I've read tons of books involving pedophilia, including Lolita, the entire Casteel series by V.C. Andrews, Ruby by V.C. Andrews, Child's Play by Deborah Wallis, and Bobby's Socks by Nathaniel Sewell.

I couldn't even imagine labeling any of these books as "unacceptable".

Honestly, it depends on how it is portrayed for me, but I do agree that those books shouldn't be considered "unacceptable".

Sorry to be the Debbie-Downer in this but I think that Nessie and Jacob are just plain creepy...

But it's acceptable for a book to be creepy, right?

It depends on how it's portrayed. If it's treated lightly or as an acceptable behaviour and the psychological damage that it causes and violation it represents is not addressed, then no I don't think it's acceptable. Pedophilia should never be condoned or shown in a positive light. It's a violation with long lasting psychological repercussions and to depict it otherwise is an insult to anyone who has been the victim of it.

i would like to say that in twilight, jacob doesn't love nessie TAHT way when she is little. yeah when she is older and more mature and is ready for that kind of love yeah but when she's a baby no

I think it's just as wrong as murder or arson, but for some reason, it's okay for murder and arson to happen in books.

Someone should make a list of all things writers are not allowed to write about. Publish it in the New York Times and see how well that goes over.

I think I misunderstood your question. I took it to mean personally acceptable to me.

So let me add an addendum; I don't believe in banning books, ever. However, when an author publishes a book they are opening themselves up to criticism and I believe in my right to criticize what they have written. If I think that a theme in one of their books is offensive and unacceptable to me, I have a right to say so. I even have the right to tell people they shouldn't read the book because it portrays pedophilia/rape/abuse in a positive way. After all, it's still their choice to read it or not. I also have a right to criticize the author themselves for choosing to depict negative themes as positive. That's what freedom of speech is all about. An author exercises theirs and I exercise mine.

That's fine. I'm just wondering if people actually realize that they're using their own free speech to protest against someone else's free speech, or if they actually feel that specific authors should not exercise their free speech that goes against whatever it is they want.

^Like I said, we both have a right to our free speech, the author and the audience. Criticizing someone's writing isn't infringing on their free speech. They're still capable of publishing whatever they want and defending their writing. And before you say they shouldn't have to defend their writing, I disagree. Like I said before, once an author puts their work out there for people to digest, they have to expect that not everyone will like/agree with it and be prepared to deal with that.

I know that people don't have to like or approve of everything and I know it's okay to criticize. I'm just hoping people realize that questionable themes are still allowed to exist in books, whether they like it or not. I'm not saying that people should stop criticizing. Even if I believed that, it would be unrealistic.

I wasn't going to say writers shouldn't have to defend their writing.

To me, it doesn't matter what book it is. WAY older men falling in love with much younger women is just creepy. I'm reading 1984 for English and I find Winston and Julia's relationship creepy (he's a middle-aged man and she's a young woman). Even in Harry Potter, Tonks and Lupin's relationship is kinda weird to me (she was 25 and he was 38).

@cassie, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, sorry.

And honestly, when it comes to touchy subjects like what we're referencing, the odds of people being completely objective are slim. But since we don't live in a society where banning/censoring books is acceptable [or at least I don't], I think it's somewhat irrelevant whether or not people realize that they can't dictate what gets published. All they can do is say what they think.

Is it right to write and publish books about murder, rape or other crimes including pedophilia? I believe yes, such books can be published and those themes can be presented in them as long as it's addressed that those things are crimes. Because in any other way, when it's being justified, it becomes illegal. So while authors are entitled to writing and publishing whatever they want, readers are entitled to find the way it is presented in their books to be offensive and voice their opinions.

In my opinion, Jacob/Nessie is one of the most disgusting things ever exactly because it wasn't addressed that it is wrong, but at the same time it was never mentioned in the book that they ever will be in a sexual relationship so as much as creepy it can be, I can't call it a pedophilia.

Do you have any idea how many perv's think it's acceptable to love children that way in real life. If you're going to have that kind of content in a book don't make it for young adults. Put it in with smut, just like 50 Shades of Grey. Which is still a much better book then this pile of crap is.

I don't think the problem is this kind of creepy issues appearing in books, but how they are portrayed. In this particular case, I think the problem is that imprinting is described as something fantastic every girl should want. If undesirable things weren't allowed in works of fiction, crime novels wouldn't exist.

I don't see it that way at all. Especially when you understand Jacob's point of view, then Leah's. The only reason she wanted to imprint was so she'd have an easy way to get over her heartbreak.
The only girls that seemed to be 100% happy with the results were the girls that liked the guy beforehand. Embry's girlfriend, for one.

There's a huge debate on imprinting. I personally don't like it, but that doesn't mean any mention to pedophilia or other horrible aspects of life should be banned from works of fiction. Like I said, crime novels are about crimes (duh, Captain Obvious says hi), which are something ugly. However, there's nothing wrong with creating and enjoying them as long as you know they're fiction.

But Jacob/Nessie (and the other child imprints mentioned in the books) aren't paedophilic. This is expressly pointed out in the books. The werewolves aren't attracted to the girls while they're children, and they don't get into a romantic relationship until the imprintees are adults. It basically just means that they meet for the first time when the imprintee is still young, and the imprinting process activates to make the werewolf already protective of her.

It also depends on how the paedophilia/implied paedophilia is treated within the story. For example, a crime/detective story where the villain is a paedophile and the hero is trying to rescue a child from that villain would be considered fine by most.