It’s a provocative title, I know. Do not fear: this is not another Twilight-bashing post, but an honest attempt at an exploration of why I don’t like it.
Our good friend and one of our most loyal patrons, Mr. John Granger, is continuing to write about the critical reception of Twilight in posts at HogPro. It’s interesting stuff, even if I remain skeptical, after reading the first novel, that Twilight delivers anything that can be legitimately compared with the artistry of Harry Potter. Mr. Granger’s question, “Why are the books so popular,” remains an important one, and despite my dislike for Meyer’s fiction, I’m helping him take up his new post as a virtual professor at “Forks High School” in the coming week or so. My few Twilight musings here should not be read as public challenges to Mr. Granger’s work on the stories; rather, I see them as friendly counterparts and counterpoints to his discussion. In other words, I’ve been the “bad cop” in the Twilight discussion.
The question I’ve been working out in my mind is this: If there are legitimate parallels between the elitist, Harold-Bloom-like critical reception of Harry Potter and Twilight, and it can be demonstrated that Twilight is popular because there is something deeper going on in the story – an LDS anagogical tale of the relationship between God and humanity (the jury is out for me on this until I read the remaining 3 novels) – why do I so strongly dislike it? I think it’s fair for me to say of myself that I don’t fit the Bloom-like elitist category. If we take Mr. Granger’s “Governor Palin Syndrome” example, I think I’ll make my point clearly enough: while it’s fair to say that “elitist” members of the media tore Gov. Palin to pieces primarily because she was a conservative, I clearly don’t fit that category, being a paleo-libertarian (a conservative libertarian) – and I remain adamantly (very, very adamantly) opposed to Ms. Palin as a politician. Not all opponents of Gov. Palin suffer from this “syndrome.” See Peggy Noonan.
So, back to the question: If I, and other readers I know, don’t fit into the category of Bloom-like critics (after all, we think he’s nuts on Potter, right?), why don’t we like Twilight?
I think Tolkien may have answered this question for me. Revisiting his brilliant essay, “On Fairy-Stories,” for my forthcoming essay on Beedle the Bard in Hog’s Head Conversations (Zossima, Spring 2009), I came across the following lines:
[Students of folklore] are inclined to say that two stories built round the same folk-lore motive, or are made up of a generally similar combination of such motives, are ‘the same stories.’ [...] Statements of that kind may express … some element of truth; but they are not true in a fairy-story sense, they are not true in art or literature. It is precisely the colouring, the atmosphere, the unclassifiable individual details of a story, and above all the general purport that informs with life the undissected bones of the plot, that really count.
Even if it could be demonstrated that Meyer is writing, for instance, another recasting of the alchemical drama, which drama I find very moving, my personal frustration is with the “colouring.” The imaginative world that comprises Twilight is not compelling to me in the least, because I think the writing and the artistry is not only not magisterial, but not even close to Rowling, whose writing is also not magisterial. Rowling’s world is intricately filled with magnificent “colouring,” and with an “atmosphere” that captures the “certain mood and power” of the Perilous Realm. Meyer uses phrases that aren’t just tired, they’re exhausted, sick, and on their deathbeds, to describe the same two or three obsessions over and over again. I still stand by the majority of what I said here. I’m willing to bend on my statement that “the novel operates at no deeper level than the surface story,” but after one novel, I’m still not willing to say I feel any “mood or power” of the Perilous Realm.
In short, Rowling creates a believable journey through Faerie, and what I’ve read of Meyer thus far does not compel me to move forward to learn more about her world and its characters. The extent to which this is personal preference, as opposed to a legitimate complaint about bad writing, is still somewhat vague to me. Your comments and corrections will, I’m sure, be helpful in clearing up my own thoughts.
This leads me, of course, to a dilemma:
- I have not read all 4 volumes of the Twilight Saga, which means I remain uninformed. James W. Thomas scolds those who suffer from the PRUBONic plague, PRUBON being “Presumptive Reader Unworthiness Based on Non-Reading.” I agree with him, which means beyond explaining my dislike of the first novel, I have to reserve final judgment on the entire saga.
- I have absolutely no inclination or desire or even vague curiosity to read the remaining novels because of the extent to which I disliked the first one.
All of which means this will probably be my last critical post on Twilight. I’ve said all I need to say about the first novel, and I probably won’t get to the others until long after the hype has died down (at which point, I’ll have even less reason to read them, since “What’s the hype all about?” won’t be a motivating factor.) I’ll quietly follow our favorite professor’s posts from here on out, and at the Hog’s Head, I’ll only link Twilight items of interest with brief comments. Should I get around to the remaining three (maybe on audiobook?), I’ll resume commentary.
Stay tuned for another post later today, not on the topic of Twilight itself, but on some of its readers.
Red Rocker on 
diva_alix on 
Arabella Figg on 
Joivre on 
Loading ...
{ 25 comments… read them below or add one }
Man, and I thought I was the bad cop!
But you’re much more articulate on this subject, Travis. I agree with you on why Twilight doesn’t do it for me when by all rights it should & when I don’t suffer from the syndromes John has described.
I think you hit the nail on the head with Tolkien’s thoughts on coloring, atmosphere, & other undefinable details & intersections with the plot.
Here’s where the difference comes in for me between Rowling & Meyer, again based only on Meyer’s first book. While Rowling’s prose is of standard variety, almost mundane, like Meyer’s, Rowling is much better at using what she does than I think Meyer’s is. Rowling has more artistry with it, I suppose, than does Meyer, who, as you said so well, uses prose that is “exhausted, sick, and on their deathbeds, to describe the same two or three obsessions over and over again.”
In essence, I found Rowling to be the better storyteller. The coloring of her world & her characters was much more intriguing & engaging. The atmosphere much more believable. I didn’t really engage with Meyer’s characters all that much. Didn’t really find the coloring & atmosphere to be all that entrancing. Didn’t really care much what happened to any of the characters nor do I really want to find out more.
I’ve tried to place my above comments in the tone of my personal opinions of Twilight. I, too, am finding the difficulty in framing the issue of how much of this is personal preference as opposed to bad writing & characterization. I think it’s perhaps an indefinable line sometimes.
As for the books, I’m still not entirely sold on the idea that there’s got to be something to them because they’re so popular. That line of reasoning only takes you so far. But I do think John is doing excellent work in trying to flesh out what might be there for many readers & what’s underneath the surface. But like you, Travis, while I’ll agree that there might be something there, I still didn’t feel the tug of the perilous realm. Maybe Meyer just wasn’t hitting on all four cylinders for me.
So, I’ll try to be content to just read what John has to say on the matter, especially since I have no desire to read further into the series & he has, so he should be better able to give a big picture.
Good quote from Tolkien. And so true. If not for those “unclassifiable individual details” what’s the difference between a romantic comedy by Shakespeare and one by Barbara Cartland? (I can hear the millions of Cartland fans rising up en masse in protest.)
And although I did read Twilight> and Midnight Sun (on the internet), I too am a PRUBON in this case because I did not read the three books in between. So here’s my 3/5 PRUBON opinion:
Meyer has a couple of good ideas and one original one. She kind of opens the door to the “perilous realm” once or twice, but doesn’t have the skill to develop it convincingly (well, not convincingly for me at any rate). She is desperately in need of a ruthless editor. The most positive thing I can say about her is that now that she’s got the beautiful but deadly Edward out of her system, she may develop into a competent writer of adult speculative fiction.
I think the question of personal preference vs. poor craftsmanship is much more clear than you suppose. As a writer I was unable to even finish Meyer’s first book and would go so far as to say that her prose is categorically bad. With no trouble at all I could pick out a dozen passages and sentences that would scarcely pass muster in a high school creative writing class, much less a published novel.
While much of that will be invisible to the average reader, the accumulated effect is that the book itself, no matter what virtue the story might hold, falls flat to many readers whose ears are more accustomed to the music of language.
” She is desperately in need of a ruthless editor. ”
RedRocker, my thoughts exactly. I actually enjoyed the story more than I thought I would, but there were so many places in the novel that I liked the concept, but I thought something needed to be deleted or expanded upon to make it stronger especially on the surface and moral levels. I’ll let John take the LDS anagogical level since I know nothing about mormonism.
Having only read Twilight and MS, and being a writer who edits, here’s what I think about the writing itself in Twilight, without regard to the realm of meaning, popularity, etc., which John is taking on so magnificently. (No comment on the three sequels I haven’t yet read.)
Meyer has a good story in Twilight, but it’s not served as well as it could be in the telling. Unfortunately, narrator Bella–who should pull us into her world and story–comes off flat; her calm, remote fatalism deprives the reader of connection, immediacy and suspense. It’s a shame. On my second read, I had to ignore the distracting prose to find the story and merit I enjoyed. A reader shouldn’t have to work so hard.
That said, I believe–and this is important–that the fault lies not with Meyer (a first-time author), but with her publisher and editors who should have better helped her trim excess and further develop her characters and story. It’s unfair and uncharitable to dump on Meyer as if she was the only person involved in the final copy. Perhaps her publisher was in too much of a hurry to get out The Next Big Thing. Meyer shows undeniable improvement in MS and promise for a long writing career.
If you go to StephenieMeyer.com and read her story about writing the Twilight Saga (in the New Moon section), I think you’ll find that Ms. Meyer’s first book was heavily edited and transformed from the manuscript Little, Brown purchased and that this experience was largely repeated for New Moon. Ms. Meyer was a “rookie writer” given a huge advance and rushed to print after her story was put through a New York house’s editorial wringer.
I bring this up to make one point. It should be no surprise that Ms. Meyer’s prose, especially its shading or coloring, seems hurried, amateurish, repetitive, and bland. It would be stunning if a first-time writer’s prose — on her first trip out the door, even given the editorial attention she received — was anything else. I’m not trying to say that Ms. Meyer is an accomplished stylist and doubt that I will ever be able to say that about her first efforts; I will note that the second and third books are much better than the first and fourth (which last, oddly enough, seems to have been written before New Moon).
To Travis’ point about faerie and the perilous realm, I ask this drawn out question:
Shakespearean drama sometimes invokes the magical but much more often does not. For every Midsummer’s Night Dream there are several historical plays and a tragedy without a Caliban or Prospero. Yet the tragedies are the plays most obviously about human transformation, even apotheosis, and are the most successful instances of catharsis drama in the Western canon.
Shakespeare, obviously, in writing plays rather than novels, engages us differently than do either Rowling or Meyer. Some very thoughtful readers (Tolkien comes immediately to mind) have no taste for Big Willie and certainly Harry and Bella’s adventures are much more a shared text to the reading public today than Hamlet or Macbeth, if only because of their accessibility.
Sorry about the long build up to a question you may have already answered. How much of your bad experience in reading Twilight was a matter of taste in stories? There have been several comments from the women among us here at The Hog’s Head about the peculiar draw of Romance stories for women that they doubt men can appreciate. Can you think of any romance stories that you have liked? Can you think of any fictional experience, poem, play, or prose, that lifted you into the perilous realm that wasn’t part of the fantasy stream of English literature, Coleridge to Tolkien? What, for example, were your thoughts and experience while reading Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights? They’re gothic, certainly, but not like Lovecraft, Poe, and Stoker.
Ms. Meyer is not writing in the same stream of literature as Ms. Rowling. Largely because of Pottermania, I think, her book was hurried to print and not given the period of incubation it might have been otherwise. And, precedents having been set, again by Ms. Rowling’s success, we have a surface level fandom readership consumed by romance interests in books that parody and use popular romance as a jumping off point to greater things….
Remember the ‘Shipping Wars? Of course you do. Imagine for a moment that, beyond the centrality of Bella’s love interests in this bodice-ripper, there is as much other meaning in these books even in that romance as there was in Potter beyond Harry/Hermione and Ron/Hermione.
I think there are two debates going on here: Meyer as a stylist (about which we don’t seem to have a lot of divergence) and Meyer as a builder of a bridge to the “perilous realm” where, I’m assuming, greater meaning awaits.
John, do I understand you correctly that you’re saying readers (meaning male readers predominantly?) are turned off Meyer’s books because they are about love/romance and hence chick lit territory?
There have been quite a few romance stories which moved me. The movie version of Pride and Prejudice (the book is much more of a social comedy). The movie version of The English Patient (I never read the book). The book (and movie): The End of the Affair by Graham Greene, and the short story (and movie) Brokeback Mountain. I always read A Tale of Two Cities as a romance story. Ditto Great Expectations. And of course Wuthering Heights. So I am clearly not opposed to reading about romance. Heck, I even enjoy the Bridget Jones movies. But that’s only because I am irrevocably in love with Rene Zellweger.
But Twilight? Twilight is to romance what Baby Duck is to champagne. (Millions of Baby Duck lovers rise up in protest).
What if Twilight is more Pilgrim’s Progress than Pride and Prejudice, or better, Bunyan wrapped and concealed within Barbara Cartland?
If the atmosphere and colouring and the mood and power and the “unclassifiable individual details” aren’t there, does it really matter?
On top of which, there’s a layer of stuff there, the 110 year old guy sneaking into the 17 year old girl’s bedroom to watch her sleeping, the adult family friend waiting for the little girl to grow up so they can become lovers, which is really creepy and disturbing. That’s not Bunyan, unless we’re talking about Adam the First. Which is not Meyer’s intent.
What is the “atmosphere and colouring and the mood and power” of Bunyan’s allegory? It’s pretty “tell, not show” in terms of artistry… which is my point. Allegory works differently than fantasy, though the one is often embedded in the other. If I’m right in thinking this is largely allegorical romance, your objections are to the story ciphers whose referents you aren’t getting, no?
I don’t think I’m objecting to ciphers whose referents I’m missing. I can accept a lot of missing referents if the atmosphere and colouring and mood are there. I’m thinking of the works of Patricia McKillip in particular. In many of her stories, I have no idea what the heck she’s talking about, but the mood is so well done that I let myself go with it, waiting for some nugget of narrative to emerge. I can’t do this forever; sooner or later the mind wants some linear narrative, but it’s possible for longer than you’d think. There are other writers who are the similar. Anne Rice (to take a closer example) can write pretty mesmerizingly, although a lot of her stuff seems (to me) to be nonsense. The films of M. Night Shyamalan are another example: he sets up an intense mood full of terror and significance better than anyone I know. His atmosphere is so fraught and charged that you (well, I) can watch for a long time before inevitably turning away in irritation because there is no pay off. David Lynch’s TV series, Twin Peaks was also like that. And a long time ago, we had Miami Vice. I still remember James Olmos’ brooding silences: the triumph of style over substance.
As for Bunyan, I have no idea what his style is: I’m only familiar with him through the works of Louisa May Alcott. I am certainly not suggesting him as a counter to Meyer. My only point there was that unless Bunyan promotes old men sleeping with young girls, Meyer’s allegory was not consistent with his.
Bottom line: you need style and substance to make a story work. We’re almost agreed that Meyer lacks style. I think she’s got a bit of substance, but not much. You seem to believe that she’s got a lot of substance, and that in this kind of work – allegorical romance? – substance without style can work. I think that if you’re looking for roughly crafted but meaningful substance, there are likelier places you could look in than this.
I cannot comment on Twilight directly, but I have (from a distance) kept track of some of the discussion concerning the books and their merit. And I can understand, at some level, why Twi-hards find Harry Potter to be such a threat. HP is an already established brand that has received (some) literary praise.
I’m reminded a bit of other pop culture “rivalries,” like Star Trek/Star Wars. In the gaming world, the “rivalry” between Microsoft and Sony spills over into discussion boards concerning nearly every major game release that begins as an exclusive on one console or another At E3 and every other major games convention, Sony and Microsoft spend an inordinate amount of time and effort sniping at each other about hardware distinctions most gamers couldn’t care less about. They bicker and stare ate each other like the two egotistical kids in junior high school, trying to see who can put together the cooler clique of friends. Meanwhile, Nintendo sits back, laughs, and lugs a big wad of cash to the bank as they tap a market the other two wrote off.
I agree with John and others that it seems some of this comparison is between literary apples and oranges. Again, I have to reiterate that I haven’t read more than the first five pages of Twilight, but it seems that comparing HP to Meyer’s books makes as much sense as comparing either series to Gravity’s Rainbow, or comparing THH to Entertainment Weekly. I haven’t taken the time to dig, but I have to wonder how much this “rivalry” has been fomented within the Twilight community by the publisher and its surrogates as a way of selling the series. And, of course, other public figures get asked about the comparison, a la Stephen King.
While I appreciate King’s opinion (and I love his EW column), I think his statements were a bit unfortunate. Stephanie Meyer has been put into a comparison with Rowling largely, I think, because she is a woman writer who emerged from nowhere while writing a fantasy story about teenagers. Rowling’s personal story made for great copy; Meyer’s does, as well, although in a different way. But, despite teenage characters in extraordinary circumstances, their fictional stories have virtually nothing in common.
As for the “literary merit” discussion, I’ll remain silent on that one, too. Anyone who has read my posts or comments here knows I remain largely suspicious of that discussion, anyway. I’ve received too many raised eyebrows at my interest in video games and graphic novels to take “Literature” and Harold Bloom all that seriously. And even the stuff that is considered “Literature” in my world isn’t universally admired. I love Don DeLillo and have worked on a presentation over his last book for the last two weeks. I’m a member of the Don DeLillo Society, and he’s considered the premiere “literary” American novelist working today. But plenty of my colleagues find his prose turgid and insufferable. I, on the other hand, can’t stand Thomas Hardy or most of the Victorian writers (cue Travis rising from his laptop, shaking his fists in rage!).
I would never reduce any of these questions to mere individual taste. But, we should also recognize that there are cultural differences percolating under the surface of this discussion — even if only between the fan cultures of Twilight and HP. This all strikes me as a gnashing of teeth over a piece of meat that doesn’t exist.
As for myself as a reader, I’ll cop to some of the anti-romance sentiment discussed by John and Red. I like romantic stories. I love Pride and Prejudice, and the kissing scene in HBP gives me goosebumps. Slumdog Millionaire is fantastic. But, I’ll admit that my story preferences tend to run more toward the phallocentric/masculine storylines the average guy gravitates to. For every Pride and Prejudice I like, I also love something like Generation Kill (both Evan Wright’s book and the HBO miniseries). And I’m willing to admit that my preferences largely don’t have much to do with what I might consider to be “literary merit.”
“The most positive thing I can say about her is that now that she’s got the beautiful but deadly Edward out of her system, she may develop into a competent writer of adult speculative fiction.”
She has. Have you read ‘The Host?’ It’s a chick flick, but definately better written and appealing than the first Twilight book.
(Prof L also recommends reading the whole series to really get the story. ‘Twilight’ is more of a prologue. The fullness of the story arc goes in a very different direction than would be suggested by the first book.)
Speaking of interest in graphic novels, Dave, you do know that the film version of Watchmen is coming out, right?
I think you should prep the site.
Red, yep, I do! I’m going to put some posts up, but Watchmen is a radically different cup of tea from what most people think of superheroes. I’m not sure how many THH regulars would be all that interested. I’m really interested in how this movie will fly with a general public who expects the heroes to win, at least partially. The Dark Knight was, well, dark. But Bats won in the end, and the uber-evil Joker was defeated (oh, too bad about Harvey…).
The producers did make some concessions for Watchmen. My understanding is that they substituted something else for the giant squid that induces a social apocalypse. And Rorschach? Snape’s tragic bitterness doesn’t have anything on him…
Such great comments here. This may be more of a surface comment compared to what is already written – but my fault with the story lies more in the actual characters she has developed.
It isn’t even how underdeveloped they are. It is the idea that there is a weak girl who needs saving and is an empty shell of a person who falls under the enchantment of a vampire. I see Twilight as the story of Merope and Tom Riddle Senior with some folklore thrown in. How could Bella really love Edward if she is perpetually under his vampire spell. It’s like being hoodwinked by a love potion.
There is nothing genuine in either the characters in Ms. Meyers story or in the narrative of the text. That is the difference between HP and Twilight.
Travis, I would not advise listening to the audio version of the remaining books in the series. I listened to Twilight while recovering from eye surgery, since I was unable to read or watch television. If you think it’s bad having to read the prose that is “exhausted, sick, and on their deathbeds, to describe the same two or three obsessions over and over again.” – imagine what it’s like listening to it. Torture.
After I finished with the audio Twilight, I immediately reached for the HBP discs and was never so grateful to hear Jim Fry’s voice in my life.
Diane, while I have my quibbles with the writing quality of the first Twilight book and how that affects engagement with narrator Bella, it’s well known here and at HogPro that I feel the book has merit and is a good story. (Midnight Sun, in particular, is very compelling.)
That said, I disagree with the view that Bella is “a weak girl who needs saving and is an empty shell of a person who falls under the enchantment of a vampire.” I demonstrate the oppposite with the following:
1) Bella is a strong person who, through lack of good parenting and divorce fallout, is an “old soul,” the family adult and parental caretaker, mature beyond her years. She’s independent and makes the sacrificial choice to move to Forks on her own, despite the cost to herself. Once there, she must become caretaker again, this time of her father.
2) Bella shows no inclination to (pardon the pun) suck up to anyone at school or home to get her emotional needs met. She maintains distance. She feels “other” and “outsider” to the typical narcissistic shallow teen angst of those at school. This demonstrates her “otherness” and need for more mature companionship.
3) Bella doesn’t “need saving,” though she is saved from danger (or mere klutziness) several times by Edward, often to her annoyance, not because she has a “salvation complex.” But, despite Edward’s “heroics,” Bella doesn’t melt into Edward’s arms. She aggressively challenges him on them and pursues truth, to the point of his discomfort and conflict. True, he’s protective of her, but Midnight Sun enlightens on that aspect.
4) Bella is reluctant to bring any kind of danger to Edward and her vampire friends. This requires resourcefulness and careful planning. She makes critical decisions on her own and won’t be pressured by Edward, the Cullens, Jacob’s grandfather or her father.
5) When Bella decides to accept Edward as he is, and love him anyway, it is a brave choice because it will completely change her future and there’s no guarantee of a happy ending.
6) There is no “enchantment” by Edward. He simply and finally makes the choice, after trying to drive Bella away, to be himself and allow himself to love her. He warns her away (perhaps in too oblique a manner that only raises more curiosity) but, as we see in Midnight Sun, this is quite costly to him. I see wooing, rather than luring. But he respects her choices all along the way. If there is any enchantment for Bella, I feel it’s the “enchantment” of caring love, something she’s sorely lacked. To a caretaker like Bella, with her own emotional needs long ignored, where she is never made to feel special and lovely, this alone is a powerful draw. Edward’s love alone is enough; superpowers were superfluous to Bella (she didn’t even enjoy some of them, like the speed running). She is drawn to genuine love, just as we are to God (note John Granger’s points at HogPro).
7) Bella’s fatalism (engendered by her raising) becomes brave determination when she decides to sacrifice herself to save her beloved. This decision is not a whim, but made and carried out with careful planning. Her courage in walking to certain death by James in the studio is heroic and she’s fully in charge of her decision.
Bella is a strong “bud” who blossoms with accepting and enriching romantic love. But “weak” and “enchanted”? I don’t think so.
Excellent answer, RRocker.
I’ve meant to come by and comment for some time, just to say that even though I had a thoroughly different experience from yours in reading the saga, I understand and respect your position (especially having done a little time there myself)!
As to whether your complaints have more to do with personal taste or the quality of the writing, I doubt a fine line can be drawn through there. Even I have to generally agree with the consensus that Meyer has her weaknesses, but those weaknesses just weren’t of the sort to permanently distract me. She did manage to draw me, at least, into the realm of faerie; the more I read the books, the more captivated I am by her deconstructed monster world.
… And I know it’s blasphemy, but as much respect and admiration as I have for Tolkien–there are things about his writing that drove me crazy, e.g. the stilted narrative style after all the main battles end, and the utter unrelatability of any of the women in the LOTR other than Eowyn (despite all their allegorical and anagogical value). But I point that out only to say that once we get past the clearest laws of grammar, even judgments of gradations in writing quality seem to become somewhat subjective. (Not entirely–don’t shoot me, everybody! but somewhat.)
Mrs. Figg, I loved your defense of Bella.
What? Are you saying that there is some sort of subliminal messaging in Twilight, making fangirls love it? That is such a lie! Preteens swarm over it because of the numerous sexual encounters in the books, making them feel good. And by feel good, I mean…never mind. I think you know what I mean.
I would say there is a great divergence in both context and skills involved in the making of Tolkien’s and Meyers’ creations. For instance, Tolkien was largely reclusive and did in fact create a “world of his own”, his creation isn’t just LOTR, it is part of a far more extensive literare universe composed by other writings such as “The Silmarillion” and “The Green Knight”. Not only that, but J.R.R. is rather descriptive regarding the scenario, it is a very rich universe, not so much based on the actual bonding between the characters, but rather on the lore itself. Also, let’s not forget Tolkien went through one of the Great Wars as a Sargeant and had a undoubtably masterful skill in british english.
Meyer’s creation, on another hand, whereas also conceived through it’s creator’s own fantasy, happens to have been given a more commercial outlook. Meyer herself is the owner of a persona far different from Tolkien’s, she was not by any means inspired by battlefield (do note Tolkien did not write LOTR based on WW, but the battles did influence him greatly), in fact, Twilight tends to the relationship between two characters, not focusing as much in a greater scale., rather a conflictual relationship.
Let’s take for example the creational scale in Tolkien’s universe, one would see Morgoth/Melkor tends more to a biblical moment rather than the raw morality of his actions, he is rather much like Satan (do note Lucifer has been proven to be an whole other persona, Satan is a seraph whereas Lucifer was a cherub, the bearer f light). In Tolkien’s universe the treads are far more complex, simply put, there is LORE.
All in all, comparing the two ought to prove a rather futile experience, Tolkien conceived his creation as an universe with it’s own lore, whereas Meyer uses a particularization of a “what if scenario”, already based on the long running romantism of vampires. In fact, the reason women are more inclined to like Meyer’s creation is the very same reason for which women are less inclined to war than men, biologicaly speaking: war, scales of power and such draw men far more than than a delayied romance, whereas many women ought to find the previous rather abhorring.
PS: Pardon for any grammatical mistakes, I am rather tired and a couple of typos might pass unknown.
Howdy! Just browsing and thought I’d put in my two cents, being both female and part of the age group for the Twilight series.
Three years ago I picked up a copy of Twilight from my friend. The writing was engaging because, well, it was easy. Easy and straightforward–nothing required much thought. Heck, even the mystery of Edward’s true nature was written in the book summary. Twilight stands at a seventh grade reading level and, regardless of its size, the writing is in decent font size and a sentence or two may make up an entire paragraph.
Regardless, it is not the writing that pulls girls/women in. The writing is admittedly not even in the realm of “decent” in my opinion (especially considering the author intended it for a mature, adult audience). However, it is the sexuality that gets girls in a tangle. This is like a Harlequin romance without the sex. Edward’s vampirism, thirst, and “bite” easily serves as a metaphor for sex. And as the female constantly (and I mean constantly…) strives to engage him, he is always the one to push her away. This gets many female readers frustrated and…shall I say it? Horny.
The book that some claim promotes abstinence gets girls and women frisky. It made me frisky for awhile, too, but that’s beside the point.
This is a self-insertion fantasy, and it is the author’s own words that Bella was left intentionally blank in certain areas because she believed women could easily insert their own likes and hobbies into the holes. Therefore, the story sometimes passes a mere book to become a personal dream of many. Bella seems like such an ordinary teenage girl; shallow, yes, clumsy–a lot of teenage girls are admittedly shallow and self-conscious and personally thinking themselves as responsible–and as a result it was easy to imagine being the main heroine. That’s why so many girls and women get so rabid about this–this IS their fantasy, their pleasure, and they don’t want people telling them its faults.
And women? You’ll see that most claim it brings them back to their high school years–and that they are (for the most part) drawn in by Edward’s old-soul character and “gentleman qualities”. (Alarming, because many take his behavior as abusive).
That is my take. I’ve gone on to greener pastures but, I must admit, I have some unnatural distaste for the series now due to the last book. It made me reread and reconsider, and I now believe this fad to be among the most overhyped.
AbbyGabb – I think I agree with everything you wrote and it’s nice to hear it from your generation (I’m not quite Edward’s generation – but I’m definitely not in Bella’s). I can understand, though, how young tweens could find Edward sexy. For all the wrong reasons. In 10 years time I wonder if this series will be zeitgeist fodder for a generation.
And where the heck was I when this thread came up?!
I would respond at length to explain just how wrong you are about why these books are so popular, but, as I’ve written a book on the subject, I urge you to read it (Spotlight: A Close-Up Look at the Artistry and Meaning of Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight Novels) or, at least my Touchstone article that is available on the internet introducing the subjects I covered in the book. You could also read the Techland.com interview with Lev Grossman I did last week, wait for the coming pubCast here I did with Travis that should go up soon, or come to the New York Public library (Mid Manhattan Branch) next Thursday night to hear me talk on the subject…
So many options!
{ 3 trackbacks }