What's not Mormon about a 170 year old blood-sucker pretending to be something he is not wanting to hook up with a seventeen year old high school girl and marrying her so they can have respectable sex? (Reference "Twilight" for the unimformed.)

Not that it makes it any better, but Edward is only about 90 - not 170. It's still creepy but if we are going to review a book, it's probably best to have read it.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2015 06:29PM by CA girl.

Only watched the first movie years ago, remembered age incorrectly. Mea culpa. And you're right, there is a difference between being around 90 and being 170.

No thank you!

OMFG Smeyers is not a feminist in any sense of the word, or even any remotely loose interpretation of it.

If I were to bring this up at dinner tonight with my seventeen year old daughter, she’d crawl the walls. I can predict she’d say it’s just plain wrong to use ‘Stephenie Meyer’ and ‘Feminist’ in the same sentence. She loathes the way so many girls from her generation went ape over Stephenie’s Edward character, when he was plainly a controlling, manipulative jerk. Bella showed no backbone at all, and was a submissive tool lost in a dysfunctional, controlling relationship. My daughter thinks Edwardo was abusive, period … and that Bella was a spineless drama queen.

It’s curious to see Stephenie criticize other romance novels as smutty, as if her misogynistic tripe was somehow a better example for young girls. Ok, I’m ranting I guess, so I’ll just finish off by saying that the world is more than a little stupider for her having inflicted these novels upon our young, impressionable, preteen girls. Nice going Stephenie, thanks for your lovely contribution. Feminist? Pffffft. Mormon? Yup.

Sorry to anyone who liked these novels. My young daughter read them all, she's an avid reader, and she thought they were a disgrace. And vampires don't sparkle in the sun ... they burst into flames and explode, as we all wished would have happened to 'Eddy the future wife beater'.

Hrmph.

Your 17 yr old sounds like my 17 yr old. She hated the Twilight books and movies...we left TSCC when she was around 10-11 yrs old. She is very intelligent, liberal leaning, and agnostic. On the other hand, we have a 24 yr old TBM daughter who just loves the books and movies. I could never get into them myself and could never figure out what was so "awesome" about them.

Sounds like your 17 yr. old is doing just fine. I bet your daughter and my daughter would get along just great!

yes, it sounds like they would :) Her entire circle of friends is comprised of very bright (AP/Honors) kids and best of all not a single mormon.

I don’t worry for my daughter at all. I think I’ll luck out and escape the teenage craziness so many people speak about. She won’t smoke, or get pregnant, or do drugs, I have no fear of that. She’s very into school, and is a great visual artist.

I honestly think it was the voracity with which she read books that has made her so wise. We couldn’t keep her in books; she devours a book in a few days. It’s like she has lived in the world already a little, just through all the classics she has read. By the time she was 12, she was reading Pride and Prejudice, Huckleberry Finn, Orwell’s 1984 and Animal Farm, you name it, she’s read it.

It’s like she’s already lived in the world, and thought through many issues and experiences, just from reading all the books that she has. It must’ve been that, it couldn’t have been me. Or I’ll blame it on her mother. LOL :)

Yes, and also with apologies to those who loved the series, including my own daughter who read them all.

Watching the movies was hardly an education in feminism of any sort. I found Bella completely lacking any kind of interior life whatsoever. What were her interests? Did she have hobbies? Maybe the later movies I didn't see brought out her inner qualities. But as of the first movie I was completely puzzled as to what, other than her much touted virginity she had to offer anyone. Edward seemed to be fascinated that he couldn't "read" her, and it never seemed to occur to him that may have been because there was nothing there to read.

Not smutty? It seemed very smutty to me. as in "We cain't have sex, Little Lady, 'cause my big old penis will bang you up big time. So let's wait until you're legally old enough to marry and THEN I'll bruise you all over sumthin' fierce!"

Then the final movie was shown on my premium channel. To my eternal discredit I watched more than half including a scene depicting a final showdown between rival factions of bloodsucking heirarchy facing off as a possible battle to the finish. What was obviously supposed to be high drama looked like a pathetically absurd nod to the final rumble in West Side Story.

Fodder for the average teenager? Definitely. A treatment in modern feminist thought? Hardly.

Something else at the end of that article got me thinking; the question about why young girls were drawn to this sort of imagery.

>> but why girls responded so wildly. Is there something particularly powerful, in this cultural moment, about a dangerous, potentially violent romantic hero? <<

>> Do young women still yearn for a dominant man? Do they identify, more than ever, with an awkward, unconfident female protagonist? Bubbling away in a generation's subconscious are some troubling answers. <<

I think that’s an old fashioned way of looking at this issue, one from a past generation.

Here’s my take. I don’t think that’s the issue at all, I don’t think they care what the content is, because it’s all form over function in our consumerist world of today. They don’t like it because it’s good, or bad. They like it because all their friends like it, and they want to be part of the ‘in’ crowd … to be cool. They line up in droves, crying and screaming for a cardboard cut out of Edward, because their friends are lining up, too. Those who promote mass consumerism have colluded to create this attitude in our youth.

It’s the same as needing the new pants with a butterfly on the leg, or needing the newest lunchbox with a pink pony on it. ‘Label’ jeans decide if you are accepted into the ‘in’ crowd or not these days. Even if the latest ‘label’ is low quality crap, it doesn’t matter. It’s the label, and your pants better have it, and the ‘in’ one’s are expensive, even if their crap. This's what the craze surrounding Twilight revolved around, too IMO; a popularity thing, ‘Ooh, have you seen the new Twilight movie yet? I was first in line at the first showing, aren’t I cool?’

That’s what it was all about. And this behaviour is probably something even more insidious, and something that ought to be causing us to question what’s going on out there in our society. It wasn’t the content that drew them to Twilight; it’s the desire to fall in with the monoculture of modern consumerism that drive’s these things today. And that’s what should be concerning us. That’s how I see it; Idiocracy thriving. Kids didn’t care what those movies were about. They just wanted to see them for the … me too, me too …about it. And that’s even more scary when you think about it.

I don't apologize at all.

Bella was a sniveling boy crazed brat who cared for nothing but her boyfriend. No hobbies, no education, no interests. Just boys.

Edward was controlling and wanted Bella to bend to his will. He didn't care about what she wanted, he cared about what he wanted.

And let's not even talk about the bad writing in the books, or the awful acting and ridiculous makeup in the movies.

I liked the TWilight books but I never saw them for anything but what they were. They aren't great literature - they are teen fiction. They aren't deep - they are the teen version of a Harlequin romance. And Meyer is the FURTHEST thing from a feminist. More of a modern Barbara Cartland. An old-fashioned, man-will-take-care-of-you, life will be perfect fairy tale writer.

The reason the characters are so young is because the whole series is aimed at teenagers and they really aren't that interested in romance stories involving 40-something adults. It's entirely about that immature, unrealistic teenage romance and I think that's why so many adults could relate to it. Because even if they had grown up, they still remembered their teenage dreams. Granted, many former and current teenagers never dream of that kind of silly and simplistic teen love story but Meyer's success shows there are a tremendous number of people who do. Bad writing, bad acting, really bad makeup and all.

I agree. Feminist is not the word that comes to mind when I think of Stephenie Meyer. The Twilight story is your basic Cinderella romance. The handsome prince rescues the awkward girl. It is a high school do-over for awkward girls. Many girls can relate to that. Heck, many women can relate to that.

The feminist choice of man for Bella would have been Jacob because she would have had to go to work in order for them both to support a family. Bella as a character was incredibly flat, with little in the way of interests or hobbies.

summer wrote; "The feminist choice of man for Bella would have been Jacob because she would have had to go to work in order for them both to support a family. Bella as a character was incredibly flat, with little in the way of interests or hobbies."

I couldn't agree more that if one were to have to choose between a Jacob type, or an Edward type, that a Jacob would easily be the better decision. But here again we see the sickness of the Mormon mindset telegraphing into the storyline.

Mormons believe American Indians to be decendents of the fictional Book of Mormon dark skinned so-called "Lamanites." Lamanites are dark and loathsome and destined to be working class and no better than dogs in their eyes.

As the other poster mentioned, the Cullens on the other hand are White and Very Delightsome. In fact, they are so white they SPARKLE! They are so awesome that it is only right they live at the expense of those around them, just like the Mormon elite.

According to Mormon thought, Bella possessed the only quality a girl can possess worth mentioning, that be her buried treasure...the undisturbed hymen. So why would any girl who possesses what it takes to be in a position to take her pick choose to be with a working class dog rather than a choose a life of sparkly leisure? It just wouldn't make sense, would it?

Still I think any sincere guy like Jacob is far better off without the dead weight of a vacuous twit such as Bella yanking his chain every time she wants something. And again, all this is far closer to Mormonism than anything Feminist. But my real suspicion is Tal posted the link just to get out the popcorn and watch the fur fly! ...Unless I'm mistaken.

How's the popcorn Tal?

It's all good. I've eaten popcorn and just watched other Tal threads too.

Glad I was able to shoot my mouth off in this one!

Jacob? Nicer, but he had a violent streak too. Darn werewolves...

I would say the Host was more Mormon. Full of super polite conformist aliens. All of them watch such cheesy movies. Probably have very boring respectable music too.

For me, Carlisle was way cooler than Edward or Jacob. Why couldn't the book have been about him? He was brave, smart, had the self control to be a doctor and save lives without drinking people. He started the entire family, taught them to drink animals and not people and otherwise was just SO AWESOME.

Also, again, why stay in high school? Dude could go to college 50 times and learn all kinds of things.

>> Also, again, why stay in high school? Dude could go to college 50 times and learn all kinds of things. <<

That almost rings of JS and pedophilia, poor Stephenie’s subconscious.

I am recalling how Lestat, in the Anne Rice vampire novels, made a small investment, then buried himself underground and remained in stasis for 100 years. When he awoke a century later, his blue-chip investment had grown and made him filthy rich. Now that was thinking.

Anne Rice, and the vampire Lestat series of books; now there was a good vampire story.

I reckon, but I'm cross with her forever. Give me Wraethlu by Storm Constantine instead.

Also, I really would take S. Meyers over OSC any day of the week. That guy stresses me out. At least she didn't explicitly NAG the reader about sex before marriage being bad and evil and people who do it being like wolves destroying society and how only heterosexual monogamous marriage is good for kids and society and how everyone should have babies

Ugh. I do hate generalizations. Such as, women want a domineering man. NOT ME! NOT ALL! I will KEEP THEM AWAY WITH SPIDERS. At least her books are less crappier than 50 Shades. At least they're entertaining, but there are problems such as WHY stay in high school for 100 years? What does Esme do? Why name your child Renesme? Why is there just ONE female werewolf? Why the sparkling? It makes no sense.

I'm going to write a vampire book that starts off in slavery times in the US. I'm also working on a werewolf book and hopefully people will want to read it. It will have lesbians in it. And a gender shapeshifter.

In the interview, Meyer says she is a feminist because "I love women, I have a lot of girlfriends... I feel like the world is a better place when women are in charge... I love working in a female world."

She's most comfortable and happy when surrounded by other women; that certainly does NOT make her a feminist. Meyer doesn't even seem to be aware of the different types of feminism or how feminists tend to define and view themselves. She is a Mormon who believes in submitting to male authority.

Note that she also said she dropped out of creative writing classes at BYU because of her modesty. That explains a lot about the quality of her writing (which, IMHO, is atrocious). But, she knew her target audience very, very well (14-year-old girls who wear sparkly nail polish -- and some of their mothers who are in very unsatisfying relationships), perhaps because, as she also notes, the novels reflect her own experience and "innocence."

The Twilight novels are so Mormon it hurts. Bella is a teen Molly-in-the-making with low self-esteem. She cooks and cleans for her single dad, she doesn't care about college, and her only goal in life is being with Edward. Edward is controlling, angry, and treats her like a baby (even giving his vampire sister an expensive car to "babysit" Bella while he's out of town). But, he fulfills the most important criteria of Mormon romances: he's hot and he's rich, so Bella will never have to work. Plus, once he turns her, they'll have an "eternal" marriage because vamps live nearly forever -- and they don't sleep, so they can have sex 24/7 if they want. Eternal marriage, doing each other all the time with bodies that never get old or tired... hmm, where have we heard that before?

So why did non-Mormon teen girls go crazy for this dysfunctional couple? Tween and early teen girls are silly creatures. Having been raised on fairy tales full of helpless damsels and rescuing princes, but with little actual romantic experience because they're still very young, they are primed to buy the fantasy, which is exactly they did.

Didn't read you're linked article, but your thread title made me guffaw. Don't think I've ever done that before!

Feminist Mormon is an oxymoron.... no such thing.

Twilight is horrid. I don't understand how anyone can like it. i remember watching a good analysis of the book by Laci Green (herself an Ex-Mormon) on YouTube called "Twilight, Mormonism and Meyer"

I propose a simple test to see if Stephenie Meyer's is a feminist. Has she been excommunicated yet? Has she been threatened with excommunication? If the answer is no, then she is either not a feminist, or is at least not a very good one.

Link in the article: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/16/twilight-not-feminist-sado-masochism

I like the Stephen King quote about Harry Potter being about the difference between good and evil, courage, unconditional parental love, etc., and Twilight being about the importance of having a boyfriend.

I'll admit to having read the books. However, they are the equivalent of eating junk food- reading twilight books is like snacking on a giant snickers bar. I try to stay 'healthier' with my reading choices. Incidentally, I just finished reading Brave New World and Slaughterhouse Five. Both were great, Slaughterhouse 5 was excellent, though a much easier read than I thought it was going to be.

Slaughterhouse 5, what a great book. In another Vonnegut book he explained how he came to write it and why it's subtitled, "The Children's Crusade." He said he and one of his war buddies got together one night talking about how another guy had cashed in on his war experiences by writing a book, and they were going to do the same. So they started talking about it, and what they said was so ridiculus, that the friend's wife couldn't help but exclaim, "You were just babies!" He said, then it struck him. They were, just babies. Babies at war. How pathetic.

No, I don't think so. As others have already said, Bella is an empty character the mostly teen female audience could insert their personalities into. She has no desires of her own. Her only choices are about marriage and birth. That's it.

So you write a book glorifying an abusive, predatory relationship, where the female character is a spineless drama queen. You send young women the message that it is okay for your boyfriend to remove the battery from your car, break into your bedroom when you are sleeping, and take you as an underaged girl out of the country without your parents' knowledge or permission. A man who manipulates you into choosing marriage over college, immediately after graduation....then knocks you up practically on your wedding night.

Yes, Sister Meyer, you have amassed a lot of material wealth from the story you told. But we are the stories we tell, and yours falls very short of true love or feminism. Your Twilight series is in the same category as Fifty Shades of Grey for me...a story I would have to re-tell, in order to protect any daughter of mine.

I think he actually wanted her to go to college before getting married and being a vampire. I didn't really see Edward as abusive but the whole sneaking in and watching someone sleep thing is creepy but then some other writers have characters that are so much WORSE. These males that practically moosh a woman's face and go, get away from me, ho, but they are held up as ideal love interests.

WHY? These sort of men are NOT sexy. They are BAD! AWFUL! What do I have to do to read a book where a male love interest is not a jerk?

*writes some books*

Well, if he wanted to encourage her to go to college, he wouldn't knock her up right after the wedding night.

And yes...removing a car battery from your girlfriend's car, to prevent her from seeing a male friend IS abuse. Reminded me of the time my father tried to flush the car keys down the toilet so my mother wouldn't leave him. Any attempt to limit a person's mobility is an act of abuse.

And taking an underaged girl out of the country without parental knowledge or permission is predatory behavior.

I call it as I see it.

You tube has 10 Questions with Meyers. It reveals how very dense she is. She has no concept of the consequences or implications of the abusive boyfriend narrative, and painfully stupid, vapid, clingy, whiny, helpless Bella-devoid of any redeemable characteristics.

She said she hadn't red Shades of Grey (inspired by her books). The author even named the character Christian, after Meyer's husband.

I heard Mormon teens being embarrassed that their mothers were so involved/absorbed/enthralled with reading the books... I thought that made sense since many Mormon women are emotionally stunted teenagers obsessed with romance and fairy tales.