I hear this a lot. Actually, I started hearing that kind of statement a lot in 1998 regarding a little series of books based on a character named Harry. I didn't buy into it. Honestly, I kind of agreed - at least Rowling was getting kids reading, but the series wasn't my style. I wasn't impressed when I tried Sorcerer's Stone, and later was even less impressed by the "inventive" Chamber of Secrets. I gave up on them.
The phrase was often said to reporters and protesters with a smile and a shrug. As the Christian extremists began to protest, and Scholastic began referring to the book burning sessions as wizard tactics to distract Muggles, I began to grow tired of the sentence. "At least my child is reading." I don't think that's a very good excuse. If you actually read the books and found a part of them offensive to your faith and then shrugged, claiming at least they were reading, what is wrong with you? (By the way, if you actually READ the books, you would see that there is nothing offensive in them, but I'm sure being so terrified of the possibility of evil on the page doesn't actually give text more power, no not at all)
I did become a fan of the series, as most of you know, after the third book, where Rowling shows us the novels are released in a sort of backwards way, giving out pieces of the history puzzle so that you learn to love someone just as he is lost. (and then, at the end... yeah). But that's not the point.
The point is I'm hearing all this again. "At least my daughter's reading!" Oh really? How about you read one of these "GLORIOUS" Twilight novels and tell me what your daughter is actually learning? I don't care about vampires - read all you want about vampires, I do not believe they exist and people writing about them isn't going to bring them into creation - but the role of women in relationships, families, and society? Yeah, that one I care about.
Bella, as I understand from all the fans I know (and from reading what I could stand of the series - the first two and a half novels), is one of the most annoying, obnoxious, unlikable main characters in recent literary history. No one likes her. However, the dangerous part is that many, many girls want to BE her.
Bella is a charicature of everything insulting anyone has ever thought about young women or teenagers. She is a know-it-all, she has poor self-esteem (to an insulting point), she is focused solely on appearances, she is a risk-taker, she is SELFISH beyond belief, she is deceitful to her parents, she does not think ahead, she hates school, and she plays with people's hearts "unknowingly". This is the girl that gets to win in the end of the series - she gets everything she wants. Although I would never want what she wants, the fans do, and they are listening. This is what they hear: It is okay to do dangerous things so long as they get you the attention of the boy you like. It is okay to lead on boys who genuinely like you simply because they are around and you are bored. It is okay to go off by yourself with someone who says they want to kill you. It is okay to let your boyfriend sneak in the house without your father's knowledge. It is okay to let him sleep in your room because YOU understand that he will do you no harm - there is no way that your parents might know better. It is okay to lie to your parents and take trips with strangers for a boy. It is actually sweet if this boy is stalking you because that means that he really cares. It's okay to take an after-school job only to never show up for it.
It is fine to not go to college if you would rather be in love.
Yeah, that last one gets to me, too. I'll come back to it.
I'm sure I don't have to explain why these are terrible lessons to learn at an early age. I also want to point out that the adults who read this and don't balk are (I hope, simply) not seeing stereotypes akin to racism. Just because people are young, simply because they are teenagers, does not mean that they are dishonest idiots. Maturity does occur at different rates, due to different circumstances and pathologies.
So aside from the obviously offensive, let's talk about the parts women play in these novels - namely Bella, of course, since the novels are written from her point of view.
Bella is an only child of a ditzy, irresponsible mother and a gruff, distanced father. They are divorced, but since Bella's mother has just remarried, Bella no longer feels responsible for her and chooses to move in with her father in Washington state. Bella's mother could not function without a man in her life. Bella did not feel as if her mother could live alone or independant at any point, but once a man was present to care for the weak, powerless woman, Bella left to do something that counteracts that statement - take care of her father.
The difference there is that by 'taking care' of her father, Bella cooks dinner. She cleans the house and keeps things organized for Charlie. When she remembers worrying about her mother, Bella recalls times of financial hardship, her mother's forgetfulness, the complete irresponsibility and unpredictability in her household. Since (I want to say her name is Annie?) got married, that is no longer a concern. When Bella worries about Charlie, she worries that he isn't eating well, that he sits around watching football too much, and that he's not dating. A wife would take care of his problems, fix his dinners and all that - so he needs a wife.
Bella is an object for which Edward cares. He openly considers her thoughtless, weak, powerless, reactionary, and he verbally and physically states over and over that she needs to be sheltered. In their relationship, it is obvious that she is to stay home (somewhere safe) and care for the house (as she does for Charlie - Edward is impressed by these skills), while he ventures out into the world, gaining multiple degrees. Edward enjoys Bella's fragility, remarking many times with amusement about how he could end her life with one wrong move. He likes that she requires him to move quickly; he finds her clumsiness and humanity to both be cute. Bella is his property - so much so that he even sits in her room every night, watching her sleep. This is even illustrated more at the climax of the first book, when James attacks Bella because he knows she 'belongs' to Edward.
Jacob "loves" Nessie, and as such he is mentioned as always wanting to care for and protect her. She is his object, and we know this because he imprinted on her.
The only other female characters who are essential to plot are Alice, who has her own skills, but uses them to serve the men in her life. She also is understood to belong to Jasper. And Esme, who belongs to Carlisle and acts as the perfect home mother. She has no profession, but she cares for the house and for the family for which she is the matriarch. She is held up in very high regard by all the characters in the novels that know her, in particular for her 'sweetness' and 'kindness' as a mother.
Another main focus of women in the novel is marriage and babies. All of the female characters have paired up/desire to pair up with a man. For those characters who are over a hundred years old, this is completely understandable. For those who are sixteen, this is unacceptable. Although I recognize that many sixteen year olds believe they found the love of their lives at that age, and that some even make lasting relationships with that person, it is not realistic. Giving people that age hope that sometimes these relationships DO succeed is irresponsible.
Now this part of my rant is a little sketchy - I haven't read Breaking Dawn. I do understand that there is a lot of baby talk in it. Bella finds out Rosalie has always wanted a baby. As a woman, she feels incomplete without a child. Edward suggests that Bella not have the baby out of concern for her safety, but Bella would feel incomplete without a child. Bella MUST have his child because that's what people in love do. Despite the fact that it has always been a health risk for her to be with Edward, and now his child could kill her, she loves him and must marry him and have a child because that is what is necessary in a loving relationship.
Aside from the roles of the characters, Bella's relationship with Edward is terrifying, to say the least. Bella lives for him, ignores all of her schoolwork, her friendships, her family. She no longer communicates with her mother (who I guess can't be bothered to pick up a phone in all her 'worry' but relies on e-mails) and her father only worries if dinner isn't on the table when he comes home. The friends she does make are expected to understand when she dumps them for time with Edward (and amazingly they do). Edward watches Bella through her windows at all hours, and when she discovers this she invites him to sit in her room instead of outside so he can watch her sleep close-up. Bella cannot be bothered to worry about things such as a college education because Edward might not be there. Bella has no interests outside marrying Edward and having his children and being with him forever.
I understand that there are elements of the story which are positive - I think it's an interesting way to avoid the issue of premarital or underage sex - I just wish the morals were supported in some form or fashion so that the hero of the story did not possess ten negative traits for one positive...and the waiting on sex thing isn't her idea, just so you know. It's Edward's, because Edward is the man, therefore he is wise and smart and following the correct order. It is Bella's duty to follow Edward, the man in her life, as he follows a proper path.
Ugh. This wouldn't be so obvious to me, or so unappealing, if I did not know several people who subscribe to a certain branch of religion that promotes all of the above. I consistently see people who are abused and put down by their faith because it follows those guidelines. It makes me insane to watch it, and I don't agree with the promotion of it - any of it. From the obvious distaste for young women (as shown by the depiction of Bella) to the promotion of goals for women (no college, just marriage or college as a path toward marriage - men you can go travel for a while in between), I have seen it time and again and I do not appreciate a guidebook being published and hawked to girls like my little sister, who only see it as a love story.
Sorry for the length of the rant, but someone set me off early today. Join me next time when my topic will either be:
Sarah Palin: An Experiment in America's Sexism
or
Clique - Were Girls' Books This Evil When I Was Young?
