Boys, Girls and Twilight

Herein is my entry in the Absolute Write Blog Chain for books. Here are the participants:
DavidZahir - http://zahirblue.blogspot.com/
Lost Wanderer - http://www.lostwanderer5.blogspot.com
RavenCorinnCarluk - http://raven.youareannoying.us
Vein Glory - http://podpeep.blogspot.com/
Shethinkstoomuch - http://shethinkstoomuch.wordpress.com
Lady Cat - http://randomwriterlythoughts.blogspot.com

Twilight...
So many folks I know stare dazedly at the statistics. Four books by a Mormon housewife who's never written fiction before -- Twilight, New Moon, Eclipse and Breaking Dawn -- shot to the top of best-seller lists. The first movie, panned by many, transformed the lead actors into stars and media sensations in their own right. Their appearance, especially by Robert Pattinson, sparked near-riots in some places. The second, panned as well, breaks box office records. Stephanie Meyer is hailed as the new J.K.Rowling (whatever that means) even as Stephen King opines she "...can’t write worth a darn." Many agree.

But millions of teenage girls do not. Some of those teenage girls aren't in teen-aged (or even necessarily female) bodies. Something about Twilight appeals to the teen girl in people -- including a couple of co-workers of mine well into their twenties. One also adores "torture porn" a la Saw or Hostel. So another stereotype goes crashing to the ground. Good riddance, say I.

Still, the whole saga of Meyer's books (as opposed to the saga in the books) drops jaws and stirs envy, especially by better writers with not a tiny percentage of her success (or--now--bank account).

Like me.

Here's the thing, though. Meyer actually accomplished quite a nice feat of characterization in her novels. Bella Swan should have been a Mary Sue yet is not. The interplay between the various and sundry people in the books makes sense and they all seem "alive." Some criticism of the books frankly seems trivial--I myself prefer my vampires with fangs and not sparkles, but this is her fictional world and her explanations make sense so give it a rest, already. Her writing style is readable, not at all beautiful or elegant or particularly polished. But it works. Her plots are obvious and become moreso as the series progresses. The world she's made is a fun urban fantasy, not up to the level of Harry Potter but perfectly okay in its own right.

But the characters stand out. And given the way fans divide up into teams based on their faves indicates that is what drives all the mania. Something about them struck a chord. Which in turn, at least so I believe, says something about boys and girls right now.

Starting with the Boys--it seems clear that (apart from the whole vampire fandom going on, which applies to True Blood and The Vampire Diaries as well as loads of others right now) what has got girls in a tizzy is the nature of this romance. Edward Cullen (our undead Mr. D'Arcy) is as passionate a teenager as one might imagine. He would kill for Bella. Without her he wants to die. At the same time, Edward is in the grip of near-overwhelming desires, especially for Bella. He openly says he wants to kill her, longs to suck ever drop of blood from her body. Yet he controls himself so totally he can kiss her. Indeed, he often overreacts in his efforts to protect and care for this girl (let us face it, Edward Cullen is a drama queen--but then, after nine decades as a 17-year-old virgin methinks this is forgivable). In other words (are you listening, my younger fellow males?) Edward Cullen is everything about a teenage boy thrown into sharp relief but then made positive. He is driven by urges he cannot control, but somehow does. He is attracted to the point of almost being a Stalker, but genuinely loves. He is awkward about how to show his feelings, but uses gallantry as a fallback. Edward is the ultimate fantasy for every teen girl (well, the straight ones, anyway) who wants a romantic leading man to treat her like a princess. And why is this such a strong fantasy? Well, I don't think too many males are even trying to be gallant these days.

When my late fiancee came home from the hospital, I had set up christmas lights all over her apartment because she loved them and didn't like bright, direct light. The look on her face was something I still treasure. When I've related that story, women almost invariably look amazed and pleased. Men look puzzled and impressed. Therein lies a divide between the genders in our culture right now, or so I maintain. Somewhere along the line women have developed a genuine hunger for romance, for gallantry. And men have developed an aversion to same, lest they be seen as "girly" or "gay" or some variation of not-manly. This is a very foolish notion that has crept into men's thinking and habits.

Twilight offers a vicarious feeding to that hunger on the part of girls (or the girlish part of women) longing for that kind of love story--a central Myth (note the capital 'M') in our collective dreams.

But now, Girls--this all says something about you, too. Bella Swan epitomizes what I think most people think they really are--the outsider, the stranger who doesn't quite fit in, the lonely one even surrounded by more-or-less friends. Yet isn't it telling that in this, a wildly successful book (and now film) series about wish fulfillment in the romance department, Bella falls in love with two men whose beauty is literally superhuman? Edward looks like the marble statue of a greek god come to life, while Jacob is the incredibly hunky guy-next-door with muscles a-rippling and heat actually emitting from his six-foot-plus form in waves. Wow. Just a little superficial maybe? I don't want to deny anyone their eye-candy, but when the fantasy so resolutely includes physical perfection, methinks therein lies another reason for a thirst unquenched. Twilight fits only-too-easily into our common habit of judging by appearance, falling in love with the surface rather than the substance.

I should also point out parenthetically that a passionate love story between human and vampire offers plenty of adult, more sophisticated opportunities--many of which enjoy strong audience loyalty. Nick and Natalie. Henry and Vicky. Eli and Oscar. Bill and Sookie. Twilight is fun and all, containing some rather more sophisticated ideas than many give it credit for (Bella as an Influence without power comes to mind), but the love story itself needn't have been quite so simplistic. But then, if it weren't, neither would it show off quite so clearly this trend in our own gender relations now would it?

Underused Tropes

Complaints about tropes in fiction usually consist of those so common as to become dull. Yeah, we've all seen the Reluctant Vampire, the Evil Twin, the Mary Sue, the Lost Heir to the Throne, etc. But what about the opposite? Elements of story-telling so little-seen (often with a reason, even if not a good one) that a successful use of them could not help but seem fresh?

Mind you, I'm reminded of the DVD commentary on the live action series The Tick. When that show started out, the executives gushed. "How original!" "This is ground-breaking!" "We've never seen anything like this before!" But then the ratings began to slide, and those same execs became repeating those comments, but instead of praise they intended criticism. "Seems too original." "Maybe this is too ground-breaking." "Problem is--no one's ever seen anything like this before..."

So taking all that follows with a grain of salt might be a good idea.

To start with, I'd love to see some exposure for the Eastern Orthodox Church. Actually, that name is something of a misnomer. There are about fifteen or so Orthodox Churches who share communion, but who are each headed by a Bishop considered equal to all other heads. Yet despite local differences of custom and language, those fifteen agree on all major issues of doctrine. To be baptized in one means you may take communion in any. Yet this, the second largest Christian denomination in the world, might as well not exist in terms of English language literature, television and film. Offhand, I can think of only three depictions of Christian Orthodoxy--all of them extremely minor (they are Bram Stoker's Dracula, one episode of BBC's Poirot, and an episode of the re-imagined Twilight Zone). None of these even vaguely hint at Orthodox beliefs, not coincidentally. And therein lies the real shame, because this (certainly one of the oldest of Christian churches) carries some fascinating insights. To give a single, brilliant example (which, to be fair, was an element in one major film I can think on) is the notion that God did not make Hell, but that Man did--when men reject God's love, into which they return after death, that rejection is what creates Hell. Damnation, in other words, is a direct result of who you are, not (necessarily) what you do.

Another trope methinks we see far too little of is the Ethical Corporate Executive. As I recall, there was one on The West Wing, and way back in my childhood there was a marvelous series called The Name of the Game, with the "hero" being the CEO of Howard Publications. Offhand, Lucius Fox of The Dark Knight is nearly the only recent example that comes to mind. In fact, this trope was probably over-used in the 1950s, and one can understand how much more easily it is to use this figure as a villain. But after a certain point, it becomes worse than sloppy story-telling, this can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once the idea that working in business is unethical becomes commonplace, then the ethical are less and less drawn to business as a career. An oversimplification? Yes. But with more than a grain of truth behind it as well. My own bet is that the vast majority of corporate bigwigs are just these folks doing their jobs--with the same sorts of foibles, strengths, pains and joys as the rest of us. Not reflecting that seems like imaginative laziness. At best.

Next up is something rarely seen as anything other than the butt of a joke or as an indication of some character's inherent twisted-ness: Male submission. One can pretty easily find the trope of women who secretly (or not so secretly) long to be taken, to submit to someone stronger than themselves, at least in terms of erotic play. One can every now and then spot positive depictions, such as the movie The Secretary with Maggie Gyllanhall and James Spader (great film, not-so-incidentally). But even a casual visit into that subculture reveals how very many more males are looking to be slaves to ladies, than the other way round. Makes sense when you really think about it. Do you fantasize about being yourself? Or about being something you're not? Culturally, men have the upper hand in our civilization, so men are more likely to have dreams of submitting (I've been told by someone who ought to know that there are many more submissive males than there are dominant females to fulfill their desires). Yet this aspect of sexuality all around us remains hidden, or at least deliberately ignored.

Methinks I'll have more examples for a later post.