How far does the pack imprint protection thing go? Is it a biological imperative or just a strong cultural taboo to hurt another shifter's imprint (possibly because it would cause in-fighting)? Because, the shifters just put up with dozens of vampires eating humans to protect ONE imprint. Jacob becomes friends with the vampires! Even if you're biologically required to not HARM someone that doesn't mean that you have to just agree to anything that they do. I know that the real answer is Main Character Specialness but if you had to try and logic out the whole thing?
What always stuck me as odd about this whole thing is like, yeah, most cultures have laws against hurting and killing people?? Did they need an extra one for imprintees? "Hey, don't hurt or kill people but ESPECIALLY not these specific girls." Also there's something icky about the idea that they are a protected class because of who they are to a man vs who they are as a person in their own right and that these Indigenous characters needed a special law not to hurt women and girls. Not great.
Again, it's one of those things that seemed especially designed for the Jacob and Renesmee situation. There was no reason they would need a special law to protect your average Quileute girls who were the subject of imprinting before. They would already be familiar to the group and their whole mission is to be protectors. But boy howdy is that "you can't hurt someone's imprint, it's our most sacred law" convenient when that imprint is a blood-drinking half-vampire potential abomination that everyone wanted dead five minutes ago.
And the thing is, the whole moral quandary around Renesmee and the visiting vampires could have at least been interesting if any of the characters had been allowed to like, be more than "uncomfortable" with it. It comes back again to SM not being that interested in the Vampire Stuff. She likes the romance, she likes the super hero aspect, she doesn't really care about "hey this group of people is dedicated to the protection of human life; earlier in the SAME BOOK Sam says something along the lines of they 'protect everyone we can no matter where vampires plan to hunt.' But none of that matters with Renesmee.
This is another one of those times, like the car chase, where the narrative is telling us like "there is no other choice, this is what they must do to save Bella/Renesmee" and implies it's lowkey noble that they are willing to go to these extremes, to stretch the bounds of their beliefs, to do that, out of love for them. But the books never really convince me that this was ONLY way let alone the BEST way to help or protect those people?
I don't know where any of this is going other than, yeah, it felt contrived to force Jacob and by extension the rest of the pack to be on board with the assembly of the X-Men vampires. And for so many reasons this all feels like the least interesting way to go about any of this. The tenuous truce the Quileutes and Cullens came to in Eclipse after working together against the newborns (Paul and Emmett, Seth and Edward, Billy shaking hands with Carlisle after he treated Jacob) was way more interesting than the forced "one big happy family now!!!!" of imprinting. In Breaking Dawn, Carlisle basically tells Sam they don't need to show up for the confrontation with the Volturi, something like "don't get your family slaughtered for pride" and Sam responds that Jacob cannot abandon Renesmee and the packs cannot abandon Jacob. But he means LITERALLY. Because of the imprint, they really don't have a choice. I think it is, like you said, a biological imperative. Renesmee's destruction would equal Jacob's destruction and all the other wolves have shared the pack mind with him, so they are compelled nearly as much as he is.
And I . . . do not like it. It's gross they don't have any free will, but it's also BORING. Self-sacrifice means nothing if you literally don't have any other choice.
gummygunk
dailybridgerton
vaporwave
titsay
annaxmalina
kaledo-art
stormborns
