along with Angel after the fall.
Women getting Court Martialed for getting pregnant?
Recently, Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo III has instituted a ban on female soldiers saying that if the female soldier they could be court marshaled or have a note put in their file that could prevent promotions later on. To make things 'fair' the General has added 'consequences' for the male soldiers who get female soldiers pregnant. His order comes with 20 things that the women are not allowed to do. Since when does ANYONE have the right to ANY woman’s reproductive rights? News flash if women didn't get pregnant you wouldn't have any soldiers at all. Why doesn't Gen. Cucolo go further and just ban the female soldiers from having any sex at all because they just might go and get themselves pregnant? And what about the fear a woman will feel if she does get pregnant?
These women soldiers signed up to fight in a war they did not create and they fight risking their lives but you’re telling them that if they get pregnant that they are going to be punished. Also I would like to point out that when the women did sign up for the army there was nothing in the contract that prohibited their reproductive rights. You can't just make the rules up as you go. If they knew what they were getting into first hand then it would be a different story.
These women soldiers signed up to fight in a war they did not create and they fight risking their lives but you’re telling them that if they get pregnant that they are going to be punished. Also I would like to point out that when the women did sign up for the army there was nothing in the contract that prohibited their reproductive rights. You can't just make the rules up as you go. If they knew what they were getting into first hand then it would be a different story.
Breast Cancer screenings at 50????
Okay so a recent study by so called 'professionals' came out saying that women should wait until 50 to get a mammogram. To this I say what the hell where they thinking. What's even more upsetting is that there was a woman on this panel and she didn't stand up for her gender. This is the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard in a while. My mother is a nurse and a breast cancer survivor (diagnosed at 41) and back when she started being a nurse in the eighties she recalls women getting breast cancer as early as their mid-twenties. Further more in the state of Utah they do not give mammograms until 50 and they have the HIGEST fatality of breast cancer deaths in the country. The United Kingdom also does not give mammograms until 50 and they too have a low catch rate and a HIGH death rate from breast cancer. In this day and age where EARLY PREVENTION is the key it is absolutely horrifying that some group would have the audacity to say suggest something so fatally stupid. Countless women have been SAVED by having mammograms. Also the panel says that you should not give yourself breast exams again I say WHAT? Giving yourself a self breast exam (preferably right after your period) can save your life. Even men should give themselves this exam! Women should know their bodies and they have to power to save themselves from this terrible disease. The AMA stands by their recommendation of women getting mammograms at 40. Women should still give themselves breast exams beforehand. If you feel something unusual go to a doctor! Hopefully soon someone will find a cure!
Why I am no longer a Twilight fan
Well I'll admit it. I started reading the Twilight series when I was fourteen and was sucked in, but recently after seeing Kristen Stewarts terrible acting in the Twilight and New moon movie (she helped me realize what a crappy character Bella actually was as well as showing me that she acts the same in every movie I’ve seen her in), I noticed some disturbing things and I re-read the books to investigate. What I found made me hang my head in shame because I consider myself to be a strong, intelligent, woman. How on earth did I fall for this? But then I reminded myself that a lot of strong women I know loved it as well including my own mother who is the strongest woman I know.
I discovered that Bella (who previously I didn't pay too much attention to because I was pretending it was me who was all in love with Edward) was weak, spineless, and EXTREAMLY selfish. She claims that she is not materialistic, but goes on to insult the appearance of Eric (the character who offers to help her out on her first day of school). She then goes onto write off every human character who is friendly to her. Then she claims she is in love Edward after like three conversations all of which Edward is telling her 'hey I want to kill you.' Every time she manages to tell off Edward for his behavior (like when Edward took her car engine out in Eclipse so she couldn’t see Edward and he tells her if she doesn’t want him in her room to shut the window. She shuts it which is SO reasonable, but the opens it as wide as it will go) she backs down after a few seconds. She leads Jacob on because she NEEDS a man to take care of her.
What really turned me off of the series was the truth about Edward...he was EMOTIONALLY abusive not to mention a stalker(I recommend watching Buffy vs. Edward it’s great!). I think that this was so hard for me to notice before because growing up I along with most girls were taught never to let a man hit you, but we weren't really taught to recognize emotional abuse (I was especially mad at myself for not noticing Edwards abuse because my aunt's husband is incredibly emotionally abusive and I’ve seen this behavior for years.) The quote that really stood out to prove this is in chapter five of Twilight:
We were near the parking lot now. I veered left, toward my truck. Something caught my jacket, yanking me back.
“Where do you think you’re going?” he asked, outraged. He was gripping a fistful of my jacket in one hand.
I was confused. “I’m going home.”
“Didn’t you hear me promise to take you safely home? Do you think I'm going to let you drive in your condition?” His voice was still indignant.
“What condition? And what about my truck?” I complained.
“I’ll have Alice drop it off after school.” He was towing me toward his car now, pulling me by my jacket. It was all I could do to keep from falling backward. He'd probably just drag me along anyway if I did.
“Let go!” I insisted. He ignored me. I staggered along sideways across the wet sidewalk until we reached the Volvo. Then he finally freed me — I stumbled against the passenger door.
“You are so pushy!” I grumbled.
“It’s open,” was all he responded. He got in the driver’s side.
“I am perfectly capable of driving myself home!” I stood by the car, fuming. It was raining harder now, and I’d never put my hood up, so my hair was dripping down my back.
He lowered the automatic window and leaned toward me across the seat. “Get in, Bella.”
I didn’t answer. I was mentally calculating my chances of reaching the truck before he could catch me. I had to admit, they weren’t good.
“I’ll just drag you back,” he threatened, guessing my plan.
Yeah girls that is NEVER okay to let a guy do that to you. It is NOT romantic! There are many more examples throughout the series that I could name cough*Eclipse when Edward steels Bella’s truck engine to make sure she doesn’t go and see Jacob* cough., but for now I digress. Moving on to Jacob.
One how is he 'in' love with Bella because she is so one dimensional and just plain WEAK (I’m not saying physically I mean emotionally). Anyway I liked Jake until I re-read Eclipse and Breaking Dawn. When Jake forces a kiss on Bella THAT IS NOT OKAY. In fact it is SEXUAL abuse and if you say he's only 16 that is not an excuse. In fact it's terrifying because that behavior could escalate further. Later on he blackmails stupid Bella telling her he will get himself killed if she doesn't kiss her (even when I was a fan I thought that was a horrible plot device-I mean what kind of IDIOT would fall for that? Oh right Bellasue). In Breaking Dawn Jacob is all torn up about this non reciprocated love and he takes it out on people which is immature but not a total sin, but what irks me is how he still is mean towards Leah who had a worse situation. I mean come on Jake, Leah's ex-love actually chose to love her back and was engaged to her and she was an indirect cause to her father’s death. Any hope of me liking Jacob again upon my re-reading totally ended when he 'imprinted' on Renesmee. For those of you, who argue that imprinting is not sexual and Jake will be whatever Renesmee needs until she is older, well you JUST proved my point. He is placing himself in her life and forming a connection with her. This is the DEFINITION of Child grooming. If you don't believe me here is what the dictionary has to say about it:Child grooming refers to actions deliberately undertaken with the aim of befriending and establishing an emotional connection with a child, in order to lower the child's inhibitions in preparation for child sexual abuse. Imprinting is for the purpose of creating a stronger wolf so yes it does lead to a sexual relationship and no little Claire and Renesmee have no choice because they are being raised to love these men and trust them. In Breaking Dawn Jacob is talking to Quil and thinks the following:Though I did think it sucked that he had a good fourteen years of monkitude ahead of him until Claire was his age — for Quil, at least, it was a good thing werewolves didn’t get older. But even all that time didn’t seem to bother him much. This proves that when Claire reaches a certain age she is expected to enter into a Sexual relationship with her 'uncle' Quil. Anyway you spin it it's wrong. Imagine if some 17 year old told you he wanted to marry your 3 year old one day. Would you let him around your kid? I don't think so. At least not if you were a good parent.
Now onto female characters in the series. Stephenie Meyers argues that Bella is not anti-feminist because she makes her own choices, but the only choices she ever makes are the ones Edward lets her makes. She chooses to get married at 18 because Edward forced it on her or she wouldn't get any sex from him. She has a child at 18 becoming the very embodiment of what she didn't want(I’m not even going to comment on what an epic fail plot device that was in terms of chromosomes and sperm issues ). Stephenie Meyers goes on to say that not everyone can be a slayer (referencing Buffy the Vampire Slayer which is my favorite show of all time!) implying that sweet, innocent, Bella is more relatable with her huge flaws of clumsiness and blushing (as someone who is somewhat clumsy and who blushes I say HEY! These aren't flaws there endearing damn it!). The thing about Buffy is that to me Buffy was relatable. She was a superhero, but at the core of the show she was a normal girl trying to live her life and do some good and I think most girls, most people can relate to feeling alone, and wanting so badly to do the right thing and struggle with yourself and are several characters on Buffy who aren't supernatural like Xander who managed to dust the occasional vampire and he actually had a personality and was attracted to strong women who could make their own decisions (did I mention I LOVE this show). So no Mrs. Meyer your character doesn’t have to be a slayer, but she does need to be three dimensional. Bella is not the only female character who is portrayed as weak in the series. In fact I don’t think there is one. We have Bella's mother Renee who is portrayed as flighty and immature and who makes Phil (Bella's stepfather) the center of her life (hum sound familiar). We have Emily who stays with a man who attacked her and slashed her face (it's okay though because she MADE Sam mad so it's all her fault) and she sits around the house making food and cleaning house (I have nothing against stay at home mother my grandmother was one, but she was strong willed and had a life outside of the title of mother and wife). Then we have Embry's mother who is a single parent and it feels like Meyer's character’s are punishing her for being a single parent by not letting her own son tell her what the heck going on. It's not like anyone would believe her if she did go spouting off about werewolves but whatever. Next, we have Leah who could have been fantastic if Meyer's didn't just stick her in the stereotypical role of scorned woman. She wasn’t allowed to grow as a character and we got no explanation of why she was the only she wolf. What annoyed me most about Leah and Rosalie’s character portrayal was the fact that they were somehow less female because they couldn't have kids. That's a bad message to portray. What about the women who are sterile or the women who just chose not to have kids? Are they not fully female? For those of you who argue that Alice is a strong female character...if you compare Alice to actual strong female characters like Buffy, or Detective Olivia Benson, or Donna Pinciotti she doesn't stack up. Her main hobby is shopping (which isn't bad unless it's your only 'hobby'.) Even her power of mind reading is faulty and unreliable at best unlike Edward and Jaspers gifts who are always accurate. And God forbid Jane could actually be one of the rulers of the Volturi right?
The last point I will make is the writing it’s self. The flowery purple prose (term used to describe literature where the writing is unnecessarily flowery. It means that the writer described the situation (or wrote the entire book, passage, etc) using words that are too extravagant for the type of text, or any text at all. basically, over-describing something. with stupid words)reads more like a bad fanfic and the books don't really have a plot. Take Twilight for instance. No real danger occurs until James shows up in the last hundred pages of the book and there was no build up for James in the first place. I think Stephen King wraps it up best when he said: “Both[J.K] Rowling and Meyer, they’re speaking directly to young people…The real difference is that Jo Rowling is a terrific writer and Stephenie Meyer can’t write worth a darn. She’s not very good.” In fairness to Stephenie she is new at this and maybe as she goes on as a writer she will become better. She’s already done better with The Host. My main message to her would be when I say I want strong female characters I don't mean physically strong. I mean emotionally strong. We don't need anymore damsels in distress (and I’m not saying it’s wrong for someone to get saved when their in danger). We need more Buffy’s, Willows, heck even Cordelia’s. We want Hermione’s not Rosalie’s. I'm tired of books that don't have good female characters to relate to!
In closing, I would like to thank you for reading and say that I didn't intend for this to be an attack on the series. I just wanted to point out why I myself was no longer a fan. Have a wonderful day!
-Missbrunettgirl
I discovered that Bella (who previously I didn't pay too much attention to because I was pretending it was me who was all in love with Edward) was weak, spineless, and EXTREAMLY selfish. She claims that she is not materialistic, but goes on to insult the appearance of Eric (the character who offers to help her out on her first day of school). She then goes onto write off every human character who is friendly to her. Then she claims she is in love Edward after like three conversations all of which Edward is telling her 'hey I want to kill you.' Every time she manages to tell off Edward for his behavior (like when Edward took her car engine out in Eclipse so she couldn’t see Edward and he tells her if she doesn’t want him in her room to shut the window. She shuts it which is SO reasonable, but the opens it as wide as it will go) she backs down after a few seconds. She leads Jacob on because she NEEDS a man to take care of her.
What really turned me off of the series was the truth about Edward...he was EMOTIONALLY abusive not to mention a stalker(I recommend watching Buffy vs. Edward it’s great!). I think that this was so hard for me to notice before because growing up I along with most girls were taught never to let a man hit you, but we weren't really taught to recognize emotional abuse (I was especially mad at myself for not noticing Edwards abuse because my aunt's husband is incredibly emotionally abusive and I’ve seen this behavior for years.) The quote that really stood out to prove this is in chapter five of Twilight:
We were near the parking lot now. I veered left, toward my truck. Something caught my jacket, yanking me back.
“Where do you think you’re going?” he asked, outraged. He was gripping a fistful of my jacket in one hand.
I was confused. “I’m going home.”
“Didn’t you hear me promise to take you safely home? Do you think I'm going to let you drive in your condition?” His voice was still indignant.
“What condition? And what about my truck?” I complained.
“I’ll have Alice drop it off after school.” He was towing me toward his car now, pulling me by my jacket. It was all I could do to keep from falling backward. He'd probably just drag me along anyway if I did.
“Let go!” I insisted. He ignored me. I staggered along sideways across the wet sidewalk until we reached the Volvo. Then he finally freed me — I stumbled against the passenger door.
“You are so pushy!” I grumbled.
“It’s open,” was all he responded. He got in the driver’s side.
“I am perfectly capable of driving myself home!” I stood by the car, fuming. It was raining harder now, and I’d never put my hood up, so my hair was dripping down my back.
He lowered the automatic window and leaned toward me across the seat. “Get in, Bella.”
I didn’t answer. I was mentally calculating my chances of reaching the truck before he could catch me. I had to admit, they weren’t good.
“I’ll just drag you back,” he threatened, guessing my plan.
Yeah girls that is NEVER okay to let a guy do that to you. It is NOT romantic! There are many more examples throughout the series that I could name cough*Eclipse when Edward steels Bella’s truck engine to make sure she doesn’t go and see Jacob* cough., but for now I digress. Moving on to Jacob.
One how is he 'in' love with Bella because she is so one dimensional and just plain WEAK (I’m not saying physically I mean emotionally). Anyway I liked Jake until I re-read Eclipse and Breaking Dawn. When Jake forces a kiss on Bella THAT IS NOT OKAY. In fact it is SEXUAL abuse and if you say he's only 16 that is not an excuse. In fact it's terrifying because that behavior could escalate further. Later on he blackmails stupid Bella telling her he will get himself killed if she doesn't kiss her (even when I was a fan I thought that was a horrible plot device-I mean what kind of IDIOT would fall for that? Oh right Bellasue). In Breaking Dawn Jacob is all torn up about this non reciprocated love and he takes it out on people which is immature but not a total sin, but what irks me is how he still is mean towards Leah who had a worse situation. I mean come on Jake, Leah's ex-love actually chose to love her back and was engaged to her and she was an indirect cause to her father’s death. Any hope of me liking Jacob again upon my re-reading totally ended when he 'imprinted' on Renesmee. For those of you, who argue that imprinting is not sexual and Jake will be whatever Renesmee needs until she is older, well you JUST proved my point. He is placing himself in her life and forming a connection with her. This is the DEFINITION of Child grooming. If you don't believe me here is what the dictionary has to say about it:Child grooming refers to actions deliberately undertaken with the aim of befriending and establishing an emotional connection with a child, in order to lower the child's inhibitions in preparation for child sexual abuse. Imprinting is for the purpose of creating a stronger wolf so yes it does lead to a sexual relationship and no little Claire and Renesmee have no choice because they are being raised to love these men and trust them. In Breaking Dawn Jacob is talking to Quil and thinks the following:Though I did think it sucked that he had a good fourteen years of monkitude ahead of him until Claire was his age — for Quil, at least, it was a good thing werewolves didn’t get older. But even all that time didn’t seem to bother him much. This proves that when Claire reaches a certain age she is expected to enter into a Sexual relationship with her 'uncle' Quil. Anyway you spin it it's wrong. Imagine if some 17 year old told you he wanted to marry your 3 year old one day. Would you let him around your kid? I don't think so. At least not if you were a good parent.
Now onto female characters in the series. Stephenie Meyers argues that Bella is not anti-feminist because she makes her own choices, but the only choices she ever makes are the ones Edward lets her makes. She chooses to get married at 18 because Edward forced it on her or she wouldn't get any sex from him. She has a child at 18 becoming the very embodiment of what she didn't want(I’m not even going to comment on what an epic fail plot device that was in terms of chromosomes and sperm issues ). Stephenie Meyers goes on to say that not everyone can be a slayer (referencing Buffy the Vampire Slayer which is my favorite show of all time!) implying that sweet, innocent, Bella is more relatable with her huge flaws of clumsiness and blushing (as someone who is somewhat clumsy and who blushes I say HEY! These aren't flaws there endearing damn it!). The thing about Buffy is that to me Buffy was relatable. She was a superhero, but at the core of the show she was a normal girl trying to live her life and do some good and I think most girls, most people can relate to feeling alone, and wanting so badly to do the right thing and struggle with yourself and are several characters on Buffy who aren't supernatural like Xander who managed to dust the occasional vampire and he actually had a personality and was attracted to strong women who could make their own decisions (did I mention I LOVE this show). So no Mrs. Meyer your character doesn’t have to be a slayer, but she does need to be three dimensional. Bella is not the only female character who is portrayed as weak in the series. In fact I don’t think there is one. We have Bella's mother Renee who is portrayed as flighty and immature and who makes Phil (Bella's stepfather) the center of her life (hum sound familiar). We have Emily who stays with a man who attacked her and slashed her face (it's okay though because she MADE Sam mad so it's all her fault) and she sits around the house making food and cleaning house (I have nothing against stay at home mother my grandmother was one, but she was strong willed and had a life outside of the title of mother and wife). Then we have Embry's mother who is a single parent and it feels like Meyer's character’s are punishing her for being a single parent by not letting her own son tell her what the heck going on. It's not like anyone would believe her if she did go spouting off about werewolves but whatever. Next, we have Leah who could have been fantastic if Meyer's didn't just stick her in the stereotypical role of scorned woman. She wasn’t allowed to grow as a character and we got no explanation of why she was the only she wolf. What annoyed me most about Leah and Rosalie’s character portrayal was the fact that they were somehow less female because they couldn't have kids. That's a bad message to portray. What about the women who are sterile or the women who just chose not to have kids? Are they not fully female? For those of you who argue that Alice is a strong female character...if you compare Alice to actual strong female characters like Buffy, or Detective Olivia Benson, or Donna Pinciotti she doesn't stack up. Her main hobby is shopping (which isn't bad unless it's your only 'hobby'.) Even her power of mind reading is faulty and unreliable at best unlike Edward and Jaspers gifts who are always accurate. And God forbid Jane could actually be one of the rulers of the Volturi right?
The last point I will make is the writing it’s self. The flowery purple prose (term used to describe literature where the writing is unnecessarily flowery. It means that the writer described the situation (or wrote the entire book, passage, etc) using words that are too extravagant for the type of text, or any text at all. basically, over-describing something. with stupid words)reads more like a bad fanfic and the books don't really have a plot. Take Twilight for instance. No real danger occurs until James shows up in the last hundred pages of the book and there was no build up for James in the first place. I think Stephen King wraps it up best when he said: “Both[J.K] Rowling and Meyer, they’re speaking directly to young people…The real difference is that Jo Rowling is a terrific writer and Stephenie Meyer can’t write worth a darn. She’s not very good.” In fairness to Stephenie she is new at this and maybe as she goes on as a writer she will become better. She’s already done better with The Host. My main message to her would be when I say I want strong female characters I don't mean physically strong. I mean emotionally strong. We don't need anymore damsels in distress (and I’m not saying it’s wrong for someone to get saved when their in danger). We need more Buffy’s, Willows, heck even Cordelia’s. We want Hermione’s not Rosalie’s. I'm tired of books that don't have good female characters to relate to!
In closing, I would like to thank you for reading and say that I didn't intend for this to be an attack on the series. I just wanted to point out why I myself was no longer a fan. Have a wonderful day!
-Missbrunettgirl
Cheating gene...WTF???
So I’m watching Tyra and today’s topic is about the cheating gene. First of all how convenient. Is it me or does no one in today’s society take any responsibility for their actions? Studies show that there is a cheating gene in ANIMALS hum...somehow I don't think we can even use this as an excuse for cheating now. Sorry cheaters! The point is that even if there was a gene that predisposed someone to cheating there is ALWAYS a choice. In fact the study says that most men DO NOT succumb to this 'genetic quirk.' For all of you who say that men are primal and animalistic and monogamy is unrealistic I say to you: revert back and become an animal. What separates us from animals is CHOICE so if you say you are a slave to your desires I say your full of shit!
Science says that yes there are genes that can contribute to alcoholism (my family has a history of this), diabetes, cancer (have that one too), and other diseases, but seriously this stuff is all learned behavior. We learn to do things. If I blacked out the first time I drank I would stop! So please stop using DNA for an excuse for lack of self control. And by the way why the HELL are we wasting money for this crap defense? Shouldn't we be...oh I don't know...trying to find a cure for cancer or AIDS or something?
Peace out,
Missbrunettgirl
Science says that yes there are genes that can contribute to alcoholism (my family has a history of this), diabetes, cancer (have that one too), and other diseases, but seriously this stuff is all learned behavior. We learn to do things. If I blacked out the first time I drank I would stop! So please stop using DNA for an excuse for lack of self control. And by the way why the HELL are we wasting money for this crap defense? Shouldn't we be...oh I don't know...trying to find a cure for cancer or AIDS or something?
Peace out,
Missbrunettgirl
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)