Dear Twilight Haters: Criticism, You're Doing It Wrong

It was to be expected that there'd be a certain amount of criticism directed toward the Twilight series after the movie was released. There was, after all, a considerable amount of criticism of each of the books as these were released, criticism that was largely directed toward the purportedly anti- or un-feminist sensibilities of the series. Bella is a passive character, the argument goes: Bella sacrifices too much for love; Bella sublimates herself to Edward; Bella doesn't kick ass and take names like Buffy did; Bella washes too many dishes for her dad; Bella wears too much fleece, etc, etc.

Whatever. The quote-unquote feminist arguments against the Twilight series are specious at best, in my opinion (I mean, for example: Bella passive? Bella risks her own life on numerous occasions to save people. Bella saves EVERYBODY at the end. And she's not even a Slayer. *rolls eyes*), but nonetheless frustrating. I actually wrote a whole post earlier this week, ranting about how being cynical about love is the new black and how stupid it is - yeah, I called it stupid - to call out romantic love as de facto disempowering, even when the love at stake (heh) is love between a clumsy human girl and a powerful vampire, especially seeing as that clumsy human girl basically makes that vampire her bitch and makes him do whatever she wants.

But then I realized that long lectures on the place of romantic love in the history of feminist discourse and consideration of same against current critiques of Twilight were maybe not so interesting to a community of readers who are probably just looking for something lite to read while they scarf down their afternoon Snickers bar, and so I shelved it.

Then I read this (warning - some spoilers follow):

Is the Twilight series pushing its own kind of morality along with its love story? I think so — and it is an element that parents and teachers need to be aware is in the books. The narrative suggests that it is better to submit and sublimate yourself to a superior being than to be your own person. Having a will of one's own is not conducive to Meyer's brand of love and living. Only heterosexual relationships are explored, and (married!) sex is always a power play with painful consequences. Plus it is preferable to be a teenage mother above all else, even if it kills you. (io9.com)

Let's break this down:

1) The narrative suggests that it is better to submit and sublimate yourself to a superior being than to be your own person.

This canard is getting old. How is Bella not her own person, exactly? She falls in love and fights - fights hard - to carve a space in this world for that love. She fights Edward - who worries about her life and her future and her breakability - in her pursuit of this love. And she gets what she wants, against all of Edward's initial preferences. She joins Edward's world, sure - but doesn't that happen for many of us when we align our lives with someone else's? We follow partners as their lives take different directions, and they follow us. Since when is sacrifice in the name of love an incontrovertibly bad thing? If Bella left her family and gave up her college plans (which she wasn't keen on to begin with) to go do community work in sub-Saharan Africa, would we be all oh, she's just sublimating herself to community work? Why does love necessarily mean sublimation? SERIOUSLY.

And this 'superior being' bullshit? It's bullshit, for two reasons: one, as I suggested above, Edward is not a superior being. He's an angst-ridden, self-flagellating monster-boy. I think that part of the force of Meyer's narrative lays in the fact that Edward's beauty and strength conceal vast reserves of self-doubt and - in some moments - self-loathing. He's a monster, and he hates that he's a monster. It's Bella who brings to full flower his determination to fully overcome his animal side; it is Bella who overrides his tendency to self-doubt. Who's the superior being? 

Two: as I argued here, the idea that a remarkably 'good' character is a troubling romantic partner is, well, troubling. Why shouldn't we (or our children) aspire to love really good people, people who would love us as well as Edward loves Bella?

2) Having a will of one's own is not conducive to Meyer's brand of love and living.

Huh? See above. 

3) Only heterosexual relationships are explored, and (married!) sex is always a power play with painful consequences.

Right. Because all novels should explore homosexual relationships, just because. They should also take care to ensure that characters represent a range of ethnic and class backgrounds and abilities. Writers should be encouraged to include seeing and hearing-impaired characters, and also characters in wheelchairs. Down with heterosexist, ableist, racist, classist storytelling!

(Wait. The Twilight series does have characters from a range of backgrounds! And a character in a wheelchair! And depending upon how you read those two Romanian vampires who appear in Breaking Dawn, there's a case to be made that homosexual relationships are not ignored. Stephenie Meyer did take Political Correctness In Novel Writing 101! Take that, Tolstoy, you racist, ableist, heterosexist bastard!)

Also, someone's been reading a bit too much Catherine Mackinnon. That whole 'all sex is rape/all sex is violence' line is so last millenium. Sex is dangerous for Edward and Bella because Edward is - wait for it - a vampire. That there's a risk of him eating Bella during the act doesn't speak so much to a power play as it does to, you know, his diet. And Bella's the aggressor, remember? If anyone is pulling power moves v.v. sex in their relationship, it's Bella.

4) It is preferable to be a teenage mother above all else, even if it kills you.

This is the one that I find most baffling and infuriating.  It reduces Bella's desire to protect her unborn child to a desire to be a teenage mother. That's just stupid. Bella didn't set out to get pregnant; she didn't pursue teenage motherhood. She got pregnant and decided to keep the baby. Oh, hey, maybe you've seen Juno? She preferred teenage motherhood above all else, too!

The writer argues that because Bella refuses an abortion, the book is "a virtual pro-life P.S.A." and that Meyer is forcing 'anti-abortion hysterics" upon her readers:

The too-predictable plotline would be bad enough without statements like this from Bella: "This child, Edward's child, was a whole different story. I wanted him like I wanted air to breathe. Not a choice — a necessity." Never mind that Bella, 18, had never wanted children and had been arguing with her husband about going to college, which he summarily dismissed.

(Ed. note: that last parenthetical statement is just wrong. Edward does everything in his power to convince Bella to go to college. She's the one who resists.)

But then bad Edward wants to give Bella an abortion because he knows their half-vampire/human baby will kill her! "He leaned away and looked me in the eye. 'We're going to get that thing out before it can hurt any part of you. Don't be scared. I won't let it hurt you.' 'That thing?' I gasped...Edward had just called my little nudger a thing. He said Carlisle would get it out. "No," I whispered." You see, Bella often refers to her unborn child as "her little nudger," since it grows inside her at an unnatural rate. Yes, she does.

Apparently, it is just the most insidious and troubling thing EVER that Bella becomes attached to her unborn child. Because, you know, that never happens! ALL accidental pregnancies are supposed to end in abortion, because if you were ambivalent about becoming a mother before you got knocked up, you should just stay ambivalent, and ambivalence = being anti-baby, so seriously, you should just flush that thing out and forget it ever happened. That's why Juno was such a bad movie; it was so unrealistic. Also, pregnant women never name their unborn babies, and would never risk their lives to protect them! Because abortions are awesome, and we like to keep our abortioning options open until the last minute! NEVER GET ATTACHED TO A FETUS, is what I always say.

GAWD. This is the shit that makes pro-choicers (which I, emphatically, am) look bad. Deciding against abortion doesn't make you rabidly anti-choice or even anti-abortion. It means that you want to keep your baby. Last time I checked, that wasn't a reprehensible thing.

Look, you don't have to like the Twilight books. If they're not your thing, if you don't find them convincing, that's your opinion and that's fine. I mean, they're not going to end up on any Great Books list alongside Shakespeare, so you don't need to worry about Edward and Bella being canonized as the second coming of Romeo and Juliet. The march of Great Literature will continue, helped along by the publication of the latest variation of The Jane Austen Book Club or whatever it is that Oprah is putting her stamp on these days and literacy will not get hurt. But please: resist the urge go all Savonarola on the Twilight books, with preachy denunciations of its troubling morality and insidious teachings. What makes your insistence that 'parents and teachers should be made aware' and readers 'forewarned' that the content of these books is potentially 'dangerous' any better than any other censor's self-righteous attempt to get the books they deem 'troubling' put behind the library check-out counter?

And if not, at least come up with more sophisticated criticism. My eyes get tired from all the rolling.

Source

 

Comments

[Jayme]

Exactly. Somehow I don't remember a bunch of feminist ranting over "teen" books like the vapid Sweet Valley High series. (Ooops! Did I just show how OLD I am?) It's just fiction people. And you can bet your ass that when my daughter is old enough to read "Twilight" I will happily loan her my dog-eared copy. I'd rather she identify with a strong, intelligent young woman like Bella than with most of the materialistic twits that are so popular now (i.e The Hills, Gossip Girl, etc.)

Also, thank you for putting up another Edward pic. I've seen the movie, and somehow it just doesn't seem right for a 32-year old mom to Google him everyday just to get her fix. ;-)

[deirdre]

Well said. Really excellent post.

[Kaelak]

Please post your other rant - I can't get enough Twilight commentary!

Awesome post.

[Heather]

Aaahhhh! You should have warned us about spoilers! For those of us slow pokes who have yet to read past Twilight. (mostly b/c the hold queue at the library is reeeaaaly long!)

[Her Bad Mother]

Heather - sorry! I've posted a spoiler warning above!

[rednexmama]

Confession: haven't read the books and had to hold back laughing at the movie. If this was my 15yr old self, I would be all OVER that shit, but now? Sorry, man, just too cynical. But NOT for the reasons mentioned above. More for the whole "a guy watching you when you don't know about it and breaking into your room for months before you're even going out isn't romantic. It's stalkerish." kind of thing. It was all I could do when Edward admitted to watching her sleep for MONTHS not to scream at the screen "Your dad gave you mace for a REASON!" And for what it's worth? I LOVE me some love. Just not stalker-love.

[Barbara]

What the critic fails to realize is that this book is written for teens. Teens LOVE drama. This book is all about drama.

Thank you for pointing out that a person who becomes pregnant unintentionally can, and often does, love her little bean. Even if she, like me, hates every minute of pregnancy.

[Lisalisa]

Awww. I'm not a hater. I just had concerns.

[Veronica Mitchell]

Okay. I don't usually indulge in such craven adoration, but this post? Is awesome. I heart you completely now.

[ajnabi]

Somebody read that the author's a Mormon and decided she had secret subliminal conservative messages embodied in her work. Because nobody but Mormons ever feel the way Bella does. **eye rolling ensues**

[Expat Mom]

Love it. I agree wholeheartedly, if you don`t like the books or the movie, fine. But don`t go acting all stuckup about the whole thing like the author was really trying to pull a fast one on parents or something.

This is why I always hated Lit, you know. Analyzing the story, looking for hidden meanings . . . did it ever occur to anyone that maybe, just maybe, people write stories about love and vampires just because it`s an interesting (and obviously lucrative) idea? No need to read stuff into it, just enjoy the story!

[Sils]

I'm with LisaLisa. I love, love, LOVE the books and can't wait for the next one. I get that it's fiction and filled with drama - which teens adore, I just worry about how teens tend to take fiction for fact and run with it in matters of the heart. Not all of them, mind you, but some. If there's good parenting involved the books shouldn't be an issue, it's fantasy.

[Her Bad Mother]

oh, lisalisa, this wasn't in any way directed at you - it was directed specifically at the io9 article. having concerns is not the same as saying stupid shit ;)

[Her Bad Mother]

Sils, I agree in theory - young people get caught up in fantasy - but there's something of a double-standard that gets applied. No-one says of movies like Batman that we should caution the parents of boys to warn them that vigilantism isn't a good thing to pursue in real life.

Nor, as was said above, do we slap warning labels on Romeo & Juliet. Nor should we.

[JennC]

The narrative suggests that it is better to submit and sublimate yourself to a superior being than to be your own person

This person obviously hasn't read Midnight Sun. Edward HATES himself, calls himself a monster repeatedly, and detests his inablity to leave Bella alone for her own good. Yes, Bella views him as a superior being, because, HELLO, she's all up in love with him, but never in any of the books do I recall there being a passage where Edward is all, "You should do what I say, because I'm better than you." psh. People need to get off their damn high horse already. I enjoyed the books because they're fluffy little love stories about a clumsy high school girl and the vampire that loves her. And I enjoyed the movie because of the picture you posted above. :-)

Awesome post, Catherine. You, as always, rule.

[jenB]

Oh god thank you for this. I can now send this post to a few people. You are brilliant as always. xo

[Terri]

When did feminism change from "protecting a woman's right to make her own choices" to "dictating the only correct, totally feminist choice for all women"?
Pro-choice still has an emphasis on "CHOICE", which is every person's decision to make, in every situation.
I find it sad that so many people are compelled to attack these books, and their author, so often. I think this is a wonderful example of a lovely female author penning a tale about a strong, interesting, and totally relatable female character.
And yes, like a lot of good literature, some parental guidance or discussion should be attached. Literature is a great way to open up dialogue between parents and their children. Though I have little concern for teenage girls recklessly abandoning their lives to go out and find their own vampire boyfriends. Then again, those Cullen boys are pretty dreamy....

[AimeeG]

My only problem is this:
I have twelve and thirteen year old girls reading this book, then coming into my classroom and saying "BELLA doesn't need college and neither do I!"
I know. They're twelve. It just really makes me sad that that's all they are taking away from the book.

[Lisalisa]

I agree with Sils -- it's about good parenting. Thanks for the note, Catherine. I still heart you! Anyway, I think it's a good idea to talk with our kids about this stuff. To the boys about Batman, too. And to both of them about Romeo & Juliet. Why not? There are worse things to talk about. It's even fun to talk about it here with other engaged parents.

By the way, I thought the Mormon post was hilarious. Surely it's possible to poke fun at a book and enjoy it, too?

[rednexmama]

Terri: I feel you about being pro-choice. Pro-choice doesn't necessarily have to mean pro-abortion. It means providing women with the power to make their OWN choices regardless of what that choice might be... I might not ever have an abortion, and was shocked at how strongly I felt about that once I was pregnant but I would never deny another women the right to make the choice for herself. Besides, so what if Meyer is pro-life? Last time I checked, she wasn't exactly pro teenage sex so much either... Does she HAVE to be pro-choice in order to write teen fiction?

[daniloth]

As usual, a fab-o-luss post, Catherine! You know how I can tell? By the great commentary it generates. Keep up the great work.

[Karen Sugarpants]

I have a hard time dissecting a book, any book in the name of criticism or otherwise. Like when people tore up Harry Potter, I can't listen...why can't a story just be a story, you know? I read all the books a while ago and now that people are jumping on board, I'm kind of sick of hearing about the underlying this or that. Bleh. Read the books and ENJOY, people. They aren't real people, they're fictional characters.
Sorry Catherine, your post was really well thought out - I just don't wish to look at these books that closely. xo

[Her Bad Mother]

Karen - reading books too closely was my job in another life, so I can't help myself. But in this case I agree with you, and it was part of my broader point: looking for hidden morality plays (as the Gawker site demanded) in these books is like looking for philosophic insights in Teletubbies.

(This from a woman who once published an academic paper on bourgeois liberalism in the Hannibal Lector/Silence of the Lambs novels ;))

[Karen Sugarpants]

Oh shit, I thought Teletubbies were just phallic symbols! ;)

[palinode]

Literature, whether it's high-toned stuff like Joyce or mass consumption stuff like Meyer, will always confound and anger people. Literature is evil - not in the sense of Hilter-evil evil, but in the sense that it will, in its explosion of multiple meanings, blow a hole in the walls bourgeouis liberal values. While that hole is open, all kinds of crazy stuff pours in. Some people react poorly.