Ceridwen's Reviews > Twilight

Twilight by Stephenie Meyer

by
1055856
's review
Oct 13, 10

bookshelves: america-and-environs, for-teh-ladies, young-adult, fantasy, shit-show, necrophilia
Recommended to Ceridwen by: Morwenna
Read in August, 2009

Two things happened in my household, shortly after I started reading it, that seem germane to a discussion of this book. First, I was in the kitchen, dealing with the endless in-and-out of the dishwasher, and I became aware of a small, soft, wet noise coming from the back bathroom. This made my mom-ears perk up, and I went back to find my daughter, who is about 2 ½, tearing off strips of toilet paper, wadding them neatly, throwing them into the toilet, and then flushing. She looked up at me with her deceptively cherubic face and said, “Here Mum, this is for you.” She held out a tp wad. I tossed it in, and flushed, and then we went to find less futile pursuits. Second, in the same back bathroom, my dog was in there diving for tootsie rolls in the cat-box. The litter tray has one of those detachable tops, with an opening in the front so the cat can go in there and do her business without sending litter all over the freaking room, theoretically. The dog, in her lust to eat cat shit, got her head stuck in the opening and the topper thing lodged on her neck. She freaked out, the way only largish dogs in smallish bathrooms with a litter topper on her head can freak out, and there was all manner of howling, skittering and general mayhem, until I went in and rescued her from herself.

I've been known to let my metaphors run away from me, but let's see if I can pull this off. We all have stuff that we do that's stupid, futile or disgusting, or all of these things at once: eating cat shit, flushing wads of toilet paper down the toilet, smoking cigarettes, polka, embroidery, reading Twilight, etc. There's nothing wrong with these pursuits, exactly (although I would give consuming feces a miss if you aren't a border collie) but to the non-enthusiast, they seem inexplicable. But that's the thing: eating cat shit is a source of pure, whole body pleasure for my dog; that, barking at kids on bikes and sleeping on the couch. While I may grumble at the mess and unintended comedy these activities generate, I really can't criticize her joie de vivre. So, reading Twilight was like eating cat shit for me, but I mean this in an understanding way. You may not love smoking. The thought of the smoke hitting your lungs and the buzzing sensation you get in your fingertips may turn your stomach, but man if just typing these words doesn't make me want to go out on the back porch and pound down a heater.

So I get it, I get the whole Twilight thing, on some level. But then there's the girl thing. I'm not exactly the intended audience for Twilight, because I'm not a teenage girl. But I keep having to account for my not reading Twilight, as I will now have to account for disliking Twilight, because I live in a community of women who were once girls, because I was once a girl. I'm fascinated by how many women I know who love this book, women I love and respect, women who are not laughable, stupid or thoughtless. They may express chagrin or embarrassment, as though they just were busted for smoking on the back porch, but they love it just the same. Hating on Twilight, for guys, is easy, because it doesn't betray their essential guyness; in fact, probably the opposite. (Yes, yes, girls are gross, now back to the clubhouse!) Hating on Twilight, as a woman, is essentially a betrayal of girlness, an erasure of that awkward adolescence many of us share. One can easily, oh so easily, enumerate the literary failings of this book. One can easily, oh so easily, parse the religious messages and sexual politics into something monstrous and ugly. This is all fine; go for it; I will be on the sidelines with pom-poms. But what I keep coming back to is the true, earnest and deeply felt pleasure this book provokes in so many women. Pleasure that is real and not deserving of scorn.

That community of women thing is what sent to reading Twilight in the first place. My sister was reading Twilight at the urgings of one of her co-workers. She has had an uneasy relationship with this other women, which had recently been patched up into something resembling friendliness. In their water-cooler conversations, the co-worker began extolling the merits of Meyer's book, and pushed it into my sister's hands. She knew what she was in for – how could she not given total cultural saturation at this point – but found herself unwilling and unable to actually finish reading the book. How was she going to explain this to the co-worker? We all know (or maybe we don't) how quickly this sort of thing can get personal. It gets especially personal with books of this nature, that slip into the female hind-brain and coil around our unspoken (unspeakable?) drives and desires.

One of the reasons I hated this book (and I mean that word emotionally, not critically, if you know what I mean) was that Meyer was far far too damn evocative of the strange alienated horror that is adolescence. Bella is never easy; there are very few unqualified pleasures for her; every single action, especially the ones that occur within the bewildering sucking chest wound that is her social scene, is considered for its effect on everyone else, her status, her placement in the group, her precarious self esteem. It gave me vivid and lingering flashbacks, and not in a wheee-I-see-trails kind of way, but in the countless shaming episodes way. The only real source of pleasure for her is her time with Edward. And while it's probably not original to point this out, Edward is the externalization of her desire, an embodiment of the girl-fic wish fulfillment of both desire and fear, the shaming female libido that goes bump in the night. He can't read her mind because he's an extension of her mind. Which brings me to the creamy ironic center of this review. On some levels, this book is a morality tale about female pleasure, and I was unable to take much pleasure in that. Gods, but I love me some irony though, so it the book evoked entirely unintended pleasures.

Never is this more apparent than in the scene in which Bella is menaced by some would-be rapists. She's been mooning all day about Edward, which in very concrete terms gets her cut off from her female companions and their consumerist escapades. She ends up surrounded by threatening male desire, which she has provoked by her dreaming thoughtlessness. Edward appears, the sort of flip side of this desire, and rescues her. When I was working on my Feminist Merit Badge, there was much talk about the virgin/whore thing, and then also romance novels and other mass-produced fantasies for women. Too much of this kind of talk can make me really really tired, but I'll try to keep it brief, for all our sakes. Although I don't think I've heard about a boy version of the madonna/slut thing, I think one is at work here, as one is at work in many female wish-fulfillment exercises. Men are conjured, neutered and domesticated, and that process of domestication both justifies and condemns female desire. Bella simply cannot help herself: her mooning attraction to Edward gets externalized into her scent, which makes him unable to help himself, makes him an animal, reminds us she's an animal, a sort of endless mirroring. That scent also ribbons through the air, cartoon-like, bringing horribly unlikely rapists wafting in by their noses. Desire is a dangerous thing, girls. Here's a Ken doll for you, his smooth, cold, inhuman man-parts stamped carefully into place.

I'm bringing up Ken deliberately. In her GR review, Elizabeth describes this book as a Barbie doll, which pretty much nails the whole thing for me. Barbie is the embodied consumer. She teaches girls how to accessorize their lives: boys, friends, dresses, houses, all neatly displayed in little consumable packages. Barbie teaches the values of consumerism, of consumption, while simultaneously being completely immune to its effects. Barbie cannot get old, fat, or overdose on heroin. She is the bulimic model of perfection. By many yardsticks, one could say that Edward is an anorexic. A vegetarian vampire is a contradiction in terms. While not personally a sufferer of an eating disorder, I have a number of very close people in my life that I've watched go through that mangle. I get it too: I was demographically ripe for this sort of thing: a white, middle-class overachiever. The anorexic, as it has been explained to me by people I love, craves control over the uncontrollable, over her needs and ambitions. That Edward cannot or will not eat is especially troubling when he's viewed as Bella's externalized desire. It's a closed loop: food equals death, desire equals death. Bella can't see Edward in a mirror (in a dream) because he's not really there; he's wasted away. That the book ends with Bella begging Edward to “change” her – this is not a spoiler, everyone in the world could see this one coming – means that she is begging for death, the way any girl who expresses desire is begging for death.

I'd like to finish with a craft project, if you don't mind. Please, warm up your glue guns. There's a paper store near my house that hosts classes every month, and I keep thinking about attending the one about altered books. I'm not entirely clear on the idea, but it seems you take old books, and cut-and-paste alternate text and pictures as commentary or whatever. I haven't done this yet for three reasons: a) lazy b) somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of cutting up books, even in the service of making cool, new books c) don't want to be caught dead anywhere near something that even remotely has a chance of being associated with scrap-booking, even kinda sorta. I can't emphasize this last one enough.

This is my idea for the altered book of Twilight. If I weren't a squeamish girl, I'd march right down to Sex World in the warehouse district, and I'd buy up a bunch of pornography. Not just any pornography, but pornography with people with normal body hair having enthusiastic sex, cheerful happy sex. (Does such a thing exist?) No smoothies allowed, no shaved, pre-adolescent vaginas, but big furry bushes and armpit hair a la the 70s edition of The Joy of Sex . This would get pasted over every description of Edward's cold and marble-like skin, because Stephanie Meyer's ossification of the human body bums me out.

I'd toss in photos of Michelangelo's David and Christ on the Cross, just to show how the nude male body has been depicted over time. (Women can certainly complain about the female nude, but since the rise of Christianity in the West, the most predominate male nude is Jesus' broken body on the Cross. The primary visual representation of the male body is one of torture.) In would go some stills of the pretty blond-haired girl who has just devoured her bickering parents in Romero's “Night of the Living Dead” because zombies freak me the hell out the way vampires never did. Also, because in the ongoing conversation I've had about this book with my sister, which ended in the double dog dare that I read it, she expressed bewilderment as to how anyone could love a dead thing. Quote she: “Vampires are just high-functioning zombies.” More than the crap prose, the endless adverbs, the discouragingly accurate portrayal of adolescent discomfort, this may have done the book in for me. Zombies man, brrr.

I'd put in wads of tp, to represent for my daughter, who some day may find this book appealing. But also for another reason: I recently had occasion to be in one of the local high schools, not the one I graduated from. I went into the bathroom, had some good times reading the graffiti: various people are bitches, etc. Then I looked up, and the ceiling was dotted with wads of dried tp, stuck to the ceiling after some industrious young women had spent what I know from personal experience is a very long time getting those suckers to stick. Throw too soft, and they won't even hit the ceiling. Throw too hard, and they'll bounce back. You've got to get them wet enough to stick, but not so wet they just fall apart. Stupid, futile and possibly disgusting, but emblematic of times spend with other girls doing the useless and possibly damaging things that made adolescence so enjoyable. I think I'll do without the cat shit. I'd douse the book in the cologne my first boyfriend wore, that, the smell of cigarettes and leather jackets. Mmmm, smell-o-vision. Then, I'd cover it with the brown paper bag covers we all put over our text-books in school to protect the actual covers. I'd draw all manner of doodles, phone numbers, one liners, hearts and bunnies all over the outside. Finally, I would affix a picture of Spider Jerusalem on the title page, and dot it with pink nail-polish blobs in a heart shape around the picture. Then I'd put the book away and try very hard never to think of it again.


Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Twilight.
sign in »

Comments (showing 1-50 of 152) (152 new)


message 1: by Osho (last edited Aug 04, 2009 09:30pm) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Osho A really beautiful review. Thank you.


message 2: by Lisa (new)

Lisa Vegan Yes, I love your review. I decided a long time ago not to read this book/series, but I'm enjoying many of the Goodreads members' reviews.


Sparrow Lovely!


Ceridwen Thanks guys. And Meredith: not *((shiny?!))*? (I read that article. Very very funny.)


message 5: by Whitaker (new)

Whitaker OMG BRILLIANT! Way funnier and more insightful than the Atlantic Monthly article on the same subject some months back.


Ceridwen Oooo, Whitaker, do you have a link?


message 7: by Eric_W (new)

Eric_W Ceridwen: Another classic. I have to send it along to my daughter, an otherwise intelligent young lady, who loves the series. And the tootsie rolls in the cat pan? Classic. Been there.


message 8: by Jen (new)

Jen Wow. Fantastic review. And book alteration suggestion.


Elizabeth I think this is the best review of Twilight I've read, on goodreads or professional, and not just because it mentions me. :-) Really, it's brilliant.


message 10: by Lori (Hellian) (new)

Lori (Hellian) Hahaha What is it with dogs and cat poop? I once asked my vet, and they said it's because there's a large amount of protein in it. Okaaaaaay!

Oh, this is about Twilight? Never read, have no intention of reading. Your review is infinitely better.


Ninja Sock Puppet I was hoping that link would be to your review of The Joy of Sex.


message 12: by Lisa (new)

Lisa Vegan Lori, I've heard cat poop tastes like cat food and dogs prefer cat food to dog food, although not to people food. That's my experience with dogs. And, there is more protein in cat food than dog food. Cats are carnivores. Dogs are omnivores.


Ceridwen I think it's because we have her on fat, old dog food, because she's a fat old dog, and that means, in her mind, that we are starving her to death. And who left this perfectly good cat shit in this convenient box? Mmmmm. Snacks.

And Richard, you know that I am altogether too immature to write a review of the 70s Joy of Sex. I bet there'd be pictures and everything, and then I would get flagged and thrown off this lovely site. You should *totally* do one though, if you think you have the restraint. You may not either, come to think of it. Oh well.

And thanks all, again, for your kind words.


message 14: by Kelly (new) - rated it 1 star

Kelly This is amazing. I'd copy and paste the quote I most agree with, but there are so many I can't choose! Excellent evocation of the experience of reading this book. I will say this for Twilight- it has offered up many intriguing portraits of readers, as people post their reviews.


message 15: by Jessica (last edited Aug 05, 2009 11:32am) (new)

Jessica Wow.
what a review.
inspired & inspiring.


Ninja Sock Puppet Lisa: Cat poop certainly doesn't smell like cat food. Who did you hear that from? Yuck.

Ceridwen, between the two of us, you're the one with restraint. Witness this review, in which you didn't rip the book to shreds and instead found a way to make some insightful observations about it and life.

Well, you might rip it to shreds if you take that altered books course, but you know what I mean.


message 17: by Elijah (new)

Elijah Kinch Spector Gooood stuff. Too much for me to comment on easily, but I will thank you for mentioning that there is indeed a male variation on the madonna/whore complex that makes an appearance in a great deal of fiction aimed at women (just as the good ol' female version--"Madonna/Whore Classic" so to speak--so often shows up in hackneyed "male" storytelling).

Also, I just want to share this, http://tinyurl.com/neak64 along with my girlfriend's reaction to it, because (as you point out) a girl hating on the series will always carry more weight than a guy doing so: "Stephanie Meyer is an eternal teenager. She's like the Dick Clark of having no imagination."


message 18: by Jessica (last edited Aug 05, 2009 12:09pm) (new)

Jessica a case of generic vampire-horror-romance writing...
(the plagiarism suit) it seems to me.


message 19: by Elijah (new)

Elijah Kinch Spector Absolutely. Whenever an author gets big enough someone who wrote something similar pops out of the woodwork to cry plagiarism. It's the fact that it's a 15 year old in this instance that is so telling, to me.


message 20: by Jessica (new)

Jessica yes, indeed.


message 21: by Ian (new)

Ian Possibly the best book review I've ever seen on this site or any other. Tremendously insightful, informative, thought-provoking, and just plain fun to read.

I'm almost inspired to read Twilight, if for no other reason than to gain some insight into the female mind. Even after ten years of marriage, women remain to me an incomprehensible contradiction. Simultaneously beautiful and horrible, your depth runs parallel to your superficiality and your kindness is matched only by your cruelty. If Twilight will help me at all to understand how/why my perfect little daughter is going to grow into a monster, maybe it would be worth the agony.

However, if the book would not impart any such insight and/or it is really that bad ... somebody please warn me before I waste any of my precious and jealously guarded spare time!


Ceridwen This set of comments will teach me to actually do work at work instead of screwing around on GR. I didn't realize that Meyer had been sued by another girl, but I don't think it's surprising, given the Dick Clark-i-ness of her writing, and her fame. But this gets me off on another tangent, one that I didn't put into my review because it didn't really fit in.

My husband and I argued a bit about how closely this book hued to the classic form of the romance-fantasy. He kept saying that this was "just" a perfect expression of this form, which is why girls all went nuts in a big swoon. (Bearing in mind, he's neither read this nor any romance novels, bless his heart, so I'm not sure he has much of a leg to stand on.) I kept waving my arms and yelling no no no, but I didn't figure out why until very recently.

Back during the Feminist Merit Badge days, I read a really keen book called Loving With a Vengeance which breaks down how romance novels and similar are told, down to point of view and specific descriptors. Literally thousands of these books are published daily, and every imprint has its own pretty rigid sets of rules about form and content. Any, sweet book, worth a look if you can stomach feminist criticism, Ian, and I would most heartily not recommend Twilight for you. Several things in that book blew my mind, but the one I remember with the greatest clarity is when the author points out that romance novels are never written in the 1st person. This is so the writing can change pov and hover above the woman commenting on how beautiful she is, how desirable, how she had no idea how lovely her swelling mounds were, etc. (It's sooo easy to slip into this kind of prose.)A first person narration can't do this, or can't do it safely. People like to call this kind of thing pornographic, but I think pornography probably has more straightforward goals. It's definitely self-pleasuring, but it can't be done in an overt way by women; it has to be masked by externalizing the thoughts about female beauty.

So, what? Oh yes, Twilight is first person all the way. Although there is a good amount of various boys commenting on Bella's beauty and all that, much of the loving description of the human body is centered on Edward's be-6-packed hunk of manhood. And sure, he was cold, marble-hard, and alabaster, but I was pretty fascinated in how unabashed Bella's expressions of desire were. They got punished over and over, but they were definitely not stoppered up.


message 23: by Lisa (new)

Lisa Vegan Lisa: Cat poop certainly doesn't smell like cat food. Who did you hear that from? Yuck.

From various veterinarians I know. To dogs, not to humans.


message 24: by Sparrow (last edited Aug 05, 2009 01:54pm) (new) - rated it 1 star

Sparrow Ha! (in response to #4) No, I couldn't even do the double-paren duty around "lovely". I really like the review (I say in a soft and thoughtful voice), and I knew I would have a lot of thoughts about what you said, but I was pretty much in a monosyllabic coma last night, so I had to wait until this afternoon ("Lovely", having three syllables, was somewhat of a stretch. Monosyllabic moments are always good for an exclamation point, though, fyi). I guess my first thought is that I think even in the review you achieved the idea of love of humanity and the human body that is one of the most telling things missing from the book. Also, big thumbs up on the expression of female desire train of thought. There was a great NPR review that took that road, too - the exchange of body fluids versus abstinence as portrayed by vampires.

I would like, howeva', to discuss the "Edward as an alter-ego" reading, which I think is brilliant. At one point, but it took me much longer than you, I developed a similar, but slightly different take on the Edward/Bella relationship, that I was reluctant to introduce in my review because I got some freaked-out looks when I tried to tell it to people. I feel like it's along the same lines as your reading, though, so I'd like to say it here, but the freaked-out looks might come from me being bad at expressing it. If I sound like a lunatic, so be it, I guess.

Partly, my thoughts have to do with the rest of the series, so *((spoiler altert?!))*, but I get the sense from this crowd that, that kind of alert isn't necessary. I think one of the most interesting (in a sociological way and boring in a reading-for-entertainment way) things about this entire story is the Edward/Bella/Jacob love triangle, because when you talk to most Twilight fans, they want Bella to get together with Edward, but agree that in the long run they would rather be with someone like Jacob, because he is more human. This was one of the only things that was truly off-putting to me about the series, because I felt like bringing something more real into the story was a sneaky way of trying to break out of the total ridiculousness that is the rest of the story. As I've said before, I love things to be completely over-the-top, but when they try to then mix in some "realism" it makes me really angry, as though they are trying to pass the Ken-and-Barbie story as possible, or even really desirable, reality. (btw, that reminds me that I completely agree about the Barbie/Ken comparison, too, and I kind of put my love for this book in the same space in my brain as my love for Barbie. Also, as my love for propaganda. It's all there in one place, and I think I feel equally shiny about all of them - like I am looking at this wonderful ancient culture that is my own, or something.)

Anyway, sorry this is so long, but apparently when I become polysyllabic again I become very effusive. So, the thought that I had about Edward, that I think is similar to what you are saying, and similar to the virgin/whore dichotomy with women, is that Edward is this very American/consumerist version of God - and in a way that in my experience is ubiquitous in Protestant circles of describing God as the perfect boyfriend. I think that goes along with what you are saying about how he is an extension of herself in this really vivid, but completely fake, way that all revolves around how convenient it is for her that she likes him stalking her and that he hasn't decided to crush her like a bug. I think (and this is taking it a little too far, I guess, but I'm going to anyway) it's even interesting that her smell is what attracts him to her, because that seems very scriptural to me, as in the sacrifices of the saints are a sweet smell, or however that goes. I come from a fundamentalist/cultic background, and so maybe this feeling was really specific to me, but it really freaked me out for a while that I truly think the American Christian idea of God is the convenient, sparkly, anorexic boyfriend, who shows up in your bedroom when you're sad, and saves you from the bad guys, rather than God being the truly Unknowable and Undefinable. I don't intend to be really insulting to anyone about that, because I have a lot of respect for people who think about spiritual things, and I don't mean to identify every American who calls themselves a Christian that way, because that would be ridiculous. I found really similar, though, the spectacularly Hollywood descriptions of Edward and those I have heard of God. That shame over the human body is another similarity. I think that is the appeal of being in love with the undead - the eternal love of a deity thing. I know you were avoiding the obvious religious overtones of the book, and perhaps that was one of them, but your review reminded me that this comparison was really striking to me while I was reading the series.

I read an article once that the gender box for men is the boss/worker/artist set up - where there are always those three characters in any story, and the heroine always goes for the artist, which is the truly impossible man who never has to work and is a free spirit (such as Their Eyes Were Watching God, and in movies The Notebook and Legends of the Fall. I haven't read The Notebook, so I don't know if it's the same in the book form). I think that artist ideal is kind of a deity/beast, or angel/beast, dichotomy, similar to the virgin/whore. Always correct and respectful, but also irrepressibly passionate and untamed.

On the plagiarism front, there are so many other similar (and, of course, better) pairs of lovers who have been star-crossed because one of them is undead, that it is hard to even go there. And I hate to think of how many plagiaristic stories by 15-year-olds this series has inspired, also. I know I've heard a few of them.


Elizabeth Ceridwen, I wish you had been able to put the ideas about the classic form in the review. I'm glad you brought it up though, and then Meredith's comments on the alter-ego thing.

So, it's always been clear to me that Meyer modeled Twilight on the romantic classics that she'd read, rather than romance novels. I had an English professor in college who (1) loved the Brontes and (2) firmly believed that Heathcliffe, in Wuthering Heights, is the wild, uncontrolled, angry alter-ego for Emily Bronte. He gets to do and say all the things Emily wanted to say, while Cathy is forced to behave/tamed, as Emily was. So, if you were a mormon woman writer who had a love, but not overly subtle understanding of some classic literature, (Austen, Charlotte Bronte with all her first person narratives, and Emily with her total obsession), and that personal relationship with God, who is represented on earth by ones husband (my feminist merit badge just itched as I wrote that), you'd end up writing a book that combined those elements. I think the result is almost obviously something like Twilight.

Although, if you're not ready to have a vampire put you out of your misery yet, it's interested to compare Twilight with the Sookie Stackhouse series of vampire books (the first one is Dead Until Dark) and the House of Night series (first one is Marked). Both are first person narrators. This is particularly fascinating because both of them have a LOT more sex than Twilight, but then the authors don't appear to mormons and waiting for marriage.

I'm beginning to wonder if the reason that the whole vampire craze that we're currently living under, like heavy clouds in the summer, is because they have finally allowed women to break the rules with the standard romance novel formula. Here are sexual beings, stories in first person, representatives of all the wish-fulfillment fantasies, and just the tiniest bit of girl power to appeal to a more modern audience. Like when Barbie became a doctor.


message 26: by David (new)

David So here I was, having this perfectly ordinary day, when suddenly I stumbled across (ain't serendipity grand?) this transcendent review. And now, all of a sudden, I'm happy as a loon.

Thank you so much!


Ceridwen *putting on pom-poms*

Jeez, Meredith, that was awesome. I was avoiding the religious/theological reading because that's even harder to do without pissing people off, and I didn't feel up to it. The hubby and I tried to come up with a name for the male virgin/whore thing, and the best I could come up with was Kirk/Spock, but mostly because I think slash fiction is super funny/terrifying. (Slash fiction, for all you hep cats not in the know, is fan-fic written exclusively by women for women that gets two male cannon characters from a SF series, like Star Trek, to fall in love and have sex. The earliest examples of this stuff focused on Kirk and Spock. Get out your feminist decoder rings, ladies, because wtf?)Anyway, I like the deity/beast thing.

And Elizabeth, your Barbie metaphor just keeps getting better. I'm a little hazy on the Brontes (unforgivable, I know) but Austen's third person generally, right? I don't really understand why she gets lumped with gothic Romantics, because she's so decidedly mercantile and non-swoony. Swooning gets you in serious trouble (Lydia, Miss Bertram, etc); although this may be the intersection that Barbie makes: unapproachable sexual ideal + girls as uncritical cultural consumers.


Ceridwen And thanks, David.


Ninja Sock Puppet As a representative of God on Earth, I feel it is my duty to spew random, half-baked theories about YA girl romance novel formulas that have no basis in theory, fact or experience. Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger.

I always liked the idea that the reason vampires are on the rise in literature, television and movies is because of our current cultural fear of infection, starting with the mainstream awareness of AIDS and continuing with antibacterial soap, SARS and H1N1. Blood went from the visceral symbol of life to a biohazard that can turn you into the walking dead. Blood and bodily fluids are transmitted during sex and drug use too, bringing in all our Puritanical fears and mixing them in a big pot of damnation. Vampires are sexy because they embody all this really fun sin, and by extension the clever and charming devil. The whole revulsion of necrophilia has disappeared completely because modern vampires are just like us only dead so it's OK.

I'm surprised this thread hasn't hauled Buffy out yet. How can you talk about feminism and vampires without bringing up Buffy? It's her destiny to kill them and yet she's in love with Angel, the vampire with a soul. She could totally take him in a fight, rid the world of his inherent evil, and yet she doesn't. Talk about your internal conflicts. Sure, he's got a soul and that makes him different, but as soon as she tries to consummate their love he loses it and goes all evil again. How's that for a cautionary tale? Don't have sex, girls, or he'll turn into a monster and leave you.

Uh, spoiler alert.


Ceridwen If you can't spew half-baked theories on the Internets, then where can you spew them? Dinner table? No spewing at the dinner table.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZwM3G...

Buffy v. Edward


message 31: by Marie (new) - rated it 1 star

Marie You've outdone yourself this time Ceridwen! Spectacular review, now I can pretend I've read it.


Sparrow Barbie became a doctor = A-mA-zing!!!

As is Buffy v. Edward. I was going to bring up Buffy, but it's a little embarrassing how many times I get out the literary pom poms for Joss Whedon. It's my impression that he was the first to do the Romeo & Juliet thing with the tragically doomed part being that one of the pair was undead, yes? I mean, it's true that even Sookie Stackhouse came before Twilight, but is the great Buffy/Angel love the first vampire/human one? I think the losing his soul thing has the more equal message, also, of "don't have sex, boys, or you'll turn evil." At least we can agree it's bad for everyone with Joss Whedon - gay, straight, living, undead. It's all the same.

Richard - I usually think of the virus thing as a more zombie undead experience, but I guess the STD part fits. I think, as Ceridwen has pointed out, that zombies are all about consumerism, and vampires are all about sex. Maybe that's why zombies are scarier. Actually, though, Dracula's brides give me the shivers, but that might just be my fear of marriage.

Ceridwen - my feminist decoder ring spontaneously combusted when I went to see The Ugly Truth last week, could you send me a new one? Also, I'm worried we might have to learn to speak Klingon in order to figure out the Kirk/Spock thing, in which case, I'm out. I can see the sexual tension between those two, but I wouldn't really want to see it played out.


message 33: by Buck (new)

Buck Caviar to the general, my dear. This stuff's much too good for the likes of us. Just reading it warmed my 'cold, inhuman man-parts'.

That didn't come out right, but you know what I mean.


Ceridwen Did I really write "cold inhuman man-parts"? Man, I must have been in some kind of fugue state.

And Meredith, your decoder ring is in the mail. Now with matching earrings! I'm tired, and I'm going to bed, but I'll probably be able to muster some Whedon-talk tomorrow. I love that guy.


Sparrow I assume the 'cold, inhuman man-parts' you are referring to are the heart.

Yay for decoder rings and Whedon-talk! Suggested topic: The big bad of Buffy season 8 is named "Twilight".


Ninja Sock Puppet Decoder earrings?


Ceridwen The art house movie theater not far from my house used defaced posters from Twilight when they were running Let the Right One In. Somebody please go watch/read this and report back.

Isn't there actually a comic book version of Buffy Season 8? Somebody please go read this and report back

And, while I think Richard's reading of the Buffy/Angel thing is pretty interesting, I must say, with all manner of fangirl twitterpation, that I don't think that this is the take-home message of the whole of the Buffy. One of the reasons Buffy and Angel can't consummate their relationship is exactly because he's this ridiculously over-the-top melodramatic superhero guy. Sure, she loves him, like many people love Edward, but he's completely unreal. Also, Love is rarely the Answer in Whedon's worlds; most of the time it's not even one of the questions. My crusty, black, shriveled heart loves this.


Sparrow Yes, exactly about the Buffy/Angel thing. Where would the show have gone if they were happy and in love? Not that I'm a fan of Riley, but there's no happy ending ever for Whedon. I have a friend who is 17 and the other day she was talking about how because she was in another city she missed her boyfriend and she said, "The universe is SO UNFAIR!" We make a lot of fun of her for that now, but I think that's exactly the sentiment that Joss Whedon captures so well in everything I've seen of his.

I'm here for you on both questions: Yes, season 8 is in comic book form, which I resisted for a while, but then had to check out after my brother talked about it enough. It has good moments and awful moments. Some really hilarious parts with Andrew. As I say, the villain's name is Twilight, and there's one part where the evil plot is to make all of the women of the world brainless and subservient by having these evil stuffed toys bite them. Ummm. It's hard to explain, but funny in the "Yes, they are talking about the Stephenie Meyers Twilight" kind of way.

Let the Right One In is kind of gruesome, which is not to say bad, like many Swedish films tend to be in my opinion. I did not love it just because so much of it is vaguely unpleasant, but I wouldn't say it's not worth watching. It's hard to take vampire things seriously and I don't think we're usually meant to, but it was hard to tell in parts of this movie. Anyway, it has one of the most AMAZING monster movie moments where all these cats attack this lady, and it was worth watching just for that. It was SO funny! I'm pretty sure it was meant to be funny, but not positive.


message 39: by Whitaker (new)

Whitaker Ceridwen, hiya! Here's the link to the Atlantic article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200812...




Ceridwen Thanks, Whitaker. I see, from a quick look, that it's written by Caitlin Flanagan, who is on the front lines of the Mommy Wars, as they are not so affectionately called here in the US. Should be an interesting read.


message 41: by Whitaker (new)

Whitaker Not such a big thing over on this side of the world. I had to google that (even though I'd read an article about it ages back). Came up with a Washington Post article which I thought put it in perspective:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...

Essentially views it as a media-fueled frenzy. What's sad is that "Daddy Wars" don't sell papers. Says a lot about the culture I think.


Cheryl Wow, that review was amazing. I think I'm going to send it to my friend who just read the first book at my (and curiosity's) urging, but who hated it. I feel like I have to justify my love of the story to people who hate it, because I totally understand that it's not well written and it's idealistic and disturbingly unrealistic garbage, but I loved it anyway. I think with the things going on in my life at the time, I *needed* an escape from reality into a completely unreal version of love, and Twilight provided that for me. It's kind of like my love of artists like Eminem. Some books/movies/songs/etc I just like because I like them, not because they're deep or meaningful or enlightening or even a good example of the artform. And inspecting the inner meanings of such works would ruin the emotional reaction for me, so for certain things (Twilight included), I'm going to content myself with turning my brain off and just enjoying the ride for once.

This cat poo was lovely to me. And it's very telling that your review is loved not only by the long line of Twilight dissenters that precede my comment, but also by fans. I realize that I may be a little more open-minded than some crazed twihards, but I found your review insightful without being disrespectful, and it tackled some of the problematic issues of the book that maybe someone like me was unwilling to inspect too closely, but you managed to do it in a way that didn't ruin the emotional pull it has on me, and didn't make me feel like I have to justify that attachment even further.

Bravo!!!


message 43: by Osho (new) - rated it 3 stars

Osho I was at a store where Twilight action figures were being sold. I thought the package warning "Choking Hazard" was right on the mark.


Ceridwen Whitaker: Thanks for the links. I pretty much roll my eyes and pour another drink when confronted by the Mommy Wars, but it's like Twilight, I keep having to account for my position. Sigh.

Thanks Cheryl. If you do some sleuthing, I think you'll find that many of the Twilight dissenters in the above thread *loved* Twilight. But, love can be crazy, anti-social, and inexplicable. I think it's kind of perfect that Bella's dangerous, shaming love for Edward is mirrored in the socially damaged love for Twilight felt by so many women.

And Shoshana, the whole concept of Twilight action figures is hai-larious. Now with Kung-fu grip and marble-like alabaster skin!


message 45: by Jen (new)

Jen What are mommy wars? I am a mommy. Do I qualify?




message 46: by C. (new) - added it

C. I love this review because it doesn't condemn. It is intelligent, thoughtful and beautifully written - as always, only it stands out more because it's about Twilight, of all things.


message 47: by [deleted user] (new)

Wow--just an incredible review.

I tried to read the book this one time when I was waiting at the hospital with nothing to do (no magazines were laid out in the waiting rooms!). My sister had a copy out in her car and after an hour I finally relented and told her that yes, I wouldn't mind reading about Edward anymore. Got about 30 pages in; then put it away.


Ceridwen You can join the Mommy Wars, Jen. Just look around, determine what your relationship is with your children and their father, and then write smug, moralistic treatises about how everyone should be exactly like you. (See also: most politics.) It's a hoot!

And thanks, Wolfie and Choupette.

And Meredith: I managed to go on vacation before I got a chance to respond to your report on Buffy: Season 8. Would you recommend? Comics make me mad, because they're hard to find at the library (I think they're stolen too fast), and they are so darn expensive.


Sparrow Welcome back from vacation!

It's hard to say about Buffy Season 8. Now that I'm in it, there's no going back, and I think for the most part it's worth it. I was pretty satisfied with the ending of the 7th season, though, so in some ways continuing the story is a little complicated (what do you do with all those slayers? That was a fine symbolic message, but as a plot twist it's a little problematic). They compile the issues into graphic novels, which I think are a little easier to get a hold of at a library and also are a little more satisfying than the individual comics (more story at one time). Obviously, there's no Anya, so that's a bummer; and Spike and Angel haven't been showing up, so bummer again. There are just a lot of moments where I have to step back and think about how far I've been sucked in to this odd fantasy world and how much I'm willing to suspend disbelief. It's come a long way since Pee Wee Herman's death scene in the movie. I think any fantasy world becomes a little like the Frankenstein monster (boring and messy) when it develops a rabid fan-base, and even though Joss and the other good writers from the show write quite a few of the comics, it still has those moments where I feel like the some of the writers are so impressed by the alternate reality that their issues are basically fan-fiction and take it too far. That makes me uncomfortable, but I still kind of have to find out what happens next.

Have you watched Joss Whedon's other stuff?


Ceridwen Thanks; vacation rocked.

Re: Whedon. Yes, tons, because I luuuve him. Because he's just like Edward for me except that he's kind of hirsute, chubby, and talks with a minor speech impediment. In fact, and this may destroy all the credibility I may have mustered before, I'm working up the courage to watch "Alien 4: When Boney Ingenue Actresses Attack," (which he wrote) just because I suspect the whole crew is proto-Firefly.

I read the Firefly comic books, and they were fine, but I didn't feel like they had any juice, you know, like your fan-fic analogy. The one bridging to the movie was better, because at least something happened. But the other series takes place in a magical time when all nine characters are together and the events of the movie haven't gone down yet, so it's pretty static. There's no narrative danger.

I'm still holding out hope on "Dollhouse." But Eliza Dushku, whatareyougonnado? Dammit Meredith, you have me talking movies again! Maybe I should start a group - satisfy the movie talk someplace safe. Any name ideas?


« previous 1 3 4
back to top