In defense of Bella

(originally posted 10/16/2009)
Lately I’ve seen a number of editorials criticizing Twilight heroine, Bella.

I understand why the books make easy fodder; For starters, the series is popular, and there’s nothing like tearing down something the stupid ol’ general public has swallowed up like ding-dongs to induce mass amounts of self-righteous satisfaction.

Additionally, the books are marketed toward the decidedly un-elite group of readers known as teenagers, so telling them in painful detail why the love-sick leading lady is no one to be admired can seem akin to doing some sort of public service.

But I’m sick of it.

Admittedly, I consume an awful lot of the literary equivalent to junk food. I read more Stephan King than Herman Melville—but it doesn’t mean I’m stupid or uneducated. It just means I admit that while crème brulee is wonderful, sometimes you just want a Big Mac. Sometimes, junk is good. Sure, it won’t enlighten us in any big way, it won’t look prestigious sitting on a book shelf, but it’s satisfying in a way that is fun and easy.

It is this pervasive attitude that by embracing the story of Bella and Edward—a 17 year old girl who falls slavishly in love with her vampire soul mate, abandoning her own safety and future simply to be in his presence-- we are somehow spitting in the face of the women who fought for equality that I find offensive.

First of all, last I knew, “equality” does not mean “dominance” or “superiority.” It means, well, equal. So for all the nay-sayers insisting that Bella does us great cultural harm by not constantly having the upper hand in her relationship, I say ”Phhhhhllllllttttt.” Yeah, that was me typing out a farting sound I’d make with my mouth. Like I said, l can appreciate low-brow.

No one, living or undead, should look to be the one constantly controlling a relationship. Love is about give and take and the unending search for equality. In these books, Bella suffers for love. Edward suffers too. They both pain and pine for each other. They both hold powerful sway over the other. Guess what? it’s not about gender inequality. Love’s a bitch, for men and women. That’s the truth and that’s the plot. So ease off.

Another common criticism is that Bella has no hobbies aside from caring from her father and loving Edward. As for the caring for her father, I find the stereotype that men are little more than infants left burning their dinners and mismatching their socks more offensive than the idea of a teenager being considerate enough to make dinner for a single parent working long hours. Also, in the context of the book, the father and daughter have an incredibly difficult time expressing their love to one another, and I read this as Bella’s unspoken way of showing her father the affection she could not otherwise communicate.

As far as the all consuming nature of Bella’s love for Edward…uh, Hello! Have you recently spoken to a teenager—or anyone for that matter—in the throws of new love? It IS all consuming. Stupidly, painfully all consuming. So whether the author wrote Bella pining for Edward at cheerleader practice (something that wouldn’t fit for such an introverted character) or pining for him over her calculus homework, it would be unrealistic to have a desperately in love teenage girl acting any other way than desperately in love.

Speaking of calculus homework, I’ve even read criticisms that Bella isn’t shown doing enough school work in the books. Wait… give me a minute for this one.
…
…
…

ARE YOU SERIOUS? THIS IS A BOOK ABOUT HOT FRICKIN’ VAMPIRES, FAST CARS, ETERNAL LOVE AND EPIC FIGHT SCENES. IF I HAD TO READ EVEN ANOTHER PARAGRAPH ABOUT 12TH GRADE HOMEWORK I WOULD BREAK DOWN IN TEARS AND POSSIBLY SEIZURES. DO YOU WANT THAT ON YOU CONSCIENCE?

Sorry, I shouldn’t have gone all upper-case like that. But C’mon! Nobody, NOBODY wants to spend their time vicariously reliving their high school syllabus.

Finally, lets throw everything else I said out the window and assume, superficially, the critics are right. Bella is a subservient, weak-willed, love struck, mild-tempered woman. Now get ready for it because I’m about to drop a big ol’ “she said wha????” bomb:

So what?

Since when did the right for women to be outspoken, strong-willed and unattached become the responsibility that they be so? Are we, as women, honestly to be so pigeonholed? Doomed only to assume the “I’m a strong, independent woman” personality traits deemed befitting a generation of women privileged to have the option to behave as such? Sorry, but being told who you have to be—in spite of your true nature—is oppression. It is the opposite of what people fought for. Women can be sassy, classy, rich and righteous . They can also be meek and mild and soft and passive. That’s freedom.

So back off Bella, you self-righteous literary critics. And c’mon. Admit it, the whole reason you're blasting the character is so you could have an excuse take a break from reading War and Peace and have yourself a nice, tasty, trashy, Big Mac of a book.