Monday, July 7, 2008

Call Me A Heretic . . .

I hadn't even heard of the Twilight books until the third one came out. At first I avoided them because I didn't need yet another literary addiction. As I learned more about the series, I started avoiding it because a whiny heroine and teenage sexual tension didn't sound like my cup of tea. However, as more of my friends, acquaintances, and neighbors' third cousins became Stephanie Meyer disciples I became curious in spite of myself. Actually, it was the Twilight movie trailer that finally pushed me over the edge. I just had to know what these stories were about.

So I cheated. I went to Wikipedia and read the plot summaries for all three books. The summaries both satisfied my curiosity and confirmed my suspicions, but they also left me with two burning thoughts.

First, of the three main characters the vampire is the only one who isn't a monster. Edward cares about others more than himself, isn't self-indulgent to the point of endangering himself and those he claims to care about, and both considers and cares that decisions have consequences. By contrast, Jacob's heavy-handed attempts to manipulate Bella make him more monstrous than his transformation to a werewolf ever could, and Bella (in addition to being a head case in the second book) is so recklessly absorbed with her own self-gratification that I don't think I could endure four whole books about her.

Which brings me to my Second thought: Why does someone of Edward's intelligence, character, and sense like a person like Bella in the first place? Is it because she treats him like a man instead of a monster? Or because he finds it fulfilling to constantly save her from the peril she gets herself into? Perhaps it is simply because that's what the Male Lead does in a romance novel: love the Female Lead unconditionally, brave all hazards to protect her, and utter sensitive, well-crafted, romantic lines to make all the female readers swoon.

The whole business reminds me of "An American in Paris," another story where I found most of the characters more annoying than endearing. The Male Lead essentially says, "She's a selfish, unpredictable girl with serious character flaws and little regard for the feelings of others, but by golly, we're MEANT for each other. I'd marry her in a heartbeat." Right. Because that's exactly the type of person you want to spend decades with in the trenches of marriage. And those words could as easily have been uttered by Edward as by Jerry Mulligan.

Perhaps all of this wouldn't bother me so much if it didn't reflect a broader societal assumption that successful relationships have everything to do with attraction and nothing to do with character. While the epidemic of American divorces doesn't stem entirely from that misalignment of priorities, I suspect it's a major factor and many of the stories we tell ourselves in print and on film reinforce it. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good romance as much as the next female, but we've wandered pretty far from Jane Austen whose protagonists loved each other because of good character traits, not despite bad ones.

8 comments:

Jodi Jean said...

ok ... i have read the twilight books and i will read #4 when it comes out next month (already pre-ordered from amazon) ... that being said i disliked the same things you mentioned. bella drove me crazy, jacob was manipulative and edward was beyond overprotective and controlling. and yet i liked them and will probably read them again. i even tell my friends to read them ... don't know what it is, but i enjoy them anyways. i'm currently reading her new book "the host" so far i'm really enjoying it.

Kimberly Bluestocking said...

Sometimes skilled writing makes it easier to tolerate annoying content. I freely admit that if I had read even a few chapters of the actual books, I'd probably be as hooked on them as the next gal.

As it is, I'm sure I'll read the fourth book summary as soon as it hits Wikipedia. Bella and Jacob bother me, but I like Edward and I at least want to know what happens to him.

I guess we all have our quirks. Mine is that even if I know I'll dislike a book or film as a whole, I sometimes read its plot summary online because I'm dying to know how things turn out. Curiosity killed the cat, satisfaction brought it back. :)

Science Teacher Mommy said...

I love you.

I think that the summaries you read missed something from the first book. Edward is initially terrified of Bella because her smell is intoxicating to him. In fact, it almost drives him over the edge to break his "vegetarian" vow. He later determines he would rather just be around this intoxicating smell/person than never be. He is also fascinated by the fact that although he can read the thoughts OF ANY LIVING PERSON, he cannot get inside Bella's head.

So, basically, he loves her because she is mysterious and attractive--both seem able to cover whining, drama, depression, clumsiness and insecurity, which are Bella's other charming character traits.

Science Teacher Mommy said...

Oh, and the other: I think Meyer's general idea is interesting and unique, it is her writing that is bad. In the third book she spends pretty much 500 pages to cover the events in GREAT detail of just three days. Is anybody's life that interesting?

Kimberly Bluestocking said...

For being a bad writer, she sure has a lot of people hooked on her books.

Thank you for clarifying the reasons for Edward's attraction. I figured there had to be more to it than I was getting from the "cliff notes."

I'm actually kind of disappointed that it boils down to "mystery and attraction" - I'd hoped Bella had at least SOME redeeming quality. A mysteriously attractive self-absorbed headcase still doesn't strike me as the type of person I'd die for, let alone marry.

Edward, if you're reading this, you might want to rethink those decisions.

Jodi Jean said...

oh yeah and i agree with STM ... the writing isn't all that great. it's OK ... but she's wordy. i think editing would have done her some good.

that being said, i just finished "the host" today ... VERY interesting idea ... but again, too wordy. but i would probably read it again -- and i would recommend it.

i was discussing it with my brother, i'm not *that* big of a reader, so maybe i'm just easily amused? maybe thats why her books appeal to so many people? just a thought.

next up on my list of books to read, dracula!!

Serena said...

Ok, now I am going to have to go and search this all out. I have had only time to read the scriptures and strengthing the family. Where do guys get all this time to read? Awesome writing Kim.

Kimberly Bluestocking said...

I wish I had more time to read - it's all I can do to keep up with a few favorite blogs.