Twilight could, however, have been saved it Stephanie Meyer had actually killied both Edward and Bella off in the last book; if the fight with the Volturi had actually occured, and neither survived. It would have been a better ending, by a long way, and us literature types could at least have the excuse that their love- like all unhealthy love- cannot possibly last.

If this was a real person, that truly existed, then what you are saying is completely correct; those of us- in this case, me- who are lambasting Bella as unfeminist are being restrictive. However, Bella is not a real person; Bella is a character in a novel, and as such her reactions to certain things are contrived by Stephanie Meyer to achieve different forms. For example, with Edward watching her sleep, any- and every- girl should be absolutely more horrified of his invasion of her privacy than Bella is. When Edward leaves Forkes, and goes through her things to remove things that will remind her of him, she should be beyond angry for what equates both to thievery and trespass. When Edward removes the car from her engine, so that she cannot visit Jacob, he is being more a parent than a boyfriend, and that is something left over from Victorian England and extreme patriarchy.

The issue here, something you've missed, is that Bella didn't make those choices, Stephanie Meyer did; hence the argument the author is evincing. To tell us that we, by disapproving of the author's choices, are being antifeminist is a little childish; it feels like the rant of a three year old, crying for their rattle back. We have taken something from you here; what, exactly? The enjoyment of trash fiction? There's plenty of it online, of you want to look. It is only because Twilight is so widespread that we question it's theme, and dislike its main character and her portrail of feminine love.

Rosalie and Alice's origin stories both involve them being victimised by men, and both being utterly unable to avoid it; in Rosalie's case, she was gifted with vampirism by a man, as was Alice. Jane is a character ruled over by a man; Victoria goes berzerk when Edward kills her man. In EACH of these situations men are portrayed as being greater/more powerful than women.

It is reasonable to respect a real person's choices, but a character in a novel so wide spread cannot be held up as real; therefore, we can most definately question why the author chose- not the character, Stephanie Meyer- to make Bella so utter anodyne and anemic, and so willing to relinquish herself for what is the possiblility of being an eternal teenager with a hollywood teen hearthrob. Bella is a nightmare to feminism, because she makes it attractive to young women to subsume their own desires completely in order to attract a man who is so effortlessly wealthy/good at everything that no matter what she cannot compete or compare? And that is just the first step; not only does she lack character outside of her relationships with men, when in them she assumes half their character for her own; she is different with Jacob then with Edward.

In short, the book and movie series is- in addition to being poorly written- to the severe detriment of young women who grow up thinking that Bella's expectations are realistic, and are the complete antithesis of true feminism.

A healthy relationship is one in which there is an equal dialogue between the two that exist within it, and no member involved does anything that places the other in a situation where pain is unavoidable. Whether or not it was Edward's choice or not, he placed Bella under all kinds of emotional blackmail, and when Bella fell pregnant she did exactly the same to him. Now, I can understand a pedant's desire to be exact, but perhaps you need to be better aquainted with your material before you start criticising it; it is much easier for you, as her article is merely a scroll upwards.

The target of this article is Bella, not Edward, regardless of what you seem to think; perhaps, like so many of the other supporters of this ridiculous trilogy of quasi-fiction, you need, instead of asking the author of this article if they read the books- which I have no doubt they have, as if I am going to criticise something I make sure I know as much as I can about it first- you should try reading their critism first, hmm?

Secondly, you are also wrong with the claim that Edward has had no other relationships; the leader of the Denali coven had designs on him that never eventuated. Just because one happens to like the Bella- Edward paring does not mean one can discount evidence to the contrary.

Finally, while it is somewhat of a trope that humans are more breakable than vampires, I don't buy into this as a legitimate plot device. The original vampire stories displayed vampires as strong at night, but weak during the day; the creation of a vampiric ethos as ridiculously overpowered- so much so as to blow Anne Rice, a legitimate vampire author, completely away- as Stephanie Mayer's vampires is a plot choice, one perpetrated by an author with a conservative background, if not agenda. Conservatism has always been bound up in issues of men being greater, stronger, better than women; Twilight is- and would- not out of place in a 1950's world, if one only edited out the sex scenes.

Fairytales have a long and checkered history with patriarchy; the women in them need men, and are basically plot devices for the men within them to save the day. If you disbelieve me, have a serious look at the Brother's Grimm versions of the classic stories, after having a good hard look in the mirror and realising, hey, maybe you're not all that

"In New Moon when he takes a leave of absence what’s a girl to do? Find something in them self? NO! Find another man! Enter Jacob, another troubled male figure who helps her cope with her loss and then leaves her hanging."
In New Moon Bella actually dealt with the depression a lot better than Edward did. Edward curled up in a ball and did nothing for 7 months, whereas Bella tried to overcome the depression, though she failed she at least put in an effort. When Bella is changed into a vampire, she's on equal grounds with Edward physically and isn't always protected. I don't think your points are wrong, but this is just the other side of the argument.

"She has no identity of her own, and literally loses her mind without the constant influence of vampire boy. At the end of Twilight, when Edward attempts to leave her in the hospital, she almost gives herself a stroke. Again in New Moon, when he tells her he has to go (because he’s a danger to her), she’s shown on the ground in the fetal position, looking a junkie whose about to kill herself."
Jacob fell into a state of depression when Bella married Edward, and Edward curled up into a ball for 7 months, fed off rats, and tried to kill himself without Bella. I don't think its Bella without a sense of identity, I think all of these characters lack depth.

"Bella isn’t a strong character and shouldn’t be revered for her behavior in these films. She’s nothing more than a shadow for a man rather than a pillar for herself and not only is that dangerous but it’s a discouraging message to send to girls."
So the point of these books to tell a story or to show the ideal role model?

Anyways, I don't find Twilight a "nightmare" to feminism, it's definitely misanthropic but not misogynistic. The point of feminism is to give women equality right? To view women as equal to men. If you tell a woman she can't do something because she's a woman, then that's sexist and "anti-feminist." Bella made the choice to be a mother and a wife and to not go to college, no one forced her into anything. In fact, Edward constantly asked her to apply to more schools, and experience her life as a human instead of giving up her mortality. Bella chose to be what she is, she's not a role model, she's just making her choices for her.

IRT _Little Women_, I could not read that flock of fluttering twits without gagging and throwing the book across the room. My mother handed me her Nancy Drews after that, and basically gave up on breaking me of being a tomboy.