Jacquelyn ([info]antarcticlust) wrote,
@ 2009-05-31 10:27:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Entry tags:books, feminism, geek, racism, rant

Why Real Men Probably Shouldn't Read (And Love) Twilight.
I love the premise of NPR's new Guilty Pleasures series in part because I supoprt anything that may help to break down genre-guilt, but I found the recent piece by Brad Meltzer to be very problematic. Unnecessary gender-gauntlet-throwing aside, Metlzer proclaims his love for the Twilight series without actually saying why he does like the books. Fine: however, by doing so, he completely glosses over every reason to legitimatley dislike the books, which have absolutely nothing to do with their being young adult, or gothic fantasy, or any other reasons that often cause the Literati to defend their reading choices ("but it really transcends genre!"). 

Metlzer calls on women to give the Twilight books to their teenaged sons, nephews and husbands, to tell them the books are cool, that they'll like them. The thing is, I wouldn't even want my daughters (or sisters, or nieces) reading them, let alone the men - a common criticism of Bella, the heroine, is that she's a non-person, easily imprintable by the reader (this has been hypothesized as a reason for the series' popularity). She is completely unremarkable, and yet the super-sexy-important-insanely-wealthy vampire Edward falls head over heals in love with her. Or more like obsessed - Edward is controlling and  possessive - he disables Bella's car at one point to keep her from seeing her friends "for her own good."  Bella later becomes so depressed when Edward leaves her (also "for her own good") that she takes up dangerous hobbies (motorcycle riding, cliff-jumping) just so she can hear his voice in her head pleading with her to stop threatening her own safety.

Also in File Under A for Anti-Feminist, Bella doesn't want to get married or have kids, but she definitely wants to have sex with Edward (who won't, because he fears he won't be able to control himself and hurt her). Edward then says he won't have sex with her unless they're married, which of course happens as soon as Belle turns 18: immediately afterwards, she gets pregnant and is thrilled. However, there are serious concerns about her unborn child being a threat to her safety, and she is urged to abort - one character even designs to drug her and terminate the pregnancy against Bella's will. When confronted with anti-feminsit tropes in her books, Meyer responded with a perplexed "but feminism is all about choices!"

Feminist critiques of the series have received a lot of attention, but what about race? Bella dates Jacob Black, a Quileute Indian werewolf (whose legends Meyer may have largely fabricated in the books) while Edward was away-for-her-own good. He makes a perfect foil for the sparkly-whtie European vampire, Edward. The two become rivals, naturally; Is the white king/red pawn book cover of  Breaking Dawn a coincidence? Is it a coincidence that Bella rejects the sub-human Indian wolf-man for the super-human white vampire? Several people have brought up how Stephanie Meyer's Mormonism may have influenced her treatment of sex throughout the books, but her faith may also have directly influenced her treatment of race.

But back to my first point: I live with a 13-year-old who is probably savvy enough to find Bella obnoxious on a superficial level, but if he picked Twilight up on his own I wouldn't prevent him from reading it. Most of what we read as kids is problematic in one way or another, and usually in ways that we won't appreciate until we're adults (if at all). However, I don't want to push Twilight on Ethan largely because I don't want him to get the idea that Edward's behavior is okay (when it's clearly romanticized in the books) - that it's what girls really want. That the power dynamics in  Edward and Bella's relationship is a helathy one, or that it's even realistic, all fantastic elements aside. As a heterosexual male, Ethan is not  as likely to identify with Bella anyway (let alone project on her blank template)-- boys are much less socialized to identify with female main characters than girls are. Which of course leaves Edward.

Sorry, Mr. Meltzer, but I won't be foisting Stephanie Meyer's anti-feminist, raceist pop-fluff on the guys in my life. Instead, I gave Ethan Suzanne Collins' The Hunger Games, which features an empowered-but-refreshingly-unspunky heroine, realistic relationship dynamics, and multidimensional characters. I'm sure he'll still grow up to be a Real Man.






(32 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]cielamara
2009-05-31 05:41 pm UTC (link)
I agree so hard.

I just found the books utterly dull and uninspired. And vapid. And then when I started thinking about it, disturbing.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]antarcticlust
2009-05-31 05:56 pm UTC (link)
My little sister read the first one and liked it, and then got halfway through the second one and threw it across the room. And she was only 14 at the time! I was so proud of her.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]cielamara
2009-05-31 06:45 pm UTC (link)
I didn't care for the first one, honestly. I kept waiting to fall in love and never did. I thought it was just...dull. Bella was dull, Edward was creepy and dull.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]blackbuttoneyes
2009-05-31 05:47 pm UTC (link)
Wow, I never even thought about that imagery on the Breaking Dawn cover- that's pretty disturbing! Someone gave me the first book to read about three years ago before I had heard of it- and I pretty thoroughly loathed it. Apart from the treatments of gender, sex and race, I thought Stephanie Meyer was an atrocious writer. I wrote better X-Files fan fiction when I was thirteen. =/

Interesting post!

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]antarcticlust
2009-05-31 05:55 pm UTC (link)
Seriously! There are so many reasons to NOT want to read it (like the writing)! The point about being comfortable enough with your masculinity to be able to read books marketed at preteen girls is well-taken, but Meltzer could have picked SO MANY other, better examples.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]blackbuttoneyes
2009-05-31 05:57 pm UTC (link)
Right, I think it even may work against his argument, as he clearly just picked the current popular book written by a woman, without considering the implications of his choice.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]antarcticlust
2009-05-31 05:58 pm UTC (link)
YES! It was the obvious, least-effort choice.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]fourish
2009-05-31 10:30 pm UTC (link)
He basically said it was worth reading if you want to get laid.

The whole thing is Stephanie Miller's sexual fantasy. It's literally an animus dream turned into print, since it's based on a dream she had. To me that accounts for a lot of its popularity. The collective unconscious really hooked onto Stephanie's fucked up dream. Even Robert Pattinson noticed this and said it made him very uncomfortable.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]antarcticlust
2009-05-31 11:05 pm UTC (link)
I can totally see that. What creeps me out is what that says about us, on many levels.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]gyttja
2009-05-31 07:25 pm UTC (link)
Nicely said. I am so sick of these books/movies. I started reading the first one and was bored enough with it that when it was no longer available to me I didn't seek it out to finish it. And I generally can enjoy horridly-written fantasy novels.

Living in Utah, these books are even more hugely popular because of the LDS connection. And since I work with tweens I get much more exposure to Twilight than I have ever wanted. I think the fad may be dying off a bit though. What's disturbing is that these trends seem to do a trickle-down effect to younger children. I've seen 9-year olds--both Mormon and Navajo--wearing Twilight t-shirts.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]antarcticlust
2009-05-31 08:03 pm UTC (link)
It's funny you mention the LDS connection, because when people have used Meyer's Mormonism a lens to critique the books, some people are very dismissive of that. I've been really curious as to what the LDS community was thinking about them. It's also interesting to see how some Christian communities who denounced Harry Potter as "satanist" have actually embraced Twilight for its good values!

Edited at 2009-05-31 11:47 pm UTC

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]gyttja
2009-06-01 03:54 am UTC (link)
I don't pretend to speak for the LDS community of course, but from what I have observed from selling books and interacting with students, it seems to be "kosher."

I don't get how Twilight is any more "Christian" than Harry Potter. Both have werewolves. And Harry Potter lacks vampires. Nor does Harry have pre-marital sex, so I really don't know what the big deal is there.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]antarcticlust
2009-06-01 01:57 pm UTC (link)
I think it's the witchcraft element - witchcraft = satanism, no matter what, apparently.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

I call shenanigans.
[info]yenniemonster
2009-06-01 10:48 pm UTC (link)
I have a lot of issues with Stephenie Meyer and think Breaking Dawn was the worst book I'd ever read. But I can't support your post because most of it is false or a manipulation of the truth using weighted word choices.

I'd agree with the opinion that Bella is a weak character, but your facts are false. She DOES want to get married...eventually. But she doesn't want to be "that girl" who gets married right after high school and resists even on her wedding day. Bella's conviction collapses easily because Meyer doesn't ground this in conviction. This was a great opportunity to see Bella's pre-Edward aspirations to show conflict (her love for Edward vs. everything she believed in), and Meyer failed as a writer. Instead, she became self-indulgent and contradictory to develop a happy ending.

Perhaps Edward is controlling and possessive, but rarely if ever selfishly so. He's acutely aware of the danger Bella is in every day because of their relationship, and he spends most of that time living in fear of her safety because Bella stupidly never is. When he left her in New Moon "for her own good," as you put it, it was because his brother nearly killed her when Bella exposed them to her blood. Guilt-riddled, he moved the Cullens away to keep her safe from them. I don't recall where he disables her car (you didn't specify either), but I do recall Edward often encouraging Bella to see her human friends (the only reason for their continued presence) and objecting to her seeing the Quileutes because they were enemies with the vampires. That, however, was resolved and the Cullens made many concessions so she could safely visit La Push.

The idea that Jacob losing Bella to Edward reveals racism is laughable. That Jacob loses in the love triangle is apparent as soon as Meyer brings up imprinting and readers realize that he hasn't imprinted on Bella. Instead, Jacob imprints on Bella and Edward's half-vampire daughter, so if Jacob does represent Meyer's view on race, he actually promotes interracial marriage and the hope that feuding factions can come together in harmony. Also, Bella NEVER dated Jacob. And she didn't marry Edward as soon as she turned 18. She turned 18 in Chapter 1 of New Moon.

"Is the white king/red pawn book cover of Breaking Dawn a coincidence?"
No, it's a bullshit. The white queen on the cover represents the change Bella experiences over the course of the series, from flesh-and-blood pawn to the most powerful player on the board (Bella becomes the most powerful of all the vampires). Meyer has explained this on several occasions, including the UCLA stop of her Breaking Dawn tour, which I attended.

Also, Bella was not "thrilled" about her pregnancy, and abortion was not demanded. The fetus was killing her from the inside, breaking her bones and making her an invalid, so the characters assumed that she wanted an abortion to save her own life, but Bella insisted that it was her body and her decision (really, they caved in too quickly). Most who bring up the abortion issue criticize Meyer for being pro-life, but Bella proves to be pro-choice: She knew her options and accepted the consequences of a decision she believed was right for her.

As a writer, I would have been more pissed if Bella had aborted. It would have proven that Meyer has no regard for the elements of good storytelling: conflict, tension, drama. Anyone giving Meyer shit for not aborting understands good writing less than she does. Same goes for her "fabricating" Quileutes legends. As Glen David Gold explains in today's HBC interview, fiction can do whatever it damn well pleases. Hell, if I wanted to write nonfiction about my birthing a half-vampire in the secluded forests of Washington, I can! If she did make up the legends, she should just say so. If she adapted them to fit her needs, great! That's what good fiction writers do.

It's clear that you either haven't read the books or are "misremembering" to suit your claims. As a writer, a critic, and a person who believes in intelligent discourse, I find this greatly offensive. Link as many articles as you want; until you have read and can accurately cite the text, you have no right to criticize.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: I call shenanigans.
[info]antarcticlust
2009-06-02 01:02 am UTC (link)
You're right: I haven't read Twilight. I never claimed to. But I would never manipulate text to project an agenda; I would absolutely LOVE it if these things weren't true about Twilight, or any series. But do you think I pulled these criticisms out of thin air for my own convenience?

Your point about Bella's lack of conviction, and her wedding-day resistance only supports feminist critiques - the details really don't change the interpretation. I find your justification of Edward's possessiveness really creepy, frankly. No, I haven't read the books, but have spoken to many friends and read many critiques which brought up these same points (the car incident has been brought up many, many times). Notice that you are the first commenter who read the books who disagrees - others who also read the series who did not nitpick the commentary.

Yes, fiction can and does do whatever it damned well pleases. Does that mean that fiction can't be racist, antifeminist, or otherwise? Does that mean we can't (or shouldn't) call it out when it is? Whatever details I may have gotten wrong, or imprecisely, I would say that the fact remains that this has been a highly problematic text for many, many people, and not just for the reasons I cited. You cite "facts" about the characters as though Meyer were just an empty conduit relaying truths - as though she had no choice but to write them the way she did. But she DID make choices, and they reflect her values as a writer. Writers can and will appropriate other cultures disrespectfully, perpetuate stereotypes, and otherwise exercise their privilege all they want. But if you try to suggest that authors aren't accountable for the social ramifications of the books they write, well, as a reader, critic, and person who believes in intelligent discourse, I find that greatly offensive.

It's perfectly fine to be a Stephanie Meyer fangirl, but that doesn't give you the right to sidestep commentary that makes you uncomfortable. My mistake about the white queen/red pawn aside (which is arguably still problematic symbolism), there isn't a single nuanced detail that you cite that would change my overall conclusions about the text, or the conclusions that many other people have drawn. And I would argue that there is room to both love the series and still understand that they are problematic.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: I call shenanigans.
(Anonymous)
2009-06-02 08:59 am UTC (link)
That you call me "a Stephanie Meyer fangirl" and assume that I "sidestepped" commentary because it made me "uncomfortable" suggests that you ignored my first paragraph. I stated that I have a lot of issues with Stephenie Meyer. That's even public knowledge via the HBC. Obviously, I don't think you pulled your arguments out of thin air because I did mention your links, but it's also obvious you didn't fact check and instead listened to/read other people's points, which means you relied on hearsay rather than find out for yourself. To criticize literature without reading it is not just heresy; it's impossible. What you're doing is not criticism; it's making assumptions.

That said, your opinions are not what offends me. I actually do believe that Edward is far too overbearing and Bella is a terrible role model (I even said before that I agreed about Bella). What I didn't say before is that I also think Jacob sounds like a date rapist. But my points were not to say they weren't terrible characters but that your point provided incorrect proof. THAT'S what offends me--that you are providing erroneous information for claims on a topic for which you now admit you have no firsthand knowledge. To censure an author for something she didn't write and you didn't read effectively kills your credibility. That I'm the first to point out the mistakes merely proves that I am the first person who bothered to read your post, notice, and take issue. For all we know, other people read it and dismissed you for your mistakes. If you had made these same arguments with facts, I wouldn't have commented, either. I wouldn't have even finished reading because most of your points are old news.

I'd like to know where I insinuate that Meyer's "relaying truths" because I don't believe ANY creative writer--fiction or nonfiction--is ever a conduit (empty or otherwise) for relaying truths. Truth is not the concern of fiction writers, and it is the plaything of nonfiction writers. I agree that Meyer's choices reflect her values as a writer (which I think are crap), but that doesn't mean they reflect her values as a PERSON. Writers are not their books, and to presume they are even slightly is to reveal ignorance of the craft. As Oscar Wilde said in The Picture of Dorian Gray, "Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors." Of course fiction can be racist or antifeminist, but that doesn't mean that every book someone considers racist or antifeminist actually is. And it doesn't mean that the writer of a work that DOES contain racist, antifeminist things IS racist or antifeminist herself.

Whether artists are accountable for the social ramifications of their work is a complex, long-debated issue that can't be resolved with an easy yes/no answer. If that offends you, fine. Besides, it's less important here than what the social ramifications of Twilight are, and this issue is opinion-based. Just as I don't think Lolita inspired people to become pedophiles or Heather Has Two Mommies inspires lesbianism, I don't think Twilight inspires girls to be like Bella. But I know from my experience teaching and talking to other teachers that Twilight promotes discussion on those topics. A lot of the teens I've taught find the sex in the books, especially Breaking Dawn, highly inappropriate and some of the things the characters do stupid. I've never heard anyone accuse Stephenie Meyer of racism until now, and I still don't see how she has appropriated cultures disrespectfully or perpetuated stereotypes, but since I'm not Native American, I'd be willing to ask a writer who is and has read the series. I'd be willing to concede this point if he or anyone else shows me an example of Meyer overstepping her authorial boundaries and being racist.

I honestly didn't write about what did happen in the books to tell you that your opinions are wrong, so I don't care how you interpret them. Your points are valid, but mine still stands: It's reprehensible to censure a work you haven't read using erroneous information.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: I call shenanigans.
[info]yenniemonster
2009-06-02 09:00 am UTC (link)
Obviously, this was me. I don't know why I wasn't logged in. You probably should reply to this; otherwise, I won't see it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: I call shenanigans.
[info]antarcticlust
2009-06-02 03:25 pm UTC (link)
This is a hasty paraphrase of a comment that LJ ate, so apologies for not proofing it thoroughly:

We are clearly disagreeing on whether I have a fundamental right to criticize this particular work. We are not going to agree. I maintain that I do: I don't need to read Ayn Rand to be critical of Objectivism. I also feel that your nit-picking (which don't actually change any of my arguments, and at times just reinforced them) distracts from the actual content here - the entire point of my "old news" post was to respond to a piece that just came out on NPR.

You repeatedly identify yourself as a writer, and yet you chose not to engage with my actual criticisms. You identify yourself as a critic, but your superficial response about the broader implication of books suggests you haven't thought about this very much. Will Twilight usher in a new generation of weak-minded, racist females? Probably not. But does it participate in that generation's social and cultural values? And does it reflect the author's own values and privileges?

You could have respectfully acknowledged my arguments and then listed whatever facts I got wrong (aside from Jacob actually dating Bella and the queen/king symbolism, I fail to see what gross misrepresentations I committed). But instead, you challenged my right to have an opinion in my own journal because I haven't read the books - and more, because I'm not a fellow writer and critic, which somehow gives you authority. And I did provide antiracist critiques of the book, which you obviously chose to ignore. You focused instead on two or three sentences, which you devoted eight paragraphs to. And then you shifted your argument to say that you didn't actually care, but instead you were insulted on behalf of writerdom that I dared to critique the books without reading them.

It happens, and it happens all the time. I haven't read the books BECAUSE of the critiques I cited, many of which come from personal conversations with people I respect and trust. People use book reviews to make choices about reading all the time, and so we entrust informed, opinionated readers to help us make decisions about what to read and not to read. I frankly have entirely too much to do and to much to read to make time for a series that I find so problematic. I won't enjoy it, and it won't change my opinion at all. And while that won't always be the case, I feel pretty confident that it will be for Twilight.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

To prove I'm not ignoring you, I'm quoting you.
[info]yenniemonster
2009-06-03 11:04 am UTC (link)
But does it participate in that generation's social and cultural values? And does it reflect the author's own values and privileges?
A story DOES NOT always reflect the author's values and privileges. I've written stories in which the narrators engage in rape, animal violence, adultery, and idealizing suicide. On Monday, I had a conversation with 7 other writers about taboos to write about, including fraternal incest and glorifying the 9/11 terrorists. Do those reflect today's social and cultural values? Do I or my fellow writers believe in those things? Not a lick.

(aside from Jacob actually dating Bella and the queen/king symbolism, I fail to see what gross misrepresentations I committed).
You said Edward did things to Bella "for her own good," allowing word choice to insinuate domestic abuse rather than reveal actual context, such as removing the Cullens from Forks so they wouldn't lose it and kill her. And you didn't bother to mention that the friends he prevents her from seeing are months-old werewolves not fully in control of their abilities who are sometimes hostile towards her, that Bella often (at times knowingly) gets herself into deadly situations that put EVERYONE in danger, that Edward not only encourages her to see her HS friends but also sits with them so she doesn't have to divide her time, or that when he realizes that Jacob IS trustworthy they work together so she CAN see him safely. I alluded to this in my first comment, but I did it briefly due to lack of space and my overestimating your knowledge of the material you're ranting about.

I don't need to read Ayn Rand to be critical of Objectivism.
To dislike Objectivism requires nothing. To be critical of it, you must read its philosophies, as written by the founder.

you chose not to engage with my actual criticisms.
you challenged my right to have an opinion in my own journal because I haven't read the books - and more, because I'm not a fellow writer and critic, which somehow gives you authority.
I have not challenged your right to an opinion. I've said since paragraph 2 of my first comment that I agreed with many opinions but your facts are wrong; that's why I didn't focus on your criticisms. What I've challenged is your right to criticize with false/misleading info and no knowledge of the material. You're calling the books racist and anti-feminist because other people say so, and you're justifying it by saying Meyer wrote things that she never did!
I do not have more authority because I'm a critic and writer; I have more authority because I have 1st-hand knowledge. My writing background informs my knowledge that literature does not have to reflect reality or the author. But you're right: You're no critic. No true critic would believe that NOT reading the source material (ie the book) is OK or that "it happens all the time." You can decide not to read it because you HEARD it's bad, but you don't actually KNOW it's bad until you read it. You cannot with authority tell people that it IS bad, only that you HEARD it's bad, but you portray errors as facts as if you KNOW it to people who might believe you have read the books since you first neglected to disclose otherwise.

(Continued in a second comment because this one is too long and I haven't the time to edit down.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: To prove I'm not ignoring you, I'm quoting you.
[info]yenniemonster
2009-06-03 11:05 am UTC (link)
your superficial response about the broader implication of books suggests you haven't thought about this very much.
You said, "But if you try to suggest that authors aren't accountable for the social ramifications of the books..." and I called the accountability issue "a complex, long-debated issue that can't be resolved with an easy yes/no answer"--ie my opinion is too complex for LJ's character limit and can't be answered with a they are/they aren't. Then I wrote of the perceived social ramifications of the books, including proof that I HAVE been thinking about this a lot because I talk about often with peers and the books' target audience. I have been discussing it for YEARS.

And I did provide antiracist critiques of the book, which you obviously chose to ignore.
"Bella dates Jacob Black." I said she did not.
"Is the white king/red pawn book cover of Breaking Dawn a coincidence?" I said this cover's nonexist.
"Is it a coincidence that Bella rejects the sub-human Indian wolf-man for the super-human white vampire?" I said it's destined: Jacob imprints on Bella's daughter, which disproves racism since it "promotes interracial marriage and the hope that feuding factions can come together in harmony."
What critique did I "obviously" ignore as I called your BS?

And then you shifted your argument to say that you didn't actually care, but instead you were insulted on behalf of writerdom that I dared to critique the books without reading them.
I said in my first comment, "It's clear that you either haven't read the books or are 'misremembering' to suit your claims. As a writer, a critic, and a person who believes in intelligent discourse, I find this greatly offensive." My stance is right there. Your claim that I've shifted arguments and ignored you when I've clearly not tells me that you're criticizing ME without reading what I wrote, too. If that's how you argue, what's the point in my replying if you're going to ignore what I write?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: To prove I'm not ignoring you, I'm quoting you.
[info]antarcticlust
2009-06-03 01:17 pm UTC (link)
Okay: We're disagreeing whether I have the right to be critical of Twilight, and, frankly, you've gone from attacking my critiques based on details but have supported the essence, even with your details, so there's really no point in arguing this further. In fact, you're really derailing the discussion about race and gender by continuing to nit-pick the argument when I have already acknowledged that yes, there are some minor details that I got wrong (dating versus friendship, etc.). You could have simply chosen to point those out initially, but instead you responded with an emotional diatribe that does nothing but support my original argument about the series being inappropriate, a fact that you admit to being "old news" that you "don't disagree with." These are a wildly popular series of well-read books - I'm not going on second-hand sources about an esoteric tome, misrepresenting what I read for the sake of argument. So, honestly, I don't care about your objections to my sharing my opinion. I didn't write this piece to be a condemnation of Stephanie Meyer, and it isn't published. It's a response to Brad Meltzer's rather superficial piece for NPR that fails to bring up all of the problematic reasons NOT to read the books. Your emotional (and, franky, rude) initial response has really prevented a lot of actual exchange here, because you're not going to prove anything. I am not going to change how I feel about these books, and I'm not going to write them just to make YOU happy.

I would, however, like to touch upon the things that are actually relevant (i.e., the fact that I disagree with Brad Meltzer that young boys should read Twilight).

I find it really surprising that as a critic, you have such a superficial response to my question about an author participating in and reflecting their cultural values. No, writing about rape does not mean that you support it. But the subtle ways in which we write and represent characters, the fundamental choices we make as authors (which you bizarrely dismiss as "destined") do represent our worldviews, whether we are conscious of that or not. Even your choice to write about rape says something about you. When you write about another peoples' culture, a people that have been marginalized and whose histories have been co-opted and exploited, and you can't even bother to tell about their real stories, but use them as inspiration for your own: that is cultural appropriation. When you portray Indians as werewolves, you are participating in a long-standing tradition of portraying Indians as savages, as animals. Having Jacob "imprint" on an infant who will reach adulthood at age seven is arguably not a very good way to brush that under the carpet. There are deeper meanings within texts beyond the simple and the superficial, and they reveal our participation in narratives of oppression. And the tropes may not be as overt as having the Cullens being members of the KKK, or having Bella be in a battered women's shelter, but they are still tropes.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: To prove I'm not ignoring you, I'm quoting you.
[info]antarcticlust
2009-06-03 01:44 pm UTC (link)
Fundamentally, this post was about disagreeing with Brad Meltzer on whether Twilight was a good series for men to "own." And I didn't make a critique based on the story itself, or the writing, or Stephanie Meyer as a person: all things of which I lack first-hand knowledge. I made the critique based on problematic issues with the text that have been widely discussed-- feminist and racist critiques. With regards to race, I didn't even make accusations, I raised questions based on the responses I have read and heard from others. This isn't a book review, and it isn't a literary criticism. I would never presume to tell people not to read the books because they are poorly written, or the storytelling is bad. There is a fundamental difference between the two. I can choose to react negatively to a text that I know has problems of race, class, or gender stereotyping even if I haven't read the book.

To cite a recent example, Patricia Wrede's The Thirteenth Child has come under fire for being a retelling of colonial North America minus the Indians - Wrede conveniently wrote them out to avoid problematic interactions. This is understandably problematic from the perspective of an already-marginalized people, the victims of genocide. Can I react to that, and say "This is wrong!" without having read the text? Absolutely. I'm not qualified to talk about Wrede's storytelling, or her grammar, or her characters. But, as with Twilight, I don't need to cite page-by-page details to know that there is something fundamentally wrong with the book. And so I stand by my post: based on the problems with the text, which are well-established and well-documented by sources I trust (NPR, well-known feminist bloggers, book reviewers, friends), I push back against Brad Metlzer's call to share the books with the men in my life.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: I call shenanigans.
[info]sasha_feather
2009-06-02 01:11 am UTC (link)
Link as many articles as you want; until you have read and can accurately cite the text, you have no right to criticize.

People can criticize books without having read them. Really! It is within a person's rights.

And, I read the first two books. I agree with [info]antarcticlust's assessment. If Breaking Dawn was really "the worst book" you've ever read, I'm not sure why you're defending this author so passionately?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: I call shenanigans.
[info]yenniemonster
2009-06-02 09:18 am UTC (link)
If you're going to be pedantic about it, yes. But on that note of pedantry, she's not capable of criticizing because she cannot judge a book's merits and faults without reading it to know what they are. She can only make assumptions of what the merits and faults are.

Again, I'm not criticizing her points--just her proof. Well, okay, I did call the racism one laughable, but that was because of her proof.

And I'm defending Stephenie Meyer because I find it offensive that a fellow writer is being criticized for things she didn't actually write. Had Jacquelyn provided facts, I wouldn't care.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: I call shenanigans.
[info]mystickeeper
2009-06-02 10:40 pm UTC (link)
I've read Twilight, and agree with everything that was written in this post, and then some.

I have read critiques of the presentations of race in New Moon; I will do my best to find them, and link to them here.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: I call shenanigans.
[info]antarcticlust
2009-06-02 10:53 pm UTC (link)
Thank you! I wanted to see more but it looks like the one quoted in the one race blog post I linked to (by Alisa Valdez-Rodriguez) is gone. :(

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: I call shenanigans.
[info]yenniemonster
2009-06-03 11:06 am UTC (link)
I'd really appreciate that. Thank you.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: I call shenanigans.
[info]sasha_feather
2009-07-08 02:28 pm UTC (link)
Sorry for the lateness of this reply, but here are some links that [info]mystickeeper and others rounded up about Twilight. I've read some of them but not all:

The (Mis)Use of Jacob Black in the Twilight Series

Quileute Response to Twilight

Ms. Magazine: Taking Back Twilight

Feministing

Feministing again

[info]twilight_ndnz is a community for "discussion of the native characters and culture in Twilight"

meaerhys on Jacob Black

Happy reading!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: I call shenanigans.
[info]antarcticlust
2009-07-08 02:30 pm UTC (link)
Oooh, thank you!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Snarky cartoons!
[info]sasha_feather
2009-06-02 12:54 am UTC (link)
1) http://headtripcomics.comicgenesis.com/d/20080505.html

2) http://headtripcomics.comicgenesis.com/d/20080915.html

I've heard the books compared to crack fic (in the world of fanfic) and agree with the above comment about Stephanie Meyer's Id. ("Yes, Ms. Meyer, we get that you are in love with Edward...")

That said, I did read the first two, and only later did I realize how disturbing they were. Which, well, is disturbing in and of itself. I didn't hate them, but by the end of book 2 I was bored with the story and the characters--they were taking far too long to get to the point, and were formulaic.

Feminist YA for the win, I say! Also, there's another Mormon children's book writer, Shannon Hale, who RULES. Just sayin'.

(Reply to this)


[info]jackshoegazer
2009-06-23 11:39 am UTC (link)

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]antarcticlust
2009-06-23 12:48 pm UTC (link)
Oh, my god - it's so true!

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(32 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…