BOOKS: Twilight Series by Stephenie Meyer

[Et_Cetera]

This is ridiculous drivel for 13-year-old girls.

 

[Booklover]

I am about the only female I know who hasn’t read them.

I refuse. What a waste of time. I have much better things to do.

(That’s not to say the movies aren’t…eh, okay… My friend works at the movies so we go for free, I would never pay for them. Honestly we had a better time talking about the good themes of the movies/books, as in abstinence and opposing abortion, than we did watching the movie.)

I’m female also, haven’t read the books either and don’t intend to. I’d seen a lot of hype about the movies at a cross stitch designer’s site I visit and didn’t know what all the hoopla was about. I saw the first movie at my Cousin’s on Thanksgiving Day and thought it was one of the worst movies I’d ever seen! The characters are scruffy and unkempt, there was not one memorable or intelligent line in the dialogue, the “hero” had lipstick on and a weird hairdo, and the story was boring and nightmarish! Can’t see what anyone sees in Edward either!

Frankly, I just don’t get it! I checked out the Amazon site to see what others thought of it, and found on one of the discussions that the fans get pretty mean towards those who disagree with them! I find the whole thing sick, sick, sick!

There’s nothing wholesome or healthy in the supposed “romance” between a young woman and a vampire, one of the undead! Have we gone so far in our quest for sex/romance that we have to look for it in such unholy alliances? IMHO what we need is a good exorcism!

Vickie

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

There’s nothing wholesome or healthy in the supposed “romance” between a young woman and a vampire, one of the undead! Have we gone so far in our quest for sex/romance that we have to look for it in such unholy alliances? IMHO what we need is a good exorcism!

Erm, I don’t like the books either but if you’re going to follow that line of thinking, you might as well condemn Beauty and the Beast.

I see nothing wrong with romances between vampires and humans any more than I see in romances between humans and elves, humans and angels, humans and wizards/witches etc.

It’s how fan girl writers like Meyer word it out that turn me off. XP

 

[noi4noi4]

Its just short term entertainment.

 

[HarmonyServant]

I didn’t mind the concept, as romances can be a fun, easy read. But her execution and plot and characters kinda ruined it.

 

[MLMartin97]

Erm, I don’t like the books either but if you’re going to follow that line of thinking, you might as well condemn Beauty and the Beast.

I see nothing wrong with romances between vampires and humans any more than I see in romances between humans and elves, humans and angels, humans and wizards/witches etc.

It’s how fan girl writers like Meyer word it out that turn me off. XP

Human and angel romances are either wrong or horribly inaccurate; humans and elves are in Tolkien the same species (he says as much in one of the Letters), and in most cases, so are humans and wizards/witches.

The problem with making vampirism into a good thing is that it takes something that is a very powerful symbol of evil–a mockery of the promise of the Resurrection and a horrifying image of what immortality without God would be like–and at the least vitiates it, while at the worst making that kind of parasitic, sterile and hopeless immortality look positive. “Good vampires” can be done well, but ‘good vampirism’ strikes me as deeply problematic.
I haven't read the Twilight books--I've read commentaries and synopses, and half-watched the first movie--but from everything I've seen and read, the first book is a bit of fluff with some disturbing subtexts. After that, when Bella decides that vampirism is to be preferred over ordinary life--even among characters who believe in eternal life--well, then I think it starts getting problematic.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Human and angel romances are either wrong or horribly inaccurate;

The problem is even the modern day idea of fictional angels can be described with the same words. Thus, either you condemn the all works that have depicted angels (some which date back to the time of the Renaissance) or maybe be more open-minded on what an angel can be in an author’s imaginary world.

Besides, these two seem like a sweet couple to me.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The problem with making vampirism into a good thing is that it takes something that is a very powerful symbol of evil–a mockery of the promise of the Resurrection and a horrifying image of what immortality without God would be like–and at the least vitiates it, while at the worst making that kind of parasitic, sterile and hopeless immortality look positive. “Good vampires” can be done well, but ‘good vampirism’ strikes me as deeply problematic.

The thing I love about good vampires is that they make perfect anti-heroes for the very reasons you have stated. They are a forever cursed, lonely race who struggle with both the power and the hunger. It’s pretty much the same situation with the mutants in X-Men. Such protagonists are not the oh-so-perfect knights in shining armor that alienate those who are more angst-ridden. They are something that real suffering people can relate to.

 

[MLMartin97]

The problem is even the modern day idea of fictional angels can be described with the same words. Thus, either you condemn the all works that have depicted angels (some which date back to the time of the Renaissance) or maybe be more open-minded on what an angel can be in an author’s imaginary world.

That was meant somewhat tongue in cheek. Angels are very often handled badly in fiction; sometimes the work’s good despite that (It’s a Wonderful Life), sometimes not. An angelic/human romance is almost certainly going to depend on an incorrect understanding of angelology, but that doesn’t necessarily invalidate the fiction. It can be problematic, but I’d imagine that most likely to be a case of the angelology being too close to accurate and it becomes a theme of forsaking Heaven and God for the sake of human love (I believe the film Michael that was done about a decade and a half back might have approached it this way).
(The ‘wrong’ bit was because I didn’t want to completely disavow some patristic exegeses of Genesis 6:4 and the question of the Nephilim.)

The thing I love about good vampires is that they make perfect anti-heroes for the very reasons you have stated. They are a forever cursed, lonely race who struggle with both the power and the hunger. It’s pretty much the same situation with the mutants in X-Men. Such protagonists are not the oh-so-perfect knights in shining armor that alienate those who are more angst-ridden. They are something that real suffering people can relate to.

True–the problem I have with all I’ve heard about Twilight, as I said above, is not ‘good vampires’ as ‘vampirism as good’.

 

[RSD]

The problem with making vampirism into a good thing is that it takes something that is a very powerful symbol of evil–a mockery of the promise of the Resurrection and a horrifying image of what immortality without God would be like–and at the least vitiates it, while at the worst making that kind of parasitic, sterile and hopeless immortality look positive. “Good vampires” can be done well, but ‘good vampirism’ strikes me as deeply problematic.

Let’s take a look at the Gospels for some guidance. Jesus himself told stories where well known figures of evil (unjust judge, thief in the night) were used to represent God Himself. In a different way, lepers and tax collectors were also symbols of irredeemably wicked people, whom Jesus did not hesitate to deal with as if they could be good. Our modern sensibilities would say that the lepers are suffering from something over which they had no control, and therefore should not be condemned as evil. Edward Cullen makes the point repeatedly that none of them chose to be what they are, the only choice they have is how to deal with it.

We are now so accustomed to hearing “Good Samaritan” that we tend to think that the words go together, but we should realize that for Jesus’ Jewish listeners putting those two words together would have been totally ironic (like “the good gangbanger”). And yet clearly the Samaritan in this story is the good guy.

 

[LilyM]

After Wickham left town with Lydia, “All Meryton seemed striving to blacken the man who, but three months before, had been almost an angel of light. He was declared to be in debt to every tradesman in the place, and his intrigues all honoured with the title of seduction, had been extended into every tradesman’s family.” (emphasis mine) If it were just as you said, that would be seduction, which means that at least at some level the girl consented. When his intrigues were not actually seduction, but something else for which no word could be printed in those days, what does that leave? Which we hesitate less to name these days?

As a Jane Austen fan (and someone who has studied her works reasonably extensively) I’ve got to protest.

The clue to this passage lies in the first sentence you quoted - they were “striving to blacken” Wickham - in other words exaggerating all his bad qualities out of all proportion, so as to make him out to be much worse than he really was.

He wasn’t literally in debt to every tradesman in the place, for example, and possibly wasn’t in debt to any of them, he is only mentioned genuinely as having gambling debts, not other kinds of debt such as to tradesmen.

So he didn’t literally seduce - or rape - everyone’s daughters. The word ‘honour’ is ironically used in this passage, she’s saying in reality his behaviour was less serious than seduction, and that was why it didn’t deserve the ‘honour’ of being called by that name. In fact we see what he DID do - in Elizabeth’s case, Mary King’s and Georgiana’s and Lydia’s - is either extreme flirtation, engagement or attempted or actual elopement. Never a hint of rape.

She’s certainly not saying that he did anything worse than seduction. It’s ironic exaggeration. In the same manner, for example, she calls it a ‘truth universally acknowledged’ that single rich men want wives, when in reality it’s no such thing, it’s only something a few ignorant people believe.

Certainly Lydia would’ve been a prime target for rape if he’d been capable of it - he had, as everyone pointed out, no hope of anything more advantageous from her than a bit of fun, and he certainly wasn’t in love with her. And yet he didn’t rape her.

 

[RSD]

As a Jane Austen fan (and someone who has studied her works reasonably extensively) I’ve got to protest.

The clue to this passage lies in the first sentence you quoted - they were “striving to blacken” Wickham - in other words exaggerating all his bad qualities out of all proportion, so as to make him out to be much worse than he really was.

He wasn’t literally in debt to every tradesman in the place, for example, and possibly wasn’t in debt to any of them, he is only mentioned genuinely as having gambling debts, not other kinds of debt such as to tradesmen.

So he didn’t literally seduce - or rape - everyone’s daughters. The word ‘honour’ is ironically used in this passage, she’s saying in reality his behaviour was less serious than seduction, and that was why it didn’t deserve the ‘honour’ of being called by that name. In fact we see what he DID do - in Elizabeth’s case, Mary King’s and Georgiana’s and Lydia’s - is either extreme flirtation, engagement or attempted or actual elopement. Never a hint of rape.

She’s certainly not saying that he did anything worse than seduction. It’s ironic exaggeration. In the same manner, for example, she calls it a ‘truth universally acknowledged’ that single rich men want wives, when in reality it’s no such thing, it’s only something a few ignorant people believe.

Certainly Lydia would’ve been a prime target for rape if he’d been capable of it - he had, as everyone pointed out, no hope of anything more advantageous from her than a bit of fun, and he certainly wasn’t in love with her. And yet he didn’t rape her.

I thought that the difference here was the class difference: Georgiana and Lydia were gentleman’s daughters, and had someone to protect them. The tradesmen’s daughters were more vulnerable. However, I am willing to concede to a scholar’s superior knowledge of the works of the author.

 

[LilyM]

I thought that the difference here was the class difference: Georgiana and Lydia were gentleman’s daughters, and had someone to protect them. The tradesmen’s daughters were more vulnerable. However, I am willing to concede to a scholar’s superior knowledge of the works of the author.

Hehe, if I do have superior knowledge (which I don’t necessarily claim) it would be more because I love them and have reread them many times than anything else.

You may have a point - I would’ve said Mary King was also a tradesman’s daughter, but then she was a rich one which was a form of protection in itself. I just don’t see Wickham as being so outright evil as to stoop to rape, none of the other ‘bad’ characters are truly evil either, so it would kind of jar.

I see him more as being extremely irresponsible, thoughtless and selfish like Lydia herself, which is why they are an almost inevitable match.

 

[noi4noi4]

I tend to like 2 hour movies versus 1000 page books.
Im waiting for Atlas Shrugged to come out next year.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

That was meant somewhat tongue in cheek. Angels are very often handled badly in fiction; sometimes the work’s good despite that (It’s a Wonderful Life), sometimes not. An angelic/human romance is almost certainly going to depend on an incorrect understanding of angelology, but that doesn’t necessarily invalidate the fiction. It can be problematic, but I’d imagine that most likely to be a case of the angelology being too close to accurate and it becomes a theme of forsaking Heaven and God for the sake of human love (I believe the film Michael that was done about a decade and a half back might have approached it this way).
(The ‘wrong’ bit was because I didn’t want to completely disavow some patristic exegeses of Genesis 6:4 and the question of the Nephilim.)

Well that’s pretty much my point. First, you were referring to the belief in that human-angel hybrids are big bad giants. Then again, that could all be just part of the allegory and in no way should be a rule as to how authors create their own cosmologies. Second, your problem stems from how close to the actual theological definition of angel you are sticking to. Angel-human romances need not necessarily have themes of an angel forsaking God and Heaven for human love. Most often it’s just between some overly-powered humanoid with wings and some teenage Chosen One or something. (At least that’s as far as I’ve seen.)

 

[valient_Lucy]

My daughter is reading the books by Stephanie Meyers. Does any one know anything about these? Are the okay for teens to be reading?

I haven’t read the books, but it sounds as though you should read them, and pray about them.

 

[Deirdra]

Twilight is okay, but not great. If your kid is fourteen/fifteen or above, then it’s okay for her to read it. The problem with this book, though, is how someone reacts to it later on. Most of the girls who read this book become very obsessed about Edward Cullen or Jacob Black. Some even admire the main character, which I think is wrong, since Bella is not a good role model, except for the fact that she waited to have sex until marriage. So be very careful if your child reads it. It’s a good read, but make sure your kid doesn’t go too far with it.

 

[RSD]

Twilight is okay, but not great. If your kid is fourteen/fifteen or above, then it’s okay for her to read it. The problem with this book, though, is how someone reacts to it later on. Most of the girls who read this book become very obsessed about Edward Cullen or Jacob Black. Some even admire the main character, which I think is wrong, since Bella is not a good role model, except for the fact that she waited to have sex until marriage. So be very careful if your child reads it. It’s a good read, but make sure your kid doesn’t go too far with it.

If your children read this book, I don’t think you have any control over how much they like it. I would recommend reading the books, or talking with someone who is familiar with them, and using the books to emphasize points you want to make with your children. For instance, you say that Bella is not a good role model. Certainly she is not a candidate for canonization, but there is plenty of good in her. If your daughter is interested in Bella, show her the good qualities in Bella. For instance, Bella very much loves her parents, and always tries to make decisions based on what is good for them. I am not saying she always gets it right- she’s just a teenager- but she keeps trying, and does not give up on them, even though they don’t seem to be very good parents. Bella offers to take charge of all the kitchen duties for her Dad. She always does her homework. She took advanced Biology and calculus even though she seems to be more interested in literature than the sciences. She reads classics for pleasure. She recognizes Debussy when she hears it. She has the chance to be a very popular girl, and play off one infatuated boy against another, and she doesn’t. She NEVER asks Edward to spend money on her, even though is seems to be very wealthy, and when she is thinking about Jacob vs. Edward the fact that Edward is rich never enters into her thinking.

 

[vince2paul]

Twilight series are overrated and actually it’s not that great. However, the fans are very obsessed. I read in some interview of Robert Pattinson saying that many fans asked him to bite them, even a 7-year-old girl.

 

[oreggano87]

I’m 24 and was very much into the Twilight series. I read the first two books in just a few days and I was hooked. Having just been through a broken heart, I became obsessed with the whole Twilight scene because Bella is going through the same. She’s depressed and claims she has “nothing left to live for”.

I read the last two books and for a while, all I could do was talk about and think about Twilight. I could sense my friends, even Twilight loving friends, getting annoyed with me. I loved them and while I think it’s great that Edward doesn’t want to steal his love’s virtue and insists on marriage before having sex as well as remaining “chaste”, something
didn’t sit right with me. Twilight seemed to have that underlying sense of something is not completely right here, but I loved Twilight so much that I disregarded what anyone had to say negatively about it, especially my overly religious roommate.

My mom’s comment hit hard one day when she presented me with an article from SpiritDaily about what was wrong with Twilight. Horrified, I defended the books from my Mom and said “You don’t even know what you’re talking about. You haven’t even read them. There’s nothing wrong with Twilight.” I read the article but rebuked the entire thing for making assumptions about something the writer probably had no idea what he was talking about.

I still couldn’t ignore the fact that something felt uneasy whenever I went back to read the books again or to watch the movies. Then it occured to me. Everything about the movie is so…what’s the word? “Dead”. The main character Bella is surrounded by dead or “undead”/immortal creatures and wants nothing but to be one of them. That’s when it hit me, even if the books resembled a “chaste” sort of theme, even if Edward seemed “virtuous” and his family seemed good and even if the fourth book Bella seems prolife, the books contain nothing but teen lust and the thematic “desire to be undead”. Bella mentions multiple times that she’d give up her soul for Edward. Although I can’t remember my initial reaction when I was reading Twilight, I know now that that doesn’t sit well with me. To say that you would give up your soul for the one you love sounds incredibly romantic, but when you put it in realistic terms, it’s like saying I’d rather go to hell than lose you. While losing the person you love sounds tragic and heartwrenching, is eternity in hell really worth it?

For a year I tried to convince myself that this case was different. This wasn’t real. It’s just a fiction book. I told people who were against it that they were religious fanatics trying to make something occultic out of something clearly not, but now I’m not so convinced.

Even though I convinced myself that vampires aren’t real, cause they aren’t, they’re just made up mythical creatures that people thought came about if a dog walked past an open casket, causing the dead body to become alive again and be “undead”. I still had that uncomfortable feeling about the Twilight series. Even if it had nothing to do with vampires or being undead, which I think that the factor of “Bella wanting to give up her soul for Edward” is far enough. You can stop right there and know it’s not okay. But if you took that away, you see two teenagers who are just lusting after each other. It’s just another teen novel.

I guess my biggest problem with it is that since I’m still a young woman dealing with that desire to find the perfect person to love and be loved back, Twilight has distorted not only my views in looking for Mr. Right but even worse off are the teen agers who will now, thanks to Twilight, never be satisfied with life until they find their Edward. And I’m afraid to admit this myself, but I doubt that will happen. No one is perfect. If you’re looking for perfect, look to Jesus and Mary. I guess the biggest tragedy about this story is that it’s one more story about making the typical bad guy, the hero and distorting the lines between good and evil all over again. I mean, I don’t hate the vampires in Twilight who do seem like they’re just trying to live a good life like the rest of us. But remember when vampires were generally classified under “evil”? In example, Van Helsing or any vampire movie. The vampires are deemed the bad guys for trying to kill people. I mean, I guess if you’re not bothered by that, it’s no big deal but it seems weird to me, now that I’ve taken a step back, that Twilight is no different in the fact that something that is typically deemed “Evil” is now classified as “the good vampires” and “the bad vampires”. Even though vampires aren’t real, it’s borderline messing with what ought to not be.

 

[oreggano87]

Plus there is this obsession with kids, Catholic or not alike, who have become obsessed with Twilight. Kids were reportedly biting each other, as I heard on the news, because they want to be “just like the Cullens”.

I don’t want to start a fight here, but it’s the same with witches or wizards. When I was growing up “Sabrina the Teenage Witch” was all the rave. I saw nothing wrong with it but then one day I brought it up to my neighbors who were also Catholic and they said that they had no idea what Sabrina was but witches are occultic, not good and bad. They’re just occultic.

Same with Harry Potter. While no one is actually a wizard like on Harry Potter or any other wizard show, Harry is in fact doing spells and messing with majic which is in fact very real, no matter how cute you make it.

We think that we can make these different aspects of the occultic or dark world “good” because they’re “not doing anything evil” but in reality, the Bible says not to mess with or be involved with anything occultic and it seems that all we keep doing is we’re trying to “make it okay” and put it on the same level as trying to become holy.

There is a very fine line between good and evil, it’s black and white. There is no grey.

Just a few thoughts.

When it comes down to it, culture is already so overpolluted with death. Look at our culture. Abortion and euthanasia, human trafficking, drug war slaves, kids maliciously bullying and beating each other and Youtubing the whole thing, the situation in the Middle East where the surrounding countries of Jerusalem are yelling “Kill the Jews”. There is nothing Godlike about any of that. It’s all of death.

The sad thing is that it doesn’t even phase us anymore, even the more subtle things like violence on t.v., war, the way kids treat each other and adults these days. And when someone tries to say something about it, people go on the defense that we’re being “fanatical” about it. The fact is, if life is not sacred or protected, then all life is not sacred and protected, including your own. The death culture has an intense hold on the youth today, and I don’t just mean young kids and teenagers, but also people in their 20’s.
We have lost all sense of what IS good and what IS evil. There is a fine line, no blurring or making exceptions, regardless of what the media tries to tell us.

The Catholic Church is one of the last to stand up for life and truth and the world is severly against us. We need to be strong and not allow ourselves to become confused or led astray. Our youth has become lost and they don’t get excited about God or living holy lives. They just want to stay comfortable in this death culture. We have a responsibility to stand up and do something about it. That’s what your Baptism and Confirmation are all about, standing up for your Church.

I’m not promoting riots. Just standing up for the truth when it ought to be said. If someone says something contrary, you ought to correct them if they are misled in the faith.

We were not made for this world, if we were, the world would not hate us. But it does hate us because of Jesus.

The world is not our final destination, heaven is. That should be our goal. But for many people is it a goal anymore? I hear more people today say that they’d “rather go to hell where there will be partying, beer and women or fun (depending on whether it’s a guy or girl saying it) than to heaven where it will be 'boring and filled with rules”

We have lost the right idea. I think it would be more the opposite, except that in heaven we won’t need or care for drinking or partying or having fun anymore and hell will be miserable. In heaven, God will be enough as He is enough for all our needs already. We just keep filling that broken wounded hole in our hearts with empty things that continue to make us feel empty when that hole is God shaped.