Now, my reason for posting today is thus: my girlfriend and several members of her family and friends are obsessed with this Twilight series by Stephanie Meyers. I'm generally a sci-fi/fantasy reader and accept love as a strong theme in just about any story. I've never read any true romance novels so I think this will be my first, if you can consider it that.

Now, I'm only two chapters in, having read it aloud with my GF, and she's all giddy, but as I read I just roll my eyes at the overdramatic-ness of the whole thing so far and the annoying and constant mention of how "beautiful" these vampire teens are that the main protagonist, Bella, falls for. Not only that, but Bella is narcissistic already and dumb and boring.

A nother thing I noticed that I thought was a general rule to avoid, but the author starts A LOT of sentences with "But...".

Anyone else have thoughts about the quality of this series?

Ah, here is the article I mentioned.

I've thought about picking it up for my wife who enjoys reading bubblegum books (we got the final installment in the Travelling Pants series last weekend).

I forced myself through the first book on the high recommendations of several people whose opinions I had, previously, respected. I did it. I finished it from cover to cover. Finding a few things I liked, and a plethora that I didn't.

The story sort of rolled forward without much foundation for any kind of real plot. The structure of the story is far better suited for TV than a novel, because it simply continues. With nothing really pulling the reader forward except some pubescent girl's masochistic hormonal obsession with some boy.

That's the full extent of it. Predictable, melodramatic, and, effectively, storyless to the extreme.

But my primary criticism, and I cannot emphasize this enough, is that the book encourages a false understanding of love, and is extremely chauvinistic. Our POV character, the girl Bella, is powerless throughout the entire story. She is led by the collar by this male who, like many men, uses "chivalry" and gentlemanliness as tools to manipulate and control her. Or as the book puts it (I'm told, in a later book) She "orbits around him," her very existence changes to match his when he's around. Everything is his way. And the book toss us back into the era of separate spheres bull**** to boot.

She is portrayed as weak, stupid, and vulnerable. The classical fainting would-be heroine. And of course the male figure is strong, perfect in every way, rich, and oh so charming.

Drivel and nonsense.

I wouldn't mind so much except that so many thousands of young, very impressionable, girls are eating them up obsessively. Girls are not only accepting Mrs. Meyers portrayal of women, they're believing it. The same goes for her portrayal of extreme, sexual infatuation as love.

As to Meyer's depiction of women, while I too dissaproved of Bella's spinelessness, her worship of Edward, and the fact that someone always had to save her, I think that there are worse depictions of women that "so many thousands of young, very impressionable, girls are eating them up obsessively."
The media is pervasive with images and characters that tell girls that they need to be sexually promiscuous, absolutely up to the minute fashionable, and wealthy to be worth anything. THAT is sad.

The realization that Meyers chooses to depict women as frail and dependent in no way lessens the sick and sadistic portrayal of women as sex objects in our society. Nor is the reverse true.

But just because something worse exists doesn't make the lesser problem any kind of solution, or even okay on any level.

If someone slapped me in the face that's certainly not as bad as stabbing me with a knife (or a pineapple), but that doesn't mean it isn't wrong.

Now, I am deeply in the territory of my own opinion here, but Meyers' has legions of young girls, who, because of their age, are very impressionable. And she does communicate to them a false understanding of what love is. And she casts them into the eyes and shoes of a young girl who is weak and powerless. And unhealthfully obsessed. And they pay her to do it. They eat it up. They like it. And so, with them moving forward in their lives holding the assumptions that love is infatuation, and their role in life is revolve around some man, well, they're setting themselves up for heartbreak and, very likely, abuse. (I'm only trying to be realistic here.)

I am a firm believer in the modern, empowered, capable woman. It would be healthy for more such characters to materialize in our fiction and art to help get the idea across.

[This next section is not simply speculation, it's my own observation living in a variety of places along the rocky mountains.]

I will also add that Meyers is LDS and a significant population of her readers is LDS as well, say what you will about the LDS religion, I don't mean to dog on it. But it is known for, culturally, being very conservative and traditional. Many of these young girls are already taught that their primary--and perhaps only--ambition in life should be to get married, have babies, clean the house, and submit themselves to their husbands. "The man is the head of the family," kind of mantra.

So, reading and gobbling up literature that seems to perpetuate these ideas is quite clearly going to have a harmful effect, in my opinion.

Hmmm. Doesn't the fact that Meyer is a national bestselling author, with a seven-figure book deal and a movie coming out sorta run contrary to that statement?

Bah. Doctor. I respectfully disagree.

First off, Bella, in choosing to be with Edward, has to give up having children. I have read all three books and I enjoyed them. Bella is dumb, I totally agree, however never in the novel is it argued that she should submit to her husband.

Second off, who says that getting married and having children is a bad thing and teaching young girls that is bad.

Thirdly, I am a raised LDS woman, and I was never taught that woman shouldn't have a voice, or that my only ambition in life is to submit myself to my husband.

And lastly, if you feel that LDS authors are harming their readers, maybe you should check OSC's bio.

Jayson Merryfield

So let me clarify.

The LDS culture encourages men to be the breadwinner and the final say. That is not up for dispute. Whether it's doctrine of the church or a byproduct of something else, this really is a clear observation made not only by me but several others. I happen to not agree with it.

From that point I made the suggestion that, perhaps, young women raised to think such things, might not think twice when they're reading about a character who literally (even in the own words of the author herself) orbits around some guy. He always gets his way. He always saves her, and takes care of her, she is completely, by the end of it, dependent on him.

In a culture that values the dependence of women on men, this can only reinforce those ideas.

My suggestion was, and is, that these young girls would probably have better balance if they were being exposed to the other side of the picture. That women, in fact, can be just as capable as men in probably any field. That a woman could have the final say. Or be expected to come up with the best idea, just as easily and as often as a man.

There is nothing heroic about Bella whatsoever, she lacks power to act within her own story. She is weak, stupid, infatuated, and hopelessly dependent on some boy. He is her whole life and everything she values in it. More than herself, more than her family, even more than her own existence; college, etc. He is her everything and what they share is not love by any means.

And then we have young girls who are predisposed to be vulnerable to these ideas reading and gobbling up these books without a second thought to challenge them, slipping nicely into the their "role." It's not healthy. That is obvious to me.

Sorry to sidetrack you all with the "raising babies" comment which, admittedly, may have been more distracting than anything. Since it had everyone so up in arms that nobody here seemed to try to chase after what I meant, or why I said it.

Which brings us to an interesting topic. What social responsibilities do writers have if any? IS someone willing to publish what you write enough to justify the writing of it?

Now to address a few people who addressed me directly.

Jamie Ford, "Hmmm. Doesn't the fact that Meyer is a national bestselling author, with a seven-figure book deal and a movie coming out sorta run contrary to that statement?"

Frankly, no. I think what I meant by that statement and what you took from it have diverged. I meant that her audience, regardless of her own background and beliefs, happen to be significantly if not mostly young LDS girls. A lot of young LDS girls are raised to believe such things as I listed. These girls are going to identify with Bella, and not Meyers, and they will model themselves after Bella, who worships this Edward, far more than they will after Meyers. And incidentally, according to what I have read from her own site, Meyers only published her story based on the peer pressure of her sister and had never intended/felt-the-ambition to become a writer before. And her life up to that point nicely fir the mold I described before. So, frankly, to answer your question, no.

Jayson,

You yourself admitted you have not read any of the books. So... I feel like you're here to argue for the sake of arguing. And I feel like it might be most appropriate for you to dismiss yourself from this part of our dialog.

shimiqua,

I understand your view. And I really didn't mean to rag on you or your culture, and I admit that I have thrown a lot of people all into the same bag. But I also know that I have had a lot of experience with some very LDS communities, in cities that have been almost completely LDS, certainly a majority of people. I have worked with the young people, I have attended various events and lectures, and I am absolutely confident that at least in some places along the rocky mountains, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, and Colorado, these teachings do exist. I've heard them a thousand times. And I have seen them with my own eyes. Probably the extent is much smaller elsewhere in the country and world. But form my limited exposure the trend is absolute. And that was all I'm pointing out, is for these specific cases.

WritingAnne, "As far as the comment about LDS women being taught by Bella's character to just get married and have babies"

That isn't what I said, and it certainly isn't what I meant. See above.

I don't believe my comment directed at you was commenting onTwilight, but on your post. Having read that, I believe I am entitled to comment.

Of course, if you wish, I'll play along and bow out. I'm sure those you have deigned worthy to talk to will fill in admirably.

Actually, what you said was: "her audience, regardless of her own background and beliefs, happen to be significantly if not MOSTLY young LDS girls".

Your words, not mine.

Which is that I think it's unhealthy in general, and towards those readers who happen to be young LDS girls in particular. Whether it's 5% or 50% that is irrelevant, in this case any number >0% is significant.

But to continue your point, Jamie, I think that's an interesting idea to explore.

Suppose the readers were more interested in modeling themselves after Meyers and not Bella, what then. Does Meyers obvious success destroy the point I made above? I'm not so sure that it does.

For, how I see it, success and ambition are not the exact same thing. I believe there's a positive correlation, where there is more of one there usually more of the other as well. But there are instances where this is not the case.

For example some people are born so beautiful, and so talented, and into situations that force opportunities onto them, ones they might have otherwise considered chasing after, that they cannot help but be successful.

While others have the game of life sickeningly stacked against them. I don't know how many poor kids in the urban ghetto, who spend hours playing streetball with their friends, trying to escape the reality that their dad's in jail, their mom's a junkie, and they're going to lose their apartment. So far away from opportunity, and so hidden. But perhaps in these circumstances, where nobody could find them, some of the greatest basketball talents were born and passed away. Probably someone more talented than Michael Jordan went undiscovered, and nobody knew about it.

I'm not sure that I'm still on the subject anymore, I might have drifted too far off. But I guess my point is that just because Meyers has found her way into success, it doesn't necessarily mean it was because of serious ambition, a flare for independence, or even that she had to struggle very hard to get there.

She woke up one night after having a vivid dream. And with a stroke of genius, not wanting to lose that moment of inspiration, she told her story, fast as she could type. And only a few months later she was a bestseller.

She happened to think of an idea that was fresh enough, and appealing enough, to sell, and find an agent and publisher who could recognize that. I don't want to steal anything away from that, she is owed respect for it. She thought of it, she did it. But I still feel like there is a lot of luck working on her behalf, at least, a lot more so than lifelong ambition.

Let me add to my original statement, my GF is raised and technically LDS, still young but not really fully practicing. She and all her full on LDS friends are super-in love with this series and I'm kinda glad someone else brought up the whole religious aspect of these books. I'm glad someone also mentioned that it was a harmless shallow series and also one that was was quite terrible and should probably depict girls in those teenage years better than they do.

I'll continue to read the story, because as a writer, like all of us here, it is sometimes condusive to read the bad and the good so that you know what to avoid in your own writing and how to improve upon a winning formula and audience-grabbing series.

Thanks for such a fun thread, I had no idea it would garner such a response.

Even if the LDS girls that are raised with the ideas you suggest (and I'm not saying they're not) read Twilight, I still don't see how that can really and truly indocrtinate anyone with the "assumptions that love is infatuation, and their role in life is revolve around some man" thereby "setting themselves up for heartbreak and, very likely, abuse."

While I definitely acknowledge the power a novel can have, perhaps I have more confidence in the youth of America. A girl who is reading a book for pleasure has to have at least some shred of intelligence. She can surely seperate fiction from reality. Don't you think? Meyer's writing is not so subtle as to have any real mind altering power. It's just a fun read.

Also, to somewhat take you up on the discussion of the social responsibility of a writer, I think that one has be very careful as to what that might mean. Does it mean that we should restrict ourselves to portray characters that exude only of the approved social values? Who picks those values?

Bella is flawed. Her flaws are unattractive, flaws that I personally dissaprove of, but I think Meyer is entitled to portray her that way. And, in the end, I don't think that it makes much of a difference. I would wager that most girls who read Twilight can see those flaws, and while they may still be gaga for the book, that doesn't mean they've said "I love Twilight, I am going to be EXACTLY like Bella." And even if a small number do make that determination, it won't last long. I was a teenage girl once. They change their personas like the wind. When the next big fad hits, they'll reinvent themselves all over again.

You would be very surprised how many girls I've met and gotten to know over the many years who would freely admit to me that they expected to never finish college, get married, rely on their husband for support, and simply raise his children. That is a very dependent mentality. And while, if someone objectively chooses this path I suppose that is all right, but the key problem here, as I see it, are the many sunday school sessions and seminary classes taught by "regular folks" who love to perpetuate the myth that the woman's role is "in the home," and that she isn't fulfilling her god-given duties should her ambitions lead her elsewhere. This really bothers me, and it always has.

Bella is a character who fits this mold. She wants to drop her family, her career opportunities, her college education, everything she should hold dear, drop it all on a whim to be with this idiot Edward who stalks her, spies on her, and manipulates her. All for what? Because he happens to be good looking and rich, and because he happens to resist the urge to eat her? It's all very much like a rape analogy.

What bothers me, wrenbird, is seeing these girls attending seminary classes that indoctrinate them to depend on men, and then they read these books, and I see them walking around with "I'm saving myself for Edward" shirts...

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0316015849/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_5?%5Fencoding=UTF8&filterBy=addFiveStar

"Devoted Admirer" ... ha! If someone (without your knowledge and permission) was forcing entry into your house every night to watch you sleep, is that what you'd call him?

"Yeah, Sarge, we have another case of breaking and entering at 131 Winston Drive," the dispatcher said.

"Don't worry about it," Wiggim said. "I'm sure it's just another devoted admirer."

I see your point, but I simply cannot empathize with the alternate view. If he existed in real life he'd be a creepy bastard and he should have a restraining order slapped on his ass.

Jamie,
Pax?

Here's something you all might want to check out if you're going to be throwing links at me.

quote:

---

"Don't worry about it," Wiggim said. "I'm sure it's just another devoted admirer."

---

lol touche

Here's the thing though, Bella wants him there. How can he be a stalker if she wants him there? To my recollection, she asks him, repeatedly, to stay. (Granted, it's been a while since I read them.)
You see, and I know I am treading into a tricky territory here, but I think many girls fantasize about a guy being so smitten with her that he did what some would equate with mild stalking PROVIDED that she was smitted with him as well. That is a huge caveat, she has to really like him as well. Obviously, many a sick man has twisted this. And that is why, I think a guy shouldn't act that way.
BUT, in a perfectly safe world, such as a novel, it can be romantic. To imagine that a guy would love you that much, it's flattering. Think about My Fair Lady.
"Just to be on the street where you live."
The love song, sung by that guy, Freddie, who stands outside Eliza's house. I am willing to guess that a majority of women think that's romantic. But, you could very easily say "creepy, he's a stalker."

(And Doctor is right, I'm going to move this to the correct discussion area, but I certainly don't consider my doing so to be "yapping" at anyone.)

I suspect that part of Edward's appeal to young girls is that his love is strong enough to keep him from "eating" Bella.

I know there are those who are appalled by this idea, because it works as a metaphor for trusting a guy in a hormone-charged situation to keep from "losing control" and "going too far," and because it seems to encourage said young girls to not worry about letting themselves get into such situations because they just know that their boyfriends really love them and "wouldn't do that" to them.

I agree with the Doctor but feel I must add something. The same as with video games, I do not believe that these books will automatically turn girls into obsessive, hormone driven girlfriends of creepy boys. If they already have that tendency, will it further their incorrect beliefs? Most likely. But if you can't see that Bella's behavior is destructive and unhealthy, then there is something wrong with you already. I hope that the end result is that Bella grows up a bit and that true love is what evolves. But even if it doesn't happen, I feel that it would be the parents responsiblity to know and understand what their child is reading and then take the time to discuss what is right and what is wrong with them.

The sad part is that there are parents who will not do this, so some girls will continue on in their belief that Bella and Edward represent what they should expect in a relationship, which would be very sad. Its situational. I grew up playing hyper violent video games. Still do, yet I am not a violent person, but I have seen children develop their already violent tendencies through them. All a matter of situation.

I agree with a lot of what is being said, but I do believe that these books should be judged within the context of the genre. They are first and foremost, romance novels. If you read any romance novels they all have the same formula. They are written in the Disney Snow White Princess fairy tale formula; helpless female saved by her prince. Now, within this genre, the Twilight books aren't too bad. They get kids to read. These books inspired my daughter to write her own vampire novel, albeit not as romantic as the Twilight series. In addition, instead of projectinga fantasy onto some jerky adolescent boy, she's put off real boys for fictional characters, and this only serves to stimulate her writing. We have many many discussions about boys and appropriate relationships, and I know she will make the right choices, and not fall into the obsession trap, as I see so many of her friends do who are not Stephenie Meyer fans. I do believe that these books are no less harmful than the Disney movies or all the romance novels that are out there in the world. If you communicate with your child, and your child has a brain, I think she can discern between reality and fiction.