*still annoyed about the Leah Clearwater lovefest at das_sporking*

[guardians_song]

Yes, she's a good character in an awful book. The utter worship, however, is [irritating].

And I know I'm not one to preach with my fannishness towards Ronald Weasley and the like, but I'd like to think that even I'd get unnerved if everyone constantly talked about how he was the Best Thing Ever.

Come on. Leah is a fighter, someone with a massive (and understandable) chip on her shoulder, and a character who got majorly screwed over by the canon. That doesn't automatically make her a strong leader, intelligent planner, or... any of that.

And also, while I'm ranting, I'm going to get something off my back:
If you insist on consistently piling a certain set of traits onto your favorite characters, regardless of whether those characters actually possess those traits in the slightest, it begins to imply that you don't think people without those traits are really worthy of admiration.

...Yes, this applies to me too. I tend to write characters as being more scholarly than they actually are. I need to lay off of this, unless I'm intentionally boosting the characters' abilities/intellect/whatnot.

Still. It irritates me.

Comments

[redwoodalchan]

"Devoting an entire post to the Leah Clearwater chatbox was just BEYOND WEIRD, in my opinion. I mean, fine, so the comm likes her. But an ENTIRE POST?"

What got me is when they were sporking Bree Tanner and not only saw fit to use her as a guest sporker (which would be one thing) but also named the chapter she guest-sporked after her despite the fact that she didn't even appear in the chapter at all!

"They stand out as good characters and people because they're given fewer opportunities than the leads to do anything offensive or moronic.
And if they do anything offensive or moronic, it's usually against the main characters, which will get ignored/justified/glorified because the main characters are such lousy people. D| "

In fairness, the most offensive/moronic thing Leah's done thus far is to whine about how she'll never be able to have kids and this somehow makes her less of a woman (or something). And they did talk about this, though they also wrote it off as out-of-character.

To which I'm like, no duh it doesn't fit with what we've seen of her thus far! She's a character in a bad novel! Characters in bad novels tend to be inconsistent!

It seems to me lately that a lot of the commentary they have is degenerating into the same points I always hear when I visit a Twilight discussion board, repeated over and over and over: yes the books are sexist and racist, yes the characters are all abusive assholes, yes Leah is getting screwed over--along with virtually everyone else who isn't Bella or Edward or maybe Alice. I mean, maybe it's because there's been such a lull in what's been happening in the books, but it's starting to feel like they've just run out of things to talk about. Which may be why they spend so much time worshiping Leah.

In any event, though, what these people seem to be missing about Leah is that she is really the ONLY halfway-decent character in Twilight, and that this is actually a bad thing in and of itself. I mean, we're talking about a four-book series with a cast that probably numbers solidly into the double digits if you count everyone...and yet only Leah has any real staying power. Even the leads are sorry excused for characters. This doesn't make Leah an especially good character, and it certainly doesn't make her the goddess of everything--it just means that Meyer is such a hack when it comes to character design and execution that she only ever got it right once!

[guardians_song]

"What got me is when they were sporking Bree Tanner and not only saw fit to use her as a guest sporker (which would be one thing) but also named the chapter she guest-sporked after her despite the fact that she didn't even appear in the chapter at all!"
I... missed that chapter. o________________o

"In fairness, the most offensive/moronic thing Leah's done thus far is to whine about how she'll never be able to have kids and this somehow makes her less of a woman (or something). And they did talk about this, though they also wrote it off as out-of-character."
I was thinking more of coming up with reasons to excuse Emmett and Rosalie's behavior, or giggling over how the two of them would totally **** Edward's sh*t up, while the same behavior would get unconditional condemnation in any other character. -_-;; I may also be cross-referencing the actual sporkings with some of the spitefic, which tends to be a lot nastier.

"To which I'm like, no duh it doesn't fit with what we've seen of her thus far! She's a character in a bad novel! Characters in bad novels tend to be inconsistent!"
Exactly - I mean, I like how Carlisle is supposed to be, because, as I see it, his monstrous behavior come from Meyer's general sociopathic misunderstanding of morality and compassion. (A hint, Meyer: Cannibalism is NOT just an alternate lifestyle choice, and tolerating it does NOT make you a good person!) But Das Sporking cuts him no slack because they take the monstrous behavior at face value.


"It seems to me lately that a lot of the commentary they have is degenerating into the same points I always hear when I visit a Twilight discussion board, repeated over and over and over: yes the books are sexist and racist, yes the characters are all abusive assholes, yes Leah is getting screwed over--along with virtually everyone else who isn't Bella or Edward or maybe Alice."
You forgot "*ragegif* *rantgif* *explodegif* *ragegif* *demotivational* *angry cat macros* *more angry cat macros*". :P
"I mean, maybe it's because there's been such a lull in what's been happening in the books, but it's starting to feel like they've just run out of things to talk about. Which may be why they spend so much time worshiping Leah."
The thing is, they really haven't. Breaking Dawn is chock-full of lunatic crack if you're willing to stop taking everything about it Totally Seriously for five seconds.

Half my problem with the constant rage and nitpicking is that they're somehow managed to make recapping Breaking Dawn boring.

"In any event, though, what these people seem to be missing about Leah is that she is really the ONLY halfway-decent character in Twilight, and that this is actually a bad thing in and of itself."
And it's solely because A) she's on the 'let's not eat humans, PERIOD' side, and B) Meyer hasn't paid enough attention to her. If you bribed Meyer to treat her "well", she'd slide right into sociopathy with the rest of the cast.

It happened to Jacob after New Moon. Why haven't people caught on that she's just female!"Jerkwad", Stage I?

"I mean, we're talking about a four-book series with a cast that probably numbers solidly into the double digits if you count everyone...and yet only Leah has any real staying power. Even the leads are sorry excused for characters. This doesn't make Leah an especially good character, and it certainly doesn't make her the goddess of everything--it just means that Meyer is such a hack when it comes to character design and execution that she only ever got it right once!"
As I said, I really think that she did NOT get Leah right - she just didn't give her enough "sympathetic" screentime. Rosalie and Emmett were also better before Meyer started treating them with more... fondness.

To be petty, I think it also helped that Leah's actor didn't have to put on the same clownface makeup that the vampires did, and that her face is more unambiguously attractive than Taylor Lautner's. Those 'Knights Who Say Leah' icons wouldn't be quite as popular if she looked like, say, Mary Tudor. *cynical*