http://zelda-queen.livejournal.com/ ([identity profile] zelda-queen.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] zelda_queen 2015-06-15 02:38 am (UTC)

"I still don’t understand what the purpose of prolonging Nora’s suffering and discomfort is. Even when Stephenie Meyer made her characters be pointlessly petty and cruel to Leah Clearwater, Mike Newton, etc., they were at least side characters that we weren’t supposed to root for. Nora is our *protagonist.* So, why are we supposed to laugh at her along with Patch and Vee? Or if we’re not, if we’re supposed to sympathize with her, why are we supposed to like Patch, the chief source of her torment? Why does Nora never get a break? Why does she end up with him in the end?"

Some of the cases are, from what I can tell, intended as komedy. Things like Patch laughing at Nora when she's stuck on Marcie's roof, that sort of thing.

On the other hand, it's not funny because so much emphasis is placed on her being upset by it. She's constantly described as having her ears burning, her face flushing, wanting to hide, etc. It's not like, say, a comedy where a character has something humiliating happen and they walk it off.

My best bet is that Fitzpatrick has some sort of humiliation kink. That's the best reason I can think of. I mean, I can think of other reasons why her character is constantly belittled and mocked by the guy she admitted was the sort of person she dreamed of dating in high school, but I REALLY don't want to dwell on that.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting