Twilight Revisited

Way back in 2009, I wrote a little review of the Twilight series, sparked by hearing that Stephen King had trashed Stephenie Meyer personally. Lo and behold, today the issue raised its head on Facebook, the place where controversies are immortal.

One of my friends posted a picture of Mr. King, with the following quotation: "Harry Potter is all about confronting fears, finding inner strength, and doing what is right in the face of adversity. Twilight is about how important it is to have a boyfriend." My friend's comment was, "Well said, Mr. King!"

The comment has validity; Twilight can definitely be classified as a "modern gothic romance," and certainly romance, almost universally told from the woman's point of view (see Part II of Breaking Dawn for an exception to that rule), is about relationships. I would say I am in 80% agreement with Mr. King's opinion. However, I didn't enter into the Facebook fray to argue the 20% I disagreed with, but to argue the merits of making such a comment in the first place (note that all Facebook comments have been edited for relevance, grammar, spelling, and punctuation, but not sentence structure):

It's not that I disagree with Mr. King, ultimately... but I wish he wouldn't say it anyway, because he gets his back up when people trash his genre, so why is he trashing the romance genre? If you don't like it, don't read it. Praise Rowling and keep your mouth shut about Meyer. If you don't have anything nice to say... Okay, I think I made my point.

Well, I thought I did... but a friend of my friend quickly responded:

He's not trashing the romance genre. He's trashing one specific author. For good reason too. She's a horrid writer.

To which the original poster added:

I've read the Twilight books, to see what the fuss was about, and the writing style did leave much to be desired. And I found Bella to be a whiny girl who placed way too much importance on liking, getting and being with Edward. Then there's the whole messing up of vampire lore that pissed me off lol.

(At least she's laughing about it.)

I guess it's the nature of Facebook; I had to respond:

Whether the books are good or bad is completely beside the point. I think it's undignified behaviour. In his book On Writing, Mr. King expends some effort to defend his own books from those who trash them as "just horror novels" with no redeeming value. He should give other writers the same courtesy by keeping his mouth shut. He's not a literary critic and no one asked for his opinion. I used to have tremendous respect for the man, but his attacks on Meyer, simply because he doesn't like her books, is obnoxious. Does he trash every bad book out there? No. He took a shot because she had the chutzpah to be successful with something HE deems to be unworthy.

Response:

All he's doing is commenting on his thoughts of one book vs. another. I think you're taking it a step too far. He's not calling for a book ban here. 

Counter-response:

If he limited his remarks to the books, I wouldn't mind so much. I don't disagree with this comment. But he also called Meyer a "terrible writer," which might be his opinion and he is entitled to it... but what purpose does the comment serve other than drawing attention to himself? When you insult a writer (or singer, or painter), you insult every fan they have, too. Really, it's just not classy behaviour.

And that, for me is the crux of it. Book reviewing is non-fiction genre of its own, and King is a novel-writer, not a literary critic. As a fellow novelist, he should leave her alone. It seems to me that he resents Meyer's success. Obviously it's not jealousy, or he'd trash Rowling worse. He seems to be expressing the opinion, "If I don't like it, no one should."

And this, of course, is pure arrogance. I have had many, many people (some related by blood) tell me how "bad" the Harry Potter series is. This never fails to annoy me. People don't have to like it. To my consternation, I find that most of friends find Shakespeare boring too. But by refusing to try to understand why others like it, one sets oneself up as a literary snob. The message I unfailing receive about "liking" Harry Potter is, "How can anyone like such junk?"

Well, millions do. As millions love Meyer's works. Is it evil? Immoral? Wrong? No. Even assuming that the books are, objectively, "bad," bad taste is not evil or immoral or wrong. We don't judge character based on personal taste. 

While I did write, "No one asked his opinion," about King's reaction to Meyer, of course that's not true. If you want to know what King thinks of Meyer, you can read the full, unedited, and slightly-less-unflattering version here. The real kicker is, the quotation above isn't even Stephen King; it's someone named Robin Browne, quoted by Andrew Futral. Snopes it if you don't believe me. And of course I have my opinion too; the link is above. However, lecturing the public on what makes worthy reading is best done during English class, where such opinions have academic merit. Otherwise, I'm happy to stick to safer subjects.  What do you think of the weather we're having, eh?

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.