Twilight
discussion
Are people who dislike Twilight "obsessed" with Twilight?
I agree with you, Cassie, that the Twilight discussion is different than other discussions on this site. There has always been more posters here who "hate" the series than posters who like it and there are far too many discussions about the "flaws" of Twilight than for other books. It seems like even the threads that are about other aspects of Twilight end up having one or more posters who want to discuss their objections and have things "explained" to them. It's very one dimensional here and that turns potential posters off. Another factor might be adults stepping in and not allowing younger posters on these threads. I have two nieces who love Twilight, but I've told them that I don't want them on the Twilight threads. It's actually not as bad now as when I first started following a year and a half ago, when there were some real jerks around who bullied and were inappropriate with kids. The whole scenario of having to restrict access is very annoying to me, because I think that Goodreads is primarily to sharpen reasoning skills and to give a deeper insight into books. Ideally, I think these Twilight discussions could be good for younger posters who can learn how to navigate a discussion about books, but I think too many adult haters are around to simply snark on them.
I think it is funny when people define themselves through a hatred of something, and it's interesting to speculate on what they gain from that. Personally, I don't really have much respect for that position. I think to be defined by your passions in a positive way (as in spending your time being a fan as opposed to being a hater) is much more interesting. I'd rather talk to a fan, even if I don't share that particular interest, than talk to someone who is a hater. Too much of their objections tend to be about themselves or how they wish to be seen than about the product itself.
As you can see I rated Twilight at 1 stars - the reason I tend to post is to discover different viewpoints and try and understand why this series of books does tend to polarise the comunity. Usually the discussions on Twilight are more interesting than the ones on say, Harry Potter, becuase there is not as much criticsm and thus a lot less discussion points.So far the others books that I have read have little to no discussions going on so I cannot really compare it to other threads.
In a nutshell - haters LOVE to hate!
Tina J wrote: "In a nutshell - haters LOVE to hate!"
True!
True!
I see hate floating around the Hunger Games/Battle Royale threads, and it peeves me off. The books are not the same so stop comparing them. Stop looking for reasons to claim one's better than the other.
It's as pointless as comparing Twilight and Harry Potter. They are not even remotely similar. Haters gotta step off and just let people enjoy what they want to read.
It's as pointless as comparing Twilight and Harry Potter. They are not even remotely similar. Haters gotta step off and just let people enjoy what they want to read.
As a follow up to Carina's comment, I also posted a couple of topics because I wanted to gain a bigger perspective. I'd read quite a few Twilight rants, a lot of which were very convincing and well written albeit rather uncivil, and it only enhanced my dislike of the series. I didn't like that I was hating the series more and more, it just felt wrong and stupid of me. I'd also hadn't read too many logical, convincing arguments in defense of Twilight before I discovered Goodreads. Mostly when I asked Twilighters they would yell at me about how hot Edward is and all that crap. So I posted a couple of topics, hoping some Twilight fans would come and present some logical, convincing, and thought provoking arguments, and sure enough, they did. I still dislike the series but Im also glad I posted what I did because it's given me a much less close-minded view on the series. That's just my opinion though.
Tina J wrote: "In a nutshell - haters LOVE to hate!"Ugh, so true.
yup,they are,they look for reasons and people to start an arguement,why does twilight s.ck, and are very agressive about the theme =) they are obsessed more than the fans =D
It just seems to me that these threads end up talking about the same things, mostly because haters are only interested in their objections. It's not very interesting and certainly doesn't have much variety. It would be like reading a site about Star Trek where mostly non-fans post. The only thing it'll be about boils down to 'Why I don't like it'. Even when there is a thread that's promising, it usually isn't too long before the topic is turned. It's too bad because I'd rather have more of a variety of conversations like on the Harry Potter threads.
Morbid fascination with a cultural phenomenon.
Tina J wrote: "In a nutshell - haters LOVE to hate!"In a nutshell: the twilight lovers just keep uncommonly quiet about their love. :)
Kyra wrote: "I see hate floating around the Hunger Games/Battle Royale threads, and it peeves me off. The books are not the same so stop comparing them."
Not the same, but similar enough that it makes sense to draw comparisons, even to ask how one may have been influenced by the other.
Kyra wrote: "It's as pointless as comparing Twilight and Harry Potter. They are not even remotely similar. Haters gotta step off and just let people enjoy what they want to read. "Eh, I could compare Twilight to oranges and Harry Potter to a pair of socks if I wanted to. (I'd go with the socks, sorry)
It may be pointless to those not participating, but if I find gratification our of it, then there's a point.
Samantha wrote: "Don't call us "haters". Just because not everyone loves this stupid series doesn't mean we hate it just to hate it. The majority of us that have rated it one or two stars have actually read the boo..."Did anyone point a finger specifically at you? Just because you claim not to be a hater just to hate doesn't mean they aren't out there.
Ida wrote: "I do get sick of hating Twilight myself, and I'd rather just let it go most of the time, but then I remember that the books romanticize abusive relationships and condones a damaging view of sexuality and gender roles, and the feminist in me goes all rageface again."Very well said.
I hear the argument expressed quite a lot that "at least Twilight is getting people (well, young girls) into reading, so we should condone it and tink it's awesome." Yes, teenagers have got to start somewhere in their reading career but I think that there's a huge missing link between encouraging girls to read and examining the ideological viewpoints of the literature that they're reading - and how that images of men/women in popular fiction might shape their views of relationships between men/women in the real world. If you're capable of reading and critiquing Twilight, then fine, it's possible to enjoy it for what it is, although how anyone could enjoy reading Meyer's turgid prose is a mystery to me!.
The popularity of such conservative, anti-feminist literature is, on the one hand quite worrying ... but on the other hand if you look at "women's popular literature" over the last few decades it's not necessarily a backwards step in itself, it's just a particularly visible one.
Samantha wrote: "Angie wrote: "Samantha wrote: "Don't call us "haters". Just because not everyone loves this stupid series doesn't mean we hate it just to hate it. The majority of us that have rated it one or two s..."I guess I inferred from your 'Don't call US haters' to mean you thought someone was pointing a finger at you.
Samantha wrote: "Angie wrote: "Samantha wrote: No, nobody pointed fingers directly at me. I don't believe I said they did. However there are people who think "haters" (I hate that word, almost as much as troll) hate just to hate. When in fact, most of us have valid reasons to hate this series, like myself and the poster above me. "Perhaps you're not one of these "haters", but just like how not all people who dislike it only dislike it to dislike it, not all people dislike it because they used their reasoning skills.
There ARE people who hate it just to hate it. Those are the "haters", not just anyone who dislikes it. If you're not a person who hates it just to hate it, then logically, you're not categorized in that group.
Uh.... no. I dislike Twilight (however, I was a fan of the first book but then I reread it when the movie came out and I just really didn't enjoy it). I have read all of the books, and rated them 1 or 2 stars, but that doesn't mean I'm 'obsessed' with them.
Nicole wrote: "Uh.... no. I dislike Twilight (however, I was a fan of the first book but then I reread it when the movie came out and I just really didn't enjoy it). I have read all of the books, and rated them 1..."That's not even what this discussion is about. I didn't say anyone's rating has anything to do with how much someone enjoys talking about twilight, it's the number of discussions people want to take part in.
Ida wrote: "I do get sick of hating Twilight myself, and I'd rather just let it go most of the time, but then I remember that the books romanticize abusive relationships and condones a damaging view of sexuali..."Just ignore it then.
It's an interesting idea about what would separate regular haters from obsessed haters. Everyone has books that they don't like or that don't interest them. I read the first couple of chapters of the Percy Jackson series and put it down. That's normal behavior; I think everyone does it. I don't have an interest in going near the threads to discuss why I didn't want to continue reading. I don't think less of someone who likes the series. When I talk to someone who is a fan, I generally say that I haven't read the books (which is true enough). Ultimately, I move on with my life and onto other books. This is a typical response.Fandom functions differently. It's natural to talk of something you like and to discuss the nuances and be interested in the small details. I think that's what's missing from Twilight discussions; fans getting together and just talking about the books. There can always be a few threads about disliking the book. (There's a few on Harry Potter threads.) But there seems to be no other kind of discussion here on Twilight but people's problems with the series, and haters don't seem to understand that there's any other dimension but the one that they have.
In my opinion, to separate the regular from the obsessed I'd look for just how hysterical the rhetoric gets. If it's "the end of Western Civilization" and "it's teaching young people to ruin their lives", I think you have to rate them pretty high on the scale of in danger of losing some perspective. I think there are always a number of trolls just looking to snark, so I think if they continuously call Meyer stupid and refer to fans as "twitards", you're probably dealing with someone just trying to bait others. In that case, I think Twilight threads are just a convenient place to find victims.
Mickey wrote: "It's an interesting idea about what would separate regular haters from obsessed haters. Everyone has books that they don't like or that don't interest them. I read the first couple of chapters of t..."This is what I don't get either. I've read (or stopped reading) a lot of books I've rated 1 star. I tend to just totally ignore all discussion threads about those books - I don't even bother reading the thread titles for them. Why expend my energy and brain power over something I really dislike? Why raise my blood pressure raging over a book I dislike? I'd rather spend my time discussing books I found value in rather than expounding endlessly on all the reasons I disliked a book - not just once, but the same complaints over and over again. It doesn't bother me at all if people dislike a book I liked; I'm sure I dislike a book someone else loves. I just don't get why people want to spend their valuable time on earth bashing points of a book.
yeah, it's turned into a crusade...some of them honestly believe they're making the world a better place, one rant at a time.
Yeah that is really weird. How people claim to hate certain books have some of the longest reviews. I wouldn't say that people are "obsessed" with them but enjoy ranting about how bad the book is and how people shouldn't read it.
Amy wrote: This is what I don't get either. I've read (or stopped reading) a lot of books I've rated 1 star. I tend to just totally ignore all discussion threads about those books - I don't even bother reading the thread titles for them. Why expend my energy and brain power over something I really dislike? "I pesonally have made myself a promise that if I start a book I will always finish it - no matter if I dislike it (I have been trying to reread War and Peace and Bleak House for the last couple of months, it is slow going on both but I am getting there). I am also interested to see what I missed out on as some people must really like the story.
Take, for example, The Great Gatsby. I really did not like that book. I disliked the writing style, really didn't like/understand the characters etc so I am rather confused as to why it ends up on so many of the 'greatest' books lists. So I read and occasionaly join in the couple of discussions going on about it to try and understand. The same with Twilight - I don't particularly like anything about it, but from two very well written threads (whose commentators are also appearing on here) I can now understand that for some people it is the appeal of a new relationship that they like - it shows that mistakes can be made. I also understand from Joceylyns thread that the main thing I really hate - the abusive/stalker tendencies - that a number of fans also dislike that but take the approach that this is a work of fiction and therefore the 'normal' rules of the world do not apply.
To me rating a book a low score is just a sign that it wasn't too my personal taste but I would take it as a missed opportunity to expand my knowledge and literary experience had I not read it.
Mickey wrote: "Fandom functions differently. It's natural to talk of something you like and to discuss the nuances and be interested in the small details. I think that's what's missing from Twilight discussions; fans getting together and just talking about the books."It just seems that there isn't much to talk about for twilight - 'cept how hawt Edward is. :D
Fatima wrote: "Yeah that is really weird. How people claim to hate certain books have some of the longest reviews."
It's always much easier to write a (usually less thought out) negative review. :)
But yeah, the internet sure gave people that do love to rant a stage.
Gerd wrote: "But yeah, the internet sure gave people that do love to rant a stage. "And why shouldn't it? I think we're getting sidetracked with the lovers vs haters argument here when what's important is whether or not someone actually has something interesting to say. Does it really "matter" whether it's for or against the book (aside from the microcosmic argument of whether this book is a quality wwork of fiction or not), we should be encouraging the well thought out rants and dissuading the poorly thought out ones on both sides of the argument.
Ida wrote: "Amy wrote: "Ida wrote: "I do get sick of hating Twilight myself, and I'd rather just let it go most of the time, but then I remember that the books romanticize abusive relationships and condones a ..."Sorry, teen girls are really not that dumb or lack so much self confidence that they can't tell the difference between reality and fiction. I also certainly haven't met any teen boys or young men (and I've taught high school for 10 years now), that have patterned themselves after Edward Cullen in order to take advantage of some girl who lost her head over Twilight. There are certainly worse crimes against women than Twilight that you could crusade for.
During the height of Twilight, my teen step-daughter was an obsessed fan. She read the series countless times, but when her boyfriend starting acting controlling of her (saying who she couldn't hang out with), she dumped him without a glance back. Now, if she had been so damaged by Twilight, wouldn't she have thought her controlling boyfriend as being romantic just like Edward?
Alex wrote: "And why shouldn't it? I think we're getting sidetracked with the lovers vs haters argument here when what's im..."Per definition a rant isn't thought out or useful (well maybe for the person doing the rant it is), ever, that's what the problem is with them.
And most of the time they ain't even entertaining.
Gerd wrote: "Alex wrote: "And why shouldn't it? I think we're getting sidetracked with the lovers vs haters argument here when what's im..."Per definition a rant isn't thought out or useful (well maybe for t..."
Not to mention - has all the ranting against Twilight actually turned any Twilight fans against Twilight? I doubt it. Maybe one or two? So, has the ranting had a true purpose? If the purpose is to warn unsuspecting, impressionable teen girls who can't tell fantasy from reality, the warning/ranting is better to be done at the middle school libraries across the nation than here where the "damage has been done" because the teens posting here have already read it.
The idea of Twilight being antifeminist is an odd one, if you think about it. It's like saying something like The Great Gatsby is anti-Islamic. There are a lot of things in The Great Gatsby that might go against the grain of Islamic ideals, but Fitzgerald is under no obligation (and probably had no desire or thought) to create a story that harmonizes with Islamic beliefs. By the same token, Meyer might not be a feminist and there was never anything in the books about Bella ascribing to feminism, so why would people expect either one to conform to ideals they probably don't espouse? Is it because the author and character are female? That in itself might be considered sexist.I think crusading against books because they don't espouse your ideas is supremely arrogant. No one has the right to decide for the population in general what they should read. I think the argument that people are being "ruined" by a series is silly and a little hysterical. This focus on the influence of "bad books" is strange to me, because I see how crippling the effects of home lives and environment can have on kids, yet people are focusing on the effects of a book. Kids do not live in a vaccum. Where do you think most children learn about relationships? I'd say that the home is much more important than a book. I think it's just an excuse to rant.
Since women are 50% of the population issues regarding the portrayal of women in fiction are ever-present whether you happen to want them to be or not. You cannot write a book without touching on the issue, even if it's by omission (perhaps especially if it is). One can discuss every book or work of fiction from a feminist perspective.It's not so much a matter of saying "I am a feminist, I believe in equality for women" from a proactive political standpoint ( though I am, and I do) it's about discussing the text from a particular perspective i.e how are women represented in the novel, how does this novel present the relationship between men and women and what does it tell us about the author's attitudes towards a certain set of ever-present societal issues (namely, the dominance of the patriarchy in society since the... beginning of humanity).
It's important to discuss this book and describe Meyer as anti-feminist because it's important to teach children and adults alike that power relationships between men and women have favored men over the years and people need to learn how this is expressed in literature and how anti-feminists (or those, like Meyer, purely disinterested in feminism, if you will) propagate the patriarchy and what likely negative effects there will be with continued patriarchal dominance.
You don't get to choose when you switch feminism off and on with regards to literature - it's a critical perspective. It's not the only critical perspective and it's not the only way of talking about literature but I think it's pretty obvious with a text like Twilight that it's a relevant one.
Please, don't play the "arrogant" card when someone makes an argument that you disagree with, that's childish. (see what I did there?) It's not hysterical to talk about the power dynamics between men and women. It's highly relevant and oddly it's in your favour that men like me do so ... even if I'm wrong in what I say it's important for women that the debate is continued and constantly brought to the forefront of political discussions.By discussing literature nobody is saying one shouldn't put money, time, energy, love and care into bettering and improving the home lives of disadvantaged and abused children. Or that the effects of a negative homelife aren't extremely problematic for certain individuals.
I think you under-rate incredibly the effect to which "culture" is everywhere in our lives and how it affects all people from all walks of life. A child reading one book like Twilight is perhaps not going to be effected. A child reading a diet of books in the Twilight mode throughout her entire upbringing without ever questioning them is going to be influenced by those books because she's going to understand male/female relationships in those terms. Saying "it's just fantasy" is really not the way out because one has to ask "why does this person want this fantasy?" I've seen too many women who allow men to play dominating roles in their lives to realise that this is not an abstract fantasy in the same way as "travelling to a fantasy world" might be a fantasy. The fantasy is in the "fantastical element" i.e he's a vampire, he's too good to be real" etc .. the real desire is in genuinely wanting to fall in love with a man like Edward Cullen and idealising that kind of romantic scenario.
The popularity of Twilight has undoubtedly brought on a revival of traditional romantic representations of women in popular literature (see 50 Shades of Grey if nothing else) so I think it's worth repeatedly pointing out to people that this "fantasy" of subjugation ought not to be replicated in real life if women don't want to be continually abused and subjugated in reality by men because a healthy romantic relationship is one in which male/female (or male/male, female/female) are completely 50/50.
Gerd wrote: "Per definition a rant isn't thought out or useful (well maybe for the person doing the rant it is), ever, that's what the problem is with them.And most of the time they ain't even entertaining. "
Well, I think we can agree that non-useful comments are non-useful. I was thinking about rants in terms of "going off on one". I'm prone to do this a lot ... I like to think sometimes that even though I can be very verbose and impassioned when I discuss literature and movies, I do sometimes say or write something that's worth reading. I describe myself as "ranting" and I think a lot of the time people genuinely think "he's off on one again"... but they also tell me that sometimes I have a point. Sometimes.
Ah, when I hear rant I think of the typical incoherent internet rant that is filled with crude language, personal attacks, enough grammar fail to make the gods cry and, on goodreads most often, pointless "funny" pictures.I have yet to find one in which the probable "good point" isn't buried too deep to ever possibly discover again.
Alex wrote: "It's important to discuss this book and describe Meyer as anti-feminist because it's important to teach children and adults alike..."Feminism has a certain set of beliefs, like Islam. However, not everyone is a member of the club. So, obviously, there are going to be many books that espouse different ideas and realities that do not follow the party line.
Authors don't have to write a feminist book or a communist book or an Islamic book. There shouldn't even be that expectation when you are talking about someone who hasn't said they belong to a certain group.
I don't agree with the idea that there's been any discussion about using feminism as a way to look critically at a piece of literature. That isn't what's going on. It's about faulting a series for not espousing a certain point of view, which is a different thing entirely.
As far as the preaching about the patriarchy goes, that's a feminist article of faith, not something that others need to recognize. I don't think anyone comes to Goodreads to be evangelized to.
I think the thing with books is that they are going to be looked at in fine detail through different perspectives. I recall in English Literature - we would be asked to examine a book from "a feminist standpoint" it didn't matter if the author was feminist, anti-feminist or just plain did not care - it was still a viewpoint from which the book could be examined.I think though that if you are going to be scrutinising any text from a standpoint that the text does not come from that you do need to acknowledge that.
Mickey wrote: "Feminism has a certain set of beliefs, like Islam. However, not everyone is a member of the club. So, obviously, there are going to be many books that espouse different ideas and realities that do not follow the party line. Authors don't have to write a feminist book or a communist book or an Islamic book. There shouldn't even be that expectation when you are talking about someone who hasn't said they belong to a certain group.
I don't agree with the idea that there's been any discussion about using feminism as a way to look critically at a piece of literature. That isn't what's going on. It's about faulting a series for not espousing a certain point of view, which is a different thing entirely.
As far as the preaching about the patriarchy goes, that's a feminist article of faith, not something that others need to recognize. I don't think anyone comes to Goodreads to be evangelized to. "
No, feminism doesn't have a unique set of beliefs like Islam. There's no feminist text that one can refer back to and also it's a political viewpoint, not a religious one and as such there's a lot of argumentation within feminism as to what the term means and what it means to actually be a feminist.
But similarly one cannot avoid politics. One can "not give a damn" about politics but one still exists on the political spectrum regardless - left, right, centre... you just might not know it or be able to express it. I agree that to actively say "I am a feminist, I believe x" is to make a political statement about feminism but that's limiting the concept of feminism to similarly either joining a political party or not. One can be "left-wing" in belief without joining communist or socialist parties. There are lots of different ways that the term "left-wing politics" has meaning.
Some authors choose to write about feminism, some don't. There's no expectation that they do or don't (other than that I, personally, like the ones that do) That's not the point. The point is that they exist in a political way whether they like it or not and they express feminist/anti-feminist ideas whether they like it or not. To write is to write politically.
Likewise, people who fault the series might not necessarily be standing up and saying "I think this is bad because it's anti-feminist and it expresses male/female relationships in bad ways" and so on. They may not be using the terminology and they may not consider themselves feminists... but I think by and large the complaints aginst Twilight do actually amount to the same thing. "Ed Cullen is creepy" is the beginnings of a political argument and it's observing the weird sexual/romantic dynamic that there is in the book..
On the other hand, if someone is saying "Meyer just can't write" well, that's the beginning of an aesthetic argument. (It's just not an interesting statement in itself, I suppose)
People come to Goodreads to talk about books. To talk about books is to talk about politics too, I'm afraid. Surely you think it's more positive to discuss the intricacies of the politics and ideology of a book than to just say "I liked it" or "I didn't like it". Debate and discussion is not evangelizing.
Mickey wrote: "As far as the preaching about the patriarchy goes, that's a feminist article of faith, not something that others need to recognize."That's a bit like saying Islamic extremism is something only members of the Islam have to care about. Patriarchal concepts influence society, and nobody can claim not to be a part of that - so, ignoring it won't to any good.
Carina wrote: "I think the thing with books is that they are going to be looked at in fine detail through different perspectives. I recall in English Literature - we would be asked to examine a book from "a feminist standpoint" it didn't matter if the author was feminist, anti-feminist or just plain did not care - it was still a viewpoint from which the book could be examined."I already addressed this point, you can find it in my previous post. My point was that you cannot fault a book for not espousing a certain ideal and there shouldn't be the expectation that an author would espouse a certain viewpoint. If you were a devout Muslim reading The Great Gatsby, you can't fault the book for not being entirely kosher and in line with your beliefs. You can 'not like' the book, but the idea that it is actively "anti-Islamic" as opposed to simply "not Islamic" is problematic. If every book that does not espouse actively Islamic views is "anti", then most of the books I've ever read would fall under that designation, even though most never mention Islam and their focus was elsewhere. Muslims shouldn't have an expectation that all literature is going to fall in line with their beliefs or that something harmful happens to others if they read a non-Islamic book (particularly if they are not Muslims). I don't see any special dispensation for feminists. A book that doesn't mention feminism at all can hardly be termed anti-feminist. Now, it can not follow what feminists would like, but why would they have an expectation from any book that it should be feminist? That's incredibly intolerant and also very arrogant.
Gerd wrote: "That's a bit like saying Islamic extremism is something only members of the Islam have to care about. Patriarchal concepts influence society, and nobody can claim not to be a part of that - so, ignoring it won't to any good."The feminist view of a patriarchy is part of their creed. It's certainly not universally acknowledged by others that such a thing exists. Feminists may extend that idea beyond the boundaries of their group and apply it to everyone, much like religious groups do, but there's no obligation to others to conform to that belief system.
I don't have an active belief in saints that many people do. Many people believe that saints are very influential in society. A believer could say that I'm ignoring them, but that doesn't really further the argument that they exist. (Although, really, as I said before, I'm not interested in being evangelized to.)
I can accept that feminism has certain beliefs and views on things, but I am under no obligation to believe what they believe or view things under their lights. It's part of being an autonomous human being to not be forcibly pressed into an ideology and to be free to choose what to believe.
Mickey wrote: "The feminist view of a patriarchy is part of their creed."Now, that's something different.
However, the fact that not everyone believes that patriarchal systems exist isn't saying much - not everybody believes that the Shoa happened or the moonlanding, either, and yet I feel fairly sure in calling them facts.
True, saints (in the religious sense) do not exist, still, the believe that they do is having an effect on society.
Mickey wrote: "Carina wrote: "I think the thing with books is that they are going to be looked at in fine detail through different perspectives. I recall in English Literature - we would be asked to examine a boo...I already addressed this point, you can find it in my previous post."
Mickey - if you actually read my post you would see that I was neither agreeing or disagreeing. I was merely responding to the point which you had made and saying that whilst viewpoints exist then any text will likely be examined through them and fault them. It applies to political or religious beliefs which I believe is a point Alex clearly expressed.
Samantha wrote: "Don't call us "haters". Just because not everyone loves this stupid series doesn't mean we hate it just to hate it. The majority of us that have rated it one or two stars have actually read the boo..."Thank you. This is exactly my reason too right here.
You've not come across anyone who doesn't believe in the patriarchy as envisioned by feminists? I think you'd benefit from getting out more, Gerd. I wouldn't put the belief in patriarchial systems (which is an interpretation) in the same category as whether there was a Holocaust or whether men landed on the moon (which are incidents that can be checked and verified.) It's faulty logic.
Carina wrote: "Mickey - if you actually read my post you would see that I was neither agreeing or disagreeing."I didn't say you agreed or disagreed, I was correcting a point that you made while responding to mine, because what you were saying did not correspond with what I wrote. So, I explained again what I was saying, so you could respond or not. I did read your post, Carina, which is where I realized that you did not understand my position. So I clarified.
I still don't think you understand my position, but it's at the point where it's probably better to just move forward instead of try to explain it again.
I may be totally faulted for going up against you again but...Mickey wrote: I didn't say you agreed or disagreed, I was correcting a point that you made while responding to mine, because what you were saying did not correspond with what I wrote. So, I explained again what I was saying, so you could respond or not. I did read your post, Carina, which is where I realized that you did not understand my position. So I clarified.
I still don't think you understand my position, but it's at the point where it's probably better to just move forward instead of try to explain it again. ."
So - in your first post you said:
Feminism has a certain set of beliefs, like Islam. However, not everyone is a member of the club. So, obviously, there are going to be many books that espouse different ideas and realities that do not follow the party line.
Authors don't have to write a feminist book or a communist book or an Islamic book. There shouldn't even be that expectation when you are talking about someone who hasn't said they belong to a certain group.
I responded by stating that it was my experience that any text can be critiqued or looked at from any exisiting viewpoint regardless of whether or not it is the authors intent or own belief. I then concurred with you by saying that people ought to acknowledge that the text they are critiquing/examining may not or was not written with that view point in mind.
You then go on to say:
My point was that you cannot fault a book for not espousing a certain ideal and there shouldn't be the expectation that an author would espouse a certain viewpoint.
But this is what happens in, at least in the United Kingdom, English Literature (or for schools which do not seperate Literature and Language just plain old English) classrooms. You then continue:
You can 'not like' the book, but the idea that it is actively "anti-Islamic" as opposed to simply "not Islamic" is problematic. If every book that does not espouse actively Islamic views is "anti", then most of the books I've ever read would fall under that designation, even though most never mention Islam and their focus was elsewhere. Muslims shouldn't have an expectation that all literature is going to fall in line with their beliefs or that something harmful happens to others if they read a non-Islamic book
Again, you come up with the issue that a number of people are told to examine texts from many different points of view. There was an interesting thread on an adaptation of Jane Eyre that was, for all intents and purposes, erotica. Most people, myself included, felt that the whole point of Jane Eyre meant that this adaptation went against the concept - whilst one person looked at it from a literary standpoint and discussed adaptations as points of literary advancement. Did the majority of posters agree - no, but the standpoint or view was in no way less valid, nor was it at any point an arrogant stance to take, it was simply a different one that allowed literary discourse to form.
As you say I may simply not understand your point but perhaps if you can now understand why I felt you failed to read my entire post. By all means explain again - as I said in one of my first posts I think the whole point of discussions on books is to broaden your horizons and gain knowledge that you may not otherwise obtain.
Mickey wrote: "You've not come across anyone who doesn't believe in the patriarchy as envisioned by feminists? I think you'd benefit from getting out more, Gerd. I wouldn't put the belief in patriarchial systems (which is an interpretation) in the same category as whether there was a Holocaust or whether men landed on the moon (which are incidents that can be checked and verified.) It's faulty logic. "
To put it another way I'll use your Islam example. Most of Western literature does not discuss the topic of Islam. If you were interested in Islam or religion, you'd probably notice this and ask yourself why Islam is never mentioned. You'd probably end up concluding that there's no mention of Islam because Western society has grown up fundamentally interested in Christianity. You might also think that this is a limited religious perspective. You might also go on to note that generally when writers discuss Islam it's with negative connotations. After all, you can't read John Buchan's Greenmantle and feel too much positivity towards Muslims.
Ultimate conclusion = Western society over the centuries doesn't care for Islam. The fact that most writers don't talk about Islam in their work is indicative of a negative response to the religion, an idea backed up by portrayals of Islam in other popular texts.
Similarly if you're interested in women (let's presume that, as a woman Mickey, you are) then you could apply a similar mindset to looking at literature. How have authors written about women in texts over the years. Are they interested in women's issues or are they not? Are the authors that people have considered to be good, female authors, and if not, is this significant?
This is basically what feminists critiques try to do. Look at texts from a perspective of how women are portrayed in them with a view to examining how society has understood the role of women. You seem to be presuming that one has to buy into some straw man conclusion that you've created and called "patriarchy-that-I-don't-Agree-with" when in fact it's a matter of buying into the methodology and then debating what conclusions we ultimately draw.
If there are no women in the novel, what does this tell us? If there are no women in 100 novels what does this tell us? If there are women but they are all portrayed as being subservient, stay-at-home wives and mothers, what does this tell us? and so on and so on. You seem to be painting all of this as some arrogant, malicious agenda to sully your favourite books, when it's really am attempt to understand society through the literature that it produces. A lot of feminists - myself included - think that you can see a lot of negative trends in the portrayal of women through literature and movies and point this out and use other sociological factors to suggest that the "patriarchy" is dominant in society and has been guilty of misrepresenting women and attempting to define women in a restricted, often negative way, for its own gain. There's no real disagreement that there is a "patriarchy" anymore or that men have been dominant and politically powerful over the centuries ... it's basically fact. One might disagree with what one ought to do from here, what the natures of femininity or masculinity are, or hopw relevant the idea of a patriarchy is *now* and how much power it has, and so on and so on.
I sense that you're running from the reality of politics by trying to deny politics. Again, you disagree with many conclusions, that's fine. You might even disagree that this is the best way to examine literature. Also fine, there are other ways. However you can't just say "there's no such thing as feminism" or "patriarchy" these things are up for debate". They're not, actually. They're words in the language that express notions and ideas that have become part of the framework of academic and literary debate. If you want to attack such strong ideologies you have to enter into that particular debate, not pretend that it doesn't exist.
Mickey wrote: "You've not come across anyone who doesn't believe in the patriarchy as envisioned by feminists?"I never said that, I said that some people don't believe that patriachal systems do exist doesn't mean anything.
Same as I came upon some people that don't believe that the Shoa happened, but denial of facts doesn't make them cease to exist.
That feminsits have a different view on those systems than, say, Mormons is out of question for me.
Mickey wrote: "I wouldn't put the belief in patriarchial systems (which is an interpretation) in the same category as whether there was a Holocaust or whether men landed on the moon (which are incidents that can be checked and verified.)"
Same as the existence of said systems can be verified. The debate is not wether or not these systems do exist, but to what extent they actually influence society.
Alex wrote: "I think you under-rate incredibly the effect to which "culture" is everywhere in our lives and how it affects all people from all walks of life. A child reading one book like Twilight is perhaps not going to be effected. A child reading a diet of books in the Twilight mode throughout her entire upbringing without ever questioning them is going to be influenced by those books because she's going to understand male/female relationships in those terms. Saying "it's just fantasy" is really not the way out because one has to ask "why does this person want this fantasy?" I've seen too many women who allow men to play dominating roles in their lives to realise that this is not an abstract fantasy in the same way as "travelling to a fantasy world" might be a fantasy. The fantasy is in the "fantastical element" i.e he's a vampire, he's too good to be real" etc .. the real desire is in genuinely wanting to fall in love with a man like Edward Cullen and idealising that kind of romantic scenario.The popularity of Twilight has undoubtedly brought on a revival of traditional romantic representations of women in popular literature (see 50 Shades of Grey if nothing else) so I think it's worth repeatedly pointing out to people that this "fantasy" of subjugation ought not to be replicated in real life if women don't want to be continually abused and subjugated in reality by men because a healthy romantic relationship is one in which male/female (or male/male, female/female) are completely 50/50."
I may not always agree with what you have to say sometimes, but you do bring an intelligent, excellent point to the table. Even though I don't find Edward's treatment of Bella to be abusive or terribly controlling and I don't believe Meyer was trying to create a feminist character, if teens only focus on books/media with women in submissive roles, their perspective would be tainted. But, I also believe the relationships a girl sees at home go much farther than books or media to dictate her idea of relationships.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Every Other Day (other topics)
The Short Second Life of Bree Tanner (other topics)
Twilight (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
The Master and Margarita (other topics)Every Other Day (other topics)
The Short Second Life of Bree Tanner (other topics)
Twilight (other topics)
The first book has a Goodreads rating of 3.60, so obviously most people who have rated it have rated it 3 stars or higher, so it's not because these people are in the majority.
I'd just like to know why you think that is?
(I haven't looked at too many book discussions on Goodreads, so if this is a common trend all around, never mind)