Went to Barnes & Noble yesterday...

[Steerpike]

Devor, you are assuming 1) that the readers are idiots; and 2) that the relationship is meant to be emulated. It's a bizarre criticism of literature, in my view. If you were to go through the body of human literature and discount and/or express for contempt for any that featured dysfunctional relationships, you'd have a huge stack of books piled up in your yard, many of them quite good. It's a self-serving and selective criticism that holds no weight unless you are going to take an absolute view of such things in literature.

 

[Devor]

Devor, you are assuming 1) that the readers are idiots; and 2) that the relationship is meant to be emulated.

I didn't say emulated; I said idolized. Nor am I assuming. There's plenty of reason to think that young tweens are dreaming about these kinds of relationships, and if disapproval of that attitude comes across as sweeping disapproval of the books, I don't object.

Nor did I say that featuring a dysfunctional relationship would be enough to warrant contempt since I'm clearly focused on reader reaction, nor did I say that contempt was the only valid response or even my response to the books.

I only said that people who show contempt of the books because they invoke the sense of young women dreaming about dating vampires are perfectly valid in their response.

 

[Steerpike]

I disagree, however. In fact, in many cases I don't even think it is a legitimate belief on their own part; it is merely a convenient argument to throw out there.

What did you read when you were young? I was in 8th grade when we read Hamlet. East of Eden at 14 (my daughter read that one in high school as well). Catcher in the Rye. Girls that age read Wuthering Heights.

"Yeah, but it's different with Twilight. Girls are going to think Bella shows them how they should be in real life!"

Go back to my point about them not being idiots. Teenager girls reading Twilight aren't stupid. So, if a girl in real life gets a vampire boyfriend and an imprinted werewolf, she might think Bella and Edward are OK?

"No, she'll extrapolate that relationship to her own with real boys!"

Really? Based on what evidence? Show me the pandemic of fledgling Bella Swan's in the wake of millions of copies of Twilight sold. Again, these readers aren't idiots. They can read To Kill a Mockingbird and understand the adult issues around racism; they can read Saving Zoe and handle the very adult issues of drugs, sexuality, predators, and murder; and they can certainly read Twilight and handle a fictitious relationship between two characters, one of whom is a creature out of mythology and not even a person.

This reminds me of people coming out against the old Bugs Bunny cartoons, or the people who came out to protest Harry Potter.

"Oh, no, our kids are going to learn to drop anvils on each other (or something) and that hitting is OK!"

"Oh, no, our kids are going to be tempted into witchcraft and spell casting!"

Dude.

No. They. Aren't.

 

[Devor]

"No, she'll extrapolate that relationship to her own with real boys!"

Really? Based on what evidence? Show me the pandemic of fledgling Bella Swan's in the wake of millions of copies of Twilight sold.

Please, I'd be happy to continue this, but only if you don't put words in my mouth. There is, again, a tremendous difference between idolize and emulate, not the least of which is that I've only claimed one of the two to be occurring.

 

[Steerpike]

Those quotes aren't meant to refer to you specifically, Devor. Sorry for the confusion.

They're the exclamations of a mythical, yet nevertheless hysterical populace making a last ditch effort to prevent the total and complete moral destruction of their young by Stephanie Meyer (or JK Rowling, or Looney Tunes)

But if you want to address the other points...

 

[Devor]

Again, these readers aren't idiots. They can read To Kill a Mockingbird and understand the adult issues around racism; they can read Saving Zoe and handle the very adult issues of drugs, sexuality, predators, and murder; and they can certainly read Twilight and handle a fictitious relationship between two characters, one of whom is a creature out of mythology and not even a person.

I tutored part time in classrooms at a school in Queens and actually talked to people about Twilight, mostly students who were getting Bs and Cs in class. I'd say I spoke to about six or seven people about the book, some at greater length than others. Most of them had healthy reactions, by and large, but some of them would get a little dreamy-eyed about it, and several of them made comparisons to their own relationships (or, more so to the relationships of people they know). The Twilight dream is there for some people, and if some people don't have a wide view of what relationships can look like, I don't think that dream is healthy.

In fact, in many cases I don't even think it is a legitimate belief on their own part; it is merely a convenient argument to throw out there.

Where's your evidence for that?

It's there. People view Twilight like this:

Bella has no personality and dreams about giving over her life to vampires; hrumph. Does the book have any other redeeming features? No, hrumph. It's immensely popular; hrumph. A bunch of young girls must be at home dreaming about vampires. Hrumph.

All I'm really saying is, I don't think people who view the book that way are wrong to do so, not in the same way that people who over-react to Harry Potter are wrong. Harry Potter has a lot of redeeming literary elements, and nobody would reasonably walk away dreaming about their unhealthy relationships. Nobody reads GRRM dreaming to be Sansa, abused by the king, or Jaimie Lannister, pushing children out of windows - in fact that's partly the point of the book, insomuch as there is one. But people reading Twilight are dreaming a little bit about being stalked and killed by vampires. If people want to call it a sad testament to our tastes, I think that's fair game - if anything is.

 

[Devor]

To some extent I should probably take all this back, though - there's plenty of people for whom reading Twilight is just fine, even great, and I normally don't like when people come to a fantasy website and make sweeping condescending criticisms of a large portion of the genre. And I don't personally have any strong feelings about the book. So I probably shouldn't have said anything.

 

[Steerpike]

Devor, I wouldn't make broad statements (or condemning ones) based on how "some" people react to something. The same statements can be (and have been) made about any of a variety of artistic endeavors, from rock and roll music running to gamut of subgenres, video games, movies and television, paintings, to Dungeons and Dragons, MMOs/social gaming, and a vast swath of literature across the span of its history.

Twilight is by no mean unique in this regard; not even close in fact. And yet somehow I find that those who want to bring up this point about Twilight are quite reluctant to follow the same line of thinking in those other areas (or even when it comes to other books). I really can't view it as any sort of thought-out or even consistent argument unless the people making it really are being consistent and want to pursue that viewpoint widely across all of the above (and more).

I don't doubt you can find a subset of the readership who reacts poorly to Twilight. The same can be said of virtually anything. I suspect there exists a very small number of kids who, having read Potter, thought it might be cool to get into the Occult. Given the sheer numbers who have read the work, I'd say it is statistically likely.

I submit, however, that if those kids exist, they had something going on before Potter; and if there are kids who read Twilight as a how-it-should-be guide to relationships, they've got something else going on as well. A generalized, and very broad, criticism of the book on those grounds is not at all warranted.

As for the line of reasoning you say some people have:

"Bella has no personality and dreams about giving over her life to vampires; hrumph. Does the book have any other redeeming features? No, hrumph. It's immensely popular; hrumph. A bunch of young girls must be at home dreaming about vampires. Hrumph."

I suspect you are right that this is in fact the reasoning of some. It is a perfectly fatuous line of "reasoning" (to use the charitable term), and I do think the people who reason in that manner are wrong not to apply a more thoughtful approach to the issue

 

[Steerpike]

To some extent I should probably take all this back, though - there's plenty of people for whom reading Twilight is just fine, even great, and I normally don't like when people come to a fantasy website and make sweeping condescending criticisms of a large portion of the genre. And I don't personally have any strong feelings about the book. So I probably shouldn't have said anything.

Doh!

Yeah, I heard you, and I agree. I don't think it is right to cast aspersions on an entire genre, or even an entire work, based on the misguided reactions of a small minority.

 

[Devor]

I don't doubt you can find a subset of the readership who reacts poorly to Twilight. The same can be said of virtually anything. I suspect there exists a very small number of kids who, having read Potter, thought it might be cool to get into the Occult. Given the sheer numbers who have read the work, I'd say it is statistically likely.

I just want to make it clear why Twilight is different, and then I'll be done.

With Twilight, it seems like it's almost the intended or natural reaction to reading the book and the cause for its success. You get firmly into the head of a girl dreaming about unhealthy relationships with vampires. It's not an accidental or unexpected reaction. That's what the book is supposed to be.

That isn't the case with most other works. It's not the case with Harry Potter, for instance - Harry reacts to the events in his life in a relatively normal and healthy manner. It's not the case with GRRM, for instance - Tyrion is messed up, but you know when he's messed up, he's supposed to be messed up. The intended reader reaction is a normal one. With Twilight, the main character has almost no personality, so you can put yourself into her head and join in on the dream.

That's the difference.

 

[Steerpike]

I don't think Twilight is the only book like that. I also don't find that to be a problem; if the reader can easily engage with the character because they are able to project themselves into that role, so what? That doesn't mean this is how you are supposed to live in real life. Getting back to my D&D, RPG, and MMO analogy, is this exactly what people do in those games? Kids play those games at very young ages. In D&D I can project myself into the role of a noble warrior, or an amoral thief only out for herself. When you "role play" you inherently do that to some degree. I do not believe that teens reading Twilight are any less able to distinguish the two than I was able to separate myself from my dungeons and dragons character when I was 13.

 

[Devor]

When you "role play" you inherently do that to some degree. I do not believe that teens reading Twilight are any less able to distinguish the two than I was able to separate myself from my dungeons and dragons character when I was 13.

Well, D&D doesn't give you a particular weird relationship to roleplay, nor does it present a particular lens with which to view that experience. Nor is my position that Twilight is bad just because you can get into the character's head. My position is that the particular head you get into in Twilight idolizes some unhealthy relationships, and that the book is written in a way which naturally brings readers - at least while they're reading - into idolizing them with her. That's the experience of reading the book.

A better comparison might be, let's say, if there's a book about a boy, dreaming about drug use, being lured into the lifestyle by the cool kids, who remain cool and "dream-worthy" throughout the entire book, while in the end the boy sits happy and high on cocaine. I don't doubt it might be a good book for some people to read - but the natural experience of reading the book would clearly be "drugs are cool." The natural experience of reading Twilight is clearly "getting stalked by vampires is hott." That's why it's different.

 

[Steerpike]

The natural experience of reading Twilight is clearly "getting stalked by vampires is hott." That's why it's different.

I hear what you're saying here, but I think the analogy stretches things a bit, and I can't say I agree with the characterization I quoted above. Let me ask you this, out of curiosity, have you read Twilight?

 

[Devor]

I hear what you're saying here, but I think the analogy stretches things a bit, and I can't say I agree with the characterization I quoted above. Let me ask you this, out of curiosity, have you read Twilight?

No, and that's part of why I wanted to take it all back a few posts ago. But it's definitely the impression I get from people who have. The "hott" remark is actually a close paraphrase to one of the student's reactions. I asked her "What did you think of that?" and she said it was "hott."

I only kept posting because I wanted to be very clear about what I saw as the difference between Twilight and other works, and to be clear about why the logic doesn't apply to Harry Potter or D&D. We seem to be there now. I don't even want to push it further.

 

[Steerpike]

I think it does apply to video games, though, and there are some very dark and violent ones out there. In that instance, you are even more of an active participant, not just riding along inside a character. There are those who complain about video games too, of course, but I don't hear that coming out of the same quarter as the Twilight complaints.

To be honest, I think what you've heard about Twilight may have been overblown to some extent. I mean, a lot of this is pretty firmly entrenched in vampire romance literature. Look at the Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV series, for example (which I do in fact like). Angel stalks Buffy around, particularly early on because he wants to protect her, he watches her in her room while she is sleeping. He is quite the mysterious, stalker kind of guy early on, and maintains some of those 'stalker' aspects later. But at the same time it is clear that he wouldn't hurt Buffy, just like it is clear Edward has no evil intentions toward Bella. The difference between the two female characters is that Buffy is not passive; as far as the vampire stalky-thing goes, there are parallels.

I think it is much ado about nothing. To be honest, my personal opinion (anecdotally-formed) is that most of the Twilight hate follows the following pattern of reasoning:

1. Twilight is popular
2. I hate popular things (e.g. hipster)
3. Ergo, I hate Twilight
4. Look hard for made-up rationales to hate it so everyone doesn't realize I'm just a hipster.

You're right that we'll probably end up repeating ourselves before long, but I did want to get the last bit in about video games and Buffy

Also, another criticism I hear of Twilight is that Edward is so much older than teenage Bella. Again, Angel v. Buffy, or just about any other vampire romance.

 

[Caged Maiden]

I just want to interject something here. Many young people are troubled, moreso in this current generation than in mine or that of my parents.

When I was younger, we played Vampire the Masquerade a lot, I mean, we were IMMERSED in vampire culture, and spent MANY hours debating how we could do things as a vampire, what powers we would have, how we could rule the world, etc. etc. I spent many many hours on dungeon crawls in restaurants and LARPing at the local college. But there was never anything in our group I would call unhealthy (unless you consider the associations and relationships which resulted from a hundred young people getting together twice a week; a fair amount of pot-smoking, a few unplanned pregnancies, some horrible rumor-mongering, and one funny-at-the-time STD outbreak). But for most of us, it was just good clean fun, and the people who ended up with issues were already on the wrong path in life before the game ever influenced them.

The problem is, some young people are more impressionable than others, and let's be serious, some teens really have issues. But for most young adults/ teens, reality exists and they can part from it and come back.

There was an issue with some kids in Florida, I think, that killed some girl and drank her blood. When it came out that they also played the game, it got a bad rap. So people went mad, up in arms about what the game represented, and I don't know what ever became of it, but to think a game was responsible for that girl's death would be entirely insane. Couldn't it be just as likely that a deranged rogue group of nutters acted on their fantasies, fueled by nothing more than their own twisted thoughts?

I know it isn't exactly in line with what you two are debating, but I think there are people out there who are easily influenced and LOOKING for a way to go nuts. Writers cannot and should not be held responsible for their actions.

On the flip side, when you introduce ideas into your work and romanticize deranged or dangerous thinking, you need to do so responsibly. I'm not sure what is portrayed in Twilight because I've never read it, but if a romanticized view of say rape or drug use was written in a book, I would call that dangerous in some kids' hands, and would very carefully talk with my kids about it. There is no reason why art itself should affect a person's knowing what is right and what is wrong.

 

[Steerpike]

I'm not sure what is portrayed in Twilight because I've never read it, but if a romanticized view of say rape or drug use was written in a book, I would call that dangerous in some kids' hands, and would very carefully talk with my kids about it.

Nothing like that at all. The criticisms of Twilight along the "bad message" angle have been overblown to say the least. They seem mostly like afterthoughts, to me. I read it before my daughter, when she was 13 and excited and wanted to read it and be able to talk to me about it. There was nothing worrying in it as far as I'm concerned. As my daughter was reading it, she looked at me at one point and said "man, Bella is an idiot." But she loved the books, and I'm glad she did. She's read other works since then.

I agree that writers cannot and should not try to make their work safe for the most impressionable or troubled.

 

[Caged Maiden]

Well that's just the thing. With troubled young people the problem is mostly that often they are left to their own devices. I wouldn't object to reading something completely amoral, but for an impressionable young mind, it might be dangerous. Many kids are caught between reality and fantasy as it is.

 

[Devor]

To be honest, I think what you've heard about Twilight may have been overblown to some extent.

You may be right, but I'm not basing this just on hearsay. I'm also basing it on the reactions I've observed young women make to the book.

A few quick things, and this'll be my last post about it.

First, does anything in my characterization of Twilight apply to Buffy? She's a far stronger character, her relationships are far more dynamic, she has very vocal and strong friends who help to reframe the lens through which that relationship is viewed, and the viewer has a lot more flexibility to react to her relationship with Angel appropriately. Not to mention, she dumps him, and kills him, and can beat the crap out of him. She also yells at him when he does things like stalk her. Bella, meanwhile.... has no personality and gives her whole life over to him?

I think you're putting too much emphasis on "vampire" when I'm trying to talk about idolizing unhealthy relationships. You don't get an "idolizing" tone out of Buffy the way you do out of Twilight.

The issue is jumping firmly into the head of a character to idolize a negative experience. There is an similarity, in that regard, with video games - say, Grand Theft Auto or the more recent Mortal Combat, where you might idolize violence. And I again sympathize with the angst about those games. But there's also as many differences as similarities. For instance, playing a video game is as likely to satisfy a violent urge as it is to feed it. There's also a difference in scale - you wouldn't typically be tempted to go out and disembowel someone, but a negative relationship is somewhat more personal and private and subtly closer to something that might relate to your life.

Lastly . . . has anything I said remotely come across as Hipster? I'm not everyone else.

As my daughter was reading it, she looked at me at one point and said "man, Bella is an idiot."

That's not how most of the book's genuine fans view her.

 

[Philip Overby]

Well, I went to sleep and this topic started rolling.

I think there is a tendency, especially among writers, to sort of "hate" something that is popular, mostly because they haven't written something as popular (I'm not referring to anyone specificially). I think that's what Steerpike is referring to in general--people hating something just because it's popular. It's not just Twilight that suffers from this. Tons and tons of books are out there that "can't please everyone." If Twilight pleases millions of people, better for it. I don't think anyone is trying to get their doctorate by writing a dissertation on Twilight. Stephanie Meyer's success can be paralleled to the music industry when someone like Lady Gaga comes along. There is an audience out there looking for something, but no one is really capturing what it is.

I've said time and time again if you can capture what 10-15 year old girls like you can become a multi-billionaire. You may even hit other demographics along the way.