Thursday, April 30, 2009
Bumper Stickers
There is something incongruous between the bumper sticker that proclaims, "I AM A POSHITER YID" (a simple Jew), and the $35,000 Toyota Sienna on which it is placed.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Twilight Reflections
I just read the Twilight series by Stephenie Meyer. I enjoyed it, perhaps a little too much for someone with a degree in English Lit. However, it also left me unsettled and nervous.
I read it for two reasons. One, a friend of mine was reading it, and I love discussing books with this particular friend. Two, I was pissed off at Stephen King. Normally, I have tremendous respect for King. I have read little of his fiction; I don't do horror. But I did read On Writing and loved it; I actually listed it as the number-one book writers must read. However, back in February, King trashed Meyer, saying, she "couldn't write worth a darn." I thought this was crass and unnecessary. I didn't even care if it was true or not. I just thought there was no need for King to air such a nasty opinion. "If you can't say anything nice..." Well, you know the rest.
So I read Twilight. It sort of fell into my lap; my niece was visiting from out of town, and her sister lent her the book to read while she was here, so I read it too. I liked it. I didn't think it was great literature-- I don't think Meyer thinks it's great literature either-- but it was a good story, with some nice turns of phrase and a very wry, self-aware first-person narrator. As my friend (the one whose literary footsteps I dog) said, she loved the interior monologue nature of the book. She admitted that the she liked the second book, New Moon, less, as it there was greater action and less of the inside of Bella's head. As for Eclipse.... well, I'll admit that I barely remember any part of the book other than the final chapters (which I won't describe-- spoilers, you know). I think I like the final book, Breaking Dawn, the least (apparently I'm not alone; according to Wikipedia, "Breaking Dawn has received generally negative reviews.") It was too sugary-sweet "happily ever after" (uh oh... there goes the no spoilers promise). I wanted more blood from those vampires. (Sorry.)
But it wasn't the literary merits, or lack thereof, that disturbed me. Much as been written-- critically-- about Stephenie Meyer's Bella Swan, that she's too weak, the stereotypcial princess-who-must-be-saved. For Bella, life isn't worth living without Edward; there are four "chapters" in book two that are mere page headings, filled with blankness after Edward's departure (can't sue me for that spoiler-- it's practically how the book starts). Hardly true to Gloria Steinem's famous quip about woman and men and fish and bicycles. These criticisms have some merit. But it's not just Bella-- it's Edward too. Throughout the series, Meyers projects an image of romantic love that's slightly less than realistic. Edward (and Bella's best-friend-but-not-quite-boyfriend Jacob) both live to make Bella happy. They both spend the entire series 1) protecting her and 2) meeting her every need. In fact, Edward prefers death (a hard feat for an immortal vampire to achieve) to life if Bella dies.
Find me one husband/boyfriend/significant other as selfless as Edward (or Jacob). I'd love to be wrong.
The fact is, people tend to do selfish things. No one is perfect, no relationship is perfect, but Edward and Bella's is. He never hurts her (through callousness or insensitivity; in Book 2 he thinks he is saving her), is never insensitive, and if he annoys her it's by being too considerate, caring, and solicitous. He buys her expensive cars. He never leaves her side, He saves her life time and again. He's just perfect (well, except for the vampire-thirsting-for-her-blood part).
I think this sets young women up for disappointment. I well remember a weekend I spent with some highly religious Catholic couples. One girl told me she had chosen her man by using Jesus as her guide. I blurted out, "Mike's a nice guy and all, but he's not G-d." Like Jesus, Edward is too good to be real, but real girls sigh after him. Okay, they won't expect their mortal male boyfriends to have super strength, super hearing, and super speed, but they may expect the perfect consideration and anticipation and satisfaction of their every need. If they do, they are bound to disappointment.
Why am I less concerned about Bella's supposed passivity? Because while I found her undying love sadly misplaced (to tell the truth, I'm a Jacob fan), at least it's not unrequited. She's not throwing it away on a guy who treats her like dirt. Edward deserves Bella's love and loyalty. He earns it-- in a highly unrealistic way. I enjoyed the series, found it engrossing, and wouldn't tell anyone not to read it... but I hope the young women who make up the bulk of Meyer's readers find the romance as true to life as the vampires and werewolves involved in it.
I read it for two reasons. One, a friend of mine was reading it, and I love discussing books with this particular friend. Two, I was pissed off at Stephen King. Normally, I have tremendous respect for King. I have read little of his fiction; I don't do horror. But I did read On Writing and loved it; I actually listed it as the number-one book writers must read. However, back in February, King trashed Meyer, saying, she "couldn't write worth a darn." I thought this was crass and unnecessary. I didn't even care if it was true or not. I just thought there was no need for King to air such a nasty opinion. "If you can't say anything nice..." Well, you know the rest.
So I read Twilight. It sort of fell into my lap; my niece was visiting from out of town, and her sister lent her the book to read while she was here, so I read it too. I liked it. I didn't think it was great literature-- I don't think Meyer thinks it's great literature either-- but it was a good story, with some nice turns of phrase and a very wry, self-aware first-person narrator. As my friend (the one whose literary footsteps I dog) said, she loved the interior monologue nature of the book. She admitted that the she liked the second book, New Moon, less, as it there was greater action and less of the inside of Bella's head. As for Eclipse.... well, I'll admit that I barely remember any part of the book other than the final chapters (which I won't describe-- spoilers, you know). I think I like the final book, Breaking Dawn, the least (apparently I'm not alone; according to Wikipedia, "Breaking Dawn has received generally negative reviews.") It was too sugary-sweet "happily ever after" (uh oh... there goes the no spoilers promise). I wanted more blood from those vampires. (Sorry.)
But it wasn't the literary merits, or lack thereof, that disturbed me. Much as been written-- critically-- about Stephenie Meyer's Bella Swan, that she's too weak, the stereotypcial princess-who-must-be-saved. For Bella, life isn't worth living without Edward; there are four "chapters" in book two that are mere page headings, filled with blankness after Edward's departure (can't sue me for that spoiler-- it's practically how the book starts). Hardly true to Gloria Steinem's famous quip about woman and men and fish and bicycles. These criticisms have some merit. But it's not just Bella-- it's Edward too. Throughout the series, Meyers projects an image of romantic love that's slightly less than realistic. Edward (and Bella's best-friend-but-not-quite-boyfriend Jacob) both live to make Bella happy. They both spend the entire series 1) protecting her and 2) meeting her every need. In fact, Edward prefers death (a hard feat for an immortal vampire to achieve) to life if Bella dies.
Find me one husband/boyfriend/significant other as selfless as Edward (or Jacob). I'd love to be wrong.
The fact is, people tend to do selfish things. No one is perfect, no relationship is perfect, but Edward and Bella's is. He never hurts her (through callousness or insensitivity; in Book 2 he thinks he is saving her), is never insensitive, and if he annoys her it's by being too considerate, caring, and solicitous. He buys her expensive cars. He never leaves her side, He saves her life time and again. He's just perfect (well, except for the vampire-thirsting-for-her-blood part).
I think this sets young women up for disappointment. I well remember a weekend I spent with some highly religious Catholic couples. One girl told me she had chosen her man by using Jesus as her guide. I blurted out, "Mike's a nice guy and all, but he's not G-d." Like Jesus, Edward is too good to be real, but real girls sigh after him. Okay, they won't expect their mortal male boyfriends to have super strength, super hearing, and super speed, but they may expect the perfect consideration and anticipation and satisfaction of their every need. If they do, they are bound to disappointment.
Why am I less concerned about Bella's supposed passivity? Because while I found her undying love sadly misplaced (to tell the truth, I'm a Jacob fan), at least it's not unrequited. She's not throwing it away on a guy who treats her like dirt. Edward deserves Bella's love and loyalty. He earns it-- in a highly unrealistic way. I enjoyed the series, found it engrossing, and wouldn't tell anyone not to read it... but I hope the young women who make up the bulk of Meyer's readers find the romance as true to life as the vampires and werewolves involved in it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)