http://stoney321.livejournal.com/317176.html

Be warned. SPARKLES AHOY!

I read another liveblogging of these books by a former Mormon. She found references everywhere, but seemed to largely believe they were not so much intentional or indoctrinating as a logical consequence of the culture-immersion that is, for some, so complete. (Sorry, that was Roomba-esque. I was trying to convey the word “brainwash” without all the narsty connotations.)

I will try to find the link.

I guess I find Bella more manipulative than abusive outright. She uses emotional blackmail. When Edward threatens to leave her (for her own good, of course), she panics. W/O getting too much more into it, there is definitely the thought that she would cease to exist w/o him, convincing him to stay to keep her from that pain (in fairness, he does the same thing).

Meyer’s religious influences are subtle (Edward doesn’t seem to buy evolution, Bella seems to believe it is her duty to take care of her dad WRT cooking/cleaning). It is worth a glance, and I don’t find it completely criticism worthy.

I get the reason to be cautious with respect to the religious elements. Myself, I’m wondering whether it is possible to do a good job analysing it without referencing Mormonism, in the way that LOTR, whilst being undoubtely full of Christian overtones, can be effectively analysed without a focus on religion (the race and gender analyses can stand on their own in that book, tough the Silmarillion is much more religiously-influenced, so would not be easily disentangled). Maybe it’s possible. Certainly, to me, it didn’t occur at first that the author was Mormon, because it just read like something most people could write, whether religious or not. Learning of an author’s philosophical take on life or religion is useful in that it gives us a new perspective, but I don’t think it essential to analysing the work, because works are also about interpretation and how the reader views it.

I’d say when you feel ready, go for it, but remember the ever-essential disclaimers that many religions and denominations have problematic elements,and that even though any of the above may in this case be influenced by the writer’s Mormonism, it would not be any different a plot had Stephenie Meyer been Orthodox Jewish, a strict Muslim, a Baptist or even a not-particularly practising but socially conservative Christian. Or even an atheist for that matter (I know atheists with conservative views). I think it’s important when addressing problematic aspects of a culture/religion we don’t share, to emphasise that it is not unique to it, but a manifestation of a problem we all share.

I suspect it was well recieved because on the surface it looks safe. It’s fantasy romance, so people find it easy to write it off as not worth thinking about, and it’s not really about performing magic, so doesn’t feel occult to many people. I’d wager that people don’t read it because of the vampires first, but because of the romance. That instead of the unhealthy relationship being a function of the vampire element, it’s more the vampire element and plot are a function of the desire to write a problematic romance. After all, read any Mills and Boon book and you’d get a similar story, the passive, virginal, desirable woman being seduced by the dark, animalistic posessive and passionate man. A storyline I’m sure is popular with many women of all backgrounds. To me, it feels like she wrote a Mills and Boon story and added vampires to it, almost as a way of legitimising the problematic elements. Since she didn’t critique them, they remain in a ‘romance fiction’ kind of glow. I’m not suggesting she literally planned it like this, rather that social conditioning makes us all to some extent fetishise these kinds of relationships, and that we can go to lenghts to try and legitimise them, rather than critiquing them.

The main characters don’t have sex before marriage, and the ‘he’s trying hard to wait’ theme must have appealed to a lot of people’s sensibilities, so that they didn’t look past that to the controlling elements because he’s ‘trying to keep her safe’. Never mind the fact he’s always hurting her in order to keep her safe.

The premise of the book, that he’s this noble guy who won’t have sex because he loves her is appealing to many teens (and their parents!) because it’s the opposite of what we train boys to do in many ways. Traditionally we teach boys that their sexual gratification by women is their birthright, and that it’s perfectly natural to pressure a girl to have sex,but then we’re afraid for our girls that they’re ‘being used’, as if they don’t have any sexual agency, because all of us register subconsiously, the inequalities women face, and how women are made vulnerable by society. We want to protect girls, and as girls we want protection from this aspect of male behaviour (ie pressuring girls to have sex) so sometimes we fetishise the idea of men resisting to the point where they take away women’s agencies by not acknoledging or appreciating that women can want to have sex. Edward doesn’t ask her if she would like to become a vampire and have an equal relationship and have sex when she is ready, he makes the choice for her that it’s all not for her. That’s not equality, and although it’s not as bad as pressuting girls to have sex, it’s putting them on a virginal pedestal, only to be blamed if he loses control because she asked for it.

It would have appealed a lot to my teenage self, I suspect, because all of us, whatever degree of feminism we understand, notice inequalities and pressures we face as women, and have some desire to reverse it. I think the topic of abstinence can be addressed well, because there are many healthy, perfectly valid reasons not to have sex (you don’t feel ready, want to get to know someone better, aren’t sure how involved to get, want figure out the maze of power that relationships can be, etc), and I don’t resent the idea that teenagers should be presented with absinence as a choice: hardly anyone goes from relationship to relationship or fling to fling with no break, and it’s often good to take stock and work out what sex means to you. But this doesn’t seem to be about Bella learning what sex (life family etc) means to her, despite some arguments, if Bella makes every decision because Edward wishes it, it’s all really about Bella learning what sex, life, family etc mean to Edward.

I’m sure you’re gonna address them all really well. I get the need to straighten your thoughts into something presentable and nuanced a lot, and I look forward to reading more of your thoughts.

I have given a lot of thought to Meyer’s Mormonism, b/c I have dear Mormon friends, and the fact that the book series was so received in the community, (many of whom shunned the HP series) gave me pause. I had to research a bit first. I want to approach her religious views carefully so as to not come off as hateful, b/c I am not.

The dificulty is involving Meyer’s Mormon beliefs (which she states are very important to her, and her writing) in the criticism, because religious doctrine of many types can, and often is discriminatory, and is certainly not above criticism, whilst not alienating Mormons as a whole or implying that they are all hate-mongers. I see the ‘but why do you hate Mormons?’ defense frequently when someone criticises the unsavoury aspects of the book, and I want to find a way to point out that criticising a book is NOT the same as criticising a religion, and that if someone’s beliefs influence the book, they are relevant context, and that religious teachings are free for anyone to critique, so long as they don’t end up on an ad-hominem rant about the person, not the context. It just feels like people are using this as another excuse to exempt the series from criticism. If it isn’t the ‘but it’s feminist because she makes a choice’ card, it’s the ‘but you can’t criticise the plot if a Mormon writes it’ card. Which seems kind of contradictory. Either she’s writing from the perspective of pro-life, traditional influenced heavily by her faith, or she’s writing from feminist perspective about choice and equality.

I’m aware that one can be both Mormon and feminist, but AFAIK I’ve seen no claim by Stephenie Meyer that she owns the feminist/womanist label or wanted to write from a perspective of equality or choice. If she had, my outlook might be different. But if choice is only mentioned when trying to palm off feminists with a ‘but YOU’RE being antifeminist!’ defense, then i feel it’s hypocrisy. Because if you don’t personally believe in choice, and had no intention of writing choice into a plot, how can you defend a work by emphasising that it’s all about the choices you don’t believe people should have? It’s like Palin with her daughter again. So nice you use the word choice or feminism when it suits you, but refuse to own the label or examine the fact that no matter the intentions, there may be very real problems.

I also found a good review of Twilight the Movie which I found really helped me to elucidate what bugs me so much about the series. And Cecily of blogdonkadonk on why she wouldn’t recommend the series for kids. And that’s the thing. An older, more experienced reader (so long as they’re not averse to purple prose and average writing) might read the book as a satire, or as a study of a complex, abusive relationship and how it warps the emotions of the abused. But a young reader, someone who still has so much to learn about relationships, who is at a time in their life when we have the most insecurities, and feel the most pressure to belong, to do anything to be loved? I fear the impact it might have on teenagers.

I hate to sound like a snobbish bookworm, but I’ve noticed that a lot of the readers defending the series admit to not doing much external eading apart from the book. Whilst there’s nothing wrong or unusual about only reading occasionally, it does mean that one has less experience of writing of different qualities, (and probably less experience of all the bad fanfiction or mediocre writing out there), and is less likely to analyse the books. Which is not to blame teenagers for reading it: I suspect that I might have become obsessed by the books had I read them at,say 13, but to try and analyse why they are so popular, why some aspects are seen as wonderful by some (writing style, romance, characters) and apalling by others.

I just wish that if there’s any silver lining, all the girls and women reading it will pick up some kickass, progressive fantasy or other fiction.

I haven’t been recommended it. Mostly my teen feminist friends telling me to read it to see the look on my face XD But I’m not averse to spoilers, so I can assure you it GETS. A. WHOLE. LOT WORSE. Bella gets empowerful. As in, any choice is a feminist choice, because it’s a choice, according to Meyer’s Breaking Dawn FAQ site. (warning, MAJOR SPOILERS!)

I’m in two minds about the story and the feminists aspects of the choices Bella makes, but I believe that ultimately, Stephenie Meyer’s being rather reductionist. As in, implying that feminist criticism of the plot is because some feminists don’t really want women to have any choices so are therefore anti-choice. I disagree. I see a very real difference between supporting a real woman through her life choices (something every feminist should stand for), and saying every book plot, no matter how infested with anti-choice propaganda or abuse = sexy cliches must be feminist because the female character makes a choice. In the context of a world where only patriarchy-approved choices get any attention or praise, it takes a gutsy patriarchy defying choice, or a complex, heartfelt portrayal of the motivations behind a stereotypical choice to make something feminist. It’s got to have soul. This argument is just too much like the ‘but women choosing to be passive sex objects is empowering!’ argument. Accepting women’s rights to a choice does not mean one can’t critique the context of the choices, how much choice the women really do have, and what the pressures might be.

However, it’s still an abuse fantasy. There’s just no other way to slice it. The signs are exactly what would come up in any pamphlet about abuse, or any advice someone in the field would give you is an unhealthy relationship. Hell, it’s got the Heartless Bitches’ red flags all over it! The problem isn’t the portrayal of a complicated, unequal relationship, because this could be done well,showing both people struggling with their roles in the patriarchy, but it isn’t. It’s presented as an ideal, perfect relationship that everyone should aspire to. To me, it’s like people reading Nabokov’s Lolita and deciding that paedophilia isn’t actually a big deal and is OMG the best type of relationship evar!

I’m gonna hopefully read these when I can get them from a library in my spare time, or a charity shop or something. I really want to write a long informed rant, but don’t feel I can fully do so until I’ve read the series. Until then I’ll keep reading youd and Mzbitca’s thoughts on the series. As the film’s hitting the UK right about now, I think it’s the only thing that will keep me sane.

EVERYONE was recommending it to me (actually when the last book came out and before I had heard of the hype I had just plowed through all of the Kushiel’s books and was looking for a new series, and almost picked it up), and the surrounding hype was just so overwhelming.

When mzbitca took this on, I thought it would be the best way to get into it myself, w/ moral support, as long as I 1) didn’t have to give Meyers any of my money to do so, and 2) had someone else to discuss it w/.

I have decided Twilight isn’t The Worst Book Evah, but now I am afraid to move on to the others. I may read them during our month’s leave for some live blogging fodder and something to do on the road.

The constant comparison of Meyers to J.K. Rowling grates on me, b/c she is not even in the same arean/universe/whathaveyou as Rowling.