Smart Bitches, Trashy Books

I had a poor girl in today going over her summer reading list for school and not finding anything. i finally asked her what she would want to read and she had no problem telling me, nor picking out a bunch of books. Her grandmother said she agreed- rather she read what she wants and READS or has to read something she doesn’t like and doesn’t read at all.

I agree.  Great post.

I love Jezebel’s Fine Lines column (because I love YA) and was tickled to see them review BREAKING DAWN.  I actually couldn’t stand these books.  The protagonist makes me physically ill (as in, oh god, I can’t believe she’s so spineless, she’s letting herself BE ABUSED by her vampire husband and she thinks it’s love!).  The sort of love that is idealised in these books is alpha + doormat gone to the extreme and that has never been a trope I liked.

I haven’t read BREAKING DAWN (hell, I couldn’t get past TWILIGHT), but many of my friends have (I fully acknowledge its cracktastic powers) and they were all universally disappointed and/or appalled by BREAKING DAWN.  Bella loses and/or sacrifices nothing to get what she wants; what is wish-fulfillment if there there is no work to be done to get it?  It makes for a bad novel, that’s what.

Bella loses and/or sacrifices nothing to get what she wants; what is wish-fulfillment if there there is no work to be done to get it?  It makes for a bad novel, that’s what.

Especially when the theme of the first three novels is all about sacrifice, and the sacrifices Bella is willing to make. She made her choice, chose to make those sacrifices… and then gets everything she would have had with the other choice, but only in a more awesome and perfect way?

Sigh.

May I direct your attention to Shinga’s condensed version of Twilight?  I myself didn’t hate the book (I was merely underwhelmed), but I busted a gut reading her summaries.

http://shinga.deviantart.com/

Enjoy

Problem with this “awesomeness” argument:  the book apparently isn’t.  Awesome, that is.  From everything I’ve read about the series—and there seems to be a lot of fairly intelligent blab about it recently—the novels suck on many levels and become all the suckier as the series progresses.  I know Meyer sure as shit didn’t impress me in the interview I saw.

Have I read the stories?  No.  I’m not into YA books, primarily because I’m an OA with precious little time to read OA fiction.  But when there’s a lot of smart squeal about a book’s crappiness, I tend to give those assessments some credence.  Ideology aside, young minds should be stimulated by good books, not crappy ones.

So I’m gonna save my imaginary boner for something more worthy.

Someone was responding to a posting on Dear Author and included this link:

http://community.livejournal.com/lion_lamb/1651773.html

A funny and quick retelling of Breaking Dawn as told by Edward Cullen.  Makes the whole entire look atrocious.

I read Twilight but haven’t read the others, but I think there is a serious problem when the books’ “conservative ideology” portray domestic abuse in a harmless light. Edward Cullen is, beneath all the gorgeous fragrant breath and sparkly skin, an abuser. The excuse for it is that ‘he can’t help it’ because it’s his vampiric strength and nature. And Bella tolerates it because ‘she loves him more than anyone ever in the whole history of the whole wide world’.

I mean, for the love of vampires, she gets bruised, beaten, and abused, and the excuse the Cullens give her parents is that she “fell down a flight of stairs and through a window”?

And NOBODY I’ve seen is willing to debate this point. It’s been all “OMG Twilight is the best thing since sliced bread.” If something had changed in the course of the books, if Bella (or anybody) for a second went “hey, this isn’t a great way to have a relationship, let’s talk about it,” and then decided (after intelligent thought) to continue, then MAYBE it would sit better with me.

It’s the utter lack of acknowledgment that bothers me the most. Bella is spineless; she never questions the situations she finds herself in, and things work out for her anyway.

But I suppose this is why parents should at least be aware of what their kids are reading, and in this case intervene, or at least point out that Bella and Edward’s relationship really isn’t healthy.

Oh, and you want snark? I bring two:
Cleolinda’s chapter by chapter synopsis of Breaking Dawn is howlingly funny.
http://cleolinda.livejournal.com/630150.html
Taking the Universal Mary Sue Litmus Test with Bella and/or Edward also yields gut-busting (and possibly tears inducing?) results:
http://www.springhole.net/quizzes/marysue.htm

[quote=Wryhag ]Problem with this “awesomeness” argument:  the book apparently isn’t.  Awesome, that is.  From everything I’ve read about the series—and there seems to be a lot of fairly intelligent blab about it recently—the novels suck on many levels and become all the suckier as the series progresses.  I know Meyer sure as shit didn’t impress me in the interview I saw.

Very true. Stephenie Meyer’s prose is clunky, simplistic, and more purple than a royal warerobe. In Twilight, she had one adjective per body part per character, and used that one and ONLY that one. Actual plot doesn’t even rear its head until 75% of the way into the book. Not to mention there are heinous typos (of the ‘slipped finger’ variety mostly) that should have been caught if someone had hired an editor.

This, along with the aforementioned subtext, irritates me to the point where I have to reign in the urge to yell at people at the bookstore when I see them buying Twilight.

(Sorry for the double post, but I had to address this and couldn’t find an edit function)

I have hesitated to say much about this series because I didn’t want to be killed by rabid teens… but I had issues with it.

First… Edward is nearly 100 years old and Bella, as we begin, is 17 (I think).  Erm.  Since when is immortality a get-out-of-pedophilia-free card?

And I soo agree with JJ… this is NOT a healthy relationship. 

I vastly prefer PC and Kristin Cast’s books.  *shrug*

I was in love with melodramatic, painful love at that age, too.  I’m just not certain it was something that would have been wise to encourage.

Pish posh.

I am a 16 year old.
(I can all ready hear your middle aged eyebrows rising)

I read Twilight. I liked it.

Yes its contrived, obvious, and illogical, and most readers know this deep down…... but….but…..but…...

I still almost killed a girl trying to get my sweaty teenage hands on the third book.

*sobs quietly in corner* Its an addiction.

I tell you… no I ORDER you to slap your kid silly if they start gushing about Twilight.

Its good but: Its just a trashy romance novel. It was never pretending to be anything more.

Oh, and Edward a pedophile? Thats a tad too fanatical for the Sensible Grown-Ups Against Teenage Literature campain.
He is 17 physicaly and mentally…... at least, thats what Stephenie Meyer intended…...I…..think…....

[quote=Molly]Oh, and Edward a pedophile? Thats a tad too fanatical for the Sensible Grown-Ups Against Teenage Literature campain.
He is 17 physicaly and mentally…... at least, thats what Stephenie Meyer intended…...I…..think…....

How about “abusive”? Would you agree to that one, at least?

Well I agree that the relationship is abusive….. and Edward can be annoying with his whole “I’m agonised that your agonised” whatsit…..but the example wasn’t a very good one.

EVERYBODY knows that it was the evil guys fault that Bella “fell down a flight of stairs”. Edward wouldn’t DIRECTLY hurt her.

Just shut her off from friends and family and cause her to want a life of eternal darkness.

EVERYBODY knows that it was the evil guys fault that Bella “fell down a flight of stairs”. Edward wouldn’t DIRECTLY hurt her.

Except when he throws her into a crystal punchbowl. But that was for her own good too! He was protecting his woman!

Damn straight!
The guy deserves a medal!

..... I really cant be bothered arguing about Twillight. As stated before:

It’s just a trashy romance novel. It’s not meant to be clever.

And if it WAS meant to be clever I find that very very sad.

People have been making a big deal out of any possible religious agenda Meyer may have hidden in the Twilight books.  There’s nothing in there.  Because Meyer herself is religious doesn’t mean she’s trying to sneak brainwashing messages into her novels.  If the media hadn’t picked up on Meyer’s choice of religion and made a big deal of it, nobody would be searching for hidden messages of that sort.  Lots of YA books are written as fundamentally conservative, and it’s not usually a problem.

The books should be taken as they are, to stand on their own merits.  Or, y’know, lack thereof.

Edward really, really, really does NOT come off as emotionally 17 and it’s completely illogical to think he could be.

I had a problem with that.  From the first meeting he is hostile, condescending, and acts far older than he appears.  In fact, my god-daughter refused to read beyond Twighlight because she said there were no realistic teens in the books. 

She’s a smart kid.

I would also agree that using “it’s just a trashy romance for teens” as an excuse… *shudder* ... is lame, and insulting to romance.

So I am neither a teenager nor a middle aged woman. However I am still a fan of the books.

The poor writing accusation I give to you. Heck, Stephenie Meyer gives that to you. She’s said a million times herself that she is still working on the writing part of her storytelling.

Edward and Bella’s relationship is not physically abusive. In fact he never intentionally hurts her. As much as we want to dismiss it, his superhuman strength is part of the character she created. It must be taken into account. In your typical modern romance involving the “alpha male” character, you’re going to see the male lead protecting (or at least trying to) at some point by attempting to physically remove her from the situation. In normal instances this would simply be him pushing her behind him. This reflex is the same for Edward. Except he’s really fucking strong. The whole punchbowl incident is him pushing her aside. Would we rather he let her be devoured by his brother? The only other time she is physically hurt by him is in the last book, and it is frankly rough sex. Literally. That is all.

The claim of pedophilia is somewhat valid. Technically speaking he is WAY older than her in the sense that he has been alive longer. He is still essentially a teenager. It is basically the only life he has ever lived or known. Even though he has lived so long this is the role he perpetually lives. Several times in the series one character or another comments on Bella as being an “old soul” and other similar things. Her mother even says that she never really was a teenager. Here again, we have an intentional character trait that Stephenie Meyer has developed so that the relationship between the two could make a little more sense to the close minded. I’m actually really surprised that this is such a huge stretch of the imagination for people considering this century’s prevalence for huge gaps in ages in the dating world.

Despite what I have said above, amazingly I really didn’t like Bella’s character for the first couple of books. I enjoyed the stories and her quirky view of her world, but there was always a certain weakness about her that bugged me. That being said, I thought that her character was amazing in this last book. Its like watching someone come into their own and thinking “FINALLY!”. If you were dedicated enough to read the first three, it was so worth it to read the fourth. She basically kicks ass. She stands up for herself and what she loves most and still maintains that quirkiness that appeals to the awkward teenager in all of us.

You really can’t judge this series as separate books. After reading all four it needs to be looked at as one story. Without the sometimes emotional retardation of the characters that leads to the stupid decisions, you wouldn’t get the satisfaction you do when it all works out. Because there really was no guarantee that Bella would get everything she wanted, especially when it seemed like she already had.

Is Edward overprotective? Yes. Does he sometimes cause Bella pain? Yes. Is it intentional? No. Is it mostly emotional? HELL YES.

But, really, what relationship doesn’t have a little emotional angst? Especially in a book?

Simply:
Edward=wounded soul
Bella=the one person who can make him happy (vice versa)
Plot: How can he keep this person in his life without bringing her down with him? Hence his repeated fuck ups (mostly involving his attempts to remove himself from her life for her own good) that result in her emotional pain. Once he realizes he makes her happy all the pain is from outside sources.

Sorry about the super long comment. I need my two cents to be out there (or fifty, as it were).

By the way, I have not found any religious nonsense in these books thus far.

What she said.

*smirks in a selfsatisfied way and stands behind “God”*

Yes…. I’m that really annoying kid you wanted to punch in highschool.

=^.^=

.....except I still believe the relationship was just a TAD unhealthy, mainly in books 1-3 (so: for most of the series)..... but it wasn’t ever the characters fault…... exactly…..... BLAME LOVE!!!!!

Ok… that sounded cheesy.

Mellisandra- Thank you!! That was so much better than the dreck that was in the book. My daughter will love it. She damn near threw the book at a wall when he fucking sparkled. “Vampires don’t SPARKLE!!” I have to agree.

There is so much really good YA out there, I don’t understand why this crap is so loved by the readers. I just don’t.

I have to agree with who ever said they wanted to stop people at the store from buying Twighlight, however, since I work at one, I feel they can throw their money away if they want. And I am so glad I didn’t have to work the release party.

I cannot believe that I am going to leave a comment here regarding these books when I have been so good about not commenting on them anywhere else.  But I lurve my SBTB women so much that I feel like I need to be honest about my reaction to these books and hope a discussion of these books can be had here without devolving into a screaming match of Edward 4-Eva! or Die Bitches!  This will actually also be my first comment on this site even though I have been lurking…well, for quite some time.

I have to admit I really love this series.  I think the series brings up some interesting ideas that it has been fun to personally wrestle with and to discuss with my friends who have also read it.

Do I like the character of Bella?  Not often during the series.  Do I think she is very relatable?  Nope, not often.  Do I find her character problematic in what she chooses to do versus what I might personally choose?  Yes.

But, as one of my friends and I discussed while reading the series - there are a ton of classic female characters that we neither like nor relate to in books that we have loved.  Many of the arguments I have read regarding Bella could be put to Jane Erye as well as other famous and beloved female leads. 

Do I find parts of her relationship to Edward problematic?  Somewhat.  However, I think that what constitutes stalker behavior and what constitutes abusive behavior needs to be determined both by the world created by the author and by the reaction of the recipient of the behavior.  What do I mean by this?

Bella’s accident during Jasper’s abortive attempt to attack her is not abuse by Edward.  To compare that to abuse is analogous in my mind as comparing the driver of a car as an abuser if the car he is driving with their girlfriend was hit by another car due to the other driver’s fault.  Yes, Bella gets hurt.  Because of Jasper’s loss of control over his bloodlust and Edward’s miscalculation of how much force would occur as he pushed Bella away from Jasper’s attack and collision with him. 

Spam word - Works95.  The twilight series does work (95% of the time), at least in my opinion. :)

Also, the “stalker” stuff?  Well, I really believe that stalking has less to do with the actions of the “stalker” and more to do with the reactions of the intended recipient.  There are lots of things that could be called innocuous which could (realistically) be considered stalking if the recipient feels stalked.  ON the other hand, if the recipient welcomes the attention of the “stalker” - it ain’t stalking.  As a good friend once said - in the movie Say Anything -  the only reason Lloyd Dobbler isn’t a stalker when he hangs outside of Diane’s house holding a boombox over his head and blasting Peter Gabriel into her entire house is because Diane finds it romantic and she loves him.  If she really had wanted to break up with him and never see him again, the next scene should have/would have been the police serving Lloyd with a restraining order. 

As for the bruises after the first night of sex?  Umm, not abuse.  A combination of Bella seeming to be a woman who like her sex a bit rougher that some may, and Edward once again needing to re-examine his understanding of how strong his is when “caught up in the moment”.  But the author makes it clear that Bella didn’t have any pain during the actual act, bruises so easily that she often forgets what she might have even bumped into when she finds a bruise on herself, and isn’t hurt/sore even as badly as she has been after a day of exercising hard. 

Look, after reading all the “live and let live” feelings expressed her about threesomes (during the Decadent review conversation), anal sex and other types of sex that is put into books we have all loved and read (which I have agreed with entirely) - it becomes hard for me to understand why this weak example is being held up as why Bella is an unaware abuse victim.  She likes what Edward does with her in the bedroom.  She is 19 and married when they do it.  Not unaware.  Not a victim.  Even if I don’t want to be anywhere near that bedroom. 

Why do I love these books?  Because I believe that Stephenie Meyer has created a world I find fascinating and characters that I want to follow along with as they grow and change.  She is a great storyteller.  Even if I don’t always like what the characters do or choose.  Even if I don’t relate to each character. 

I don’t read books in order to find characters that I relate to.  I read books to discover and explore worlds I have never thought about, to read events I will never experience and to see what someone else thought was something worth writing down.  There are lots of books that I love that I cannot stand the main characters.  That I hate the choices made by characters I love.  And yet, the books are still compelling.  Fascinating.  And they make me think about the world more deeply.

One review I read about the Twilight Saga highlighted one of the series strengths to me.  That review said that Twilight was about Finding Love, New Moon was about Losing Love, Eclipse was about Choosing Love, and Breaking Dawn was about Protecting Love.  All kinds of love are explored in these books.  Romantic love, parental/child love, platonic love.  And Ms. Meyer has created a world of vampires, werewolves and other magic that allows the exploration of those themes to have a wide range.  Edward is fascinating because of the tension of his vampire-ness alongside the remnants of his humanity.  Bella and Edwards relationship is fascinating because it is damaged and disturbing.  And hot and true at the same time.

If Edward wasn’t a vampire, if Ms. Meyer was not so skilled at creating a whole new vampire canon and world that this story took place in - then I think some of the criticism about the action of the characters would be more accurate.  However, I think that Ms. Meyers created characters who both stay true to who they are throughout the storyline while also growing and maturing by the end of the series in authentic, yet interesting and surprising ways.

I have had discussions regarding these books as to what constitutes a powerful woman, is Bella a feminist (and does she need to be one or want to be one, since there are literally millions of women who consciously reject that label), what constitutes free will, why vampires are such a fascinating character in our literature, why the classics of Romeo and Juliet, Jane Erye, Wuthering Heights, Pride and Prejudice, Midsummer Nights Dream, Merchant of Venice and other classics are worth reading and re-reading and what influence those books obviously had when Ms. Meyers was writing the series. 

And, to top all of that fabulousness off - I do find Bella and Edward to have one amazing hot relationship.  Ms. Meyer has written some of the best steamy passages of two people wanting to have sex, make love, be together in ways that really astounded me.  She (in my opinion) captured exactly what is sexy about not being able to consummate a relationship and all the foreplay and longing that goes before the sex ever happens.  And I loved that they waited until they got married to have sex and that the sex was mind blowingly awesome.  I loved that all the married couples in the book were having mind blowing sex and that no one found sex to be dirty, or shameful or anything else.  I loved all the dry humping and kissing they did because it reminded me a lot of what was so exciting about all the before sex things we all did when we were teenagers. With our first loves.  I loved the fact that Rosalie/Emmett, Jasper/Alice and Carlisle/Esme had been together for decades and still were madly sexing it up.  This was one of the few books I have read lately where both the male and female character were both sexual, and equally excited about their sexual relationship and open and trusting one another.  Where they didn’t have some hang up about wanting to have sex.  Yes, at the beginning Edward is afraid of hurting Bella with his super human strength during actual intercourse, but once they realize that he will be able to control that part (which ever stopped them from wanting one another) then they sex it up all the time.

Am I trying to say that only married sex is good?  Heck no.  But it was nice to see the main characters in a book have a sexual life that was fabulous and natural and exciting without the shame or “oh no - he has to stop and tell her to enjoy getting oral sex because she is worried about her smell or losing control”.  Bella is actually the one who takes control of their sexual life and I thought that was awesome. 

Time magazine had a wonderful review of the twilight series that I would highly recommend reading.  http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1734838,00.html

Now so saying all of this (and I apologize for writing a book on the subject)  - I have also found some of the snark about the Twilight Saga to be some of teh best written and enjoyable snarkiness I have read in quite some time.  And I love the fact that while many hated the last book - they are so passionate about it.  Because I am passionate about the books I love and hate and I know that if I book makes me think enough about it to write and share what I thought with others - well, it was pretty damn good - even if I hated it. 

If you haven’t read the series - I hope you might give it a shot.  It is most likely at your local library - so don’t feel you need to buy it.  But try it.  I never thought I would like it and it is now on my re-read over and over again shelf.  Even with all of its issues.  It is a not so guilty pleasure that I feel lucky to have.

Oh, one more thing.  I think it is an interesting comparison to look at Bella/Edward and Elizabeth Bennett/Mr. Darcy.

In Pride and Prejudice, Mr. Darcy thinks that Elizabeth Bennett is “tolerably” attractive but nothing special.  And becomes more and more drawn to her despite her lack of fortune, her family’ embarrassing behavior, the fact she has never travelled anywhere before she visits Charlotte. 

He visits his aunt only in order to be close to Elizabeth Bennett.  He cannot keep away from her no matter how much he tries to argue with himself.  He is kind of an asshole. 

He is hot.  He is rich.  His is witty when not being an asshole.  His behavior causes some serious painful repercussions for Elizabeth and her family. 

And he is one of teh greatest romantic leads.

And a lot of the description I just gave describes Edward and Bella as well.

Huh. Agnes and Vlad’s relationship in Terry Pratchett’s Carpe Jugulum sounds much better than this. For one thing, it’s funny. For another, Vlad is yummy, peacock-embroidered waistcoats and all. (“He gave her a toothy grin, and on a vampire this was not pleasant.”) It’s also pretty fraught because they’re both intrigued by each other, but Agnes has to make her choice based around the fact that Vlad is a vampire. And she does. And she rocks for it.

Also, it’s Pratchett, and Pratchett is without exception awesome.

Yes.

*solemn nod of head*

Pratchett is awesomness.

...teehee…. I love Mort the best… probably because of all the extra Death scenes (the character not the “Grarg! Die!”)......

Sorry I got a bit distracted there.

I think that- while insanely hilarious- that Carpe Jugulum is not the best example. That was a send up of Vampire romance….. oh wait…

.... it was a joke wasn’t it?

Damn my lack of sarcasm detector.

That was a send up of Vampire romance.

Yup I think it starts out as one - but ends up as something more than that. It is a real relationship between characters - both of whom are uncomfortably aware that this isn’t how it’s supposed to go.

I’m a 23 year old who loved Twilight, liked the next 2, and hated Breaking Dawn (I agree with the whole “Bella got everything she ever wanted and more without having to sacrifice anything.” If I were older and had a teenage daughter, I would let her read the books. I would also point out the unhealthy relationship and all the bad points. However, I still liked the books, even if I didn’t approve of the characters. Someone here has to have read a book at some point where they didn’t approve of the characters’ actions or behaviors but still liked the book. I think both extreme ends of the spectrum (“OMG Edward is the bestest ever!” vs. “OMG Stephenie Meyer must die!”) are taking this book waaaay too seriously. Like it or don’t, let your kid read it or not, but this book is in no way life-altering and shouldn’t be viewed as such.

Hmmmm I’m starting to think that the only reason that people hate the Twilight series is because of the fanatical fangirl/boys.

They send up such a flare of obsession that people start violently disagreeing with them, simply as an allergic reaction.

Hate is a word filled to the brim with passion. And that reminds me of passionfruit, which reminds me of passionfruit flowers, which reminds me of allergies, which brings to mind allergic reactions.

The facts are undeniable.

While I love the sentiment expressed in the paragraph, I think it would have been better applied to a book that actually was awesome. Those books are awful.  I read the first three at the prodding of a friend and wasn’t too thrilled… Bella kept whining because everyone kept staring at her (because she was “pretty”, yet she wasn’t at her old school, which I guess means Meyer is trying to say the people of Forks are ugly compared to the people of Phoenix?) When she wasn’t, she was constantly ditching her friends from school in order to hang out with her boyfriend (which let me tell you, I HATED girls like that in high school) and thinking only about how pretty he is. I wasn’t going to read the fourth book, but then I started hearing rumors of how horrible it was. Naturally I had to see for myself.

Oh, it’s bad. REALLY bad. It’s not just the conservative ideology throughout this (and honestly, the conservative ideology just kind of flew out the window when Edward wanted Jacob to knock up his wife.) The main plot point just doesn’t even make sense. The vampires can’t even produce tears, but apparently Edward can produce not just sperm, but supersperm. He gets her knocked up instantly. There’s never any explanation as to how it happened or how someone who has been dead for approximately 100 years can produce live sperm still. The reader is expected to just accept it and move on.

Add onto that the fact that perfect skin = white skin (“I never got over the shock of how perfect his body was - white, cool and polished as marble.” pg 25), crappy writing (“His golden eyes looked as if they would have tears, too, if such a thing were not impossible.”), Edward being a condescending jerk who looks down on his wife because she wants a lot of sex (“You are so human, Bella. Ruled by your hormones.”)... the only redeeming moment of the book was when the baby was going to eat it’s way out of Bella, but nooooo, we didn’t even get the pleasure of seeing that.  Grrrr.

i’m with molly, and a lot of other people too (like “God” up there). i know it’s poorly written. so is harry potter! i know there’s issues with the character’s personalities, pedophilia, abuse, whatever.

doesnt change the fact that it’s CRACK. i’m 20 years old, very rarely read YA anymore, but i picked up Twilight to see what the fuss was and was honestly unable to pull myself away for more than a few hours at a time. i couldnt resist it. same thing happened with Stephanie Meyers’ other book, The Host.

That being said, i haven’t read Breaking Dawn yet. i’m on the waiting list at the library. but as long as her writing style or whatever hasn’t changed, i’ll probably be sucked in just as much, to the point where i KNOW IT’S BAD but zomg it’s SO GOOD CAN’T STOP READINGGGGG.

Heather said:

When she wasn’t, she was constantly ditching her friends from school in order to hang out with her boyfriend (which let me tell you, I HATED girls like that in high school) and thinking only about how pretty he is.

And there we have what killed the first book for me. I was hoping for a nice coming of age story involving vampires, because that was the setup. But then Edward walked in and there went that. It seems like I know way too many people in real life who don’t feel they’re worth anything without a man in their lives. I don’t want to read about people like that in my fiction, either. Plus, I’d been trying to read some of Christine Feehan’s Carpathian books, which also had the same basic girl-can’t-be-anything-without-her-vampire-lifemate theme and I just couldn’t deal with it anymore. But my sister loves the books, and I do see the attraction for them. They just make my inner feminist shriek and howl in pain.

But I suppose this is why parents should at least be aware of what their kids are reading, and in this case intervene, or at least point out that Bella and Edward’s relationship really isn’t healthy.

I haven’t read these books, though I’ve seen them promoted a ton around town (costume party promo party, not a bad idea, anyone?), but I tend to agree with what Lyra was saying in the above quote. Personally, I’m not one for censorship, but when the time comes that I have kids, I plan on going with the method of one of my friends who literally talks her kids to death about the media they consuming, forcing the kids to analyze whatever messages may be present in it.

As for the pedophilia analogy, I must say, as someone who reads a lot of vampire fiction, it’s a VAMPIRE romance. “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” was sixteen or so when she fell in love with a 200 year old vampire, and, yes, the age difference does present inequality, but so does any relationship with an immortal person, don’t you think?

Also, I hesitate to critically assess the “abusiveness” of vampire fiction as equivalent to real-life abuse specifically because the same rules don’t apply. The Anita Blake series (of which I enjoyed many of the earlier books) has many instances of violence between sexual/love partners, but then again it’s a two-way road and it’s implied that both parties kinda like it. . . Since I haven’t read any of the books discussed here, I can’t say it’s the same thing.

The trick is, teach your young adults to analyze what they read. I certainly read my share of crap as a teenager, but I didn’t go buying into it either.

I read Twilight because so many people told me it was great and wonderful and fabulous and I had to read it (multiple exclamation points). 

So I read it. 

I didn’t like Twilight. The writing was bad, there were gaps in logic, Bella is the type of heroine that I actively dislike (low self esteem, subsumes self in a man, actually kinda stupid).  Edward is cold, pasty, sparkly and feels like marble.  Just…ewww.  There were many reasons.

I respect the fact that people like this series.  I just think it is utter drivel.

I will admit that I liked Twilight. It was a fun popcorn book that kept me entertained (and that’s all that I look for in a fiction book really).

Having said that, I absolutely LOATHED New Moon. Every single character in that book was just too stupid to live.

I kept hoping that one of Bella’s stupid stunts would get her killed just so I didn’t have to read another page of her whining. I mean really, I understand that she is a hormonal teen who just lost the “love of her life”, but come on!!! Blanking out for weeks? That’s just going overboard with the drama.

And Edward!!!  Head/Wall “Oh, woe is me!! I’m a vampire and the “love of my life” has just died. Even though I don’t actually know for a fact that she’s dead. I just heard it second hand from my sister who hates the chick. But, I’m still going to go get into trouble with the big bad vampire mobsters in Italy and have them kill me. I’m not even going to go and check for myself in person. Because I am a whiny emo vampire that can’t bear the thought of living through eternity without this stupid mortal child.”

Jacob was just a stupid whiny werewolf who needed to get over himself. He knew from the start that Bella was in love with Edward, so his bitching and taking his anger out on Bella was childish and immature.

ACK! Itchy trigger finger…

After reading Twilight, the only reason I was even thinking about finishing the series (other than the fact that I had Eclipse in the house) was because it was only four books and I figured why not.

But, after reading the spoilers for BD, I decided that I definitely was not going to be reading any further in the series. The only reason the books didn’t land in the trashcan was because they were borrowed from a friend. I am eternally grateful that I didn’t spend any money on them.

Ideology aside, young minds should be stimulated by good books, not crappy ones.

If you’re going to do that, you have to do it carefully. I’ve still, in middle age, real problems with reading a book that is given to me, unless I’ve asked for it.  I think my mum probably worried about my taste in books, and gave me gifts of the ‘correct’ books to read. (She was a librarian, and then an English teacher.) And my taste mustn’t have run to the books teenagers were supposed to be reading.
It’s impossible, of course, to say that my mum wasn’t right: if I’d stimulated my mind correctly throughout my childhood, I might be a better, more intelligent person. But perhaps I’d have got bored, stopped reading, and turned to a life of crime…

I thought Breaking Dawn was fine - it’s like one of those popcorn movies, where the second you come out of the film you go ‘Wait a minute, that didn’t make sense…’  But while you’re watching it, you’re carried along by the action, and it’s fun. With Breaking Dawn I was carried along by the narrative in the same way.

And really, I’m happy my 15 year old would spend a day of her holidays reading a 700 page book. I know people spit on the argument that Harry Potter turned children into readers, but that was my personal experience with two of my three children. You could argue that, even if they’re not well written, books like these are gateway books, that allow children to think of themselves as readers - as people who enjoy books.

People have been making a big deal out of any possible religious agenda Meyer may have hidden in the Twilight books.  There’s nothing in there.

Oh, there’s no agenda.  Twilight is just cloyingly sweet in the way a good deal of the teenage LDS female population west of the Rockies is cloyingly sweet.  Meyer hasn’t grown out of it.

While I love the sentiment expressed in the [original post], I think it would have been better applied to a book that actually was awesome.

Indeed.  It actually shocked me to see “awesome” as applied to this on SBTB.

I’d let my kid read these if she were of a mind to (if she were a bit older than 5, I mean), but I’d make sure to read them, too and then I would take her to lunch and we would have a very long and frank discussion.

While I love the sentiment expressed in the paragraph, I think it would have been better applied to a book that actually was awesome.

Several people have said this, but I’m pretty sure Jezebel didn’t think it was awesome In context, it seems like the review says that CS Lewis is conservative and awesome, but Twilight is conservative and boring.

I only read Twilight, and while I didn’t think it was particularly boring, I didn’t love it. I was particularly bothered by the constant expression changes and eyes going hard/eyes softening thing they all did. It was like the characters were grimacing and mugging wildly through every scene. Anyway, I love vampire romance dearly, but I’m a little too old for books that end in a big prom scene :)

@that girl who compared Lizzy/Darcy to Bella/Edward. Never ever do that again! Both pairings have nothing in common. Also Darcy never visitted his aunt to be close to Elizabeth, he did not even know she was there until he was told by his aunt. Bella liked Edward from the beginning, because she’s shallow and found him perfect and hot, even when he behaved like an a**hole. Same goes for Edward, he was always attracted to Bella because of her smell. Darcy only found Lizzy attractive when he saw that she had wits and was a very intelligent woman. Bella is none of these. And Lizzy, well, she only liked Darcy after he became a true gentleman.

I hate the fact that Smeyer compares Edward to so many classic literature leading men.

Also, because people where mentioning pedophiles… the story of Claire and Quil—I loled. I can’t believe Smeyer has a degree in English literature (reading the books - or book, I only read Twilight - you can’t definitely tell). Clare Quilty is the other pedophile mentioned in Lolita, Humbert Humberts fiend for the “affections” of Lolita. Get a clue, woman. Imprinting on infants is not *love*.

That’s a way of defending it, I guess.  My problem—and I’m thinking most readers’ problems—with the book wasn’t that it pushed any specific ideology, but that it just plain let me down at every single turn.  Oh, Bella doesn’t have blood lust because the hawt sexx0rs cures that?  Super.  Jacob wants to bone your vampire baby?  Everyone’s a winner, I guess.  I had more problems with the plot problems than Bella getting married young, let me tell you.

Haven’t read the books, don’t intend to. Did want to posit that maybe the pedophilia accusation be replaced with an accusation of ephebophilia instead.

Oh, please. I’ve never read this series and I occasionally read YA. But your worried about an abusive relationship between a vampire and a mortal? Most teens I teach know the difference between reality and fiction- well-written or not.

However, I have just finished a Romance novel by an author I have always liked where the hero, which I should put in quotes, tries to get even with his former girlfriend by getting her to fall in love with him again and then attempts to have her child taken away! And the lucky young woman gets to marry this bozo in the end. Unfortunately I’ve seen way too much of this type of garbage lately. This is an HEA?Sadly, there is far more reality to this type of plot than the YA book mentioned, and I might mention I think mental abuse is just as sad as physical abuse.

HDU compare Bella/Edward to Darcy/Elizabeth. And HDU compare Harry Potter to Smeyer. HDU both indeed.

They just make my inner feminist shriek and howl in pain.

Word to that.

Regarding the comparison of Bella/Edward to Lizzie/Darcy… there is no comparison. The relationships could not be more different. Bella and Edward fall in love with each other for shallow reasons (looks and smell—ew). Lizzie and Darcy initially reject each other for shallow reasons, but come to love one another when they get to know each other better.

Bella adores Edward even when he is a jerk to her. Lizzie does not fall in love with Darcy until he stops being a jerk.

I think “Pride and Prejudice” is one of the best romances ever written—if not the best—and “Twilight” is drivel. I never made it past the first book, so I can’t comment on “Breaking Dawn.” But I read everything Austen ever wrote. It’s funny that the 200-year-old novel pleases my inner feminist, and the modern-day novel offends it.

HDU compare Bella/Edward to Darcy/Elizabeth. And HDU compare Harry Potter to Smeyer. HDU both indeed.

I’m appalled by these questions, appalled!  Clearly, someone is not reading her Austen very carefully.  I cite the following examples for your enlightenment.

“... but his friend Mr. Darcy soon drew the attention of the room by his fine, marble pale person, totally hawt features, all that and a bag of chips attitude and the report which was spoken in the ladies room within five minutes after his entrance, of his being all OMG sparkly like a gansta’s diamond studs in the sun.”

AND

``Which do you mean?’’ and turning round, Darcy looked for a moment at Elizabeth, till catching scent of maple syrup smelling hair, he coldly said, ``She’s awright; but not smoking enough to tempt me; and I am totally not in a mood at present to give consequence to any chicks who are not worth a dollar lap dance to other men.’‘

My favorite comment on the entire thing to date is

“I can’t say much. At that age, I loved Flowers in the Attic.”

Truer words. We didn’t have the Net, but we all read it feverishly.

...and into every generation, a crack-fiction book that sucks mightily but is adored above all others must fall….

Password: were98. Were not! Were only 13!

I am deeply ashamed and I have now realised the error of my ways. Austen and Rowling could never live up to the genius that is Meyer, after all she knows that twu love = stalkery/abusiveness

Ephebophilia: attraction to adolescent sex partner

Perhaps everyone else knew…

Depends on how you’re using “awesome,” or, in this case, how I interpreted awesome.

Gotcha.  I was thinking of OSSSUM in the Bill & Ted sense, which is really the only way I think of it.

Candy and I, we are staunch defenders of your right to enjoy whatever you want, including and especially Really Bad Entertainment. We’re both weak for some seriously cracktastic reading.

I totally agree, and I have said everywhere that I liked Twilight.  It is, indeed, cracktastic.  At the same time, I have issues with the book and its message—

They just make my inner feminist shriek and howl in pain.

Yes!—and the fact that I fully believe that it was unintended (which, to me, is HEWWWWJJJ).

I can’t say much. At that age, I loved Flowers in the Attic.

Yeah, me too.  But at least the author knew what she was writing and she wasn’t writing it to YA.

And I must cop to my 15-yo self having a huge cracktastic crush on The Hoff.  And Knight Rider’s being reincarnated this fall!  Yes!

I am deeply ashamed and I have now realised the error of my ways. Austen and Rowling could never live up to the genius that is Meyer, after all she knows that twu love = stalkery/abusiveness

If Mr. Collins isn’t a manipulative stalker, no one is.  I can just imagine the walls in his cottage near Rosings just covered in crazed imaginings, not unlike those he penned to Mr. Bennet, and splattered with his own blood and body secretions and dead bees from the hives he kept.

If Austen had written a sequel to P&P;, Collins would have no doubt eliminated Mr. Darcy with much flying though the trees at Rosings Park.  Then he would have taken over Pemberly, where upon he’d marry either bereaved Elizabeth or more Meyerish, the untouched teen sister.  Monster babies would be born faster than you could say, “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a hundred year old virgin vampire in possession of a good fortune must be jonesing for a jailbait shortie.”

Be careful, you might give Meyer ideas. Don’t you know she stalks the internetz looking for her worshipers and her enemies alike.
However your comments FTW! And that sequel needs to be written, if only for the lulz. You should contact Meyer’s publishers after all they’re pretty much used to publishing misogynistic crap.

... Cough, bitter and holding a grudge…who, me? Why certainly not!

You know, I’ve already written the manuscript on the back of credit card applications and in the margins of Trader Joe receipts!  I sent it to my editor, my agent, and Gerard Butler (so hawt!) telling them that it was a surefire bestseller, but oddly none of them have never responded.

However, Stephanie Meyer and I both agree that hard work and the occasional teenage fantasy wet dream are really the key to success in the literary world, so I’m currently working on a sequel to SENSE & SENSIBILITY, with Col. Brandon as a brain-eating (but totally sexy!) zombie who hearts teenage Marianne.

My code word:  men49—a little on the young side for Meyer’s heroines!

All this talk of vampires and Pride and Prejudice has got me thinking.  J.R Ward doesn’t have nearly enough characters (snort!).  She should totally create a new Brother…Dharcy!  He could set lessers on fire with his smoldering gaze.  Just like in P & P, he’ll act standoffish and withdrawn towards his heroine before succumbing to her charms.  I know, I know; it’s a totally new direction for Ward, but I think she can pull it off.  And maybe if we have a heroine based on Lizzie, she’ll actually be interesting!  It could work!

Anyone got a good title?  All I can think of is Lover’s Cravat.

Marta- thanks to a customer, I had already added you to my “gotta buy before i leave the bookstore and lose my awesome discount” list.

After the above comments, I think I will just bow down in total embarrassment for not finding you hiding in the fiction section before this.

Always glad to help, Sarah :) Just to be clear, I am not the author of the Flowers in the Attic comment (although I certainly devoured the book along with all the other girls in 7th grade). I just thought it summed up the whole situation well.

Hi, Ev, thanks, yep, my books are considered general fiction, so you may find them there should you wander over to that section.  (Since my last name starts with an A, I’m conveniently near the Anthologies - Erotic.) 

Melissandre, gotta give a shout out to Colleen Gleason for an Austen-inspired vampire series, the Gardella Vampire Chronicles, which is suitable for teens.  In fact, I had one of Colleen’s books on my table and a teenage friend saw it and snatched it away from me.  Colleen’s young heroine is not a wallflower, a doormat, or a whiner.  It’s not really relevant, but her book covers are beautiful.

I believe that all of the debate on whether or not Twilight really IS awesome, simply supports the original quote.  The ability to look at the book, to think about the characters—that’s awesome.  The freedom to do that for ourselves, THAT’S awesome.  The book itself is what it is—some folks think awesome (my teenaged daughter, for one,)  some folks think it’s good but over rated. (Stephanie Meyer is a sore point for me personally, for purely narcissistic reasons I will not go into now, but, like so many things, I blame my mother!)  Either way, the paragraph gave me a literary boner myself.

Because awesomeness promotes thinking, and thinking promotes becoming the kind of adult we all want more of in the world: the kind who can understand the message of a book — or a movie, or a blog post, or a presidential candidate — and decide for herself whether she agrees.

I’m unqualified to enter the debate on whether the books are awesome or awful since I haven’t read any of them.  I comment only as a shout-out for the need to encourage critical thinking in all ages.  I’m always surprised at how willing many people (not all!) are to take things they hear or read at face value.  It isn’t cynical to say that every message has an agenda or a bias. 

I advocate endlessly for romance novels.  I’m as biased as the detractor who dismisses them as mindless, formulaic trash.  I’m just biased on the counter viewpoint. *g*  I don’t expect anyone to listen to my passion for the genre and automatically say, “By God, she must be right.”  I hope that someone who previously thought evil, negative things about romance, might listen and think, “Hey, maybe there’s something to what she says.  I’ll read a romance and see what I think.”

Totally agree that every generation has its own cracktastic/craptastic literature—I was a Nancy Drew girl myself.  Oh, and Sue Barton (Student Nurse, et cetera).

Every teenage girl I’ve talked to about the Twilight books, love ‘em or hate ‘em or somewhere in between, assures me that she knows the difference between fiction and reality (“Like, Mom, he’s a vampire!  Duh!”).  They are not taking Bella as a role model, nor would they *really* want Edward for themselves in real life (although Robert Pattinson?  Hellz yeah, they’ve wanted him since he played Cedric Diggory!).  Sure there are some squeeing, even rabid, fans out there, for books that many people think are just not very good, but that’s true among adult readers as well.  (Cassie Edwards, anyone?)

These are the “trashy” books, and some really are!  We just can’t agree which ones.  There is a wide range, to suit a range of taste in readers, and I agree with SB Sarah that it is awesome to give teenage readers the same thing.  To trust them to read these books, even enjoy them, without warping their minds—just like we managed to read books where heroines FORGAVE, EMBRACED AND MARRIED THEIR RAPISTS without foolishly thinking that was meant as a behavioral model we should follow.

Young Adults, that’s what they are.  They don’t need their pleasure reading censored, or screened, much more than we do.

[That said, I was VERY pleased why my own Young Adult Woman, with a Borders gift card to spend, chose Wicked Lovely over Breaking Dawn.  She will finish the series eventually, but she’s in no hurry.]

I have been truly horrified by some of these comments.  There were far too many willing to pass judgement when it is obvious they have never read the books.  Pedophilia?!?  Yes Bella was young, but she was old enough to make her own decisions before the marriage.  Yes Jacob imprinted on the baby.  But if you had bothered to read the book (or paid attention when you did so) you would have noticed that Meyers explained how imprinting on a child worked.  Until maturity the relationship/feelings/emotions felt by the wolf are those of brother/father/friend (how this will change at maturity, I don’t know nor do I really want to).  But so many posters are willing to judge something they have never read based solely on the opinions of others.  I have read and enjoyed all four books.  Were they well written? No. Did I particularly like Bella? No. While reading the books, I’d notice the plot gaps and extreme leaps in logic (even for a world filled with vampires and werewolves).  If you cannot separate reality from fiction, you have no business reading fiction. 

But I felt the books served their purpose.  They provided a temporary escape and at least mild enjoyment.  They got millions of teenage girls to read something other that the latest issue of Seventeen.  I usually enjoy reading the responses on this site, but I found more than half the posts/reviews/etc. to be about as applicable and reliable as the teen fangirls.

I’m in agreement with Miranda C. You really do have to keep in mind the context which this is all written in. It may seem like a good idea to apply it to reality, but this is a world that Stephenie Meyer created. It’s not the real world, but fantasy. If the YA readers aren’t clued into the fact simply by its shelf location (YA Sci-Fi) then hopefully the youth of this day and age are able to realize that a book about vampires and werewolves (shape-shifters, technically) is going to require a step aware from reality.

Yes, the book involves human teenagers and some real life experiences. But the balance is so heavily in the unreal side of the story that it shouldn’t be in anyway a guide to life. That being said, I totally am behind those parents who want to take the time to explain healthy relationships and the difference between reality and fiction to their teens.

My next comment is kind of a SPOILER so if anyone hasn’t read BD and cares do not continue…

As to the problem of Edward’s sperm and Jacob’s imprinting on the resulting child:
As much as I maintain the denial of religious connotations in this series, there is most definitely a mysticism incorporated. Its a novel about vampires so of course there will be lore, myths and superstitions. That being said, Stephenie Meyer did a pretty good job of creating a world within which these circumstances could occur. Even her characters were amazed at Bella’s pregnancy, but her world had its own myths and legends that proved that this was not an unheard of thing. Are you seriously sitting here questioning the possibility of this happening in a book about vampires? Holy crap! Its a book, for crying out loud. A science-fiction one! That’s like the best genre you could ever write within for the unrealistic.

This is the value of literature in mind: anything is possible. It allows the mind to explore the impossible and make it possible.

Tolkien made up his own damn world, why can’t Stephenie Meyer?

Sorry for the tangent. Going back the mysticism, for those who have read BD, there is clearly a subtext of destiny. All the events in all the books have been leading up to this ending.

1. Edward’s attraction to Bella. Yes, it is her smell (get over it). Why is she so profoundly attractive to him, when he’s been alive for a century without experiencing this with any other human?

2. Jacob & Bella’s attraction to each other. Jacob, being a teenage boy, is attracted to Bella in that way. She is not attracted similarly. She is attracted to the way his presence makes her feel. Despite her love of Edward there is this inexplicable pull between Jacob and Bella. He can’t stay away from her, even though he knows he can never have her. And she can’t stay away from him even though she knows it hurts him. She mentions that he completes her family.

3. Jacob imprinting on Renesme (shitty ass name btw). This explains the pull. He is attracted to the part of her that will eventuallycomplete him. Similarly for her (seeing as how her child is part of her). The whole point of imprinting in Meyer’s world is that the mate will somehow enhance the bloodline of the shape-shifters. Imprinting on a human-vampire hybrid with telepathic abilities=probably a step up in the food chain.

4. Awkward Bella—>Bad Ass Bella. She had to be that uncomfortable awkward teenager who inexplicably did not feel like she fit in, because the one place that she really did fit in was with the undead. We needed to see how uncomfortable she was as a human to understand why it is so right for her to be a vampire. She basically comes into her own. She’s good at being a vampire.

So here we have our destiny. Edward and Bella destined to be attracted to each other because of what they will create together. He finally finds someone who he can love and live forever with without having to feel guilty, because she fulfills her destiny when he turns her. Simply put, she was meant to be a vampire and have a child, who was meant to imprint with Jacob and improve the Black line. Both sides gain: the shape shifters will eventually have a vampire-wolf-human line (capable of immortality, strength, speed, amazing mental abilities) thats your bridge between the two groups, and the vampires get a new member who is a shield against any vampire power involving the mind. Edward and Bella get to be in love (and have hot rough sex every night) forever. Win-win. Its the fate of Meyer’s world. Bella was meant to be a vampire.

Clearly I ran the midnight release party at my store.

By the way, I would totally want my child to read this series as opposed to other YA books with titles like Hotlanta. Or that stupid Clique series with the really bitchy looking 13yr olds on the cover. I do not want that to be my child one day *shudders*

I love trashy books as much as the next trashy book lover, but I just can’t get into Twilight.

It’s just so badly written (normally I can let this go but: ‘scintillating arms’? That’s just wrongness) and the pacing is horrendous. There’s no plot in any of them for about three quarters of the book, at which point you (I) realise that it has not been worth the wait. I’d be willing to let Edward’s weirdness go if the author acknowledged that he was a huge freak, but she insists that he’s the perfect man. She compares him to a bunch of literary romantic heroes (and Willoughby, wtf?) and says that he’s better than them all. I bring this up because she’s released the first chapter of Midnight Sun (the first book from Edward’s POV) in PDF form at her website, and it is a) the first Twilight thingy that I have ever read all the way through! And b) really, really creepy, in that it’s Edward thinking through all the ways that he can kill Bella (and any innocent bystanders!) and get away with it. It’s unintentionally hilarious, because that is just what my mind is like, but it’s also seriously disturbing, because Edward comes across as a complete sociopath. He spends all his time reading people’s thoughts and thinking how petty and insignificant humanity is (don’t keep going to high school, then!) and how his family are supposedly superior. And then, when it comes to not killing Bella, he doesn’t do it for her sake, or for the sake of all the random high schoolers he’d have to kill to get away with her murder without revealing himself, but because Carlisle (his vegetarian vampire daddy) would be disappointed in him.

I don’t know about you, but this is not my ideal man.

And wrt not censoring what teenagers read/trusting them to see the difference between truth and fiction etc. Yes, that is important. But it’s also important that (say it with me) books are not written in a vacuum! The entirety of pop culture is sending out these messages to girls and women, that dangerous men only need the love of a good woman to tame them/Beauty and the Beast nonsense. The truth of the matter is, if you put yourself in a situation like Bella has, where you are consistently at the mercy of someone who has to practice constant self-control so as not to hurt you, you have put yourself in a constant danger, and eventually you will get hurt.

As I said before, I’m not going to fire-bomb the publishers, and this is certainly not even the worst offender in this sense. But I’m not going to say it’s ‘awesome’, or celebrate it as a piece of fiction or an example of popular culture.

I can be concise. Someday, I will practice that skill.

And you couldn’t even pry ‘The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe’ from my cold dead fingers.

Miranda, don’t tell me imprinting is not creepy. I mean, the werewolf will be brother/father for the kid and later becomes the lover?! If this doesn’t sound creepy and incestious to me, I don’t know.

And I only mentioned pedophelia because of Claire (toddler) and Quil (15 year old). The names are an allusion to Clare Quilty I’m pretty sure.

And I don’t see ephebophilia in the books, pedophelia - maybe. 26 year old Jacob impriting on Nessie…when they’re getting older it will get weirder…... Also, relationships like that never happen in real life.

shewhohashope says:

And wrt not censoring what teenagers read/trusting them to see the difference between truth and fiction etc. Yes, that is important. But it’s also important that (say it with me) books are not written in a vacuum! The entirety of pop culture is sending out these messages to girls and women, that dangerous men only need the love of a good woman to tame them/Beauty and the Beast nonsense. The truth of the matter is, if you put yourself in a situation like Bella has, where you are consistently at the mercy of someone who has to practice constant self-control so as not to hurt you, you have put yourself in a constant danger, and eventually you will get hurt.

(Emphasis mine)

Thank you thank you thank you. That is exactly what I’ve been trying to say (albeit much less eloquently). Twilight perpetuates the submissive loving woman stereotype, and it bothers me to no end that a lot of people are willing to handwave the implication of it away as “we know fact from fiction,” “it’s just a trashy novel. it doesn’t mean anything” (isn’t it part of this blog’s schtick to think critically about the “trashy novels” in the world?) and “he’s a vampire, he can’t help it”.

The latter reminds me way too much of friends in abusive relationships, only substitute “a great guy” for “vampire”.

CAPTCHA: sense43. Yes, there is sense here, I hope.

relationships like that never happen in real life.

Exactly, in real life.  I do agree I find the idea of Quil and Jacob swithching from familial relationships to romantic ones with the children a little creepy.  But, then again, I do not exist in a world where imprinting is possible.  Those of you who do have experience in this magical, nonexistent world and can so willingly condemn it in absolutes, please explain. 

and “he’s a vampire, he can’t help it”.

The latter reminds me way too much of friends in abusive relationships, only substitute “a great guy” for “vampire”.

Have you read these?  This “great guy” doesn’t hit her because he can’t help controlling his temper.  Bella is attacked and Edward shoves her out of the way of the charge.  As a result, she falls into a punch bowl.  During a night of rough sex, Edward leaves bruises on a woman who admits to being bruised just by bumping into objects.  Any other harm that has occurred to Bella has been through others (NOT Edward).  I don’t think that Bella fits into most people’s view of a feminist.  But she was the one who chose her life and is HAPPY with it. Her parents did not raise her to believe she needed a man to complete her (in fact, both discouraged her at different times from marrying/becoming serious with someone so young).  Please quit taking individual events out of context and trying to make them into something they are not.

It’s awesome that the kids love reading.  It is awesome that kids are gobbling up stories.  It is NOT NOT NOT awesome that they can’t or WON’T read their summer reading lists.

The summer reading lists are to give kids a basis for what’s happening in the school year.  For a good foundation of fiction that pretty much has a timeless quality and FAR BETTER technical writing than most of the YA out today.

That does not mean they shouldn’t enjoy the YA.  That doesn’t mean that they can read WHATEVER they want on their own free time.  But SCHOOL TIME is MY TIME.  I do NOT want irate parents coming at me because I went over the Twilight series and they abhor it.  I do not want a school system coming down on me because I read, to horny 8th graders, about a series that has some heavy sexual overtones.  My job in the classroom is to give them what they WON’T pick up for themselves.  To introduce things that aren’t so sparkly and shiny that they would snap up.  It’s not JUST about getting kids to read.  But to get them to read in a critical thinking manner.

I promote reading.  But I HATE HATE HATE it when people come down on school reading lists.  There are REASONS for those lists.  And they aren’t to bore kids to death!  Ugh. 

I’m sorry if I sound snippy.  I just spent a week revising my booklist for the year.  I read through a ton of YA out there and most of them take the same themes from more classical books, dress them in modern trappings, toss in some pop culture reference, product placement, and call it done.  There’s more to teaching literature than that.  :(

Lyra already said it, but shewhohashope, WORD.

And wrt not censoring what teenagers read/trusting them to see the difference between truth and fiction etc. Yes, that is important. But it’s also important that (say it with me) books are not written in a vacuum!

Books are not written in a vacuum, or READ in a vacuum, and decisions are not made in vacuums.

Of course, the solution is 1.) more discussion and 2.) for me to get off my butt (or back ON my butt) and write my own YA novel, as well as a good deal of other people who have been annoyed by these aspects of the novels.

Or, you know, more promotion of Wicked Lovely.

captcha: always22—is that the store next to Forever 21?

To clarify my comparison btw Pride and Prejudice and the Twilight Series.  It was not a comparison of quality.  It was a comparison of the type of unrealistic wish fulfillment that both books hold. 

Point of fact: I think it can be argued (easily) that the events in S Meyers fantasy world have more of a chance of every happening (in the fantasy world she created) than the events in Pride and Prejudice.

Please (anyone here) give me a real life example in the late 18th/early 19th century class conscious England of a super rich, well born, educated man falling in love with a fairly poor and not super hot girl from an “only ok” provincial family who is actually very ill mannered, clearly after his best friend for best friend’s money (at least that is Mrs. Bennett’s motivation) and has a slut of sister who elopes with the man who tried to seduced and elope with super hot, wealthy guy’s baby sister when she was only 15 years old for her inheritance. 

Yeah, that guy would chase after the eloping pair, give Mr. Wickham mad bank and go back to plead with Elizabeth Bennett once more to make his dreams come true and marry him.  I’m sure that happened all. the. freaking. time.

Not. 

Twilight is cracktastic.  It is wish fulfillment on a large basis.  But then, much of romantic literature is. 

Many of us might prefer Jane Austen’s stylistic treatment of the events in her books over S Meyers stylistic treatment of her fantasy world and chracters.  But to say that Pride and Prejudice isn’t blatant wish fulfillment is to deny the events as having any relation to the time period in which they were set, the characters as described or why the book is so romantic. 

Hope this clears up my original point, which was NOT that S Meyers is the next Jane Austen.  That would be blasphemy.

Miranda, don’t tell me imprinting is not creepy. I mean, the werewolf will be brother/father for the kid and later becomes the lover?! If this doesn’t sound creepy and incestious to me, I don’t know.

Have you ever read Emma? Jane Austen? Emma falls in love and marries her older-brother-figure who has been a guardian and mentor to her?

There’s a long tradition of this exact sort of relationship in English fiction. It just doesn’t usually start with infants.

There are REASONS for those lists.  And they aren’t to bore kids to death!

I never had summer reading lists in school, and I didn’t need them. I read the “classics” on my own. (I was a massive nerd.) And, keeping in mind that I say this as a person less than 30 days away (God willing) from a PhD in English literature, why ARE some of those books chosen?

Sometimes I look at summer reading lists, and I wonder why in God’s name the books have to be so depressing, misogynistic, or dull. Sometimes I can see the point (I hatehateHATE Lord of the Flies with a passion that is really quite unreasonable, but I can sort of see why it might be valuable reading). Other times, I’m just left bewildered. (The Old Man and the Sea? Sure, you can read it in 45 minutes, but dear God. That’s 45 minutes gone forever.)

So, and not asked snarkily at ALL, what do you go for in creating your lists? What are you trying to get out of them?

For me, snarkhunter, I go for fantasy.  I’m a huge fan of a story taking you away.  I try to steer damn clear of anything remotely depressing.  If there is SORROW that is fine.  But if there is a fatalistic quality, where there is no hope in humanity and no hope in God (Catholic school teacher here), then I don’t want it.

The lists the Diocese comes up with, while working with the schools, is at least 5 books in every possible genre.  From mystery to fantasy to light reading.  They KNOW that kids want more than just the classics and they strive to provide that.  Heck they even put Harry Potter on there.  Granted the list encourages the parents to read WITH their kids when providing the books.

For myself I cover stories and books that I can cross reference with all walks of life.  I need music and art and history and dance and building and pretty much EVERYTHING to put into a book.  I don’t just teach the story but what went into the story.

Many kids will enjoy reading.  My job is to get them to THINK about what they are reading.  And hopefully some of that transfers to the Twilight books.  But I think not sometimes. :(

I’m a huge fan of a story taking you away.  I try to steer damn clear of anything remotely depressing.  If there is SORROW that is fine.  But if there is a fatalistic quality, where there is no hope in humanity and no hope in God (Catholic school teacher here), then I don’t want it.

I think I would like your reading lists. :) It’s the ones that seem determined to churn out little existentialists that annoy me.

Sasha, I think you argued two unrelated things. First, you compared Jane Austen’s world (which is a fantasy world, as are all fictional worlds) to her reality (i.e., what happened in P & P is extremely unlikely to happen in real, historical 18th or 19th century England, and OK, we’ll run with that), and then you compared Stephenie Meyer’s fantasy world to itself (what happened in Stephenie Meyer’s world makes perfect sense in Stephenie Meyer’s fantasy world, a point I’d argue, but not right now), and asked which is more realistic. That’s an apples-to-oranges comparison. If you’d compared Stephenie Meyer’s fantasy world to 21st-century small-town America, you’d come up with a different answer.

Jane Austen’s fantasy world is much closer to historical reality than Stephenie Meyer’s fantasy world (vampires what?), but that’s not a problem, since Stephenie Meyer is writing speculative fiction and Jane Austen was not. However, I disagree with your point (I think?), which was that Ms. Meyer’s fictional events are more likely to happen in her fictional world. Ms. Austen invented a world in which what happened DID happen. How is your description any more likely than a 100-year-old virgin vampire waiting for a wallflower from Phoenix to move to small-town Washington so he could fall in love with her? I won’t EVEN get into the events in book 4.

Yes, you’re right; there is an element of wish-fulfillment in P & P. But in Ms. Meyer’s world, the wish-fulfillment seems to be the end of everything. Ms. Austen uses the wish-fulfillment as a starting point to create a biting societal commentary and explore various aspects of her characters. Ms. Meyer does none of the sort.

Have you read these?  This “great guy” doesn’t hit her because he can’t help controlling his temper.

As I said in my original post, yes I’ve read Twilight. No, I have not read New Moon, Eclipse, or Breaking Dawn, because Twilight was more than enough, though I have read detailed synopses of the others. Nothing in the synopses seem to contradict what I took away from Twilight, which is:

Girl consistently puts herself in a relationship where her boyfriend has the serious potential to hurt her, and finds nothing wrong with it.

The references to the stairs and punchbowl instances are my own disbelief at the presence of such painfully stereotypical abusive behavior responses.

Here’s a list of domestic abuse warning signs, for both the man and woman. Let’s see how many of them Edward and Bella fit.

The abusive man:
1) shows extreme jealousy and wants to keep the woman isolated.
2) has an inability to cope with stress and shows a lack of impulse control. (This may not necessarily appear outside the home)
3) has a poor self-image and blames others for problems.
4) shows severe mood swings.
5) may have a history of abuse in his own family and may have been abusive in courtship.
6) presents a history of personal and/or family discord; unemployment, cruelty to animals, abuse of alcohol or other substances, and other unexplained behavior.

1) Hell yes. Jacob? Check. Other students? Check check. Vagrant vamps? Check check check.
2) I would argue that Edward’s running away from Bella after he first meets her, as well as trying to change out of her class, constitutes an inability to cope with the situation. Your interpretation may differ.
3) Poor self image. Okay, not so much. I’ll give you that. No one has poor self image for long in this series.
4) HELLO YES. I HATE YOU! I LOVE YOU! NOM NOM NOM.
5) Abuse in family? One MIGHT argue that Carlisle dragging Edward into damnation/eternal night/constant hunger battles is abusive, but it’s probably a stretch. His obvious relish of observing what’s his face ask Bella to the prom (a painfully awkward situation for teens) borders on cruelty in courtship to me.
6) Unexplained behavior is a great big CHECK. History of family discord, yes (Abandoning the family for the Volturi, running off because of Bella’s tantalizing scent, etc).

So, Edward, we’re somewhere between 3-5 of 6. Not too good. And I didn’t even go into all the dominance overtones.

The abused woman:
1) shows guilt, ambivalence, and fear over living conditions.
2) feels isolated and untrusting of others, even though she may be involved in the community.
3) is emotionally and economically dependent.
4) has a poor self-concept (this may not have been true BEFORE the relationship).
5) has observed other women in her family being abused or may have been abused as a child.
6) feels angry, embarrassed, and ashamed.
7) is fearful of being insane.
8) has learned to feel helpless and feels powerless.
9) has unexplained injuries that may go untreated.

1) Forks sucks! Phoenix rules! Forks sucks!!! Let’s go with a “yes” on this.
2) Bella’s commentary on her new ‘friends’ in Forks? YES. Very isolated.
3) Edward wants to buy her new things constantly. She’s not getting any emotional support from her mother, and Charlie isn’t great when it comes to emotional support either. So, yes.
4) YES YES YES OH GOD YES.
5) Abused? Probably not from book 1. Flighty, yes, but abused, no.
6) Yes, Bella’s angry at life, at circumstance, at being stuck in Forks. Yes, much anger and frustration. Embarrassment too, at being already known as Charlie’s daughter before she even gets to Forks.
7) Not really, but everyone else thinks she is.
8) YES YES YES. Constantly in need of rescuing, constantly at a loss for what to do when Edward isn’t around.
9) Unexplained injuries? YES. While the reader might know how she got them, nobody in her family knows. Cue rant about punchbowl and stairs.

So, dear Bella is batting 7 of 9. We’re talking an incredible majority when you take them together.

(lists taken directly from: http://www.letswrap.com/dvinfo/warning.htm but a,lso cross-referenced from several other sites, including iVillage, HelpGuide.org, Illinois’ State Office of Women’s Health)

The argument isn’t that young adults won’t be able to distinguish between fact from fiction in that Edward is a vampire and real people aren’t (nice straw man argument though, I will admit). The argument is that young adults won’t be able to distinguish fact from fiction, that people will (continue to) believe that as long as a man loves you, any injury inflicted upon you by being around him is okay.

I’m not saying ban the books, not at all. I’m saying dismissing the argument with ‘because he’s the way he is’ isn’t good enough.

I’ve read these books. Edward is not abusive in the physical sense, but he is extremely creepy and controlling. He spent his nights hanging around her house and watching her sleep through the window before he had even been introduced to her. He also consistently believes that he knows what’s better for Bella than she does herself, even though it’s her life. He even goes so far as to disable her car to prevent her from seeing a friend of hers. He believes it’s because said friend is dangerous and bad for her, even though she’d been hanging out with said friend for months by that point and would surely know what she was getting herself into. Edward will occasionally take what she says seriously, but most of the time he will brush off what she says because, again, he is arrogant enough to believe that HE knows what’s best for her.

But Emma also is fiction. I know there was a time when people married their daughters of to man twice their age, but usually they did not grow up with them. There’s actually a psychological description for couples that grow up together and then eventually marry. It starts with h I believe. It was a typical in some Asian country I think, where future husband/wife grew up together.

But Emma fall in love with Knightley when she was 21. Knightley was 37. Knightley did not know when he was 16 he’s going to end up with Emma, but Jacob does. Even when he’s the playmate for Nessie at first, he does love her, because she’s his ~soulmate~. Also, I think there’s a difference between someone having actually a choice to become lovers and someone who doesn’t.

lol so much discussion about a fictional book xD

Stephanie

I think the point I was trying to make (and I don’t think you would disagree with me, but maybe I am wrong) is that both works are wish fulfilling FANTASY.  The point I don’t think we agree on is that I do believe that Stephenie Meyer created a world in which her characters’ action in lots of way make more sense that do the characters in Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice.  Jane Austen’s books are not trying to change the rules of the world the characters are living in.  The assumption throughout her novels is not that her characters are living in an ‘alternative reality’ England - the assumption is that this is a fictional story set in modern day England (at the time of writing).  And Pride And Prejudice (the storyline) is a complete and total cracktastic FANTASY of what would happen at that time, in that location, with the characters described. 

Now, Jane Austen is a brilliant writer, and her story works so well because her characters are complex and she makes some wonderful and biting commentary on manners and mores of the gentry.  However, the events as described in her books did not happen and the likelihood of those events happening are about as likely as vampires actually existing (ok, slight hyperbole but come on).

If we are going to accept that S Meyers gets to create her fantasy world in which vampires do exist, and they do follow the rules she sets out then the interactions that follow from Bella and Edward are just as likely to have occurred (meaning not at all, of course, but workable within her framework).  Even the events of Book 4 - because when you decide to throw magic in - well then arguing a half human/half vamp mutant baby is a lot less hard.  Ms. Meyer brings the idea up in the first book (Twilight) when she talks about the incubus/succubus legends being associated (in her canon) with vampire legends and unexplained pregnancies. 

I get the fact that a lot of people don’t like the books.  I am not trying to argue that anyone should like the books.  But I think this is an issue of not liking how Stephenie Meyer writes stylistically (totally reasonable complaint and very subjective for each reader) as opposed to the fact that the story is “just too fantastical”. 

The plot points are not fantastical from the canon she sets out (not even the pregnancy, in my view).  You might not think it works.  I might think it does. I might think that she is a great storyteller because I feel compelled to read her through even with all the flaws I see in her writing and the stuff that drives me batty (eye tightening, anyone?). 

There are authors I loath (Danielle Steele immediately comes to mind).  But I also recognize that her storylines (on the bare bones) mimic many of the storylines that when written by other authors I love.  Hot rich men and fabulous successful women just aren’t dotting the landscape the way that La Nora and others write about them.  Doesn’t mean I don’t love how La Nora writes and won’t read even teh most ridiculous of her plot contrivances.  I will read anything by La Nora because I love her writing, flaws and all (not that she has that many - she is wonderful).

I don’t think that good books (even when we are talking about books so bad they are good) are good or bad based upon the storyline and plot but rather in how the author writes it.  How she/he treats the storyline.

I don’t expect my teenage vampire/human love stories to have plucky archetypical modern day feminist heroines who happen to fall in love with the angsty vampire guy.  I expect that you basically have to be your own personal freakfest to fall in love with a 108 year old angsty vampire who every other human avoids because every one else realizes (subconsciously or not) that he is dangerous and a predator. 

Bella is a freak and a half.  I don’t identify with her, I don’t want to be her. But her character as written makes more sense falling in love with a vampire than say Angela’s does (who happens to be a great example of cool human girl; kind, popular, falls in love with a guy much shorter than her and doesn’t give a flip about it at all, good friend, smart, etc.).

I liked the book because I think that writing it in the first person gives the reader all sorts of stuff to think about.  We hear from Bella that she is average and boring.  But the reaction from all the other people in the book seems to bely her own self judgements.  So, what is the actuality (we each get to decide).  We see her admittedly unhealthy and obsessive love for Edward who she sees as perfect, but I don’t think anyone else agrees with her judgement on that - not even Edward himself. 

I liked the idea that both of them were outcasts (and yes, every at school avoided the Cullens even with their hotness and wealth which once again makes you wonder about how everyone sees the Cullens versus how Bella does) and it is in part because neither fits in that they fall in love with one another.

I think Stephenie Meyer is a pretty smart, aware author.  I don’t think she believes that Bella and Edward are the “perfect” couple.  I think the whole series is basically a character study of two of the most fucked up people falling in love and the aftermath of their decisions, choices and actions.  As such, I loved reading about it.  I loved that Edward’s family unconditionally loved both of those freaks even throughout their most outrageous hijinks. 

I thought this was a series about how absolutely far anyone can go and still be loved.  And Stephenie Meyers tooks these characters well beyond where I would have stopped.  But there was never a moment when I thought, “well, I could see them loving each other until there, but that just went too far.”  I thought the fact that there was no place those two crazy kids wouldn’t go was the whole point.

Completely unrealistic?  heck yeah.  For me.  But then, that’s why I read that instead of just asking all my friends about their courtships and relationships.  I know what realistic relationships are like.  Heck, i’ve been married almost 10 years and have 3 kids.  I really know what realistic relationships are like.

Realistic for the freakfest that is Bella and Edward?  Hells yes!  And I loved it because it was cracktastically freak festy. 

A couple more points that I have to address because lots of people have had problems with these points.

1. The fact that Bella was willing to die for her child.  This was one of the most realistic parts of Book 4 for me.  Having had friends who chose to continue a pregnancy after being diagnosed with cancer and postponing cancer treatments until after the delivery made that pretty realistic.  Is that what everyone would/should choose?  No, but it isn’t even fantastical that Bella would.  And having 3 children myself - the idea of dying for my child isn’t weird at all.  If it was a choice between me or any of my children dying, I would choose to die myself in a heartbeat.  If you don’t have kids, maybe that wouldn’t make sense, but I think those with kids can understand the impulse even if that isn’t what they would choose.

2. The awful delivery scene.  I thought Stephenie Meyer did a great job acknowledging that having this kind of mutant baby would fuck a girl up right good.  It seemed to play somewhat like the scene in Alien which I thought worked, especially since it is being narrated by Jacob.  And having had a pretty horrific delivery of my third child with a spontaneous hemorrage - I know first hand how bloody things can get in a ‘normal’ problem delivery. 

Does everything work for me in the book?  Not even close.  But I still liked it.  And I think arguing whether or not vampires could possibly have erections, or could possibly father a child, or if a teenage girl who would give up mortal life for her vampire boyfriend is a good role model (really, should that have ever even been thought?  I don’t think anyone has ever argued Bella is a good role model or should be) misses the point.  This is the story as written by the author.  She created a world in which vampires could get erections and sex it up all the time.  okey dokey, mutant vamp sperm isn’t on my list of impossibles at that point.  I don’t know why it is on anyone’s list since I don’t know why that couldn’t be in the world that Stephenie Meyer created. 

3. I really wish people would stop the YA argument of why this book is inappropriate.  Ms. Meyers has said repeatedly that she didn’t write this series as a young adult series, her publisher chose to publish it in that location.  Either a book isn’t good (in your opinion) or it is.  Books are almost never “inappropriate”.  Young adults are not constrained to one section of the bookstore or library, so why is anyone framing this discussion as this book being particularly problematic because it has been shelved in YA?  I know that I was reading Clan of the Cave Bear and other examples of fantasy romantic crap when I was way younger than a teenager and I think that wannabe ‘faction’ of books like that is actually more damaging than fantastical stories of how vampires and teh rare, rare human girls who love them interact romantically. 

As I said before, I am not trying to make anyone say that this is great literature.  I am not trying to argue that you don’t understand the book if you didn’t like it.  I enjoyed it, I think there’s lots to be discussed in what happened in all 4 books (from a literary standpoint) and I also think it is a wonderful series of trashy fiction.  If it doesn’t work for people, hey - that’s why we each read slightly different books.  But I think a lot of the criticism has been ridiculously over-reaching, in what people want this book to be, as opposed to what it is.

I…never argued that Emma isn’t fiction? Not sure why “but it’s fiction!” is either a defense or an offense here. It’s all fiction.

But Emma fall in love with Knightley when she was 21. Knightley was 37. Knightley did not know when he was 16 he’s going to end up with Emma,

Yeah, but he’d been in love with Emma since she was in her teens. All I’m saying is, Stephenie Meyer isn’t writing out of some pedophile fantasy. She’s writing out of a long tradition of literature in which this sort of thing IS common. Furthermore, I am extremely uncomfortable with the extent to which people are applying (very important) real-world rules/guidelines to a series of books existing in a genre that is BY DEFINITION in defiance of many of those rules.

quick disclaimer: I read Twilight several years ago. Have not read any of the others. Have no real stake (no pun intended, but now that it’s there I like it) in them, but some of the protests here strike me as 1) disingenuous, 2) patronizing, and 3) silly.

The age thing (Edward/Bella, I mean). This is standard vampire fiction. STANDARD. Like others, I point to Buffy/Angel. Also Buffy/Spike, Angel/Cordelia, Xander/Anya. Basically, pick your Whedonverse pairing. I don’t read vampire fiction as a rule, but I’m pretty DAMN sure similar issues crop up in the works of, to name just a few authors, Anne Rice, JR Ward, and Laurell K. Hamilton.

The danger thing. This is a common vampire-lit trope, a common werewolf-lit trope (Willow/Oz?), a common sf/fantasy-lit trope (basically any story in which a character becomes involved with someone in a dangerous shadow world…hell, look at the Doctor and any of his various companions), AND a common theme in YA fiction. Don’t like your teens reading novels about dangerous young men or women and the people who love them? Seriously, good luck finding a book that doesn’t get into that. I mean, I don’t necessarily think it’s a GOOD thing to constantly have the girls falling for the “bad” boys, but, again, within the confines of the genre, it’s very, very standard.

Bella’s sense of isolation in the first book?

Forks sucks! Phoenix rules! Forks sucks!!! Let’s go with a “yes” on this.

Lyra, I take it you weren’t forced to move to another, totally alien (to you) state when you were 17. I was. I was deeply isolated and deeply miserable. I hated Ohio with a passion and wanted to go back to Washington, even as I felt bound to stay in Ohio b/c of the people I loved. But it wasn’t a sign of abuse. It was a sign of confusion and unhappiness about my situation. While I don’t disagree that the Edward/Bella relationship is troubling, using Bella’s reaction to Forks (and have you ever BEEN to Forks? Believe me, you can’t blame her) as an example of her “abuse” is patently ridiculous.

The argument is that young adults won’t be able to distinguish fact from fiction, that people will (continue to) believe that as long as a man loves you, any injury inflicted upon you by being around him is okay.

This is one of those patronizing things. I don’t disagree that there are a lot of negative messages out there directed at young women, and this is one of them. But you know what? Unless you’re prepared to only let them read carefully-vetted feminist literature, young women encountering these myths is inevitable. Hell, I think I even went through a phase where I found moody, troubled, angry boys attractive. God knows why.

The better solution is simply, as many here have already said, to discuss these issues with young women and men. To read the books with them and talk about why such relationships are bad. I mean, again, let’s look at Buffy and Angel. I was in my first years of college when that relationship was hitting its steamy peak, and I don’t remember huge outcries of “OMG, young women will think this is normal! Protect the childreeeen!” I also don’t remember such discussion around Mulder and Scully, which is quite possibly the most fucked-up relationship of all time, and had a HUGE teen following. I could go on with examples, but I’ve already written a novel here.

My point is that teenagers are going to be exposed to/interested in negative relationships in everything. Constantly. Maybe especially in the classroom. (I mean, Jesus, The Taming of the Shrew? Romeo & Juliet? Wuthering freaking Heights?) Patronizing them by saying that they can’t distinguish fact from fiction is just about the surest way to further isolate them and leave them unable to discuss such issues with adults.

I hate seeing this kind of hypocrisy at Smart Bitches. How often do we protest against the stereotype that reading romance is “bad” for women? And yet here people are, making that very argument about romances and young women.

However, the events as described in [Austen’s] books did not happen and the likelihood of those events happening are about as likely as vampires actually existing (ok, slight hyperbole but come on).

In every time, including Jane Austen’s, people have married outside their social class.  This is especially true where beauty is involved and/or wit and charm.  The richest men in the world have given up thrones for plain women of wit.  (Mrs. Simpson, anyone?  Camilla Parker-Bowles?)  And princes have married beautiful women with tarnished histories (Rita Hayworth and Prince Ali Aga Khan, Grace Kelly and the Prince of Monacco).

Not that Darcy and Elizabeth or her sister and Bingley were in different social classes.  The Bennet girls were daughters of a gentleman, not the daughters of a chimney-sweep or even from a prosperous family that was “in trade.”  They were perfectly acceptable as wives for these men.

Totally unrelated, but I love the way the SBs start up a ruckus and get everyone all fired up and having passionate discussions about books.

Go, Smart Bitches!

snarkhunter said:

This is one of those patronizing things. I don’t disagree that there are a lot of negative messages out there directed at young women, and this is one of them. But you know what? Unless you’re prepared to only let them read carefully-vetted feminist literature, young women encountering these myths is inevitable. Hell, I think I even went through a phase where I found moody, troubled, angry boys attractive. God knows why.

I’d like to point you to snippets of my previous posts:

But I suppose this is why parents should at least be aware of what their kids are reading, and in this case intervene, or at least point out that Bella and Edward’s relationship really isn’t healthy.

I’m not saying ban the books, not at all. I’m saying dismissing the argument (of abuse/unhealthy relationships) with ‘because he’s the way he is’ isn’t good enough.

To keep it concise, I didn’t mean to come off as patronizing, but being accused of saying people can’t tell vampires from humans irritated me. My problem continues to be that I can’t seem to find a better argument for their relationship being healthy other than:
He’s a vampire, he can’t help it!
Have you even read the books?
He did it to protect her.

PS - I loath obviously feminist literature as well.

The relationship isn’t healthy. I don’t think anyone here thinks it is. But relationships in vampire fiction are by their very definition unhealthy. There’s always this component of danger and obsession—it seems to be at the very foundation of the genre (and that’s one reason why I’m not really a big fan). I’m not saying this relationship wouldn’t be unhealthy even if he were human—it would be. But I feel like you’re taking the constraints of the genre separately from the issue at hand, and I’m saying that IN THIS CASE, they can’t be separated.

Furthermore, an unhealthy relationship being depicted as a good thing in fiction is so common that holding this one example up as particularly egregious, when it’s not, in fact, any worse than any of the others out there, is disingenuous. And arguing for parental intervention? No. Just no. I did not take well to my mother “intervening” in my reading (not that she needed to, as I was a self-censoring reader), and I was a freakishly obedient teenager. Now, sure, Mom or Dad might read the book and point out that the relationship isn’t great, but that’s not intervention. That’s parenting. Subtle distinction, but important when dealing with teenagers. And, of course, one has to do it in a way that isn’t going to get the eye rolling, “No shit, Mom.” Because teenagers are much smarter than people give them credit for.

What would you like teenagers to read? Not His Dark Materials, I hope, b/c I’d argue that Will and Lyra don’t have the world’s healthiest relationship, either. And the classics are out big time, if you want healthy relationships. (I’d like to point out that Mr. Rochester is a lying, abusive freak who deliberately set out to ruin Jane so that she’d be dependent upon him and unable to leave him when she found out that he was married.)  I read a *lot* of YA fiction, and rarely do I find relationships that aren’t disturbing—I think it’s b/c at that age, obsession and romance are so easily conflated. But one does grow out of it, or else one becomes a social misfit.

Yeah, Sasha, I don’t agree with you at all.

This?

The point I don’t think we agree on is that I do believe that Stephenie Meyer created a world in which her characters’ action in lots of way make more sense that do the characters in Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice.

Nope. Not at all. As a matter of fact, my mind is so boggling that you could possibly think that that I can’t put any sort of logical response.

I personally didn’t go into Twilight expecting to hate it; I thought I’d love it, because I love YA and vampires. Then, I couldn’t suspend my disbelief far enough to read beyond book 1, or even enjoy book 1. You can’t explain away worldbuilding errors or lack of thought on the author’s part as “it’s all a part of her mythology”. Unless there are logical reasons for that mythology—and they obey the laws of physics, or perhaps she puts an explanation in there, like LKH did when we saw a woman pregnant by a vampire in book 6 (also, note: LKH’s vampires cannot sustain erections unless they’ve consumed blood very recently, and she explained that bit on multiple occasions)—then I’m not going to assume some sort of thought on her part.

I guess what it comes down to is that you believe that Ms. Meyer is a smart, conscientious, talented writer, and I don’t.

Gotta love inductive reasoning…not.

My response to Lyra’s comment:

Here’s a list of domestic abuse warning signs, for both the man and woman. Let’s see how many of them Edward and Bella fit.
The abusive man: 

1) shows extreme jealousy and wants to keep the woman isolated.
Come on. How can he possibly refrain from being even a little jealous when he can hear the freaking thoughts of every male when they see her? I dare any man with genuine feelings for a girl to be able to control that emotion in that situation.
I’m sorry. Are you saying that keeping her away from OBVIOUS danger is a bad thing?
2) has an inability to cope with stress and shows a lack of impulse control. (This may not necessarily appear outside the home) 

My opinion differs.
3) has a poor self-image and blames others for problems. 

Meh
4) shows severe mood swings. 

He never hates her. He hates the part of his biology that wants to hurt her and/or puts her in danger from outside sources. I wouldn’t say mood swings. I would say indecision.
5) may have a history of abuse in his own family and may have been abusive in courtship. 

Edward’s mother asked Carlisle to change him. She would’ve eventually had to suffer through the awkward prom invitation. And are you telling me that you have never read a book where one character puts another in an awkward situation all for the purpose of amusement. Holy crap that is in like every modern romance novel I have ever read! Awkwardness=comedic relief.
6) presents a history of personal and/or family discord; unemployment, cruelty to animals, abuse of alcohol or other substances, and other unexplained behavior.
What unexplained behavior did you check off (in capital letters no less)? I’ll give you family discord, but to a certain extent. Who doesn’t have family discord? And if you don’t, can you please tell me what your prescription is for?


The abused woman: 

1) shows guilt, ambivalence, and fear over living conditions. 

Ok in your comparison to this one, you didn’t relate it to this description at all! You said she “hates” forks, which is neither guilt, ambivalence, nor fear. She doesn’t hate forks anyway. Its completely different to her and it’s a difficult adjustment. She thinks its pretty but too green.
2) feels isolated and untrusting of others, even though she may be involved in the community. 

I don’t know that we should make isolated and uncomfortable synonymous. She rapidly becomes part of the “popular” group and does have a social life of a sort. Is she completely comfortable spilling all her secrets to people she has just met when she is not used to interacting with people? No. Who would be?
3) is emotionally and economically dependent. 

I concede this. Although she isn’t really even emotional herself. She compares herself to Charlie in their similar resistance to expressions of emotions. And, I’m sorry, did you say you read this? She gets pissed off every time Edward tries to buy her shit. He had to make her a mix cd for her birthday so she wouldn’t complain.
4) has a poor self-concept (this may not have been true BEFORE the relationship). 

Yes. Agreed. She has no idea how other people view her. She was basically a small fish in a big pond in Phoenix.
5) has observed other women in her family being abused or may have been abused as a child. 

Does not apply. Her mother may be flighty to a certain extent, but this was a woman who got out of a relationship and situation that wasn’t making her happy. I’d say Bella’s got a role model right there.
6) feels angry, embarrassed, and ashamed. 

Embarrassed? Yes. She’s a klutzy girl, who has all this attention on her unexpectedly. Angry? Maybe a little, but not at being in Forks. I’d say she gets over it pretty quickly. What teenager doesn’t experience these emotions?! Really?
7) is fearful of being insane. 

She. Is. Dating. A. Vampire.
8) has learned to feel helpless and feels powerless. 

Yes, she does need rescuing from time to time. Most of the time she is independent. Just because she is physically weaker than her vampire counterpart doesn’t mean she’s powerless.
9) has unexplained injuries that may go untreated.
Yes, unexplained injuries. Should she explain most of these many people will think she’s insane. These do not go untreated. Her boyfriend’s dad is a doctor.

I don’t discount the probability of these being attributed to the majority of abusers/abused. However, I can say yes to a lot of these too, but I am neither abused nor abusing people. I think the difference that needs to be highlighted is the excess of these attributes in an individual. Jealousy, guilt, embarrassment, even anger are normal emotions especially in teens. Its the excess of these in any one person that leads to a bad situation.

verification word: table31…Bella would probably rather fall onto a table then be torn into 31 pieces.

I think we also need to consider the fact that these young readers are continuing to grow and evolve as thinking human beings.  If the book has negative messages, I don’t think most readers are going to be warped for life.  As they continue to read on their own and in school they will be exposed to other books, and their viewpoints will change.  A senior who loved the books as a freshman will reread with different eyes.  By that time, the flaws of the book and the characters (and perhaps the relationship) will be more obvious. 

Meanwhile, I agree with Marta Acosta.  This conversation is giving me a figurative boner, more than anything else.  The website is aptly named.

G said:

Response to abuse list.

(Personal preference not to refer to any person as a Deity)

Thank you for going through the list term by term. I appreciate the thorough response. And now, the rebuttal:

Abusive Man List:
1) shows extreme jealousy and wants to keep the woman isolated.
Didn’t someone else point out that at one point Edward was going to (or did) trash Bella’s car to prevent her from going somewhere? He reads the thoughts of everyone around her to see what they are thinking, which is a severe breach of privacy as far as I am concerned. (The mind-reading is presented as a gift, not a curse, which connotes to me that is is something they can control, and are not burdened by) I believe at that point it becomes coersion and not simple protective instinct, because that shows a severe lack of respect for the other person as an individual capable of making their own choices. Just because Edward has more life experience than Bella doesn’t give him the right to disregard her ability (and right) to make her own choices.

2) has an inability to cope with stress and shows a lack of impulse control.
Earlier, I forgot to mention his (over)dramatic suicidal tendencies when he thought Bella might die. Someone who handles stress well does not immediately (and seriously) contemplate suicide by cop just because their girlfriend might be dead. I do, however, concede that there are multiple ways of reading Edward’s motives, especially as we only see them from Bella’s (obviously biased) point of view.

3) No contest, we agree here.

4) shows severe mood swings.
One of the things that continue to stick out in my mind about the original Twilight is the part where we find out Edward sparkles. One minute he’s lovey-dovey, the next he’s listing out all the ways in which he is able to kill her because of what he is. Merriam-Webster defines mood as “a conscious state of mind or predominant emotion,” while it defines indecision as “a wavering between two or more possible courses of action .” Edward might be intellectually indecisive, but his predominant emotion(s) regarding Bella are all over the map, and he expresses them all to her as they come. Again, it comes down to choice. Edward chooses to one minute tell Bella he’s in love with her, the next he chooses to tell her all the ways he can kill her. His mood swings.
Besides, the idea of Edward saying “Nom nom nom” makes me laugh.

5) may have a history of abuse in his own family and may have been abusive in courtship
I will agree that everyone has a good laugh at another’s expense at time to time. However, it is Edward’s consistent low of humans coupled with his schadenfreude that adds a sinister overtone to the exchange. This was a known weak argument, so I’m willing to concede it.

6) presents a history of personal and/or family discord; unemployment, cruelty to animals, abuse of alcohol or other substances, and other unexplained behavior.
Normal family discord is one thing, but Edward’s modus operandi when it comes to difficulty is running away (doesn’t like Carlisle’s rules, time to run! doesn’t like the idea of tasty Bella, time to run! Bella may have died, time to run and die!). That’s a deeper problem than can be explained as family discord. Growth occurs when people face their problems. Edward doesn’t grow. He runs.
Embarrassingly enough, while I had a huge unanswered question when it comes to his behavior when I wrote that last one, it seems to have slipped my mind. I’ll post it when I remember it again.

Abused Woman List:
1) shows guilt, ambivalence, and fear over living conditions.
Guilt: guilt over her living conditions (with regards to her mom and new stepdad) induces her to move to Forks.
ambivalence: fluctuating feelings between Forks w/Edward vs Forks w/o Edward. It jumps from a sense of ‘this place is wonderful because my twu wuv is here’ to ‘this place sucks because my twu wuv is not here’
Fear: fear of reception in Forks by strangers.

2) feels isolated and untrusting of others, even though she may be involved in the community.
One of the most isolating scenes in the book I’ve found happens when she starts sitting with Edward & Co at lunch, literally straddling the line between the Normals (the popular human kids) and the Specials. Despite the metaphor, neither group accepts her because of the other. Talk about being alone among people. Also, I find the behavior of Edward’s family to Bella to be also isolating. From the New Moon excerpt at the end of Twilight: It’s Bella’s birthday, and everyone wants to celebrate. Rational, yes? What’s so wrong with throwing a party so that Bella’s friends and father can be there as well as her boyfriend’s family? Carlisle is a doctor, that can explain the money. Everyone in Forks knows the Cullens are a little odd, so it’s not a big deal. Why does her birthday party have to be vamps-only despite there being plausible (or socially acceptable) reasons for it to be otherwise? That is almost a textbook example of isolating the woman from her family.

3) is emotionally and economically dependent
Thank you, though I will once again ask that you please stop using the “have you actually read this?” argument. I find it insulting to have to repeatedly answer this question, especially when I give examples (in most cases) of events in the book rather than flail about.

4) has a poor self-concept (this may not have been true BEFORE the relationship).
Again, thank you.

5) has observed other women in her family being abused or may have been abused as a child.
Again, we agree. Not sure why you felt the need to defend it when I agreed that this applies.

6) feels angry, embarrassed, and ashamed.
Anger at Edward for not changing her immediately - I think it takes her about four books to get over that, and only because he finally caves.
Embarrassed - Agreed, she embarrasses herself like clockwork.
Shame - I read her exchanges with Charlie to be shame when the subject comes to Edward. She knows that her father would be worried, but chooses to keep him in the dark. Typical teenager behavior? Possible, but I’ll come to that later.

7) is fearful of being insane
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. I thought it was pretty clear that Bella is insane for dating a vampire.

8) has learned to feel helpless and feels powerless.
Just because she is physically weaker than her vampire counterpart doesn’t mean she’s powerless.
Can you please give me an example of when Bella does something of her own initiative and does not need to be rescued? I can’t recall any off the top of my head.

9) has unexplained injuries that may go untreated
Please point out to me where I said her injuries went untreated.

I agree that individually, a lot of these behaviors can be explained away as part and parcel of adolescence. However, I continue to believe that the fact that the majority of the list applies shows that it is more than just teenage growing pains, that something is seriously wrong with the relationship.

Again, I thank you for your thorough response. It forces me to concede that some points are weak, and is infinitely more satisfying (and reassuring) to see other than “He can’t help it. He’s a good vampire.”

re: point 5 -
doesn’t apply.

How embarrassing.

Edward may not be physically abusive, but he is constantly having to rein himself back from attacking his girlfriend, so that’s not so cool.  And he’s definitely controlling and emotionally abusive.

He watches Bella sleep.  Aww sweet, you may be thinking.  But no.  Eventually she finds out and is like, “Well…okay,” but at first he was sneaking into her room to watch her sleep without her awareness or consent.  Not on.

At one point he disables her truck (yes, he actually does it) to prevent her from visiting a boy he disapproves of.  “But Jacob is a werewolf!” I’ve heard people say.  “-=Werewolves are vampires’ mortal enemies!  Edward was only trying to protect Bella!”  Jacob was Bella’s best friend, and the minute any boyfriend of mine breaks my car to keep me from seeing my best friend, I don’t care how much he hates them or how much I thought I loved him, that is the instant that asshole gets shown to the curb.

In Breaking Dawn it is implied that Edward again broke Bella’s car (which she loved), this time permanently, so that he could give her a missile-proof car because haha she’s so clumsy; don’t want her dying before he gets to have sex!

And it’s not just Edward.  In Eclipse, Jacob uses his much greater stature and physical strength to overpower Bella and kiss her against her will.  This is known in many countries as ‘sexual assault.’  Bella hurts her hand fighting him off, and when her father, the freaking sheriff walks in, his response is to tell his daughter’s assailant, “Good for you!” and laugh.  Later, he does make some token comment about how Bella shouldn’t have to be kissed by anybody she doesn’t want to be kissed by, but I still find both male parties’ behavior completely unacceptable.  Bella…doesn’t seem that phased.  But then again, she’s the kind of person who accepts that her boyfriend broke her car to keep her from going to see her best friend. 

Her best friend is the guy who sexually assaulted her, by the way.  She continues to try to remain friends with him after that.  Eventually he ‘imprints’ on her newborn daughter, shortly after a tirade about how imprinting takes away choice and free will and he hopes it doesn’t happen to him.  Aaaaaaand then he gets stuck with the mutant death baby but of course he’s overjoyed about it.

Bella doesn’t like attention.  Bella doesn’t want to go to prom.  Bella doesn’t want to have a big fancy wedding.  But the vampires decide they know what’s best for her and dress her up like a doll and deliver her to these events, and she just goes along with it because she’s just a silly little human girl, what does she know?

None of this in and of itself is unacceptable.  What is completely unacceptable to me is that Bella Swan, the POV character, finds it all absolutely fine, and there is nothing to indicate that she is an unreliable narrator, that this is an unhealthy relationship with a fucked-up boyfriend*, and that we should be really fucking disturbed.

*In fact, Meyer has made statements that imply that she really thinks Edward is perfection itself, including the, “But none of these other great literary lovers lost an EDWARD CULLEN, OMG, they had flaws, unlike EDWARD CULLEN OMG” blurb before New Moon’s release.

I hate seeing this kind of hypocrisy at Smart Bitches. How often do we protest against the stereotype that reading romance is “bad” for women? And yet here people are, making that very argument about romances and young women.

I think you’re missing a few things.  First: there is a difference between an audience of adult women and an audience of young women.  When you’re young, you absorb things like cultural norms.  Second: nobody’s saying that “romances” are bad for anyone.  What is being said (and what I agree with) is that romances with bad/abusive relationships are bad.  Third: most people aren’t saying the books should be banned or disallowed - just that parents should be aware that their fourteen-year-old daughters are imbibing this sort of stuff.  The other books that have been compared up-thread (Taming of the Shrew, Jane Eyre) have actual redeeming features, such as readable prose.

I have to disagree that most Twilight fans can tell that it’s not a good relationship, judging by how many people compare Edward and Bella to classic love stories and how many say they want themselves or their daughters to have an Edward.  You don’t get the kind of mania about a series that Twilight has if everyone thinks the main relationship (which, in Twilight, takes the place of a plot) is screwy.  I have seen many, many people who criticized the Harry/Ginny or Ron/Hermione relationships in Harry Potter (especially saying that they would warp young minds into thinking that you should fall for the guy who “insults you and makes you cry” and that you should unthinkingly obey your man and put out for him) praise Twilight as an example of a great relationship.  Speaking of which, it offends me on practically a cellular level when Twilight is compared favorably to Harry Potter, especially in terms of writing.

I don’t think the books should be banned, or that parents shouldn’t let their kids read them.  I think Little, Brown should have turned down the manuscript for its terrible writing and I wish people would dislike it for its anti-feminism.  My problem with the imprinting is not that it’s pedophilia (there doesn’t seem to be any lust for the kids involved) but that it’s two more examples of women being expected to love guys just because the guys want/will want them.

What is being said (and what I agree with) is that romances with bad/abusive relationships are bad.

The reason I call it out for hypocrisy is that I wonder how many women here would praise books like The Flame and the Flower or, I don’t know—what was that book that everyone freaked about last year? With the sadistic, abusive hero? Now, if the same people who would protest those books are also protesting Twilight, then that’s fine. I see no hypocrisy. But if people praise the former and decry the latter, based SOLELY upon the relationships depicted, I’ve got a problem.

The other books that have been compared up-thread (Taming of the Shrew, Jane Eyre) have actual redeeming features, such as readable prose.

This is exactly what I’m talking about. Protest Twilight b/c it’s got shitty prose and a bad image of relationships. That’s FINE. But most people here are focusing on the latter—and to turn around and say that it’s okay to show bad relationships as long as they’re well-written…that chills me, actually. That tells me that as long as something bad is displayed in a way that’s palatable to the reader, then it’s suddenly rendered harmless. Furthermore, very few people here have focused on the prose. It’s all about the perceived abusiveness.

Look, I love Jane Eyre. I also love Wuthering Heights. But I don’t find either terrifically romantic, and they’re held up as great romances. In fact, I think doing that is profoundly disturbing. But I’m not going to tell people that their fourteen-year-olds shouldn’t read them, b/c they normalize abusive relationships. And they DO normalize abuse.

I agree that the comparisons between Twilight and Harry Potter are nausea-inducing. I’m not even that into the former. But I am just really, really annoyed by everyone here who can’t seem to see that the Edward/Bella relationship does not exist in a vacuum. It IS comparable to the great classic romances, because most of them are just as fucked-up as this one. (Except in Austen’s books. I give her a pass.) I don’t claim that Stephenie Meyer is a great writer, or even a particularly thoughtful writer. I do, however, suggest that maybe her books have shown us something we don’t particularly want to face. As a society, we have a seriously fucked-up notion of a good relationship, and these books bring that to life.

My 15-year-old Twilight-loving daughter insisted I jump in and tell everyone “Edward is FICTION. Of course, I wouldn’t want a guy like that in real life. He’s a FANTASY.”

:insert classic teenage girl eye roll:

However, she feels “Breaking Down” was an epic failure. First, she claimed Meyer broke her own worldbuilding rules with the last third. (Don’t want to spoil it but it’s established over the other books that something cannot happen, then it does.) She also termed it ‘icky’ and the whole solution with Jacob ‘really squicky.’ She doesn’t mind the age difference, it’s the fact that Jacob is going to be a mentor figure before switching to a romantic figure that she finds very wrong.

I figure if she can break the book down and analyze it like that, I’ve done my job as a parent—she can read critically and think about what she’s read. In other words, she can think for herself.

This is exactly what I’m talking about. Protest Twilight b/c it’s got shitty prose and a bad image of relationships. That’s FINE. But most people here are focusing on the latter

I can’t speak for everyone, but the reason why I personally have stopped protesting the bad prose is because that’s pretty much been established as a given. Most people (even some of the rabid fans) agree that Meyer can’t write for shit. Some people have been telling me she’s improved since Twilight, but that’s like saying “Well, the garbage doesn’t smell like rotting human carcasses this week. It just smells like dead skunk.”

It’s no fun discussing a point that everyone agrees with, so it’s time to move on/focus on the second offensive one.

This is exactly what I’m talking about. Protest Twilight b/c it’s got shitty prose and a bad image of relationships. That’s FINE.

Well, I can come up with other things.  I think Bella is a terribly, terribly poorly-constructed character. 

I kept my eyes down on the reading list the teacher had given me. It was fairly basic: Bronte, Shakespeare, Chaucer, Faulkner. I’d already read everything. That was comforting… and boring. I wondered if my mom would send me my folder of old essays, or if she would think that was cheating. I went through different arguments with her in my head while the teacher droned on.

That’s so obnoxious.  First of all, most high schools (I assume; mine didn’t and I was there only a couple of years ago) don’t make you read Bronte, Chaucer, or Faulkner, so this seems constructed completely to show how ~*~smart~*~ Bella is - only it came off to me as unrealistic, as how many sixteen year olds have read ALL the works by those authors?  It’s like a semi-well-read person’s idea of what a well-read person is, and reminds me of when someone starts telling me they read Pride & Prejudice when they were eight to impress me.

When the bell rang, a nasal buzzing sound, a gangly boy with skin problems and hair black as an oil slick leaned across the aisle to talk to me.

“You’re Isabella Swan, aren’t you?” He looked like the overly helpful, chess club type.

“Bella,” I corrected. Everyone within a three-seat radius turned to look at me.
...
He studied my face apprehensively, and I sighed. It looked like clouds and a sense of humor didn’t mix. A few months of this and I’d forget how to use sarcasm.

I was expected, a topic of gossip no doubt. Daughter of the Chief’s flighty ex-wife, come home at last.
...
Her voice held all the shock and condemnation of the small town, I thought critically.
...
I wasn’t as eager to escape Forks as I should be, as any normal, sane person would be.

So obnoxious.  She’s judgmental and superior, continuously so over “small town people” and life, which, as I’m from a small town (my graduating class: 100), really gets on my nerves.  She constantly says that she’s plain, but she’s judging this guy (who is a flat, flat nerd stereotype) for having bad skin?  Doesn’t everyone in high school have bad skin?  Oh well, only the Beautiful Cullens are attractive enough for her.

I wonder how many women here would praise books like The Flame and the Flower or, I don’t know—what was that book that everyone freaked about last year? With the sadistic, abusive hero?

IDK, I thought it was pretty unanimous that the non-con actual bodice-rippers are freaky and bad because it’s not enjoyable to read about women being manhandled and told that they need to be lead around and/or protected.

to turn around and say that it’s okay to show bad relationships as long as they’re well-written…that chills me, actually. That tells me that as long as something bad is displayed in a way that’s palatable to the reader, then it’s suddenly rendered harmless.

I think you’re misreading me.  Or maybe I’m mistyping.  Good writing doesn’t make abuse okay.  The historical context does make it more difficult for the worldview to take hold, however, as a reader clearly gets the impression that That Sort of Thing is not okay anymore.  The writing of events unrelated to abuse/creepiness also gives one pleasure by being good writing.

On the topic of unrealistic, did anyone else find it hard to believe that Bella Googling “vampires” led her to nothing?

Not nothing useful, but nothing. at. all.

Me thinks ‘her favorite search engine’ is broken (much like Meyer’s entire world)

That’s so obnoxious.  First of all, most high schools (I assume; mine didn’t and I was there only a couple of years ago) don’t make you read Bronte, Chaucer, or Faulkner, so this seems constructed completely to show how ~*~smart~*~ Bella is - only it came off to me as unrealistic, as how many sixteen year olds have read ALL the works by those authors?  It’s like a semi-well-read person’s idea of what a well-read person is, and reminds me of when someone starts telling me they read Pride & Prejudice when they were eight to impress me.

Sorry to offend you but throw in some Hemingway and that was my high school reading list (it’s been less than 5 years since I graduated).  My senior year in high school, I read nothing new in class.  By the age of 10, I had read Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights, A Tale of Two Cities, The Scarlet Letter, and Great Expectations (these are just the ones I remember off the top of my head).  Although, Bella irritated me, I could see so much of myself in her.  I found this portion of the story to be rather realistic (a fairly advanced student trying to fit into a new high school).

I am not writing this to brag.  I just wanted to point out that this part of the story was not only possible but plausible.

Gotta agree here…I personally taught the works of each those authors at one point or another.  The passage quoted doesn’t say she’d read the author’s complete works, but the ones on the list—likely the most popular work of that author—for Faulkner, THE SOUND AND THE FURY (or Absalom, Absalom!), for Bronte, JANE EYRE, for Chaucer the CANTERBURY TALES.  I read these personally in high school or college…I certainly was no prodigy!  However, I have several friends who had read rather advanced works at a young age.

Fascinating discussion, even for those of us who have yet to crack the Twilight book.

@Miranda C

Out of curiosity, did you go to a small school or a larger one?  My school wasn’t large enough to have variety or small enough to tailor classes to the actual students, and we couldn’t do more than a few books a year, as it couldn’t afford to outfit everyone with many books, so perhaps my experience is far from average.  I’m not really sure what English 12 was reading (Beowulf and Macbeth are the only two I’m sure of), but in my AP class we got to choose from pretty much anything, as we had to find the books ourselves.

Anyway, I’m not offended - what I said offended me was SMeyer’s/Bella’s digs at rural life.  It’s not that I think nobody could possibly read classics at a young age, but that with Bella it seems very pasted on, and that the passage is a clumsy way of getting the information across - she could have unpacked her books, or gone looking for a new one to read, neither of which would have carried that superiority.  I didn’t believe her, the same way I sometimes don’t believe people in real life - or do believe them, but am turned off by the way they said it.

Melissandre said:

All this talk of vampires and Pride and Prejudice has got me thinking.  J.R Ward doesn’t have nearly enough characters (snort!).  She should totally create a new Brother…Dharcy!  He could set lessers on fire with his smoldering gaze.  Just like in P & P, he’ll act standoffish and withdrawn towards his heroine before succumbing to her charms.  I know, I know; it’s a totally new direction for Ward, but I think she can pull it off.  And maybe if we have a heroine based on Lizzie, she’ll actually be interesting!  It could work!

Anyone got a good title?  All I can think of is Lover’s Cravat.

Son of the Omega! Just choked on my damn water. That was one of the best things I’ve read on this site. Evah.

Lyra: I don’t mean to offend with the screen name. Its sort of an inside joke amongst my friends.

Didn’t someone else point out that at one point Edward was going to (or did) trash Bella’s car to prevent her from going somewhere?

I admit, that this was a shitty move on his part. I would be pissed if someone messed with my wheels. However (not dismissing the behavior), can we not see how to an already jealous 17 yr. old, the fact that his girlfriend is consorting with people who consider him and his family “the enemy”, might make him nervous enough for both her safety and his peace of mind to do something ridiculous like this?

Moving on.

Why does her birthday party have to be vamps-only despite there being plausible (or socially acceptable) reasons for it to be otherwise?

1. None of her friends are going to want to party with the Cullens.
2. If they had planned a big party for them, she would’ve been pissed.
    -She still didn’t want a party, but a small one with people she is close to was a smart way       to go to get her to celebrate her life.

Just because Edward has more life experience than Bella doesn’t give him the right to disregard her ability (and right) to make her own choices… Growth occurs when people face their problems. Edward doesn’t grow. He runs…Bella does something of her own initiative and does not need to be rescued?

Ok, I know you have at least read Twilight but in Breaking Dawn we see this growth. Bella stands up for herself, makes decisions and Edward is forced to change and see that she is strong enough to take care of herself (and others!). I’d have to say that Bella changes the most in the fourth book, but Edward changes along with her. She enlists the aid of Rosalie (who we all know hates Bella) when she takes her stand to protect her child. She also goes to a very shady part of town to secure documents to further protect her child (and Jacob), should their stand against the Volturi not be successful. No rescuing needed there.

I think in motherhood, she becomes that person that we all complain she wasn’t in the first place. Edward is forced to see that she can make her own decisions and stick by them. When she decides to keep the child he is “tortured” because he is sure this child will kill Bella. But she refuses to kill it to save herself and he doesn’t barge in and take control because this decision is what makes her happy. Frankly, Bella gets a backbone and Edward is forced to grow up and deal with the situation according to her wishes.

Its interesting to see this progression from Jacob’s eyes too. 

On the topic of unrealistic, did anyone else find it hard to believe that Bella Googling “vampires” led her to nothing?

Not nothing useful, but nothing. at. all.

Me thinks ‘her favorite search engine’ is broken (much like Meyer’s entire world)

oh, lord.

Eventually I made it to my favorite search engine. I shot down a few more pop-up and then typed in one word.
Vampire
    It took an infuriatingly long time, of course. When the results came up, there was a lot to sift through—everything from movies and TV shows to role-playing games, underground metal, and gothic cosmetic companies.
    Then I found a promising site—Vampires A-Z. I waited impatiently for it to load, quickly clicking closed each ad that flashed across the screen. Finally the screen was finished—simple white background with black text, academic-looking. Two quotes greeted me on the home page:
Throughout the vast shadowy world of ghosts and demons there is no figure so terrible, no figure so dreaded and abhorred, yet dight with such fearful fascination, as the vampire, who is himself neither ghost nor demon, but yet who partakes the dark natures and possesses the mysterious and terrible qualities of both. -Rev. Montague Summers
If there is in this world a well-attested account, it is that of the vampires. Nothing is lacking: official reports, affidavits of well-known people, of surgeons, of priests, of magistrates; the judicial proof is most complete. And with all that, who is there who believes in vampires? -Rousseau
    The rest of the site was an alphabetized listing of all the different myths of vampires held throughout the world. The first I clicked on, the Danag, was a Filipino vampire supposedly responsible for planting taro on the islands long ago. The myth continued that the Danag worked with humans for many years, but the partnership ended one day when a woman cut her finger and a Danag sucked her wound, enjoying the taste so much that is drained her body completely of blood.
    I read carefully through the descriptions, looking for anything that sounded familiar, let alone plausible. It seemed that most vampire myths centered around beautiful women as demons and children as victims; they also seemed like constructs created to explain away the high mortality rates for young children, and to give men an excuse for infidelity. Many of the stories involved bodiless spirits and warnings against improper burials. There wasn’t much that sounded like the movies I’d seen, and only a very few, like the Hebrew Estrie and the Polish Upier, who were even preoccupied with drinking blood.
    Only three entries really caught my attention: the Romanian Varacolaci, a powerful undead being who could appear as a beautiful, pale-skinned human, the Slovak Nelapsi, a creature so strong and fast it could massacre an entire village in the single hour after midnight, and one other, the Stregoni benefici.
    About this last one there was only one brief sentence.
    Stregoni benfici: An Italian vampire, said to be on the side of goodness, and a mortal enemy of all evil vampires.
    It was a relief, that one small entry, the one myth among hundreds that claimed the existence of good vampires.
    Overall, though, there was little that coincided with Jacob’s stories or my own observations. I’d made a little catalogue in my mind as I’d read and carefully compared it with each myth. Speed, strength, beauty, pale skin, eyes that shift color; and then Jacob’s criteria: blood drinkers, enemies of the werewolf, cold-skinned, and immortal. There were few myths that matched even one factor.
    And then another problem, one that I’d remembered from the small number of scary movies that I’d seen and was backed up by today’s reading—vampires couldn’t come out in the daytime, the sun would burn them to a cinder. They slept in coffins all day and came out only at night.
    Aggravated, I snapped off the computer’s main power switch, not waiting to shut things down properly.

Page 133-135 clearly disagree with you.

She did, in fact, find hundreds of vampire myths that she read and sifted through. Did she find anything that matched exactly what she had observed? No. She did, however, find a lot of similarities, but we can hardly say that she found “nothing at all” in her research. But who would’ve thought that vampires could sparkle? Clearly this is where Meyer begins to construct her own myth about vampires, so can we really be so surprised that Bella is frustrated with her search?

While I did thoroughly enjoy these books (especially since I finished the series), I have to say that my favorite vampire romance series is from Shannon Drake, with second place going to Nora Roberts’ Circle Trilogy.

This discussion has been really interesting.

While it’s true that both

Twilight

and

Pride and Prejudice

are wish-fulfillment fantasies involving the heroine winning the love of the “perfect man,” what bothers me about

Twilight

is what’s considered a “perfect man.”

Edward falls in love with Bella not for her character but for her “smell” (implication: only physical traits matter in a woman, not intelligence or character). Compare to Mr. Darcy who originally rejected Lizzie as not pretty enough to dance with, but comes to admire her as he observes her interacting with others.

Edward stalks Bella, warns her she shouldn’t go out with him because if she does she might not come home, tells her how tempted he is to kill her. Mr. Darcy never does anything to physically threaten Lizzie; once she has clearly rejected him, he is careful not to pursue or harass her. His respect for her boundaries carries some of the book’s tension, as the reader knows he will not press her or renew his advances without some encouragement. This shows profound respect for Lizzie’s wishes.

Edward is controlling and patronizing with Bella. He tells her what to do—and the author “punishes” Bella when she doesn’t follow his orders, by making bad things happen that Edward then has to rescue her from. Bella is portrayed as so useless and weak that sometimes Edward literally carries her around because she’s clumsy and falls down when she walks on her own. Symbolism, much? Compare to Mr. Darcy, who falls in love with Lizzie in large part because of her strength and independence.

Twilight

feels to me like a celebration of female passivity. Bella has no interests of her own, no desire to build a career—her whole focus is on Edward. And Edward, the “perfect man,” is there to protect and guide her and tell her what to do, because apparently she is too dumb and female to make decisions on her own.

The novel failed for me because for a romance novel to work, I need to either fall in love with the hero, or identify with the heroine, preferably both. In this case, I could not do either. I hated Edward and thought Bella pathetic. I only read the first book because I think if I tried to read more in the series, I’d injure my eyes from the rolling.

On some level it bothers me that so many women love the fantasy of this novel—that is, love the idea that they could find a man who would make all their decisions for them and make their lives turn out perfect without their having to expend any effort or show any initiative of their own. I guess I can understand it from the perspective of a teenage girl who’s looking ahead at college and adult life and finding it indimidating and scary, and liking the idea of a boyfriend who’s a “daddy” replacement who will guide and protect her. Unfortunately, boyfriends with the traits Edward displays to Bella early in their relationship tend to be exploitive and abusive (or become that way later in the relationship). Adult women know this. I’m not sure 13-year-old girls do, and not every 13-year-old girl has a woman in her life to talk to her about these things. (I didn’t. My mother was dead by the time I reached that age.)

I would never advocate censorship, but there are times I wonder whether the Twilight series does more harm than it does good. On the one hand, it’s induced many teenage girls to read—a positive thing. But on the other, it promotes female passivity and submissiveness and the idea that everything in your life will be perfect if you can just find a man to tell you what to do. And women who place their life’s fate entirely in someone else’s hands rarely get Bella’s happily ever after.

don’t make you read Bronte, Chaucer, or Faulkner

Mine did.

only it came off to me as unrealistic, as how many sixteen year olds have read ALL the works by those author

It doesn’t say the reading list contained every work of Chaucer, Bronte (which Bronte, I wonder?) or Faulkner. My guess is one per. And, by the way, at 16? I’d read The Canterbury Tales, Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights, more Dickens than I can remember, etc.

he’s judgmental and superior, continuously so over “small town people” and life, which, as I’m from a small town (my graduating class: 100), really gets on my nerves.

And, again. Just because it doesn’t fit YOUR worldview isn’t enough to write her off as a badly-constructed character (though she probably is—I’m just saying). I moved across the country when I was Bella’s age. And I was bitter as all hell. Hated everything about the Midwest. Wanted to go home. Didn’t. I actually found that intensely relatable. And, guess what? People from cities often hate small towns. And vice versa. That was one of the better elements of Bella’s character, I thought. Like an teenager in her situation, she’s confused and angry and frustrated.

the historical context does make it more difficult for the worldview to take hold, however, as a reader clearly gets the impression that That Sort of Thing is not okay anymore.

My point is, I think you’re either giving too much or too little credit to the readers. If a reader of Twilight, a book about vampires, for God’s sake, isn’t able to identify the wrongness through context, then why should that same reader be able to identify the wrongness in Jane and Rochester’s relationship? You can’t have it both ways.

These books do not sound as though they are propagating a healthy idea of relationships, femininity, and love to me. But after reading through the very interesting thread, they do sound like cracktastic fun.

Didn’t many of us read books like these when we were younger? (And don’t some of us still read them now?) When I was a kid, I loved Sweet Valley High and everyone in those novels was gorgeous! The twins had perfect size six figures, hair the colour of the Atlantic and golden eyes… or something… And I devoured those Mills and Boon novels with names like “Marrying off Millicent” where the women do a lot of slapping (because they’re feisty) but get whipped into shape by powerful, broad-shouldered, masterful men. I didn’t think these books were bad then, I enjoyed them. But I never thought that being submissive and gorgeous was the key to a successful love-life. You can tell the difference between fiction and reality when you’re 12. And younger. Similarly, I don’t think that young girls, reading the Meyer books now, will come away from them thinking that having zero self-esteem is suddenly the only way you’re ever going to get the guy of your dreams. They’re not stupid.

I think that it’s really important for children to have access to many kinds of literature, though, to challenge them and help them develop their own ideas. So as long as Meyer’s not all they’re reading, and they have access to other excellent YA literature (Pullman, McKinley, Gaiman, etc), they’ll probably be OK. Well actually, scratch that -
literature generally, not just YA.

While it’s true that both Twilight and Pride and Prejudice are wish-fulfillment fantasies involving the heroine winning the love of the “perfect man,” what bothers me about Twilight is what’s considered a “perfect man.”

But Darcy is not a “perfect man.”  Elizabeth Bennet makes that very clear immediately after their introduction.  She finds him to be too proud, judgmental, and thinks he has ridiculous standards for an ideal woman.

His secretiveness, albiet done to protect his sister’s reputation, resulted in allowing an amoral fortune-hunter to wreck damage.

Lizzy is never dazzled by Darcy’s perfection.  She also has no hesitation telling him off when he insults her and her family.  she learns to see and love his good qualities and innate decency. 

I wouldn’t call this a “wish fulfillment fantasy.”  It is a tale about two people who learn to love each other when their words and actions prove them worthy of love.  Darcy may have more wealth, but the final relationship is one between equals.

I wouldn’t call this a “wish fulfillment fantasy.” It is a tale about two people who learn to love each other when their words and actions prove them worthy of love.  Darcy may have more wealth, but the final relationship is one between equals.

I won’t quibble on this. I think P&P;has elements of wish-fulfillment, but it is certainly far more than that, and I consider it one of the best books ever written. And yes, part of its brilliance is the fact that the love happens when the characters become worthy of it, and not before. Lizzie won’t settle for a man who treats her poorly, and I love that about her.

But Darcy is not a “perfect man.”

Okay, you are right, that’s part of the book’s point, that he has flaws (as does Lizzie). But from my perspective, he’s about as perfect as they come. I’d settle for a Mr. Darcy any day! :)

Didn’t many of us read books like these when we were younger? (And don’t some of us still read them now?)

YES! Thank you, Ziggy. You said what I wanted to…only concisely. :) And you got right to my point about hypocrisy. How many women here devoured M&B;or Harlequin as young teens in the 1960s, 1970s, or 1980s? And yet, here they are. Smart Bitches.

While it’s true that both Twilight and Pride and Prejudice are wish-fulfillment fantasies involving the heroine winning the love of the “perfect man,” what bothers me about Twilight is what’s considered a “perfect man.”

It’s totally the wrong comparison, though. Twilight isn’t coming out of the P&P;/Austenian tradition. It’s coming out of the Bronte/Gothic/pseudo-Gothic tradition. And really should be read in that light.

Marta

I just went over and checked out your books on your blog and ordered the first two.  They sound great and I am looking forward to reading them.

This was a great discussion to participate in, thanks to all the Smart Bitches that come over here, you make me think more even when we don’t agree.

In fact, I snuck a copy of The Flame and the Flower out of a box in the basement when I was in 5th grade.  I remember thinking the relationship between the two characters was a little off even then.  Later, my mom let me read the North and South trilogy, and that one had a nymphomaniac Southern belle who pops buttons off the breeches of her “conquests.”  I sure as hell knew that was a person I did not want to emulate.

Girls today see a ton of mixed messages about self-esteem, love, relationships, etc, but I think the majority of them emerge from all that with an understanding of what makes a healthy relationship.  There will be some who read Twilight and believe that the relationship is positive, but they will grow up, have new experiences, and over time will see the flaws in the relationship.  This does not seem like the kind of book one rereads fondly over the course of one’s entire life.  As the many posters in this conversation have proved, it does not stand up to scrutiny

Meanwhile, to completely change the subject, why wouldn’t my mom let me read Outlander?  Jamie and Claire are way more stable emotionally than 3/4 of the heroes and heroines in Romancelandia!  You can’t tell me those books don’t have literary merit!  *Sigh*  Must have been the countless scenes of wild sexual abandon.  They would have warped me for life.  Oh, wait….

Honestly, I’d rather my (non-existent) kid read Twilight than Flowers in the Attic, which I read at 13.

Incestuous rape is soooooo romantic!

When I was a young teen, I read Wideacre. Has anyone here read that? Appalling, some of the stuff that happens in that book. And I went through a spree of true crime books as well. I came out of it fine. What’s childhood without a few sleazy books to look back on?

(I read good stuff too, I swear!)

To be fair, I don’t think the incestuous rape was meant to be romantic.  The shipboard rape that happens five minutes after that, however…

When I was a freshman in highschool (14 or so), this godawful true crime book went around the school. I read it in an afternoon so that my mom wouldn’t catch me out—it was Perfect Victim, about a woman who was kidnapped and kept as a sex slave/torture victim for seven years. Other than reaffirming my absolute conviction that hitchhiking = instant death (or worse), I don’t seem to have been too damaged by it.

I can top that. I found John Norman’s Gor books when I was about 13. I was a Tarzan reader and they looked similar. The first two/three books are basic John Carter of Mars pulp stuff.

And then they turn into BDSM porn with female sex slaves. O_o!

The shipboard rape that happens five minutes after that, however…

I thought we were still talking about FLowers in the Attic, and I was *really* confused.

Thanks, Sasha!

But my next book is going to be a romance about a passive girl—well, technically she’s got narcolepsy and is sleeping most of the time—and the gorgeous and wealthy geriatric cannibal zombie who loves her.  He’s telepathic and he can read her dreams about consumating their relationship, but he’s all, “No, Smella!  I can’t hit that because I’ll EAT YOUR BRAIN!  Not that you’re using it much anyway, but still.”

And then her nightmare causes her to roll off the bed and he gently picks her up and puts her back with a very controlled licking of her eyelids.

And she’s all psychically sending him a message like, “Oh, Smedbert, make me a cannibal zombie, too!  I want to grow fungus in the sunlight!”

However, I realize that this is a highly sensitive and controversial subject, so I will add a forward which says, “Warning:  This is not meant in any way to promote becoming a cannibal zombie yourself, especially if you’re a teenage girl!  Brain-eating is not only rude, but it may carry harmful bacteria.  Just say no to gangrenous flesh!”

That way my book will not only be a literary masterpiece, but also set high ethical and moral standards.  Because that is my duty as a writer and role model.

See what happens when you get up by the muse?  I meant:  consummating, or consuming.  Either one would do in this situation.

I meant, “when you get inspired by the muse?”  Geez, Louise.

Marta

You’ve made me snort my Coke zero onto my keyboard.  But, grasshopper, I still think that Cleolinda has you beat on the snark.  Her take on the twilight series made me cry with laughter.  For a good 45 minutes.  Maybe you just need to write more snark.  Please, more snark.

And I like “get up by the muse” better than “inspired by the muse”.  “Get up by” sounds so much more like an abusive situation and that’s what we all want.  As long as you then promise to read to us gently yet controlling-ly.

I think this thread is almost dead (hey, rhyme!), but I do want to admit to something terrible: I WAS hugely influenced by books when I was young. I’m influenced by them now, today, too.  The greatest influence was empathy. I remember reading Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry, and how much it influenced me. I remember reading The Great Gilly Hopkins, that changed me too. So did Where the Red Fern Grows. The Little House on the Prairie books hugely influenced me (but a lot of it confused me until I was older, honestly). I remember reading Stephen King novels, of all things, and how much they influenced me—people’s selfishness, paranoia, cruelty. All there. And romance novels also influenced me. I can’t tell you how many times I read A Rose in Winter when I was little. It definitely shaped me. Not just as a reader, but as a person relating to the rest of the world.

That might be embarrassing to admit to, but it’s also true. I’m not saying we should only read wholesome, harmless, educational books or anything. But books do influence people, sometimes greatly. That shouldn’t be dismissed.

But maybe nobody’s really saying that, on this thread anyhow. Really, I was just caught up thinking of all of the books that changed me as a person, for better or for worse. Awesome. Nice to think about.

snarkhunter

I saw the word “flowers” and read The Flame and the Flower, ‘cause I’d just mentioned it.  While it doesn’t feature quite as much incest as I’ve hear about in Flowers in the Attic, it does have it’s share.  The heroine escapes being raped by her lecherous and creepy relative only to be immediately mistaken for a prostitute and raped by the “hero.”  Good times.

Just one more thing

Edward falls in love with Bella not for her character but for her “smell” (implication: only physical traits matter in a woman, not intelligence or character).

I am of the opinion that he is initially attracted to her because of the scent of her blood, but falls in love with her after getting to know her. Physical attraction can be immediate, its not always something that comes later. In this case, its her scent along with her physical presentation that initially attracts Edward. The fact that he can’t simply read her mind like everyone else forces him to get to know her the old fashioned way: through simple conversation. Since he’s never had to be this intimate with anyone before, she becomes someone different and exciting. She is just as much a mystery to him as he is to her.

As much as I enjoy Edward, I would take Mr. Darcy in a heartbeat. Especially in the form of Colin Firth after jumping into a lake. Rowr!

And oh my god Flame and the Flower! I read that my sophomore year of high school and all my brain could come up with was WTF?! That series was non-stop damsel in distress.

Probs my last post, but anyway:

Alpha Lyra, you are spot-on.  I can’t properly explain why Jane/Rochester turns me off but Edward/Bella squicks me out, but it doesn’t really matter - it’s just my opinion, and I don’t have to justify it.

You can argue with me all you like, but I still feel (it’s not some conscious kind of thing, I’m not actively trying to annoy Twilight fans) that Bella is obnoxious and judgmental.  It irritates me when she gets sniffy about small-town life - yes, because I don’t like her worldview.  When she says the list has Shakespeare and she’s read it, I assume the author is trying to say she’s read all of Shakespeare, possibly because all the text before it has convinced me to take everything in a bad light.  Clearly I went to a defective (rural) high school.  I just do not like her.

Chocolatepot, I wasn’t trying to make you like Bella or the book. Hate the book all you want! If Bella’s attitude puts you off, that’s fine.

I only protested b/c you held her up as unbelievable, when your examples were among the things that I found *most* believable about her, having had a very similar experience at that age. Your life experience doesn’t align with hers, and you dislike her. That’s fine. But that’s not what your original post said.

I have not defended Twilight here b/c I think it’s the greatest book of all time (as I said, I read it once, enjoyed it, but wasn’t passionate about it or anything). I am defending it only because people come up with these ideological readings to say it’s potentially harmful, and that just strikes me as patently ridiculous.

@Chocolatepot

Thanks for explaining!  I went to a tiny high school (graduated with 67 people) but I had an amazing 12th grade English teacher.
That year we read Jane Eyre, Farewell to Arms, Brave New World, Canterbury Tales, Beowulf, Oedipus Rex, Macbeth, Wuthering Heights, and a few others.

@God

I am of the opinion that he is initially attracted to her because of the scent of her blood, but falls in love with her after getting to know her.

I agree.  He was initially attracted to her only physically and did not like how it made him react (think Bela Lugosi and I vant to suck your blood!!!).  But this relationship grew and changed. Unfortunately, if you only read Twilight, you only get a tiny portion of an ever-changing, ever-growing relationship.

I understand how this works, I do, really—but I, personally, cannot do the “well it was bad writing but I liked it anyway” thing.  If the writing is bad, I don’t like it.  This is integral to me.  I never made it past Twilight’s intro in any significant way—I just didn’t care.  It didn’t sing, it didn’t hook me, and it wasn’t fun.  All of his perfection is summed up in “He’s hot!” (Come to think of it, specifically, the “sparkly marble” is too close to “white and delightsome” for me.  It’s like, oh, okay, this is very nice, but I’m not supposed to be reading it, I’m eavesdropping on someone else’s party here.  And cold marble stone is not cuddly. *brr*)

The COVERS though—man, talk about gorgeous.

Now, Buffy and Angel were mitigated by the fact that if need be, Buffy could kick his butt. ;-)

In Eclipse, Jacob uses his much greater stature and physical strength to overpower Bella and kiss her against her will.  This is known in many countries as ‘sexual assault.’ Bella hurts her hand fighting him off, and when her father, the freaking sheriff walks in, his response is to tell his daughter’s assailant, “Good for you!” and laugh.

JESUS CHRIST.  Really???

Not that this thread really needs another comment, but here I am.  The series was, indeed, total crack.

I had and have issues with some of it, for sure. Some of those issues were resolved in Eclipse (where Edward learns to let Bella make her own damn decisions) and Breaking Dawn (in which Bella kicks much ass). 
Some things that have been raised as issues are, I think, founded in misunderstandings of the text - e.g. when a werewolf imprints, he doesn’t automatically want to jump her bones.  He just gives her whatever she wants.  If she never wants him sexually, then he wouldn’t mind - but that kind of love is hard to resist.  It’s like his personality gets reformed at the whim of his beloved, which I would find creepy if the genders were reversed.  That aside, I still have a problem with the tone of some of the work.

But, y’know, I don’t need to agree with authors (and thank heavens for that, becuase god only knows who I’d have to take off my shelves: T. S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, C. S. Lewis, Rudyard Kipling, Robertson Davies, anyone with racial & sexual opinions dating from before 1950, etc. etc. ETC.).  For this particular series, it wasn’t a deal-breaker.  Meyers is no-one’s Jane Austen, but she wrote a great series of Trashy Books, and I’m all for that.  I laughed, I cried, I got attached to the characters.  I’ll read ‘em again.

JESUS CHRIST.  Really???

Yes, really.  The reasoning is that Charlie doesn’t like Edward and wishes Bella would date Jacob, his best friend’s son, instead, but the end result is that he condones his own daughter’s sexual assault when he, a law enforcement official of all freaking people, should know better.

I had to stop reading the book for a few days after that, but eventually decided I might as well find out how it ended.

I couldn’t get to sleep last night because my brain insisted on trying to compose a reply, even though it knows full well I can never remember specifics of wording.

I find Bella to be unbelievable in general.  Even her realistic reactions seem to me to be stuck on or done by a robot.  “I am smart, therefore I reject the reading list.”  “I am from the South, therefore I hate rain.”  When I quoted quotes the other day, they were only meant to show how I found her obnoxious and judgmental, although my wording made it seem like I was going to show how she was poorly-constructed.  I don’t think I can explain how I think she’s flat and personality-less, because to me everything in the book makes it seem like she doesn’t breathe.  Every line seems like a brick with a note tied on (“Bella is smart”, “Bella is out of place”, “Bella is attractive”) being dropped on my head.

I also think there’s some kickass stuff in Breaking Dawn, at least from the little bits I’ve read.  AFTER the demon baby is born, I must add.

Oh-My-Friggin-God

I-I…..I’m speachless. (Guess I’ll have to type instead huh?)

This has gone beyond a simple discussion about a book. My SANITY is at stake.

Here is a list of responses from dem bigguns (adults…*shudder*):

But I suppose this is why parents should at least be aware of what their kids are reading, and in this case intervene, or at least point out that Bella and Edward’s relationship really isn’t healthy.

I’d let my kid read these if she were of a mind to (if she were a bit older than 5, I mean), but I’d make sure to read them, too and then I would take her to lunch and we would have a very long and frank discussion.

It’s awesome that the kids love reading.  It is awesome that kids are gobbling up stories.  It is NOT NOT NOT awesome that they can’t or WON’T read their summer reading lists.

(lol….. I had to add this in. It has nothing to do with what I’m going to talk about, but it’s still funny.)

I figure if she can break the book down and analyze it like that, I’ve done my job as a parent—she can read critically and think about what she’s read. In other words, she can think for herself.

*breaths in deeply…......and exhale*

Ok. Listen very VERY carefully. Please do not misconstrue my words. I mean NO HARM. I partly AGREE. Okay? But listen to me.

If your kid is doing drugs: INTERVENE.
If your kid is in an abuse relationship: INTERVENE.
You get the drift.

However, when it comes to things like normal hobbies: INTERVENE IS A NO-NO WORD.
LEAVE THE BOOKS ALONE. Please I BEG YOU. *sobs pathetically*

I’m a teenager and while I love my mum dearly, and often get into pointless debates about character motives at the ends of movies, and trade books back and forth, and discuss world politics (sarcastically on my part *grin*), if my mum came up to me and said something like:
“Hey. Do you have a moment? I noticed you were reading *enter title* and was thinking we could have a little chat about it.”
And then starts dropping hints about why she disaproves, and when I confront her about it she goes all: I’m not saying you shouldn’t read it, I just want you to be aware.
And then smiles at me all mothering like she’s done some big favour….....like she’s mother of the friggin year…......

RAAAAAAAARGGGGRAAAARG!!!!!!!!!!

Trust me okay? Don’t do it unless your kid is under the age of 13 and/or an idiot.

Good intentions and a parents responsibility is great. Just remember that teenagers don’t need your opinion on every single friggin aspect of their lives.

There is a difference between discussing a book and a parent “informing” their child in the thinly disguised veil of a discussion. I know its a bit hard for parents to distinguish between, after all their freakish instincts are overwealming, but promise me you’ll TRY.

What was probably the most insulting…er… insult, was this last quote: 

I figure if she can break the book down and analyze it like that, I’ve done my job as a parent—she can read critically and think about what she’s read. In other words, she can think for herself.

Sure. IF YOUR 12. After about the age of 13, it is NOT YOUR JOB. I’m sorry, but after that point in time there enters a few interesting points:

1) Your child will begin trying to create a life outside of your control. This is natural. Don’t freak out. It is a preperation for adulthood. You might be surprised to learn that all those arguments about teeny-tiny things actualy have a point.

2) As such a new search for identity takes place. Your kid does want to think for themselves. YOU TRYING TO SHAPE THAT HAPPENING IS KINDA LIKE FORCING YOUR OWN IDEAS ON THEM. Maybe not on purpose, but it’s bound to happen if you push.

3) Kids enter highschool. Ideas start getting a little bigger, teachers start requesting more from them intellectually. Also might explain why you and your kid don’t discuss things in detail as much as you used to. They are kinda sick of thinking when the school day is done.

4) Your kid all ready HAS the ability to break down a book. They get better at this as they get older. Babysteps, babysteps.

Ok?

This doesnt mean that you hold no sway over them. You absolutley do. Its just subtle now. Your parenting technique and the way you relate to your kid develops as they get older. They aren’t gonna be your obedient darling child forever. But they still love you, and want you to love them.

NOT LECTURE.

LOVE.

Kk, I’m done.

*cough*

Then again, I may be biased.

Okay, I know this discussion is really dead, but I just want to get something off of my chest:

To the commenters who say young women know Edward and Bella’s relationship is unhealthy and that Edward is not the “perfect” man, I’d have to disagree. I have seen so many young girls online who want their boyfriends to be like Edward and think of his and Bella’s relationship as a “fairy-tale romance.” And it’s not a small part of the fandom that thinks this. And don’t even get me started on the Twilight Moms.

The problem with Twilight isn’t really that Bella is weak, has her whole life revolve around her boyfriend and needs to be saved all the time, or even that Edward is emotionally abusive. It’s that Meyer romanticizes it and makes it seem like it’s the perfect life.