Guest Post: In Defense of the Twilight Saga

When the Breaking Dawn trailer was released last month, we posted that news here and a ‘troll’ jumped in to say how pathetic the writing in the Forks series is, how juvenile the readers, and how sad it is that we take Mrs. Meyer seriously as an author. S/He was slapped down, of course, but like the mole he popped back up a few times to invite more attacks (see the definition of internet troll).

As a rule, I don’t like it when readers ‘feed the trolls’ by responding at length. When the webmaster at TwilightNewsSite offered his opinion, though, I asked if I could put it up as a guest post. Enjoy!

I, too, am troubled by your argument, [Troll name].

You suggest that Twilight has no value because it is so popular, and then assert this argument is valid because it is so popular.

The example where you equivocate the popularity of Twilight and Transformers, which relies on “spectacle” over other elements (presumably including plot, meaning and character) is not an accurate comparison.

It’s true that just because something is *momentarily* popular doesn’t necessarily mean it is offers great value, and thus most things of that sort come and go quickly — like many pop songs, for instance.  Yet, the popularity of Twilight is enduring quite a bit more, longer, and pervasively, than a catchy pop song, however, which suggests it does offer real value.  I suspect that as computer graphics improve, Transformers will be forgotten, like the early “talkie” films.  Twilight, however, will endure.  Like Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, I am quite confident we will be watching all sorts of Twilight-branded entertainments into the far future.

As for your distaste for spectacle, I agree, but I think Aristotle covered that topic pretty well, so you can take that up with him (see: “Poetics,” eg., http://www.english.hawaii.edu/criticalink/aristotle/terms/spectacle.html).

Regardless, Twilight does not rely on spectacle for its popularity, or its enduring value, so again, that’s a poor comparison.

On my own blog, I have written several posts over the years about current criticisms of Twilight.  It’s been a while since I have updated that, even though they are very popular.  So, right now, the current arguments against Twilight having much value — the “any” value arguments have mostly died off — are usually based in:

(1) A lack of understanding of Twilight itself (as in, they haven’t read it, carefully), so they hate it;

(2) A distaste for what Eugenides calls, “The Marriage Plot” (see http://www.npr.org/2011/10/11/140949453/a-marriage-plot-full-of-intellectual-angst), where the characters’ marriage is sort of the be-all-end-all choice of life;

(3) A repugnance for religious allegory, specifically, a disagreement with anything that suggests that people can and/or should become more “godlike,” (like Edward, for instance), and;

(4) Sadly, and increasingly, religious bigotry, specifically anti-Mormonism.

So, this is the part where I break those arguments down.  Sigh.  Here goes:

1. The allegorical aspects of Twilight are so obvious and profound to the careful reader that those who don’t see them should try, you know, actually reading the series.

Bella’s trying to become “immortal” with her “perfect,”  “angelic,” and “godlike” Edward, for Christ’s sake.  How much more obvious could it be?!  I mean, people freak out about all the many wondrous epithets ascribed to the Cullens, like the Greek gods of Homeric epic poetry, and never stopped to think about *why* they were there, and *what* they actually mean.

So to those critics, I have one word: “Duh.”

And because I am being generous, here’s another: “Godlike.” Think about it.

If you have only seen the movies, then you don’t know “Twilight” either, as our dear friend, the screenwriter Melissa Rosenberg, oh-so-helpfully changed the thematic structure of the books for the films as much as she could sneak past Stephenie Meyer and company, partially negating the films’ impact.  I think Rosenberg would have more enjoyed writing a screenplay about, say, a young girl who becomes self-actualized through meaningless choices and sexual profligacy, just like Jessica suggests in her graduation speech as valedictorian(!); Twilight, it should be noted, is not that story.

And Jessica, it should also be noted, is far from the valedictorian of her graduating class, in the Twilight books.  Anna Kendrick is wonderful on screen, but that speech about the discovering the meaninglessness of your life to find meaningfulness in your life (and maybe score some hotties on the way), perhaps was not the best way to increase her screen time, as the entire thematic impact of “Eclipse” is about the monumental importance of Bella’s choices, including chastity.  But I digress.

If you have read Twilight and didn’t see the metaphorical meaning of the work, then you probably don’t understand what allegory is, or can be.  To test that, for comparison, you probably don’t like reading scripture much either — something like, “It’s just all these old stories.”  As Chief Swan would say, “Well, good luck with that.”

OTOH, if you’re still in school, and are looking for meaning in Twilight/life, be sure to tune into the whole allegory/metaphor thing when it comes up in class.  It’s a much bigger deal than your teacher may realize, because if you can interpret stories, then you can interpret life.  As in: Your life.  Which is a good thing.

As my old pal Socrates once said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.”  So, you know, make your life worth living, and paying attention in English class may help you to do just that.

For people already out of school, um, maybe you can give some thought to the potence of allegory and metaphor in your life.  For instance, you could start with your wedding ring.  And notice how it continues around and around, without end, which is a very Twilight-y thing to consider (and is relevant to our next point).  What does your wedding ring mean to you, in the broadest sense?  In the deepest?  What does the meaning you find in your ring say about your marriage?  Now, apply that same approach to other elements of life; rinse, repeat.

2. The “marriage as important issue” issue.  Meyer has created a rich “marriage plot” by tying marriage to eternal life — the immortality of her “angelic” vampires in the Cullen family.

Um, marriage is still an important decision.  It has a great deal of impact on life, even if you could get divorced.  For example, try getting divorced and/or married; then get back to me on the whole “low impact marriage” thing.

I am sorry if getting married is a frustrating challenge for you, personally.  I suggest facing that challenge, with effort and patience.  I don’t know why girls can’t ask guys to marry, but I see a world full of anxiety due to that single issue.  I am not suggesting a solution, necessarily, just stating my sympathy.  It’s hard enough to face the many issues of “getting married” when you are the guy, and actually can ask someone to marry.  How to face it when you can’t ask anyone…  well, perhaps Bella has some allegorical advice for you, that might help.  In any case, hating the “marriage plot” of Twilight won’t help eliminate your concerns, and may worsen them besides (see Bella’s frustrations over her mom’s griping about marriage, for an allegorical example).

Meyer’s source for this topic, no doubt, is LDS beliefs that marriage can endure beyond “til death do us part,” which posits that mortal life is a time to gain experiences which will help ennoble a person for lives to come hereafter.  Despite the overt Mormon-ness of that point, I don’t actually know many people (with good marriages) who relish the thought of “til death do us part;” it is a serious concern to many, regardless of personal matters of faith.

The point here is that lessons learned during mortal life are very important, so it is crucial to examine one’s life carefully and learn as much as possible along the way, so you can make the most beneficial choices in the future.

Whether you see that happening in the lives of prominent Mormons, including presidential candidates, is irrelevant to Meyer’s point.  Bella learns a great deal from her experiences, and from her carefully interpreting stories of all kinds — films, folktales, and books (hint, hint) — ennobling herself, and helping her to make insightful choices, thereby overcoming the world(s).

So I don’t see a lot of problems beyond those issues with Twilight discussing marriage in a positive light, or in suggesting that marriage can even be seen in a positive light.  If you disagree with that point, I don’t really know what to tell you, except that maybe you and Melissa Rosenberg can get together sometime and discuss.  Here’s a topic:  “Men/women!  Who can stand them?!”

3.  “A repugnance for religious allegory.”

A lot of people just don’t like religion.  So considering religious allegory is distasteful for them.  I suspect that many of these people really just don’t like God; after all, why is He so mean to them?

I say this because why are so many be adamantly atheist people out there not-believing in something that they don’t believe in?  I mean, if you don’t believe in God, don’t.  There aren’t anti-Martians, or anti-Narnians, or anti-Jedi.  Because they don’t exist.  Yet there are anti-God people everywhere.  So thereby, in a sense, they acknowledge God’s presence, if not his actual person, undermining their own arguments.  (I concede that being aggravated by religious people, rather than God Himself, is another matter, but Bella is specifically not a religious person without being atheist or antagonistic toward religious beliefs in general, so there you go.  As a result, there are plenty of other, secular ways to look at Twilight so, you know, why get upset with Twilight over religious concerns?)

Briefly, there are two types of religious beliefs:  those rooted in mysticism (what I call the “open sesame” approach), and those rooted in cause and effect (the “get off your butt” approach).  That said, it’s not an either-or proposition.  Regardless of what an official religious group teaches, folk beliefs run the gamut between these two sides of the spectrum, and extend deeply into secular society: Is life magic, and stuff just happens, or is it rooted in cause-and-effect, in which case you should really get busy?  So this spectrum can be kind of a vague thing to identify out there IRL.  FWIW, IMHO, Mormonism is, in general, to a certain extent, kinda-sorta… firmly and adamantly on the side of cause and effect (and so is Bella/Twilight).

So, from that point of view, why is God so mean to you?  Because you haven’t gotten off your butt and done something better with your own life.  God doesn’t sit on His hands; you shouldn’t either.  You have choices; make them.  Respond.  Choose.  Act.  Don’t, just, bemoan.

This is something that is expounded upon greatly in Twilight.  Bella bemoans things at first, but ultimately saves herself, saves the Cullens, saves the vampire world from the evil Volturi.  Because she does something about it.

Yet, lots of feminist criticism centers around Bella being a doormat.  In short: See point #1, above.

Bella endures a lot, to be sure, as do the women and men throughout the series.  Everyone is in pain, one way or another.  They suffer.

Yet Bella cures them all; the end.  She finds a path from clumsily stumbling through life to on-the-path-to-perfection “immortality,” she helps the Cullens get over their hang-ups, helps Charlie move on past his divorce, helps the Wolfpack get beyond their bigotry and fear-based lifestyle, and she convinces the Volturi to acknowledge that they aren’t the arbiters of all truth and dispensers of ultimate justice for everyone on the planet so, you know, relax Volturi.

Note that Bella doesn’t replace the Volturi in leading the world (or at least, isn’t trying to), hence her embarrassment at the end of BD when she acknowledges she is the superhero “of the day,” only.  That’s all.  So in the end, there is no ultimate arbiter of truth and justice who lives on this Earth.  Which is significant, because of criticism number four.

4.  This is the anti-Mormon point.  What with the accolades of the Broadway play, presumptuously titled, “The Book of Mormon,” and the two LDS candidates (Romney and Huntsman) for President of the United States, the topic of anti-Mormonism (as it is called) is a big deal of late (see http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2011/10/mitt_romney_s_mormon_cult_controversy_anti_mormonism_is_the_prej.html ).

An aside: I don’t attend any church, but I’ve lived among many religious communities across America, and now live in lovely rural Utah.  IMO, religious social groups have all of the same problems that other social groups have.  Plus, gather a few million people together and, dang, you’re bound to have a few “winners” in the group — the nuts, crackpots, and wolves-in-sheep’s-clothing who make things difficult for everyone else.  Religious groups, especially, seem to attract people who are having especial difficulties in life, so they may wind up with a subset of nuts that is larger than most social groups.  I don’t know that for sure, because I haven’t counted, but I’ve seen it all.  That said, the Mormons do as well as any other religious/social group I’ve lived with.  And to be honest, better than most.  Which is why I live here, greedily devouring the pleasantly sociable Mormon ambiance without having to actually go to 17 meetings each week (or whatever) myself.

On hypocrites:  People outside of religious groups often get aggravated at them, because they don’t like their worldview (which is one thing) and accuse them generally of hypocrisy (which is quite another).  Aspiring to live better, when you aren’t already living better, makes you a hypocrite, they say.

But to actually live better, you have to aspire to do so, first.  Accordingly, what some call hypocrisy, I would call “trying.”  Nothing wrong with that.  So, I don’t think that “trying” means religious folks are hypocrites.  If they don’t seem to be  genuinely trying, well, maybe they are and we should just be glad they aren’t as bad as they used to be, and (God help us) hope they continue to improve.

And I don’t think fears of hypocrisy should result in people not trying hard to live better in their life (which I have actually seen people do, far too often).

That said, everyone seems to know that Mormons believe their church is true.  *The* true church, in fact.  Shock and dismay among non-believers follows.

Um, just want to point out that in my experience, most churches believe they are true.  In fact, pretty much all of them.  Hence, the whole “church” thing.  So, you know, get over it.  Churches believe themselves to be true, or the true-est thing out there.  Nothing to see here; move along.

What many assume is that for Mormons to be right, that must make everyone else “wrong.”  I’m certain some LDS people get their backs up with other religions along those lines (and most certainly toward polygamist splinter groups, who go on TV claiming they are “Mormons,” who annoy actual LDS people no end; so, you may be annoyed by “Mormons” but nowhere near as much as LDS people are).

Officially, however, LDS beliefs state that all churches (and belief systems in general) have truth.  Maybe not all, but certainly some.  And that people will be judged on the Last Day not by LDS beliefs but by their own, personal, genuine beliefs.  If you’re Catholic; great, say the Mormons, be a good Catholic.  If you’re born again, wonderful, then act like it.  If you’re Shinto, new age, nature worshipper, whatever; knock yourself out.  Go for it.  Whatever you believe, do it (see number 11 here: http://lds.org/library/display/0,4945,106-1-2-1,FF.html).

Mormons don’t seem at all surprised if others think their beliefs are pretty stringent and occasionally surprising, they just don’t know why you’re so upset about it, when it’s not your burden to bear.  Even when they are a little chagrined to have it pointed out specifically, as all religious groups do.  And they probably feel like they could use a cup of coffee, too.  As very-not-Mormon, pro-skater Tony Alva once said, “Go for what you know” — a pretty good sum up of Mormon beliefs.

So, ease off on the Mormon thing.  They got their own problems, like 17 meetings to get to this week alone.  They sure like to meet.  And besides, Twilight isn’t *that* Mormon-y anyway.  So relax.

And go read “Twilight” again.  You might learn something along the way.

Now, John’s book, “Spotlight,” contains what some Mormons would consider intelligent, well-informed, non-Mormon analysis of Mormon theology and influence in the Twilight Saga, as well as Mormonism’s likely impact on Stephenie Meyer personally (which is a little presumptive, if I may say so).  Meanwhile, other Mormons would consider it anti-Mormon propaganda.  And they probably have, I suppose.  Personally, I think the critics, and John, should have eased off a bit.  Which John and I have talked about personally before, as I recall.  If you could offend potential readers/buyers, why include it?  (John has some strong and well-laid out reasons why, but I’ll leave that argument to him.)

Regardless, there is a lot of great stuff in there (yes, John, I just referred to your one of your master works as “stuff” 🙂 ).  Even if you’re Mormon.  Or even merely Mormon-friendly, shall we say.  So, if that could/would offend you, be prepared to skip over a few pages, like a ten or so, out of the 250-page book.

And to Mrs. Meyer, I suggest you don’t read “Spotlight” at all, even if much of it may be addressed towards you; just go work on “The Host” sequel, or any unfinished books-which-shall-not-be-named instead.  Please.