Stephen King recently gave an interview to USA Weekend in which he made some interesting comments about Richard Matheson, H.P. Lovecraft, J.K. Rowling, and Stephanie Meyer:
King, whose Stephen King Goes to the Movies collection came out last week, doesn’t know how much of an influence he had on Meyer, but he does know that Rowling read his stuff when she was younger. “I think that has some kind of formative influence the same way reading Richard Matheson had an influence on me,” King explains. “People always say to me, ‘Well, what about H.P. Lovecraft?’ And the thing was, you read Lovecraft when you were a kid but I never felt that he was speaking my language. It was chillier than my heart was, and when Matheson started to write about ordinary people and stuff, that was something that I wanted to do. I said, ‘This is the way to do it. He’s showing the way.’ I think that I serve that purpose for some writers, and that’s a good thing. Both Rowling and Meyer, they’re speaking directly to young people. … The real difference is that Jo Rowling is a terrific writer and Stephenie Meyer can’t write worth a darn. She’s not very good.“
There’s a lot I’d like to unpack there, but I’m going to leave most of it for the pub’s perceptive patrons. Just a few notes and questions:
- I find his description of response to Lovecraft interesting. Is your response to Lovecraft similar to King’s, or different?
- Whatever you think of King’s writing (I happen to like it), he’s a guy who’s done a lot of solid thinking … ahem … On Writing. I don’t agree with all of this thoughts on the craft, but on the whole, On Writing is a must-read for aspiring authors. This, in my mind, lends a bit of credibility to his assessment of Rowling v. Meyer. Thoughts?
- Read the rest of the article. What do you think of his other thoughts on the non-threatening, “safe” nature of Meyer’s novels?
Charlie on 
Tom on 
Moe W on 
Steve Morrison on 
Moe W on 
Arabella on 
Red Rocker on 
Loading ...
{ 61 comments… read them below or add one }
Well, I’ll comment on the perhaps more hot button question first. Yes, he’s right on Meyer. On both counts. Her writing is not very good; I could write that well. But she is also wildly successful. Go figure.
King’s other thoughts on Meyer’s work are also pretty close to the mark, I think. He says, “…it’s very clear that she’s writing to a whole generation of girls and opening up kind of a safe joining of love and sex in those books. It’s exciting and it’s thrilling and it’s not particularly threatening because they’re not overtly sexual. A lot of the physical side of it is conveyed in things like the vampire will touch her forearm or run a hand over skin, and she just flushes all hot and cold. And for girls, that’s a shorthand for all the feelings that they’re not ready to deal with yet.”
I know John would ascribe all sorts of more deeper meanings to Meyer’s success but I think King is closer to the mark.
I would also agree with King’s assessment of Lovecraft. I really don’t get very much out of Lovecraft. Well, I do but only when BJ Harrison is doing a podcast on Lovecraft. He really brings the story to life.
Of course, I never really got into King all that much either. All I’ve read of his is It, Salem’s Lot, Christine, & Cycle of the Werewolf. Salem’s Lot was my favorite for quite some time when I was back in high school & it always scared the willies out of me. But I haven’t read it in years now. But then straight horror was never really my favorite genre. Not that I haven’t read or watched a lot of it over the years.
A couple of random thoughts on the fly…
King wrote a very interesting introduction to Michel Houellebecq’s H. P. Lovecraft: Against the World, Against Life, FYI.
I don’t share King’s emotional response to Lovecraft. Quite the contrary. I must have a chilly heart! (Haha.) Lovecraft resonates deeply with me. Then again, I love Richard Matheson’s work too, especially the remarkable I Am Legend.
I would rephrase King’s comment to read “Jo Rowling is a terrific storyteller and Stephenie Meyer can’t write worth a darn.” From a technical perspective, Rowling isn’t a great writer; in fact, her books include repeated and outright grammatical errors. She is, however, a masterful storyteller. She has the craft of storytelling down to an art. I’m not at all convinced that the same is true for Meyer. My reading of Meyer left me underwhelmed, to say the least.
I’m not sure that grammatical errors, even repetitive and egregious ones, necessarily mean poor writing. I could be wrong, of course.
I would agree that JKR is a terrific story teller. And that her style can be eye-brow raisingly pedestrian – ordinary, uninspired, humdrum. But there are moments – discussed here in the past – when she raises the bar, transcends the ordinary and reaches some near-sublime heights.
I like and agree with King’s point that Meyer makes sex and love safe for little girls. At least, until the point that Baby Destructo tears her way out of her mother’s womb, breaking most of her bones in the process. The only sane rationale I can see for depicting such a horrifying version of childbirth is as a argument for birth control. But would that be in keeping with LTS theological teachings?
As for Meyer vs. JKR, they both seem to have similar appeal as writers of page turners; which dismays me not a little. What is the value of all that popularity if a purveyor of Romantic Gothic soft-core porn can match it by scribbling down a dream she once had and stretching it out for four volumes? I mean really, how must JKR feel?
Because to my mind there is absolutely no comparison. One writer’s vision is limited to the here and now of adolescent lust; the other dreams of heroic deeds and love and sacrifice in the fight against evil. One writer has read widely, and her work is like a tapestry woven with thoughts and references and names which come from a thousand myths. The other sees great works of fiction as something one “takes” in English class in high school. One writer builds so many intriguing characters that she forgets some of her most fascinating ones, leaves them behind, or kills them arbitrarily, only to be dismayed by the outpouring of outrage from her readers. The other creates characters who speak with one voice, and that a tedious voice, and are only distinguishable from one another because they have different names.
Agree totally with King’s assessment.
Amy, I would think Lovecraft is just something that you either really like or just don’t get all that much. I don’t dislike Lovecraft; his writing just never grabbed me all that much. However, I did like playing the Call of Cthulu role playing game.
I also like your rephrasing of King’s comment on Rowling & Meyer. Although I do think Rowling _is_ a better writer than Meyer, even if Rowling has some writing flaws of her own.
Ms. Meyer has said herself that she isn’t much of a writer when asked about comparing herself to Ms. Rowling. She says, if memory serves, that she is “just a story teller.” Before defending her work as a remarkable accomplishment and a remarkable debut, it is worth noting that she is remarkably humble about her work and her relative worth as a writer, neither of which can be said about Mr. King.
I know John would ascribe all sorts of more deeper meanings to Meyer’s success but I think King is closer to the mark.
The Twilight Saga for quite a spell held four of the top five best seller slots at Amazon.com and the New York Times best seller lists. Mr. King attributes this success to “opening up kind of a safe joining of love and sex” for young teenage girls. Frankly, that sounds like patronizing dismissal to me; there aren’t that many teenage girl book buyers in the US to account for these sales numbers. Paranormal romance and safe sex, too, are pretty weak explanation for the meaning-resonance readers experience in these books.
As to “all kinds of deeper meaning” — which I’m guessing RevGeorge means as a friendly rebuff — I think it is fair to say the books are quite open in being about the relationship of man and God as lover and beloved. The author is doing this deliberately and artfully, even with more originality and daring than writers like Mr. King. She certainly lacks his command of the language — as with the Hogwarts Adventures, there is nothing majestic or magisterial in Ms. Meyer’s workmanlike prose and dialogue — but she has obviously done something in her genre melange as great as anything that Mr. King has done to win the audience she has.
Dismissing her as basically a flunkie cashing in on young girls’ desire to explore their incipient sexuality imaginatively and safely is probably not misogyny per se, but it certainly is lazy thinking and suggestive of a little jealousy. As is his casual asserting that Harry Potter is somehow derived from his work because Ms. Rowling suposedly read his books as a young person (something I have not read in any interviews with her). I’m afraid Mr. King’s comments rank up there with Harold Bloom’s and William Safire’s informed criticism of Harry Potter back in the day.
What literary substance is there in the Twilight books?
For starters, Ms. Meyer works with six classic texts as her story scaffolding (not to mention X-Men comic books), echos Ms. Rowling’s themes on choice and prejudice (along with every writer of our age qua postmoderns), and is deconstructing mechanical beliefs (myths) and simultaneously elevating tradition (myth and fairy tale). I personally am fascinated by the remarkable set of genres she combines believably and by her four book long exploration of love and reason a la Midsummer’s Night Dream, one of the six texts she uses as leaping off points. Her use, too, of Edward and Jacob as interchangeable Heathcliffs and Edgar Lintons to Bella’s Catherine in a re-exploration of Wuthering Heights is very well done and made me reconsider the Bronte classic from an entirely different angle.
Did I mention the artist coming of age themes she develops in Bella a la Hesse’s Demian and Joyce’s Portrait?
I’ll list the Saga’s faults at length if you want, as well, but there doesn’t seem to be any need for that here. Why pile on? The harder work is what folks are neglecting. Novels that sell million of copies and that readers love, believing they are “better, wiser, and happier” for spending time in those pages, disbelief suspended, are books that deserve our respect and attention rather than our casual rejection. Ms. Meyer’s critics, I’m afraid, suffer from “Governor Palin Syndrome;” the genre she uses as her base camp (Harlequin romance) is as unacceptable to them as “serious writing” as a fecund, happily married, conservative female politician is to the MSM. This is eerily reminiscent of the UK critics who could not endure Ms. Rowling’s work because of their disdain for her core scaffolding, the English School boy novel.
And, FYI, Ms. Meyer’s first name is spelled with three ‘e’s, no ‘a’s.
Anyone who thinks they can write as well as this woman should be writing full time. Those dismissing her by asserting publicly that they can write as well as she can are invited to demonstrate more than their ignorance both of what exactly the Twilight Saga is and of the significant and original artistry in these books.
Hear that, revgeorge?
Get writing. I’ll buy what you write… as long as you can incorporate evil Time Lords, doe-eyed forlorn teenagers and a death by mattock handle.
John, I meant some of my comments as a kind rebuff to you. But to be honest, I do think that sometimes one looks too deeply into things & finds all sorts of things that may or may not be there in a person’s writing & in explanations for its popularity. I think it quite possible that something can be wildly popular & yet not very deep. This is, after all, what most fads are about. Something that catches people’s attention for awhile & may be vastly popular but then burns out fast & is quickly forgotten. I’ll guess we’ll just have to wait & see if Ms. Meyer has any staying power. I don’t think she does, even if her books might be filled with all the scaffolding which you posit they are.
To be fair, though, I have not called you ignorant nor anything else for trying to find deeper meanings or specific reasons for Ms. Meyer’s works popularity. Instead, I’ve read through your explanations & found some of them to be compelling but others not so much. I would hope there could be disagreement on these things but apparently not.
But I’ll say one last thing & then forever cease to say anything at all about Stephenie Meyer’s work ever again. I don’t like it. I didn’t find it to be good writing or very compelling in either story or characters. This is perhaps a commentary on my writing as well, especially since I never claimed my writing was any good, just that I could write technically as well as she could. Besides, I do write full time already. It’s called putting together a sermon for every Sunday.
A few last comments, you do me a disservice & others perhaps in saying that it’s all just Governor Palin syndrome, since I never suffered from that syndrome & indeed while not agreeing with most of her political views still did not dismiss her because of her background. If that was true, then both I & Mr. King should’ve dismissed Rowling’s work as any good as well.
I’ll apologize to Ms. Meyer for saying that my writing might be as good as hers & for claiming that in front of others. But I won’t apologize for saying her writing is not good. Unless one is no longer allowed to have a personal opinion anymore.
Sorry to have even said anything on the subject. Will bow out of these conversations in the future.
revgeorge,
Keep on posting in these conversations please. I have not read any of Meyer’s stories but I am somewhat interested in all the discussion that is happening.
There should be room for discussion and for people to hold their views without feeling attacked.
revgeorge, you are right to state your dislike for the series- if you dislike it. I take it you don’t feel “better, wiser, and happier” since reading the series. Please elaborate.
John,
You seem quite emotive in your last post. I don’t think all of what you’ve said is fair.
“I’ll list the Saga’s faults at length if you want, as well, but there doesn’t seem to be any need for that here.”
Do you mean in this post or on this site? Either way, I’d still like to read what you think Meyer’s novels lack. I haven’t read many anti comments yet.
Also would you please explain the following comment, I don’t completely understand.
“Anyone who thinks they can write as well as this woman should be writing full time. Those dismissing her by asserting publicly that they can write as well as she can are invited to demonstrate more than their ignorance both of what exactly the Twilight Saga is and of the significant and original artistry in these books.”
I feel that there is room to dislike the stories without being ignorant.
Matthew
Novels that sell million of copies and that readers love, believing they are “better, wiser, and happier” for spending time in those pages, disbelief suspended, are books that deserve our respect and attention rather than our casual rejection.
The same can be said, of course, about King’s mythopoeic Dark Tower series. Ditto with using classic texts as the “story scaffolding” and combining a “remarkable set of genres.” Just a friendly word, trying to avoid “patronizing dismissal” on all sides! *wink*
And as for “Governor Palin Syndrome,” I’ve previously recommended alternate YA and adult vampire novels (both contemporary and classic) that I, as a reader, think outshine Meyer’s books. I certainly don’t dismiss the genre.
I find myself rather frustrated, however, much as I was when Cormac McCarthy’s The Road became all the rage and people acted as if he’d created the post-apocalyptic novel in a vacuum, rather than realizing he was writing in a long and compelling tradition, one with many, many representatives better conceived and crafted than The Road. It seems to me that some of those who have fallen head over heels with Meyer’s books simply don’t understand or appreciate the depth of the tradition behind it, and therefore they are overlooking the true gems to be found there — of which her works, like McCarthy’s, are arguably but a pale shadow.
revgeorge, your oath to hereafter cease to comment on Meyer’s works is distressing to me. She appears to be a prolific writer. Think of how many more eminently trashable books she has left in her. Will you sit in the sidelines while the rest of us have all the fun? The only thing that gives me some comfort is that your oath may be like the one I keep taking on the issue of GambonasDumbledore: made in grim resolve and sincerely meant, but doomed to be broken.
Let’s clear the air a bit.
Let me begin with this: Many of us remember a time when Mr. Granger was ridiculed for thinking the Harry Potter books were actually good, even “Great,” books. He turned out to be right, of course. So even when I disagree with John, I do so with full acceptance of the possibility that I could be quite wrong. I’m certain, John, that you’ll be quite convincing when you uncover the various aspects of literary substance in Meyer’s novels, and I’m interested in hearing more, despite the fact that I still just don’t like Twilight and think the writing inferior to Rowling’s and to many other fantastic authors more worth the time and energy.
I do think it’s important to recognize that The Hog’s Head crowd – some of whom are also HogPro AllPros – do not fit the mold either of those who would casually dismiss novels, or those who thought Mr. Granger was off his rocker in arguing that Potter is Great. There are no Harold Blooms here. While it’s perfectly fair to bring up Harold Bloom – someone who holds a significant amount of “credibility” in the field of literature whose analysis of HP was dead wrong – I don’t think it’s true that agreement with King’s analysis puts anyone in the Bloom camp in particular.
Given his wildly successful career, I can’t imagine what King would have to be jealous about. I did think his comment that Rowling borrowed from him was every bit as odd as when Orson Scott Card made the same claim.
Re: Governor Palin Syndrome – I’ll only note that, MSM response to her aside, there was a significant number of people who “should” have been in her camp (conservatives, like myself) who were just as appalled, if not more so, by her nomination and her politics. I don’t think those people should be piled into the “deluded MSM” camp when they say Governor Palin should never be allowed to be nominated for the second highest or highest office in the land, because she’s not a good leader or politician; and I don’t think all critics of Meyer should be piled into the Harold Bloom camp or the “ignorant” camp when suggesting that Meyer is not as good as her popularity suggests. It’s quite possible that both Palin’s and Meyer’s fans are wrong, despite the fact that some who dislike them do so for either the wrong reasons, or without serious thought. As Amy kindly noted, let’s “avoid patronizing dismissal” on all sides.
Anyone who thinks they can write as well as this woman should be writing full time.
Surely there are people who are better writers than Meyer who either don’t get noticed, don’t want to write for a living, or have a different calling with that writing (like revgeorge).
All: The original discussion was about Stephen King’s opinions on the various authors, and various responses to King have been put forth. Now, let’s all proceed with a kind and gracious discussion, refraining from any comments that might lump one opinion into a group of either mindless, culture-eroding Twilight-freaks, or dismissive, ignorant Twilight-haters.
Re: Lovecraft – I must also have a chilly heart
I don’t share King’s emotional response to Lovecraft.
John, I want to apologize for the tone of my reply in my last comment. I can’t necessarily apologize for some of the substance but the tone was definitely not right. I felt that you had overreacted a bit & used a sledgehammer on me & needless to say that made me testy. Still doesn’t excuse me & my tone. You were certainly right to correct me on some things, & so I ask your forgiveness.
I took the line of reasoning I did because I felt that King, who has sold millions of millions of books & been in writing for decades, might know a little of what he was talking about. Plus, if he has anyone to be jealous of it should be Rowling. Why be jealous of Meyer but not Rowling? It doesn’t make sense to me.
I certainly also don’t deny that Meyer has deeper themes or imagery or meanings in her works or that she at least attempts to make a connection to deeper themes, imagery, or meanings. And I remain amazed at your ability to pick these things out of most anyone’s works. But I still don’t think these things account wholly for the success of her work. And while you make some excellent arguments for that being the case, I haven’t totally bought into them or agreed with them. And thus I can’t help but say what I think & feel.
I think Meyer is successful in the same way potato chips are successful. Everybody including me would rather have a bag of potato chips most of the time than a good, wholesome nutritious meal. But a potato chip, even one made with the finest ingredients & the most exotic of spices & flavorings, remains a potato chip. And eventually you have to have something that makes you full in a wholesome, more lasting way.
If Twilight has one redeeming quality, it is that it might lead to people opening up themselves to recommendations of better, more gut satisfying food. But hey, I would hope we wouldn’t have to argue over Twilight. Especially since I don’t plan to read it again nor to read the sequels even though I do have them all, cheaply, very very cheaply. But not illegally so that’s a plus.
So, let’s argue about Tolkien or Lewis or Rowling. Things about which I really care.
Rocker, you have no fear about me & Gambon bashing. I still intend to see the last three movies in the HP series. Although I am troubled by reports that his portrayal seems to have gotten a bit better.
Anyway, to take Travis’ advice, back to King’s comment on Lovecraft. Is he saying he appreciates Lovecraft or that he doesn’t? I thought he was saying he didn’t really get into him all that much but maybe I took his meaning wrong.
I certainly don’t get into Lovecraft all that much. I appreciate his writing. I can read his stories. But they don’t do all that much for me. Certainly I don’t end up terrified or apprehensive when I read them. Except as I said when BJ Harrison reads them since he gives them just the right amount of suspense & horror. And while I can grasp the themes Lovecraft is portraying, most of the time I just end up confused after reading his stories or nonplussed. I know it’s probably a failing in me rather than in Lovecraft.
Would anyone who does get Lovecraft give me some brief pointers as to how to appreciate his work or say what you appreciate about it & what comes through? I know I should go & read Amy’s blog but, sorry Amy, Lovecraft hasn’t been on the front burner for me all that much.
I wish very much I could pull down my self-important, mean-spirited, and reactionary post of late last night. I am sorry to have suggested RevGeorge is ignorant; my comment was meant to be about Mr. King’s dismissal of Ms. Meyer (and of Ms. Rowling as one of his progeny) and, in aiming both barrels at him, I blasted RevGeorge who only agreed with Mr. King on a point even Ms. Meyer acknowledges is true. It was late at night after driving through a blizzard both ways to my talk in NYC last night (and forty minutes in the Lincoln tunnel…) so I had no business writing anything — and my reward for diving in while wound tight as a top is offending a friend whose thoughts I admire very much on this blog and my own and the consequent shame and embarrassment for once again revealing myself as the git I am. My apologies all around to the Hog’s Head community and especially to RevGeorge.
About my Twilight comments, very little of that is speculative (as my alchemy Potter comments were in 2002); Ms. Meyer has named the classics she uses as story scaffolding and plays with them throughout her four books openly and subtly. She was a literature major and it shows. I’m sorry that I posted in haste because of the unintended injury I caused a friend in my carelessness — and because it meant posting without urls to Ms. Meyer’s interviews in which she discusses how she writes. I maintain my position that she is being treated as a “bimbo” rather than a serious writer by critics like Mr. King as Gov. Palin was last fall by the MSM and as Ms. Rowling was (and still is) by her drive-by critics largely because they don’t see why her readers love the books she has written. I regret sharing that position, again, because of the harsh and belittling way I wrote it up (as bad as the criticism I was criticizing), but not because of the substance of my defense of Ms. Meyer.
My apologies to RevGeorge and HogsHead readers — and my thanks to Travis, Amy, and other friends for the kindness of their rebukes for my harsh post last night.
John, I forgive you. And I hope you would forgive me for my angry comments in reply.
“Behold, how good and pleasant it is
when brothers dwell in unity!” (Psalm 133: 1 ESV)
You have been nothing but gracious, RevGeorge, even in your first response. Thank you for accepting my apology and for your challenging and edifying example here in charity and forgivenes.
revgeorge, again, your words dismay me: if Gambon improves his acting and portrays a Dumbledore even a little closer to how we view him, then will I have to review my previous opinion and start seeing glimmers of promise where in the past I only saw clownish incompetence? Say it isn’t so.
My relationship with Lovecraft has evolved over time. I enjoy ghost and horror stories (Stephen King fan from way back) and that is how I first read him. Can’t say I enjoyed his over-the-top style too much in earlier times. I was also not too taken up with the Cthulhu mythos which I found (continue to find) dense and monolithic. I was reintroduced to him on these pages, through the influence of Korg. I read the stories which were suggested, and discovered that I enjoyed some of them quite a lot.
What do I enjoy about his writing? I enjoy his sense of time and place – I look at it like a period piece: the world of men’s clubs and independently wealthy men, country mansions, people cast in easy stereotypes, unthinking and cheerful racism, women excluded to the point of invisibility. It’s very early twentieth century writing. I enjoy his formula: rationalist protagonist meets cosmic horror beyond his ken, and the various outcomes: he runs from the horror, he is destroyed by the horror, or most interestingly, the horror resonates with something inside and he embraces the horror. Or the horror embraces him.
I also enjoy the writing itself. Not so much to read, word for word – Lovecraft piles adjective upon esoteric adjective so I tend to skip over his descriptions of the horror – but in tracking his build-up. In almost every story he leads up to a climactic moment when the protagonist discovers the true nature of the horror he has encountered: the monster’s elbow, the cannibalistic snack, the sinister personal ancestry.
I also enjoy – in a detached sort of way – watching the two sides of the author duke it out on the page: whatever fear and trauma and loathing he experienced in life which made him so fascinated by the monsters within and without, and the writer who takes that garbage and converts it into fairly compelling prose.
revgeorge, you’re still welcome to visit my blog. There’s much more than just Lovecraft there. *wink*
I enjoy Lovecraft’s cosmicism, his view of the universe on an epic scale, as well as his extensive use of local history and architecture. I’ll also admit that my taste and aesthetic sense runs toward the bleak whenever possible. Beyond that, I pretty much sketched out why I find him compelling here.
Amy & Red Rocker, thank you both for your responses. I can get the cosmicism of his works, although they don’t do much for me. I guess it’s hard to get into the feeling of cosmic insignificance or to grapple with the things man was not meant to know. It just doesn’t come off all that well, although I know that’s what he is getting at & I can understand it.
When I do enjoy Lovecraft or get into one of his stories it’s because of the reasons Red Rocker gave: “I enjoy his sense of time and place – I look at it like a period piece: the world of men’s clubs and independently wealthy men, country mansions, people cast in easy stereotypes, unthinking and cheerful racism, women excluded to the point of invisibility. It’s very early twentieth century writing. I enjoy his formula: rationalist protagonist meets cosmic horror beyond his ken, and the various outcomes: he runs from the horror, he is destroyed by the horror, or most interestingly, the horror resonates with something inside and he embraces the horror. Or the horror embraces him.”
But I will try reading your blog more. I have your one article you linked to but I’ve yet to read it. I also got the Barnes & Noble Classics on Lovecraft. Boy, that’s a thick book! I suppose the best thing I could do is simply sit down & start reading more of his work. Thanks again!
I really engage with most of the Lovecraft I’ve read.
I was particularly drawn in by The Whisperer in Darkness. I was completely sold on it.
I remember giving my mum one of my Lovecraft collections for her to read. Later I asked her how she was enjoying it. She told me she couldn’t understand what the characters were so worried about. She couldn’t feel any of the fear that the characters felt and so the stories lacked power for her.
Do you think it is harder to scare audiences now than 50-100 years ago because of whare the horror genre has got to in general?
I think there are different kinds of fear. I couldn’t even begin to identify all of them, but here are some that the horror genre seems to exploit: fear of darkness – and fear of what is hidden in the darkness, fear of blood, and accompanying fears of dismemberment and disfiguration, fear of being alone, fear of being stalked and its close companion, of being watched from the shadows.
I think of late that the horror genre has decided to take full advantage of some of these fears. The net result is that movies are fairly similar to one another: the protagonist stands in the light but listens to the noises coming from the darkness; the thing in the darkness awaits for the lights to go out, or for the protagonist to step into the dark. And there is one thing you can be sure about in horror movies, some hapless protagonist will do exactly that. Instead of staying safely hidden, he or she will come out into the open, where the monster can see him/her and be summarily taken out.
I think that this formula has been grossly overexploited in the near past. But the interesting thing is that it still works. When we know something is in the shadows, waiting to pounce, no matter how much we steel ourselves for its appearance, when that thing emerges from the shadows (usually only half-lit), the fear centre in the amygdala of the old reptile brain screams: alert, danger, run!
The really interesting thing to me in the fear inspired by movies is how little it actually takes. There is no need to show the bogeyman. Not even his footprints. Just the sign of his having been there is sufficient to send frissons of terror down huddled backs. Thus in Signs the sight of the swings swinging in the wind were infinitely more ominous than the aliens when we finally saw them. Ditto the rocking chair rocking, without any visible hand to push it. Ditto the young boy cowering in the cold in his tent, afraid to look out.
I think that the difference between modern movies and old – in addition to the technological advances made so that the monsters are no longer cheesy – is that it takes more horrible things to horrify, because we have seen the blood -soaked vampires, the decapitations, the impalings before. But the thing that lurks in the dark – its power continues undiminished.
BTW, opportunely enough, I just caught the last hour of 30 Days of Night The sherrif’s solution to the dilemma of vampires cavorting in the extended dark of Alaska in midwinter made me think of Edward, a little. But aside from that, the vampires lunging at their victims, white make-up, mouth open in a perpetual snarl, sharp teeth turned inwards like a shark’s, lower half of the face covered in drying blood, were not half as terrifying as the barely discernible shadows moving in the darkness, and the distant screams.
I think that what we can’t see if far more frightening than what we can. And advances in technology are irrelevant to depict them because the unseen horrors are universal – and timeless.
Red Rocker has got it exactly right.
Lovecraft’s sense of time and place is the reason I read his stories. I don’t find them particularly scary, but I love his descriptions. And I like his use of antiquated language – a bit self-conscious, but fun. (On a tangent, I’m reading Moby Dick again and love the language. Now there’s time and place. And one of the best sermons on Jonah you’ll ever get.)
And Red Rocker’s take on horror is also spot on. I get revolted by modern horror movies, not scared. But when I watch the original Cat People or most of Val Lewton’s films I’m scared. If the monster is right there in the room dripping gore at least I can hit it. When it stays in the wardrobe, under the bed or flitting around my peripheral vision I can’t handle it.
I was thinking of mentioning The Cat People. That’s one that always comes to mind. When she’s in the pool and the shadows are flicking about the edges. Great stuff. Images from Nosferatu are still lurking in my mind from childhood. They didn’t have the technology to do the fancy CGI so they relied on an effective, subtle atmosphere of menace. I wonder if the pendulum will swing back. It reminds me of that Goodies episode where everyone is sick of Rollerball-like blood sports and they get the crowds back by playing test cricket.
Lovecraft and Rowling are not good writers simply because a lot of people read them. As King rightly points out, that would make Earl Stanley Gardner a better writer than Raymond Chandler.
Lovecraft is a good writer because the source of his horror is distinctively different from previous horror writers. Lovecraft taps into the early 20th Century discovery of the vastness of the cosmos and creates monsters of unimaginable age and literally unimaginable visage. Lovecraft is sometimes criticized for using descriptions like “indescribable”. But this is unfair. The whole point of Lovecraft’s imaginings is that we have learned the universe is vast and strange enough that it must contain things so utterly alien that they are completely beyond our senses and our comprehension.
Rowling is not quite as original as this. The success of her series lies more in its perfect admixture of The Secret Seven with elements of fantasy, horror and teen angst, with a generous helping of comedy. Her style is not brilliant but it does evoke emotions in a way that is not forced and reads well. Ultimately I think her writing is a success of small parts, with a rich banquet of dishes making up for a lack of any great single main course.
There was an event in NYC called “An Evening with Harry, Carrie, and Garp,” where both Rowling and King read excerpts of their writing. I imagine they talked to each other; perhaps Rowling told King that she had read his work when she was younger.
For those who have read Twilight (I haven’t): I think most of us here believe HP will be around a long time. Do you think Twilight will stick around, or will it fade out?
I think that succeeding new generations of adolescent girls will take up the Twilight books until the kind of romance that’s portrayed in them – beautiful, dangerous but ultimately safely sexy boy meets and falls for rather ordinary girl who unwittingly drives him crazy – is no longer in vogue. In one form or another this formula has been in vogue for a long time – Jane Eyre comes to mind, so it may have a lot of lasting power. But something leads me to believe that there will be a lot of imitators soon enough, and one or more may find even more compelling formulas. And teen-agers are fickle and trends sputter and die quickly. On the other hand, Meyer’s own obsession with her Edward is so extreme, that no one may write quite that compulsively about a male teen-idol again. So Edward may remain King Crush for a long, long time.
What strikes me most about King’s comments is how rude he is. That’s what caught my eye.It is my experience that a person only uses ‘put down’ expressions when he is ‘protesting too much.’
There is something that bothers him about Meyer’s success.
Professor L, you may be right in your comments. But I cannot see, for example, how something about Meyer’s success bothers King. It doesn’t make sense for him to be jealous of Meyer’s success but not of Rowling’s. It doesn’t make sense to write him off as simple a high brow dismisser of Meyer’s work when he didn’t dismiss Rowling’s work & when his own work in horror/science fiction is one of the despised genres.
All we have from this interview is that he admires Rowling’s work but doesn’t like Meyer’s work & thinks very little of it. We don’t know why he thinks those things, though, besides a few more comments on the nature of Meyer’s work. But I think it would be helpful if he had exposited more on his views. I agree with Travis’ second point that he can’t be simply written off because of the credibility he brings to the subject. Now, he may be completely wrong but I think it wrong for us to completely write off his comments.
And I’m not trying to start another big argument about this either.
I think Professor L is right that there’s a rudeness about King’s comments. Nevertheless, I agree with revgeorge as well, that there’s an interesting level of credibility to King’s statement.
Now, our beloved Hogwarts Professor has recently noted the irony in King – criticized for being the same type of writer that the elite can’t handle – making a seemingly dismissive, elitist comment about Meyer. I’m inclined to think that King is more credible for that, because he knows full well where his literature stands in terms of the critics, which places him firmly not in the elitist camp.
Back to the Governor Palin illustration: certainly there were elitist snobs who disliked her because they were against her. But then there were conservatives who disliked her as well – conservatives who really wanted to like her, but couldn’t find sufficient reason to, and plenty of reason against – and the conservatives who disliked her, in my opinion, were the more credible.
None of this is to say that the heart of Mr. Granger’s question – Why are the books so popular? – isn’t a really good one. I don’t think we can say with Twilight what John said with Harry Potter, which was, “People like them because they’re so good.” John may still have some interesting answers in store nonetheless, and I’m keeping a close eye on his writing, as usual.
I think that the subject of Meyer’s books – teen age love – is not one that elicits a lot of respect, Romeo and Juliet notwithstanding. It invites comparisons to bodice rippers, Gothic Romance, Harlequin, Barbara Cartland and their modern cousin, Chick Lit. Adding the vampires just extends the comparison to Anne Rice (whom, by the way, I see as Meyer’s literary godmother).
But I don’t think King is coming from a patronizing perspective, mainly because he himself is a niche writer, and I don’t see that the Horror/Supernatural/Fantasy/Science Fiction niche is regarded with any more regard than Gothic Romance.
I think that his dismissive attitude towards Meyer’s books arises from a true judgement: he has read her books and found them wanting. I also think that he is a irritated by her success as a writer, because she is not a good writer, and here she is, making a lot of money. He doesn’t see her as good a writer as JKR (I agree) and probably doesn’t see her as good a writer as he himself (again, I agree) and here she is, making more money, or at least more quickly, than either of them.
The world is not fair. And we have all heard PJTBarnum’s saying: No one went broke underestimating public taste Well, here is the evidence for it.
Travis,
What you say is what I’ve been thinking too; you just say it a bit more clearly than I do at times. But yes, in addition to King possibly being wrong, I think he was rude as well or at least unnecessarily brusque & dismissive with his comments. Now, why he was dismissive is, as you say, the point we’re all disagreeing on.
And I agree that John is doing some great work on the subject of Twilight, & I’m following his commentary over on Hogpro’s. And while I can see many of his arguments & agree with many of his explanations for the deeper meanings in Twilight & of the many literary connections Meyer makes, none of that makes me change my opinion of Twilight. I didn’t like it.
Theoretically, by all rights, I should’ve liked it. I’m a fervent reader of the science fiction/fantasy genre. I have no qualms about reading children’s or young adult’s literature. I’m a confessional Christian but not one who flees in terror from any hint of imagination. I have been quite conversant with the vampire genre, in both literature & film. I like stories that have romance but aren’t necessarily plain Romances. And I like books that brim over with a connection to the Great Story.
And yet I didn’t like Twilight. I didn’t outright hate it. I found it to be slightly entertaining. But once I was done with the book I felt no desire to read it again nor to read the further books, even knowing they might’ve gotten better. I didn’t really care all that much about the characters or feel any strong desire to find out what happens to them. It just didn’t grab me. Perhaps then besides the question, “Why do people like these books so much,” an equally important question is “Why do many people not like these books.” And again I think the answer is more than just a high brow criticism or a low brow fundamentalist Christian response. I’m sure John is right in saying that much of the criticism of Meyer is coming from those quarters but not all of it & that criticism has to be taken into account.
revgeorge, I too read Twilight And on someone’s advice (I think it was Arabella) I read the online story fragment of the story of Twilight told from Edward’s perspective. And like you, I didn’t hate them, and did find them mildly entertaining. I skipped a bit, but I do that with most authors. And like you, I had no desire to read them again.
People have compared popular entertainment to potato chips: tasty but with no nutritional value, quickly eaten and soon forgotten. I’d also use the analogy of bubble gum: delicious when you first pop it in your mouth (if you’re into such things) but the flavour quickly wears off, and then you don’t want to chew it any more. For me, Twilight is a bubble-gum book.
However, I don’t think everyone else feels the same way. For a lot of people, the books seem to exert a lot of interest, even fascination. I think that they address some pretty basic needs, and provide some pretty potent fantasy fullfillment. I’ve been thinking of late that part of the fascination has to do with the fact that what Bella gets from Edward is impossible in reality: to be loved passionately, unconditionally, inalterably by a beautiful, powerful, immortal and deeply dangerous entity; and this through no special talent or beauty or ability of your own, but just because of how you smell; to be completely removed from the constraints and requirements of everyday reality; to be embraced by his family of perfect immortals and eventually elevated to immortal status yourself. And through all this to be completely in control of the process. My God, how tempting a fantasy is that?
Red Rocker, I believe I made the potato chip analogy.
I agree with your third paragraph. I know there are many people who are fascinated by the series & who get those things out of it. And yet, despite all of John’s good arguments about the depth of Twilight, I don’t think it really has staying power. Maybe it’s just my personal opinion. It probably is just my opinion.
But just on a tangent, I do have this thought. I heard someone note the other day that Meyer’s 2nd & 3rd books are better than her first & that the fourth is rather a step back because it seems like she’s trying to finish a story that she had planned out a long time ago but that which doesn’t now fit in all that well with how she had developed the story through books 2 & 3. Kind of like how some people criticized DH because it seemed like JKR had a preplanned place she had to get to, something she had envisioned for years, but yet in the writing of her series she had grown the story & had grown some of the characters but when it came time to wrap up the series she had to stuff all that down in order to get to the place she had always planned on getting to.
Now, in Rowling’s case this doesn’t bother me all that much, although I recognize it as a valid criticism. Yet I still love DH. But still knowing that Meyer’s writing gets better doesn’t impart any desire to me to follow up my one read of Twilight. I’m not quite sure what that says but perhaps it’s fruitful ground for further comparison between Rowling & Meyer.
What RRocker is describing (and belittling by calling a fantasy?), of course, is the telos of life according to the great revealed religious traditions.
Which is essentially my point, without the suggestion that this conception is an opiate.
John, that’s the hard part to address. Yes, Meyer’s story may encompass the telos of life according to the great revealed religious traditions & perhaps that’s why it appeals to so many people, albeit on a subconscious rather than conscious level. I’m just trying to figure out why it doesn’t appeal to me or to several others whom I know also resonate with stories that contain those teleological elements. Or the Great Myth as Tolkien would call it. What is it about Meyer’s telling of it that doesn’t grab us like Rowling’s telling or Tolkien’s or Lewis’? That’s what I would like to figure out.
Well, for starters, there’s the LDS spin on Genesis, the Harlequin Romance genre conventions that make the Divine Beloved story unrecognizable to many and unpalatable to others (do I really want to love God this way? be loved by Him like this?), and the UFO comes to Mayberry quality of much of the story, which, unless you’re thoroughly engaged by the Romance or reading it as parody, is hard to take seriously or enjoy.
I’m sure there are others.
See, this is what I like about your reading, John. It’s not that you don’t see the story’s glaring weaknesses. It’s that you know plenty of people have torn those apart already – some justifiably, and some from a Bloom-like elitist perspective – and that few, if any, have attempted to or adequately succeeded in examining whether or not there’s something deeper going on that might explain its wild popularity.
The verdict is still out for me on the series as a whole, primarily because I have to reserve final judgment until I’ve read them all, and I’ve no inclination whatsoever to read them all right now. Too many other books are priorities for me at the moment. I know I don’t like Meyer’s writing in book 1, and that the story did nothing for me. That doesn’t explain why it does a lot for lots of other people. I’m probably guilty of being a bit overly-critical as well.
Until I finally get around to reading the other three (sometime next year, according to my current schedule?), I’ll be watching the Twilight conversation continue to unfold with interest.
Hey John
I love your description of the feel of the story: the UFO comes to Mayberry quality . Very apropos. And yes, the Harlequin Romance conventions can be a turn-off: He’s so beautiful. Does he love me? He doesn’t love me. OMG, he’s so beautiful. Does he really, really love me? He doesn’t really, really love me. OMG, he’s so beautiful.
But I think there’s a problem with your argument that people love the books despite these flaws. I think for a large part of the audience, what you call the flaws are the fascination. It’s not the eternal love of God that compels, but the undying love of the boy from school. The beautiful immortal just happens to be your partner in biology. I don’t mean to be sacreligious, but this thought makes me angry: it’s as if Jesus steps down from the cross and asks you to the prom. It’s taking the divine and making it mundane.
And of course, I never will learn to spell sacrilegious. It’s not sac+religious, but sacrilege+ous.
Is it possible for me to agree with both John & Red Rocker at the same time? Because I truly think both of you are on to something in your above comments.
Although I’m not sure it’s the typical romance elements turning me off. I seem to recall avidly watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer for many years & not being turned off by the very formulaic pattern of girl who is vampire slayer meets boy who just happens to be a vampire but he’s a good vampire because he was cursed with a soul so he feels remorse over his evil deeds until he & girl vampire slayer consummate their relationship whereupon he loses his soul & goes way evil setting up a final confrontation where girl slayer has to kill evil boy vampire but just as she kills him his soul comes back & he’s good again but it’s too late & so they profess their love & then he dies but comes back next season & the cycle starts over again. See, I never got tired of that.
I think a synthesis of John’s & Rocker’s comments is going down the right trail. Is this the way we want to love God & be loved by God? Is this sacrilegious in the sense of our relationship & life with God being somewhat, well, sexual? Is this a direct intention of Meyer of putting in Mormon theology on this idea or is it just unconscious on her part because the whole idea is part of her woof & warp?
To reference another cultural commentator, Cartman from South Park in the episode “Christian Rock Hard” tries to make a platinum record by playing in a contemporary Christian band. One someone questions him on it saying, “You don’t know anything about Christianity,” Cartman replies, “I know enough to exploit it.”
His plan is simple but brilliant. He takes secular pop love songs & wherever the words “baby or lover or honey etc” appear, he replaces them with Jesus. It’s a success but when he’s being offered a record contract, one of the producers says, “You really seem to love Jesus.” Cartman says, “Yes, I do.” “No, but you _really_ seem to love Jesus. To be _in love_ with Jesus.” Cartman’s stunned for a moment & then bursts out, “You love Jesus? You’re in love with Jesus. What’s your point? What’s the difference?”
I’m not sure what the point is of relating that story, except for the fact that I really loved that episode. But maybe some can’t tell the difference? Maybe Meyer wrote the story with the intent of showing the Divine Beloved story but it fell victim to the nature of the teen romance genre but was still successful because of, as Rocker somewhat said, the nature of that genre plus it also still carried some of the freight & appeal of the Divine Beloved story to appeal to others besides just teenage girls?
I’m grasping here, I know. Just trying to come up with something
I haven’t read Twilight but I am interested to see what all the fuss is about. It seems that the fearsome, evil and potent “Vampire” has been emasculated- now a love interest.
I have posted a lot about this on another thread and don’t wish to repeat myself, but just to sum up:
Twilight is the only genre many of my students have that is ‘like’ Austen and Bronte. (I say like, because Twilight is not great literature–nobody, including Meyer has said so)
The same thing that appeals to them in Twilight is the same thing that appeals in those books. Meyers somehow captured that in her story.
It is also ‘female’ lit., if you will. Which has kept me from commenting too much here since, being a male dominated discussion, our Mars and Venus selves will just clash.
There is something many women I know, including myself, are attracted to in this type of story– and it’s better and more chaste than a soap opera. This is something that often men do not ‘get’ (as I can’t for the life of me see the value in many of their fun). We can’t explain it, we just know our kind of entertainment when we see it.
And we like it.
Common comments that my friends and I talk about in Twilight:
Edward is so awesome because he does not try to push sex on Bella–actually insisting on a real wedding night. Many of the men on here are married so they don’t know how much that connects with us. There just aren’t a lot of men that believe in abstinence and marriage in the real world. This has kept many of us single even though we feel called to marriage. You can’t have chaste love with the opposite sex if you can’t find somebody that believes and practices it. Edward, as fantasy-man, hence really resonates.
We want children. Bella fulfills that. That is our fantasy too, to have a loving husband and a family, and be a housewife. We often keep that quiet because it’s not popular to admit that. Twilight has secretly ‘outed’ that desire in women today. The ‘hiding it’ under a sci-fi horror scenerio does not take away the fact that Bella loves a pre-born child, fights for her, is willing to die for her, and finds her happy-ever-after as a housewife. Without the ‘horror’ part of the story, many would not accept it. (And many haven’t because they saw right through what Meyers was doing)
Professor L, very helpful comments. Let me just say that I believe in marriage & abstinence in the real world. And not just because I’m a minister.
And I appreciate your comments because it helps to hear these things from a woman. Being a man, I can’t really see the appeal of Twilight. But I think it might be more than just being a male-female thing, too. Still, it certainly helps to have a broader perspective on this series.
To follow up on a thought, being a man, I can still see the appeal of Twilight for women, but I can’t feel it in the same way women do or take it to heart.
Professor L, granted that many women want children: I doubt that most of them are willing to have their bones crushed during childbirth. And as for the “housewife” thing, I don’t imagine that Bella’s household looks anything like what we’re accustomed to. But I agree totally about the attraction of the chaste love thing: due to Edward’s incredible self-control, Bella is totally in control of her own sexuality. How cool – and fantastical – is that?
I wasn’t thinking this was a male dominated discussion. Do the points of view seem to be stereotypically masculine?
Having finished Twilight in the past 24 hours, I’ve been sifting through the comments here and at HogPro in my spare moments to engage the discussion more fully than I could in the past and see what all of the fuss is about.
The comments that I read before must have lowered my expectations, because I enjoyed the book better than I thought I would. I will admit I did have some problems with it that most everyone else has already pointed out. I seem to remember somewhere a quote that JK Rowling never met an adverb she didn’t like, well Ms. Meyers never met an adjective she didn’t like.
But I liked the book, because somehow I understood the Bella character. I could empathize with her loneliness and her feeling as an outsider. She also reminds me of many of my classmates who were also children of divorce (and her parent do too). Also, I went to Forks high school. Not that school exactly, but one just as small, just as clichey and with as much gossip. I wonder if Professor L’s students see those similarities in their lives that I do in mine.
On higher levels of means, which John has been discussing, I have problems seeing his points about the LDS faith, since I don’t know much about it. But I’m willing to go along for the ride and see what he does.
Just to add another point: would we give birth even if it might kill us? Heck yes and women have from the beginning of time. Even today childbirth does a good deal of damage to the mother and she comes back for more.
That said I also want to emphasize that the ‘horror part of the birth was part of the hiding of the theme to make it more acceptable. But also shows how strong the love a mother has for her child
I also think it’s curious that in the book none of the men ‘get it,’ including Edward.
sorry about the puctuation: was on my portable.
I wanted to add that Rosalie’s grief and comraderie with Bella also emphasizes this aspect of the story.
I should start this post with admitting to the fact that I do not like the Twilight series. I read the whole thing, but I felt that despite the geed parts in it, you just spent too much time wading through the mire that was Bella’s emotions. That being said, I can still see why so many love it so much.
Many of my friends (who are female christian college students between 20 and 24) loved the books. While I think that John does a very good job looking at many of the elements of why people love Twilight, I think he many be off in some of these. I hesitate to say this because he has found many depths in Harry Potter that I never imagined were there and now that I have been properly informed I am smacking my forehead for missing these.
As a girl, I can only give the perspective for why I think girls like the book fo much. I am far from understanding much about the way these books understand males.
Our soceity has become one where lasting marriages are anomaly, divorce is the norm, sex before marriage is expected, put out or get out, and you do what is best for you, not love sacrificially.
Bella starts out in an all too typical family situation that many of us understand very well. She has not recieved the love that is so important in the development of a child and young adult. Most of the girls I know who love the book are in a very similar situation.
Suddenly Bella not only finds virtuous (mostly), unconditional, and sacrificial love where she is not pressured to do anything she doesn’t want to, but she also finds a community and a new family.
I think that the primary love story, although important and the focal point of the story, is not the number one reason that this romance is so loved. This romance without the context of the community, familial love, and sacrificial friendships Bella receives, I don’t think that the story would gain much interest. I know that there are parallels of the love story with man’s longing for God, but because of the character that Edward is, that parallel concerns me. (I’ll leave this for the moment because I am not just highlighting my concerns).
I think that the attraction of this story is less about the fact that we as humans have an innate longing for God and more about the fact that we as humans have an innate need for community and family.
I don’t want to downplay the attraction of the romance itself. The fact that Bella is allowed to fall in love and that the relationship develops at her pace and that the guy is willing to give everything to save her and protect her is no small thing.
The last thing that I want to mention for why I think that the story is so attractive is that Meyers allows Bella to have sexual desire but doesn’t exploit it. Bella wants only the man that she loves, she doesn’t want to just give it to anyone. Something that has been missing from many of the virtuous romances out there is the fact that girls have desire too. Meyers took the desire that attracts some women to raunchy novels and put it in the context of the virtuous love story. Even if I didn’t like the books overall, I did appreciate that.
Nicely said, k2theforrest: community, family, romance and sexual desire married to virtuous love. Agree that those are all selling points. But what do you make of the fact that the object of desire is predator who sheathes his claws because he has a conscience? Doesn’t that speak to a fascination with bad boys?
Red Rocker,
As I said in my unfortunately longwinded post, I do have my reservations about the story. The love of the badboy is a selling point of the book, but I don’t think that it is so much of one as most people think. I stand by my assessment of what I think makes the series so popular, but there is something about the tamed badboy that makes most girls swoon.
A friend of mine and I were once discussing my attraction to a particular friend of mine (a very long time ago) and she was bewildered by my attraction to him. I remember her saying that she worried that I would end up with someone who would (in her words) beat the crap out of me, I responded to her that I wanted to end up with someone who could do so but woudn’t. She rolled her eyes at me and I got over my crush.
I suspect that at the heart of the fascination with someone like Edward is the fact that humans have a battle of natures within themselves. As we are fallen creatures we like the bad, but because we were once perfect and part of us will (I think) always long for that perfect state again. The dangerous but tame boy is a mixture of those things.
k2theforrest,
I’ve got another, less divine, interpretation of why women are attracted to bad boys. It has to do with the survival of the species. In nature, males compete for the right to mate with the females; often it is the strongest male who gets to mate, otherwise known as the alpha male. In mankind, “bad boys” are very often the ones who have the least qualms about using violence; they are not necessarily the most mentally or emotionally or spiritually gifted, but they are physically dominant. This means that they can out compete their rivals on a physical playing field. Now looking at it from the female’s point of view, females are biologically driven to mate with the males who can afford them – and their children – the most protection, and thereby guarantee the survival of the progeny, and of course, the species. So bad boys mate more often than not bad boys, and women are more attracted to bad boys than to not bad boys.
That is simplifying it a bit – turns out beta males who wait for the alphas to knock each other out and then step in do get to mate more often than would be expected. But research amongst humans show that the more outgoing, the more socially dominant, the more aggressive, the more opportunistic and the more self-centered males do get the girl more often than their counterparts.
Now look at Edward. In any contest with any human male, who’s going to win?
Bella is just following her biological imperative, and mating with the strongest male in her group. Is it any wonder that the only competition Edward faces is Jacob, another alpha male?
You write about community, family, romance and sexual desire married to virtuous love. I don’t disagree that all those things help sell the books. And I would also add physical beauty, which raises his value in the mating market. But the bottom line, Edward’s most important selling point, is his ability to beat the crap out of any other male within 100 miles, and that without breaking a sweat.
Sociobiological criticism! So why is Harry Potter as loved as he is by readers according to Prof. Wilson?
Ok I’ll ask it.
I don’t know, why is Harry Potter as loved as he is by readers according to Prof. Wilson?
(I’m half expecting a punch-line here)
Could someone remind me (my memory is like a sieve, not a pensieve, ufortunately, just a plain ordinary sieve): who is Professor Wilson and what did he/she say about HP?
“But the bottom line, Edward’s most important selling point, is his ability to beat the crap out of any other male within 100 miles, and that without breaking a sweat.”
This may be one of the biggest factors in Bella’s sttraction to Edward, and I’m not so sure that it is, but this selling point stripped of all the others is certainly not sufficient to make the books so popular. If this were the most important selling point of the books, I don’t think that they would sell.
E. O. Wilson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._O._Wilson) is the dean of American sociobiologists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology). RRocker is essentially using a neo-Darwinist reading of Twilight; my question was actually a request that she use the same lens on the Potter novels, internally (why characters like or dislike Harry in terms of procreative advantage/disadvantage) and externally (Pottermania).
I’ll stick to the iconological.
Well now, John, that is a very interesting question.
Because, as far as I can see, Harry has no procreative advantage, internally or externally. He is not the alpha male in his group – he is not superior to anyone in terms of birth, appearance, rank, or wizarding prowess. He is a fairly ordinary, decent boy.
In fact, the whole idea of alpha maleness is not an issue in the story. If there are alpha males (Tom Riddle? Sirius Black?James Potter), their actions or destiny take away from their social/sexual desirability. Who, besides deranged Bellatrix Lestrange lusts after Voldemort? What is left in Sirius Black after how many years in Azkaban or on the lam, for a woman to long for? And James Potter dies soon after he proves he is the alpha to Snape’s beta.
My point is that whatever attracts Bella – and millions of book buyers – to Edward is not at all what attracts Ginny – and millions of book buyers – to Harry.
And that, by the way, brings us back to what Mr. King was talking about. JKR can write complex characters with complex motivations. She appeals to some of the highest feelings and values her readers bring to the table. Meyer’s Edward has three tricks up his sleeve: he is beautiful, he is dangerously powerful and he loves Bella. Meyer appeals to some pretty basic – and simple – instincts.
I’m almost glad I’ve been sick all day & haven’t been able to participate. Because I’m kind of in agreement with both John & Red Rocker who are holding somewhat divergent positions. Makes my head hurt.
Although I really dislike the sociobiological way of doing things, so I guess I’m more in line with John on this one. I know the only reason my wife married me was because I was a complete & total geek & not some sparkling sun god.
revgeorge, turns out that bad boys get more girls – but they make terrible husbands and fathers, for the same reasons. So girls are attracted to bad boys but settle down with nice, responsible, caring, considerate men. Which is a good thing.
Now the secret fantasy that a lot of girls/women nourish is what k2theforrest talked about above: to get a bad boy who doesn’t act like one, i.e. someone who could beat the crap out of anyone, but chooses not to, someone who is very attractive to women in general, but chooses to stick to one person. In real life, of course, it doesn’t work like that. Which is why Edward is such a satisfactory fantasy lover.
{ 5 trackbacks }