"What is written without effort is in general read without pleasure,"—Samuel Johnson
I have never been one to think that "everything the artist spits is art." I think any artistic outcome viscerally lies in the "craft" of the artist. Craft, in my opinion, is the ability of the artist to tame their talents to some effective means. I'm sure those of us who've tried to write novels know it well: no matter how inventive or creative we are, it's still so easy to get lost in our writing. No matter how good we are at playing the piano, composing something of our own remains very frustrating. Yet, I hold that particularly in literary matters, a measure of craft is necessary.
Stephanie Meyer has undergone much criticism because of her portrayal of Edward Cullen and Bella Swan's relationship in Twilight. One of the issues being the gender roles outlined in the book. Meyers has rebutted critics saying that Bella's inferiority to Edward and her obsessions over Edward aren't so much a part of her "womanhood" but an expression of her humanity. Yet, this is not what it reads like at all.
And why, reader, would Twilight read contrary to Meyer's intention?
While it is her book, the novel is not yet her art. Meyers skills with writing have not one her many merits with her contemporaries. "Stephanie Meyer can't write worth a darn" as Stephen King told USA Weekend. This is entirely the reason why her book lends itself to crazy interpretations, it is poorly written and is thus inconsistent with any beliefs she holds. It would be akin to me writing a post about Twilight so vague that you might think I liked the book. But, because I know how to use my words wisely, you get a clear picture of my meaning.
Twilight's success speaks to a growing American audience which is expecting less and less, and becoming zealots for mediocrity. The songs we listen to on the radios are covers, the movies we watch are the same stories we've seen already, regardless if its Johnny Depp or Gene Wilder who played the part. To top this, Sylvia Browne--a charlatan who masquerades as a psychic--can have a bestseller, and so can Stephanie Meyer.
I have hopes for Meyer. I think that she'll grow out of her bleary Twilight series phase and step into something new. Hopefully, she saves an ear for her critics and tries to write something a little sharper. She's young, and no doubt has some life experiences to inspire her to a new, and much more substantial topic than vapid vampire romances. But, it will take great effort on her part. Nothing worth reading or doing is easy to put down in words, but when it is done, then you've joined the ranks of genius.
Ah, but reader! if Stephanie Meyer improves her writing... will she remain so popular?
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Edward Cullen; or "The Swan Princess (Part II)"
"Appearances are often deceiving."—Aesop
Who is Edward Cullen?
The vampire Edward Cullen is ensconced in Bella's narrative as the zenith of physical perfection. She catches glimpses of him from across the dining hall, sits next to him in class, and eventually burns with a yearning to lay her eyes on him time and time again. Throughout the book, many praises are given Edward's impeccable appearance as well as his physical strength.
As Bella says in the fourth chapter, page 79:
"I wasn’t interesting. And he was. Interesting… and brilliant… and mysterious… and perfect… and beautiful… and possibly able to lift full-sized vans with one hand."
The book focuses on Edward's physical appearance, especially in those scenes in which he glitters half-naked. Apparently the undead are made out of sequins? What is more, the book goes so far in mentioning every corporeal feature of Edward, that most of his characterization is muffled. After reading the book, his personality remains a mystery to me, other than that he's tense and brooding. His moral dilemma of "Bella: to bite or to bed?" is the only insight into who he is.
Friday, September 25, 2009
The Swan Princess (Part I)
“A woman’s hair is long but her wits are short,” — proverb
I disagree with the statement entirely. I’m sure others would call it misogynist, women-hating or boorishly chauvinistic. I think that many fans of Twilight would concur giving that statement those labels. Yet why do so many women identify with Bella Swan, Twilight's "heroine" or, as I'd title her, the book's "feature moron."
In analyzing Bella Swans character, I have found no character at all.
Bella Swan is nothing much. She considers herself to be nothing much, and she doesn't do anything but provide the reader with plaintive accounts of her inner feelings. A friend of mine, who deserves credit for being an inspiration for my literary criticism of this novel, pointed out Bella Swan is not much of a protagonist. For those of us who don't pay attention in English class or didn't expect words above two-syllables on a blog, the protagonist is the "good" character. The character the reader wants to win in the end.
Yet, this is too simple a definition, especially for our purposes here, ladies and gentlemen. For certainly, Bella Swan is the character you "ought to" (I put it in quotes because I can't) root for. Though, even "rooting for" Bella implies that Bella has some goal, some purpose, is chasing something. I think that Bella is without any of these.
As my friend said: "Bella is a bad protagonist, she doesn't do anything; everything happens to her."
Reader, this is absolutely true. Reread the book and find one thing Bella does to move the plot along. She's just adrift among these situations. The only thing she does for the book is give an account of what's going on around her and within her. Other than that, she has no power in the story. A protagonist viscerally interacts with the story, the novel is typically their struggle and an account of their actions. Bella never acts or acts on anything, she is just eventually pushed into these situations.
I start the following video at 44 seconds in for you, please pause after 1:20.
I relish it as I quote it: "there was no distinct character I was playing, I was really just this girl in this, like, extravagant situation."
If the actor who must be intimate with the character to present it, finds there to be no distinct character what does that say about the entity she attempts to represent? What is Bella Swan if she has no character? A blob, "just this girl."
And yet, so many want to put themselves into the position of "just this girl." I do realize people find it easy to project themselves onto Bella. She is a flat, blank screen. Bella is everybody's means to Edward. That's why people choose to project themselves upon her says more about Edward than Bella, I will becoming back to this idea.
Ladies, how would you like it if your man wrote the story of your love for you?
Edward does.
Edward sets everything in motion, he's the one who is first so mysteriously wary of her, he's the one who begins to talk to her, he's the one who takes her into the woods, he's the one who lavishes her with superhuman attention.
Hey ladies, would women have every gotten as far in society as they are now if they had Bella's complacency? And you aspire to be like her...? Why? When she has no values, no purpose, only "extravagant situations?"
What is Bella Swan? Fowl.
I disagree with the statement entirely. I’m sure others would call it misogynist, women-hating or boorishly chauvinistic. I think that many fans of Twilight would concur giving that statement those labels. Yet why do so many women identify with Bella Swan, Twilight's "heroine" or, as I'd title her, the book's "feature moron."
In analyzing Bella Swans character, I have found no character at all.
Bella Swan is nothing much. She considers herself to be nothing much, and she doesn't do anything but provide the reader with plaintive accounts of her inner feelings. A friend of mine, who deserves credit for being an inspiration for my literary criticism of this novel, pointed out Bella Swan is not much of a protagonist. For those of us who don't pay attention in English class or didn't expect words above two-syllables on a blog, the protagonist is the "good" character. The character the reader wants to win in the end.
Yet, this is too simple a definition, especially for our purposes here, ladies and gentlemen. For certainly, Bella Swan is the character you "ought to" (I put it in quotes because I can't) root for. Though, even "rooting for" Bella implies that Bella has some goal, some purpose, is chasing something. I think that Bella is without any of these.
As my friend said: "Bella is a bad protagonist, she doesn't do anything; everything happens to her."
Reader, this is absolutely true. Reread the book and find one thing Bella does to move the plot along. She's just adrift among these situations. The only thing she does for the book is give an account of what's going on around her and within her. Other than that, she has no power in the story. A protagonist viscerally interacts with the story, the novel is typically their struggle and an account of their actions. Bella never acts or acts on anything, she is just eventually pushed into these situations.
I start the following video at 44 seconds in for you, please pause after 1:20.
Courtesy of toler1977 who does "NOT OWN THIS VIDEO"
I relish it as I quote it: "there was no distinct character I was playing, I was really just this girl in this, like, extravagant situation."
If the actor who must be intimate with the character to present it, finds there to be no distinct character what does that say about the entity she attempts to represent? What is Bella Swan if she has no character? A blob, "just this girl."
And yet, so many want to put themselves into the position of "just this girl." I do realize people find it easy to project themselves onto Bella. She is a flat, blank screen. Bella is everybody's means to Edward. That's why people choose to project themselves upon her says more about Edward than Bella, I will becoming back to this idea.
Ladies, how would you like it if your man wrote the story of your love for you?
Edward does.
Edward sets everything in motion, he's the one who is first so mysteriously wary of her, he's the one who begins to talk to her, he's the one who takes her into the woods, he's the one who lavishes her with superhuman attention.
Hey ladies, would women have every gotten as far in society as they are now if they had Bella's complacency? And you aspire to be like her...? Why? When she has no values, no purpose, only "extravagant situations?"
What is Bella Swan? Fowl.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Allow Me to Introduce Myself
“I sound my barbaric yawp over the roofs of the world,” — Walt Whitman
This is mine: “I hate Edward Cullen. I cannot like him.”
Twilight is an unusual book in that it’s one of the few I dislike immensely. Two years ago, when it was already established as a classic, I didn’t even know it existed. Normally, a book like that wouldn’t make my reading list. However, a friend of mine decided to lend me her copy.
“Zach, you’ve got to read this and tell me what you think,” she said and handed me her paperback copy. She knew I liked books and words, especially in the form of novels. I assume she wanted to see the books effect on me.
When I took Twilight home, I sat with it in my chair. I thumbed through the first few pages lightly. I was encouraged that a present-day author for young-adults would use the word “saunter.” Optimism being my fatal conceit, I was painfully disappointed when I began reading.
Girl falls in love with vampire. That’s it. What’s so moving about this story? Certainly not the plot. I kept asking the book: “yes, but what happens next?” There were no great revelations on sex, love or immortality: just a “pretty” story about a girl and her frisky fickle fanged friend. You can imagine how pained I was when on that last page I found out there would be a sequel. Why would anyone want to stretch out this kind of cloudy fluff?
The moment I finished reading Twilight, I took a deep breath, clapped it shut, dusted the clichés that had fallen off onto my shirt and went over to an open window for some fresh air.
I speedily returned the novel to my friend. If she expected my praises, I certainly surprised her.
I’ll cede I have one up on my generation. By the time I read twilight I had already read about Newland Archer’s and Countess Olenska’s clandestine romance in the Age of Innocence. By the time I read twilight I was halfway through Anna Karenina. I knew what novels can be, I knew what they ought to be. Twilight did not make the cut.
“Why be concerned?” you ask. “It’s just adolescent literature,” you say. You say. When the author herself, Stephanie Meyer, is parading through talk shows, or is in magazines, you say “adolescent literature.”
Not only do you miscalculate the audience, you underestimate the book’s stranglehold on American culture. The book was a best-seller, and not just because a flood of ornery teenage girls flooded bookstores. The film was a blockbuster. Since Twilight I can note appearances of two prime time shows involving vampires. “True Blood” and “the Vampire Diaries” both of which deal with the unusually whiny sentimentality of the undead. Are you sure it’s just “adolescent literature”…?
I’ve struggled to understand why this damn book is so popular. Why has Twilight’s influence spread through the mainstream and not other/better novels? What is it about this story that other people identify with?
I endeavored to avoid the film for as long as I could. My folks saw it before I did.
I eventually wound up watching it with a few friends at a party. Through our roaring laughter, I managed to follow along. The film is the unrelentingly painful illusion of substance the novel could only hope to be. It is a remarkable effort of cinema when, for once, the film supersedes the book.
Reader, I refuse to join the Cult of the Cullen-Crazed.
I’ve found reasons to dislike this book for the literary competence, or lack thereof, of its design (for examples see the film), and the gender roles. I between these points of observation, sex and language, I’d also like to explore the dimensions, or (again) lack thereof, of Twilight’s characters.
“Oh, but it’s just like a man to not get it!” you may exclaim. “Only a man could be critical of something so beautiful.”
I’d like to examine your ideas of beauty…
I don’t like Edward Cullen, but it’s not because I’m a man. There is a difference between the actor who plays your favorite character and that character itself. Any man or woman can measure that difference. And to be honest, I think Robert Pattinson is a good-looking guy. Yes, ladies, I’m completely comfortable with my sexuality. I’d date him if I could.
I pity all of the poor samples of young Hollywood that are going to be a part of the Twilight film series. Pretty faces playing terrible parts. It is the ideas behind Twilight as a book, and behind Twilight as a film that I want to interrogate.
So let’s put our thinking caps on, shall we?
This is mine: “I hate Edward Cullen. I cannot like him.”
Twilight is an unusual book in that it’s one of the few I dislike immensely. Two years ago, when it was already established as a classic, I didn’t even know it existed. Normally, a book like that wouldn’t make my reading list. However, a friend of mine decided to lend me her copy.
“Zach, you’ve got to read this and tell me what you think,” she said and handed me her paperback copy. She knew I liked books and words, especially in the form of novels. I assume she wanted to see the books effect on me.
When I took Twilight home, I sat with it in my chair. I thumbed through the first few pages lightly. I was encouraged that a present-day author for young-adults would use the word “saunter.” Optimism being my fatal conceit, I was painfully disappointed when I began reading.
Girl falls in love with vampire. That’s it. What’s so moving about this story? Certainly not the plot. I kept asking the book: “yes, but what happens next?” There were no great revelations on sex, love or immortality: just a “pretty” story about a girl and her frisky fickle fanged friend. You can imagine how pained I was when on that last page I found out there would be a sequel. Why would anyone want to stretch out this kind of cloudy fluff?
The moment I finished reading Twilight, I took a deep breath, clapped it shut, dusted the clichés that had fallen off onto my shirt and went over to an open window for some fresh air.
I speedily returned the novel to my friend. If she expected my praises, I certainly surprised her.
I’ll cede I have one up on my generation. By the time I read twilight I had already read about Newland Archer’s and Countess Olenska’s clandestine romance in the Age of Innocence. By the time I read twilight I was halfway through Anna Karenina. I knew what novels can be, I knew what they ought to be. Twilight did not make the cut.
“Why be concerned?” you ask. “It’s just adolescent literature,” you say. You say. When the author herself, Stephanie Meyer, is parading through talk shows, or is in magazines, you say “adolescent literature.”
Not only do you miscalculate the audience, you underestimate the book’s stranglehold on American culture. The book was a best-seller, and not just because a flood of ornery teenage girls flooded bookstores. The film was a blockbuster. Since Twilight I can note appearances of two prime time shows involving vampires. “True Blood” and “the Vampire Diaries” both of which deal with the unusually whiny sentimentality of the undead. Are you sure it’s just “adolescent literature”…?
I’ve struggled to understand why this damn book is so popular. Why has Twilight’s influence spread through the mainstream and not other/better novels? What is it about this story that other people identify with?
I endeavored to avoid the film for as long as I could. My folks saw it before I did.
I eventually wound up watching it with a few friends at a party. Through our roaring laughter, I managed to follow along. The film is the unrelentingly painful illusion of substance the novel could only hope to be. It is a remarkable effort of cinema when, for once, the film supersedes the book.
Reader, I refuse to join the Cult of the Cullen-Crazed.
I’ve found reasons to dislike this book for the literary competence, or lack thereof, of its design (for examples see the film), and the gender roles. I between these points of observation, sex and language, I’d also like to explore the dimensions, or (again) lack thereof, of Twilight’s characters.
“Oh, but it’s just like a man to not get it!” you may exclaim. “Only a man could be critical of something so beautiful.”
I’d like to examine your ideas of beauty…
I don’t like Edward Cullen, but it’s not because I’m a man. There is a difference between the actor who plays your favorite character and that character itself. Any man or woman can measure that difference. And to be honest, I think Robert Pattinson is a good-looking guy. Yes, ladies, I’m completely comfortable with my sexuality. I’d date him if I could.
I pity all of the poor samples of young Hollywood that are going to be a part of the Twilight film series. Pretty faces playing terrible parts. It is the ideas behind Twilight as a book, and behind Twilight as a film that I want to interrogate.
So let’s put our thinking caps on, shall we?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)