The plumed vampire

On A Motley Vision, Anneke Majors has written the post I intended to write. :) Actually, not exactly the same, but I did plan to read Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight, with the goal of making the same points Anneke makes in her post. It revolves around this question:

What makes literature erotic?

(That’s a pretty good way to get people’s attention, isn’t it. :P) Anyway, she ties it in to D.H. Lawrence’s work, which has been stirring around in the back of my mind for a year or two. I’ve never actually read any of Lawrence’s novels, you see, but I had heard of Lady Chatterley’s Lover and figured I’d steer clear of him.

Then I read Arthur Henry King’s Arm the Children, in which he says all sorts of good things about Lawrence. Seeing as AHK didn’t seem like the sort who’d give such a strong recommendation for someone so obviously taboo, I started wondering. And life went by and I didn’t read any Lawrence, and still haven’t.

But the real point is that Twilight isn’t as innocent as everyone would like to think it is:

Meyer doesn’t once use the word voluptuous, but her novel is one of the most blatantly erotic books I’ve read in a long time. Whether or not a sex scene ever occurs in the lines of the text, the erotic effect can be judged by how many sex scenes occur in the mind of the reader. Meyer’s characters Bella and Edward never do anything technically sexual, but she positions them right at the cusp and holds them there — getting just close enough to titillate her teenage readers without ever using any words she’s not supposed to. In contrast, D.H. Lawrence, the notorious libertine, accomplishes an entire novel on the complex intimate relationship of the sexes without once ushering the reader into the bedroom. Sex scenes occur between Lawrence’s lines, but they are private, quiet, appropriate, and never exploited.

Again, not having read the book yet, I can’t say much about it. Many of my friends, however, have read it, and several have independently said the same thing — that it’s very sensual, effectively becoming soft porn. More dangerous than Harry Potter by far.

Thoughts?

I have read all the Twilight books and enjoyed them. I’m NOT one of the fanatical girls that is completely convince that Edward is “the perfect guy” because I’m just not seeing it (and I’m much more of a werewolf person). I enjoy the books more for Meyer’s vampire and werewolf mythology, I find her version quite intriguing. I also think that the vampire characters’ histories are very interesting. There is a complex underworld. I like that aspect of the books.

That being said I don’t know how in the world Meyer is going to be able to write any more books without putting in an actual sex scene. Which is made even more problematic by her very descriptive writing style. With everything else that has happened (and with as close as she’s gotten) I don’t see her being able to skim over it. If she doesn’t have one, or she skims over or just implies it, she risks losing the more secular fan base she has. And if she does write one in with her typical style, she risks losing a large portion of her LDS fans, present and future.

Her books are very sensual, because of the way she so carefully describes everything. This is facilitated even more so by the fact that it is in first person, from Bella’s perspective. Other books could technically have more scandalous things going on, but a lot of the time you just know something happened, or that certain things are going on “off stage.” The Twilight books put you right there in the middle of everything. Yeah, I’m a little worried about the next book.

Aren’t “vampire books” and “erotic literature” synonymous? In any case, thanks for this post–Meyer’s books just got a lot more interesting to me. I think I’ll read one. Not for the erotica :), but for the controversy. Gotta love a good dispute.

Up to this point I’ve only heard Mormons praising the Twilight series, but I can see why some would get upset. The fact that it’s YA lit can’t help.

Read Lawrence. While the censors have always disagreed, his books are not about sex: they’re about the relationships between men and women. Sexuality is an integral part of that relationship, but he doesn’t explore it for the sake of titillation or gratification. James Wood has a fantastic article on Lawrence in The Broken Estate; read the article first and then Lawrence afterwards (try Women in Love).

another difference between Lawrence and Meyer is that Lawrence can write well. I flipped through Twilight over the summer when my sister was reading it; she writers a rather captivating story, but she doesn’t have the command of, interest in, and facility with language to make her books literature.

I like the comments you’ve gotten on this so far. I’ve read all three books, for the sake of supporting and LDS author and because the over-all story is interesting, though hardly original.

Meyer is VERY descriptive, but because the story is told from the perspective of a teenage girl who is very hormonal with a “hot” boyfriend, things have certainly gotten steamy. Not to mention I’ve wanted to throttle the protagonist for being an angsty, whiny, impractical little brat at times. Think of Harry Potter all the way through book five and you have the heroine.

Will I buy the fourth book? Yes. But I am worried about the coming sex scene. I don’t know what she’s going to do, because she really has created what we could term “soft porn.”

I also have it on good authority that several LDS girls who have read the books are now trying to justify sleeping with their boyfriends. According to Meyer’s book, it’s okay…so long as sex actually isn’t involved.

Very disappointed in that aspect, actually.

Ben, I was just wondering to myself if you were going to pick up this topic, and here you’ve already posted on it!

I’ve never read these books. Not really my thing. However, after reading the discussion on AMV and here, I have a couple things to say:

First, YAWN.

Second, Mormons are gullible or stupid or both to assume that something is worthwhile (or at least more worthwhile) because a Mormon created it. Surprise! Mormon authors write crap that isn’t worth reading, too. Surprise! Mormons are representative of the rest of humanity in their capacity for and commission of both good and ill.

Third, Mormons need to get over being obsessed with what other Mormons do. It’s apparently easy to get all in a snit because this author’s a Mormon, and start going down the path of syllogisms that leads us to claim that she’s effectually getting rich off of deflowering helpless teenage girls. The comment about girls sleeping with their boyfriends because of these books is completely ridiculous, whether it’s true or not. By this kind of logic, J.D. Salinger murdered John Lennon, and the Beatles started the Manson family. You stack the books, I’ll bring the lighter fluid, okay?

We just need to start realizing that something “Mormon” (i.e. produced by a Mormon) isn’t inherently better than anything not-Mormon. It leads to people supporting utter tripe like most of those awful “comedies” about Mormons, for example.

The big difference here that I think excuses Meyer is that Meyer isn’t writing specifically to a Mormon audience. She’s not trying to embody FYSOTY. Give her her freedom. She’s writing what she wants to write, apparently within the framework of her own moral system (judging by the lack of explicit sex), and for a general audience. If readers are dumb enough to blindly assume her books are going to be a good moral guide, then they’ve lost my sympathy.

Let the comments begin about how we all need to be representatives of Jesus Christ, which is true, but here’s the thing: it’s none of your business what she does, and what she wants to write about. If you disagree, educate readers to be more discerning about what they choose to read. Vote with your wallet. Don’t buy it. Don’t read it.

I completely support everyone’s right to disagree with her subject matter. I’m reasonably sure I’d dislike the books (but maybe not for the same reasons). It’s accusations like the “insidious” that I think are off base. Be a wise reader. And let the author mind her own damn business.

“We just need to start realizing that something “Mormon” (i.e. produced by a Mormon) isn’t inherently better than anything not-Mormon.”

I definitely agree with that statement. I think that’s the problem that some people have with Meyer’s books–that a lot of Mormons will read it because the author is Mormon, whereas they might shy away from it otherwise.

“If you disagree, educate readers to be more discerning about what they choose to read.”

I also agree with this statement, because I think that’s the fundamental issue. How do you think this can happen?

“It’s apparently easy to get all in a snit because this author’s a Mormon, and start going down the path of syllogisms that leads us to claim that she’s effectually getting rich off of deflowering helpless teenage girls. The comment about girls sleeping with their boyfriends because of these books is completely ridiculous.”

rikker, Sally never said anything of the sort. She said “I also have it on good authority that several LDS girls who have read the books are now trying to justify sleeping with their boyfriends. According to Meyer’s book, it’s okay…so long as sex actually isn’t involved.”

Edward stays over at Bella’s house nearly every night in the books (without the knowledge of her parents). They never have sex. I think this is what Sally was referring to. You have to realize that teenagers are notorious for blaming others for what they do/want to do. (I know I did, and I know that most of my friends and other teenagers I knew were the same). Teenagers also want to trust that adults aren’t going to lead them astray (though, they may not readily admit to really caring), and the fact that Meyer is an LDS woman weighs heavily with how LDS teenage girls are going to view her books.

I agree that people make too big of a deal about the author being Mormon, I mean, we don’t hear this much stuff about some of Orson Scott Card’s more “out there” stuff. Also, I read, and enjoyed the first book without knowing it was written by an LDS author.

@Katherine: “How do you think this can happen?”

Start by, to quote myself, teaching young readers that “something “Mormon” (i.e. produced by a Mormon) isn’t inherently better than anything not-Mormon.” That’s how they can be more discerning, instead of assuming it’s okay because a Mormon wrote it.

@Mary: That wasn’t in response to Sally’s comment alone, but to comments here and on AMV in general.

One thing: sleeping isn’t bad, if you mean it literally. Sure, it’s generally a dumb idea because you’re setting the stage. If you mean it figuratively, then, sure, that’s not good. I think her wording is ambiguous, but my interpretation is that the rumors she has heard (on good authority, so we shouldn’t doubt them at all) girls are literally sleeping with their boyfriends, and she thinks that’s the book’s danger–that sleeping will lead to “sleeping”.

But regardless of any of that, it has not a thing to do with the author of the book. The only thing it has to do with it is that the author happens to be Mormon, and the girls who are sleeping (or “sleeping”) with their boyfriends as a result of reading the book may have taken that largely irrelevant fact as the go-ahead to act like the character in the book. It’s a completely illogical conclusion to draw, and one that the author shouldn’t be faulted for. They could have just as easily drawn the conclusion that it’s only okay when your boyfriend is a vampire. But they didn’t. So it probably means they were looking for an excuse anyway, and where an excuse is wanted, one will be found.

The readers are accountable for their own actions. It’s just a book. It may not be a particularly good book, but it’s the job of the reader (and parents) to decide what’s worth reading. It’s not the author’s job to babysit her readers and “lead them not into temptation.” It’s her job to sell books, and she’s doing that quite well, by all accounts.

rikker: I apologize. I missed that you were referring to some of the comments on AMV. I just wanted to be sure you weren’t blowing someone else’s comments out of proportion. :P

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. Readers should use their own judgment and not rely on any affiliations the author has.

It honestly boggles my mind how much hype there is about these books. They are kind of fun, but are by no means amazingly well written, or spectacular.

Ben! We’ve practically turned your comment area into a forum! Sorry. :)

Oh, Ben loves it. Why do you think he posted about this topic without having read the books?

This has been rather explosive. :-) I went and read the AMV posting on the subject and have to wonder about the apparent need to bash (a) Meyer, (b) Vampires, (c) all “Christian” authors whose literature does not fully support the values they live, and (d) the commenters themselves. Now I’m just feeling a little sheepish for jumping on the bandwagon.

It was actually my kid sister’s YW group, and my best friend’s home YW group in a completely different state, where girls who read the books used them as an excuse for “napping” with boys. The youth leaders have felt most betrayed by Meyer but–upon further questioning–it was the youth leaders who recommended the books in the first place. Interesting how we all like to point fingers instead of shouldering the blame….

I read the first 2 1/2 books in the Twilight series and here’s my rather (vocal) opinion. You can check out my blog too, if you want a bigger review.

1. I don’t think the books are dangerous in the soft porn area, really. Or at least I wasn’t really bothered by that. I could see how it might lean that way for some people, but I don’t think that’s the issue. I just got irritated by how Bella and Edward were all over each other all the time. I think the problem isn’t whether the writing is pornographic, but what this is can potentially do to the psyche of teenage girls (and college girls) who might want a relationship based on physicality. I don’t think Twilight is the only source of this fire - just watch TV. But I don’t think it helps.

2. I think all this hubub with Edward giving women unrealistic expectations of men is absurd. It makes me pretty angry, actually. The hero and heroine are both immature and hormonal.

3. I think the plot is relatively interesting. In many ways, it’s like Tuck Everlasting only the heroine has grown up. The trouble is that Babbit’s Winnie was more mature than Meyer’s Bella. Bella never considers once what it would be like to give up mortality. She’s too excited for Edward to sneak into her room again.

So yeah. I think the books are poorly written and I don’t like that people are so obsessed over them, especially young girls. But I don’t think the books are *dangerous*. I don’t condemn people for reading them or liking them. I would just rather read something else. *shrug*.

You know, I think y’all are doing a fine job of responding to everything, so I’m going to sit tight on this one and just enjoy. :P

Amen to all that rikker has been saying.
They’re mediocre fiction stories not books of revelation.

I win! :P

One gold medal for rikker coming right up… ;)