It’s humorous how the first few chapters of this book correspond to a handy guide. Level 1: Like chapter 1, a pretty good, sensible essay. Level 5: Like chapter 5, pure insanity that causes Greece tremors from all the bodies spinning in their graves. This chapter was almost level 4, bad but not too bad but by the end…
Oh, and again I’m sorry for how long this will be, I’ll be quoting a lot from the source just to give everyone the full context and head off any claims of misrepresentation.
So the essay starts out recapping the basics of meyer’s werewolves – especially as it relates to the alpha’s control of the pack and imprinting.
As these questions suggest, the Twilight books raise a number of issues about free will. Most of us think we have free will, in that what we do is up to us.
Oh great. Discussions of free will never end well.
(Sometimes you even get fan fics)
Well what follows is a lot of examples from Twilight about the book’s general opinion of free will (Alice alone seems to prove its favor) contrasting with the wolves. I think we can all agree that the wolves got shafted in the twilight saga.
Maybe there’s a better way to understand free will. … Many philosophers have concluded that what a person does in a given situation depends on the beliefs and desires that person has.
Well no duh – no decision made by anyone takes place in a vacuum. Just because beliefs and desires play a role in our decision doesn’t mean that we don’t decide. Heck, most of what a person does in a given situation will depend on what that person is capable of. If you stand at a fork in the road, you can’t choose to just fly straight up unless your alien from a dead world who gains powers from the yellow sun.
What follows is a discussion of how people might make a decision, along with one of the funniest lines I’ve read in awhile:
So she [Bella] has good reasons for acquiring the desire to become a vampire. It’s not just out of the blue.
Of course it’s not! Nothing is “just out of the blue” because humans can’t make decisions that don’t exist. No one reading this article can have the desire to be a snigglewrik because I just made up that word and it has no meaning. No decision is made in a vacuum.
So perhaps the lesson we should learn from all this is that nobody really has free will. Some philosophers have thought that this is true, and that free will is just an illusion.
I can’t put a reply any better than John C Wright did
A reader, or perhaps the Tin Woodman of Oz, once again has a few questions about the distinction between final cause and mechanical cause, mind and brain, and why I am programmed to act as if I have free will.
Unfortunately, instead of calling tech support to simply have me rebooted, he insists on using symbols called words to appeal to my sense of reason and my integrity as a philosopher in order to let myself be persuaded that his metaphysical reasoning has that non-physical and non-empirical quality called coherence or logic. His soul intuits no irony in this.
Well actually, I have to give the author some credit, they don’t stay on this train of thought. Instead we get:
Contemporary philosopher Harry Frankfurt provides one of the most compelling versions of this theory. Frankfurt’s idea is that most of us have conflicting desires. We endorse some of these desires, and we don’t endorse others. We want our behavior to be caused by those desires we endorse, rather than by those desires that we don’t approve of. We’re free to the extent that our behavior is caused by the desires that we endorse.
Knowledgeable readers probably noticed that this isn’t just an idea from Mr Frankfurt, Paul the apostle made a very similar point over two thousand years ago in one of his letters (actually, several of his letters). However, there is a difference between “being free” and “free will”. What do I mean? Well look at this line a little later:
To be free is to have your behavior governed by those desires you endorse, or want to be motivated by.
Fair enough, but here’s the million dollar question: how do you sort your desires? What is it that “endorses” some desires but not others? Notice that the author uses the phrase “want to be motivated”, implying that this is another desire, but that’s nonsense – circular reasoning. You endorse some desires because you have a desire for them? Well what’s endorsing that desire that’s sorting the others? In order to sort or put something in an order you must have some measure or concept that’s separate from the items being sorted. i.e. if you’re putting a bunch of files in alphabetical order, the alphabet is not one of those files – it is its own separate concept.
This is really the moment where whatever ground the essay was gaining is lost. The author has stumbled across what is free will: that which orders your desires. Yet he/she glosses over it, and proceeds to keep running in the wrong direction. As we see from here…
The question, though, is whether their [the wolf pack’s] behavior is governed by desires they endorse or by desires they reject. Or to put it another way, could the wolves resist the desires caused by imprinting (as the Cullens resist the desire for blood), in case these desires conflict with something that they value more highly?
No, that’s slavery vs freedom. The question of whether they have free will or not is answered by whether the order of their desires is determined by themselves or by another force.
Meyer doesn’t quite give us enough evidence to fully answer these questions, but there are clues. The first clue comes from Sam. Sam is the kind of person who values his commitments and loyalties highly, and he doesn’t want to hurt Leah. But none of this makes any difference. Once he imprints on Emily, he is bound to hurt Lean, no matter what his other values or commitments are. So perhaps the imprinting governs his behavior, even though the behavior conflicts with his other values.
There’s a polygamy joke/comment buried here somewhere but I’m not touching it.
The situation is more complicated than this, however. Sam has other commitments that he continues to respect. He’s committed to the well-being of the pack, and he’s committed to ensuring the well-being of the humans that he’s sworn to protect. And he doesn’t seem to have a problem balancing these commitments against the desires caused by his imprinting on Emily.
Yeah, except those desires don’t conflict with his feelings for Emily. Being with another woman does. Heck, depending on how you define “pack” (especially as ‘family’ or ‘tribe’), his responsibility to it overlaps with his imprinting on Emily.
Fighting vampires is dangerous work. Any harm to Sam would no doubt cause Emily great suffering. Nonetheless, Sam doesn’t seem to have any trouble putting his obligations to pack and human community first. He is not so compelled by his attraction to Emily that he is incapable of fulfilling his other responsibilities.
You know, I’m pretty sure vampires are a threat to Emily like everyone else. This whole attempt to create a conflict where none exists is insanity. What if not hunting a vampire would cause Emily a lot of guilt once it killed someone and she realized that she kept at home the one person able to prevent it? These are not responsibilities that conflict with his commitment to Emily like being with Leah would – unless there was a scene where Emily explicitly begs and pleads with Sam not to “go hunting”.
Imprinting doesn’t just produce new desires; it also produces new values.
Another line to keep in mind as it all starts to build for a spectacular crash…
(we’re skipping a reference to Martin Luther now because… [sob])
So what happened when he [Sam] imprinted? His desire not to hurt Leah became less important than his desire to be with Emily. He wasn’t a slave to his new desire, because to be a slave to a desire is to have to satisfy it, even if satisfying it costs you things that you value more. … But Sam is not a slave to his desire, because although he does not relish hurting Leah, his desire not to hurt her becomes less important to him than his desire to be with Emily.
WARNING: LONG RANT APPROACHING. WARNING: LONG RANT APPROACHING
(I’ve marked a spot you can skip down to if so inclined)
Ok, remember what we said before, about how the author stumbled upon what is free will by accident? That ‘it’ might be defined as that which orders your desires. So, while Sam might not be a “slave” to his desires, does he still have free will? The obvious answer is NO! He did not choose the order of his desires, they were ordered without his input via “imprinting”.
And here’s what makes this even worse: most of the complaints about imprinting (at least that I’ve found so far) are strictly on behalf of the females. What I’ve found just in searching:
I feel really sorry for Quil’s imprintee. She’ll never have any chance of a life of her own, because it’s predetermined that she’ll marry someone almost twenty years older than her. And in the meantime, he’ll be her “older brother”? I’m sorry, but ew.
And then we check in with Quil and Claire—you know, the teenage werewolf who imprinted on the two-year-old. “Imprinting,” for those of you just joining us, is a love-at-first-sight thing where a wolf guy (or girl, I suppose, given Leah’s presence in the pack) sees someone for the first time and that someone instantly becomes the center of his (or her) universe. As Jacob painstakingly explains to Bella in New Moon, it’s not (necessarily) a sexual thing: whatever Claire needs—a brother, a friend, a lover—Quil will be that for her, because “that kind of love and devotion is hard to resist.” Read: Claire has absolutely no choice in this at all, and is going to end up with a guy she’s practically been raised with (by?).
Imprinting
It’s kind of a love-at-first-sight thing for werewolves—once they see their soulmate for the first time, that person becomes “the center of their universe” absolutely. It’s controversial in the books, besides the obvious reason (the person imprinted on gets no choice at all in the matter, and it is explained that “it’s hard to resist that kind of love and devotion,” so—hope you like being stuck with some random werewolf guy!), because teenage Quil imprints on a two-year-old, and Jacob… well.
Mark of Mark reads Twilight fame
In the eighth chapter of Eclipse, we find out that Jacob’s friend Quil imprints on a two-year old. Two. TWO. We’re still not told what imprinting actually is, but it’s still reminiscent of rape.
I’m still confused as to what the actual process is and I have a feeling so does Meyer, but I’ve got a much clearer picture: it’s like brain rape.
No, seriously. It’s a mental connection the male makes on a female without her consent. And that’s the real key here: consent. At no point does the female ever really get a say on this. Once the male werewolf imprints, he’s dedicated for life. (It’s almost like a biological validation of stalking, isn’t it? Oh, Meyer!)
And remember! She doesn’t get a choice about any of this. Right? Does Claire get a choice, Jacob?
The problem, of course, is that this process, again, removes the female choice.
Now, I am NOT defending imprinting in any way, it sucks on so many levels we’ll need to rent the LHC to measure it all, but let’s take a moment to examine what the books actually say about imprinting. From eclipse (apparently):
“It’s not like that; you’ve got it all wrong,” Jacob defended his friend, suddenly vehement. “I’ve seen what it’s like, through his eyes. There’s nothing romantic about it at all, not for Quil, not now.” He took a deep breath, frustrated. “It’s so hard to describe. It’s not like love at first sight, really. It’s more like . . . gravity moves. When you see her, suddenly it’s not the earth holding you here anymore. She does. And nothing matters more than her. And you would do anything for her, be anything for her. . . . You become whatever she needs you to be, whether that’s a protector, or a lover, or a friend, or a brother.”
Notice that Jacob says it will be hard for the imprintee to reject the imprinter, but it’s not impossible. The twilight wiki points this out as well that rejection is unlikely, but could happen.
Now let’s all look at the elephant in the room: what is impossible? The imprinter rejecting the imprintee. In a humorous post, cleolinda pointed out that it seemed like Meyer was setting up another love triangle at the end of Breaking Dawn. So let’s run with this thought a moment…
Six and a half years later, Nessie has been “raised” by the bestest father figure ever: Jacob. One day, while they’re out, she runs into Nahuel. The two half-breeds hit it off so well, that Nessie finds herself falling in love with Nahuel, so much that she needs an older brother to keep her grounded, give her relationship advice and keep her from making any stupid mistakes. Who fills that role? Jacob! During all this, does Jacob get to go out and find some pretty she-wolf to have a relationship with? Nope – he’s with Nessie. Even if she’s dating someone else, he’ll be whatever she needs. Heck, per the text, we can easily imagine Jacob standing guard outside Nessie’s and Nahuel’s honeymoon suite as a bodyguard if that’s what she needs. Whatever she needs Jacob cannot say no to. And this isn’t his choice either. He didn’t decide to be this devoted to Nessie, it happened involuntarily.
There’s a word for that… What’s it called…
Right. SLAVERY.
Meyer writes a book series where Native American men are ENSLAVED by people and all anyone complains about is how it affects the women? WTF??? (high praise to any commentator who finds another article that points out the misandry of this whole deal)
ENDING RANT
But oh, let’s see what the essay almost ends with (there’s a small section after this one but it’s just a bunch of “what ifs”). Sorry for this, but I have to post the whole thing.
A Final Worry
There’s one final worry: this sort of change in values brought about by imprinting might itself seem to conflict with free will. Usually, when people change their minds about something, they have had an opportunity to reflect on the change. They’ve had a chance to endorse or reject the new idea or value, depending on how it fits in with or conflicts with other things they believe. But this is precisely what doesn’t happen in the case of imprinting. The change in values just happens, out of the blue. And it seems this should be a violation of one’s free will. If someone implanted a chip in your brain that made you care about things that you totally hadn’t cared about before, you would think that your free will had been violated. And this doesn’t seem all that far from what happens in the case of imprinting.
But such a scenario isn’t as clear-cut as it initially appears, even in the human case. Bella’s immediate response to her pregnancy is to become concerned with her child’s well-being. She’s unwilling to do anything that might endanger the child, even at the risk of her own life. She’s even willing to do things (like drink blood) that would have been repellent to her in her earlier life. This change is also from out of the blue. Bella hasn’t reflected on it, or had the chance to reject or endorse it. Yet this doesn’t seem to involve any violation of free will. We can agree with Carlisle that the only violation of free will here would be the attempt to make Bella give up the child. To do so would be to try and make her act against what are now her deepest values and commitments, even though she hasn’t really chosen them.
First of all, I’m pretty sure if you were to ask Bella (as well as most people), she would tell you that she would be very protective of her children, even if she doesn’t have any at the moment. It’s nigh impossible that this change is “out of the blue”, what’s change is that a previous theoretical desire (that of offspring, which is common to most people) become actualized – became real. How can she become concerned with her child’s well-being if she doesn’t have a child?
Second, as I pointed out earlier, imprinting ultimately amounts to slavery. Do you notice what the author above concluded? Yep, they justified slavery, as – long – as – the – slaves – like – it.
please send drinks to:
Smiths Grove Sanitarium
488 Halloween Lane – room 12
Not Real, CA 60066
Well now we are halfway done with this book. Next up, we enter the eclipse essays and… well let’s just say that falconempress and I have almost karmic timing…
dragonarya on 24 September 2010, 17:16 said:
That’s a very good point. I never even noticed that before. So no matter how much the imprinter is hurt, he still won’t be able to leave the imprintee… Goodness. shakes head
I know I’m probably invited a big storm by saying this, so please don’t bash me or anything, but…
If both parties are happy, is it wrong? If both parties consent to it, is it wrong?
Like I said, don’t pile on me, I’m just musing a bit on the argument.
Nate Winchester on 24 September 2010, 17:39 said:
If the parties consent (big issue there), even I don’t have a problem with it. But remember the line of thinking in this: the imprinters aren’t persuaded or just that in love with the target, they are shifted more or less against their will.
Say… we had a group of humans (determined by any measure you wish for the example: race, class, etc) which had their brains operated on such that they not only made a very excellent “server” class, but enjoyed being a server class.
See how some might have a little issue with that?
dragonarya on 24 September 2010, 17:54 said:
In that their permission wasn’t asked for in the first place? Yeah, I see.
I’m also kind of wondering why exactly imprinting happens. Does Meyer see something wrong in getting to know someone and falling in love with them normally?
…that’s a stupid question considering the love interest is an obsessive stalker and the main character revolves around him…
Nate Winchester on 24 September 2010, 18:04 said:
Yes quite. You might also look at it as an example of means v ends debate.
You know, from some of the “theorizing” on imprinting – it is almost literally an act of god. Or (since I like meta-humor), a way for Meyer to be lazy in her romance writing. XD
XD I’m giving you some moderate praise for that point. Good show!
dragonarya on 24 September 2010, 18:10 said:
Absolutely. XD
Thanks. ;D
RandomX2 on 25 September 2010, 00:28 said:
I’ve been thinking along those lines, too. Claire has SOME free will left, at least, and she has someone that’s completely dedicated to her. Quil, on the other hand, has no chance of letting her go and will revolve around her forever, even if she rejects him. How cruel a life would that be for him?
Surprisingly, what I find kind of annoying is that Smeyer didn’t really capitalize on the ethical drama. She used Jacob to explain away all problems in one paragraph and BAM: issue forgotten. There’s no need for any characters to have negative, non-plot related opinions of each other (you know, like real people). But whatever.
NeuroticPlatypus on 25 September 2010, 00:51 said:
But I’ve always wanted to be a snigglewrik…
This sounds like the author thinks that Sam has some free will as long as he able to function and do other things besides be with Emily all the time.
Um, what? Free will would be being able to be with Leah and ignoring the imprinting on Emily, which he can’t do.
Neither does Quil apparently.
Good article, as always.
Swenson on 25 September 2010, 00:58 said:
Going back to the question about whether it’s slavery if the slave consents, that’s exactly what Huxley wrote about in A Brave New World. Each class has their behavior and attitudes shaped by brainwashing and environmental pressures. So the elevator operators love running elevators, that’s what they live for. But are they slaves? Huxley argues that yes, they are, because they never get a chance to choose if they love elevators, an external force pushes it on them.
And that is exactly what I’ve always thought imprinting was, for both sides. The werewolf gets no choice in who to dedicate his/her life to, it just happens. And the other person gets no chance to meet new people and choose a true live on their own, because this perfect guy, he’s always right there, dedicated to and obsessed with her. Sucks on both sides.
Steph (what is left) on 25 September 2010, 12:18 said:
Nate, you have enriched my life. I would never have thought of the slavery angle. Puts a whole new spin on things…
In other words, great, great article.
Gante on 26 September 2010, 21:25 said:
Imprinting is actually worse than slavery, because even the most downtrodden slave can rebel in his own mind. Imprinting takes away even the power to resent it.
It occurs to me that Nessie is just as much an avatar of Stephanie Meyer as Bella is. God forbid that she would allow either of her leading men to fall for someone who wasn’t “her.”
Go Team Tyler’s Van!
falconempress on 27 September 2010, 01:37 said:
WHY. Why in the name of all that is holy could that possibly be characterized as “unlikely.
NO ITS NOT. But you know what it is? Stalking. Trespass over ones most basic human rights. A very serious crime. You can open any modern criminal codex – its there. In the same section as blackmail, extortion and armed robbery. In the same effing section.
Ugh. What is it with bad romance stories taking things that are highly illegal, unethical and can earn you some serious time in the can, and making them okay by justifying “oh, its not wrong, look, they like it!” That does not make it any less wrong. It makes the character seem deeply disturbed, yes, but the bottomline is – no matter what the characters subjective stance towards the issue is, from the objective point of view it is still wrong, no matter how many times the author tries to weasel their way out of it by lame excuses and pitiful justifications. Doesnt that ever occur to any of them?
Oh, really? If you need/want me to lend you a hand with that, you know where to find me;)
Nate Winchester on 27 September 2010, 11:46 said:
Ummm… because Meyer said so? I don’t read this book series! XD
And the guys don’t have any choice in the matter… Man that just makes it even worse oh so many levels.
Cracked’s recently talked about that too.
divine_wolf on 27 September 2010, 22:37 said:
You gotta wonder if Meyer has any idea as to what she’s really writing about.
Licht on 28 September 2010, 06:35 said:
I don’t think she has any idea. To me she’s just perfectly clueless and naive.
I don’t know where this idea is comming from, though.
Thea on 27 October 2010, 20:01 said:
I guess I’m a little late, but great article! and thanks for the link to Wright’s article, that was really interesting, even if I know little about philosophy :)
I’m almost sure that I’ve read somewhere else about the lack of choice for the werewolves when imprinting. I think it was Das Mervin, but since she’s only up to New Moon, I wouldn’t know where to start looking.
However, I don’t know that she tied it to the whole theme of the Native Americans being enslaved, I’ll have to link her to this article.
In sum, I agree that this author comes to disturbing conclusions. Perhaps the series really does break the brain, and when offered money to write something on it they just dashed something off without engaging any though. One can only hope that the author doesn’t actually believe these things, and wouldn’t having actually analysed the book.
Stephenie Rowling on 4 July 2011, 23:13 said:
Heh I actually always though that people only caring about the females in the equation. Like men are bound to be slaves.
Now I don’t think imprinting is inescapable. In the Twilight saga is revealed that Sam asked Emily to order him to jump and kill himself because he knew he will obey her. Now this also mean that if Reneesme wants Jacob to be happy with another woman he will be able to to. The thing is that Emily wanted a boyfriend like Sam when he became a wolf and the other imprintees also were interested in the wolves before the imprinting. Claire is too young so she needs constant protection and a playmate so I think when Smeyer writes the next books is very likely that she can show us a way for the characters to get free from the imprinting is needed,YMMV.