"Rolling Stone Magazine's" review of "Twilight." How do you feel about their conclusions? And, how would you respond to their re-viewer's opinions?

Introduction: The September "Rolling Stone Magazine" cover story was about the TV series "True Blood." It was written by the Rolling Stone's contributing editor Ms. Vanessa Grigoriadis. In an article about herself for the New York Times Ms. Grigoriadis describes herself as a professional "literally hit man." (Someone hired as a professional cultural "iconoclast." (or destroyer of classic values) And she said that she prides herself on preforming "hatchet jobs" on writers who express opinions that are at variance with the typical "STONE-ER" " (Someone who reads or subscribes to "Rolling Stone" magazine.

Ms Grigoriadis's made several observations about "Twilight." And the "type of people who would enjoy reading "Twilight" novels. The following are some of her observations.

1. "Two hundred years after the first vampire novel, our puritanical, God fearing country remade (the vampire) into a SISSY."

2. Were talking about the (sissy) played by Robert Pattison in the "Twilight" series.

3. ("Twilight") The dominant vampire MEME of the past five years. (definition: a meme is a cancerous like concept that spreads through out a culture destroying other opinions)

4. The "Twilight" series is primarily an allegory about chastity. A kind of pre-teen fantasy, keeping men in a perpetual state of agony.

5. The subtext of "Twilight" is clear "IF EDWARD HAS SEX WITH BELLA SHE MAY BE RUINED FOREVER!" So the two of them just float around never consummating their love, even as they exchange dewy eyed close-ups.

6. Ms. G then quotes Steven King as saying: "The appeal of Vampires to youngsters, both male and females is that "impotency is never a threat, since vampire's urges are completely oral (blood drinking in nature) "Vampires are particularly appealing to teenagers who are "physically" insecure.

White Rose Discussion Question: How would you respond to the opinions Ms. Grigoriadis's expressed in the magazine "Rolling Stone?"

Extra Credit Question. Do you think that "Twilight" has been a "MEME!" (pronounced like cream) And that vampire stories by other authors (and their characters) AS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN for works such as: IE "Vampire diaries," "True Blood," etc, have been changed (Because of "Twilight") so that the characters and their stories are more "Twilight-like" in nature?

As always, we sincerely look forward to learning your opinion.

Your friend, Doc B

PS: A Bear Time Story:

In 70 BC when Julius Caesar subdued Gaul (present day France) one thing that he found repugnant about the Gauls was their religious beliefs. Their priests were called Druids. And some of the specific things that Caesar found particularly offensively about Druids were, their practices of human sacrifice, and their practice of religious cannibalism. And even more offensive, to him, was their tradition of participating in "Burning Man" ceremonies. In a "Burning Man ceremony, a hollow three or four story statues of a man is built from logs and sticks. The statue was then filled with bound humans and set ablaze.

The reason that this story, is of interest to today's discussion is that "Rolling Stones" Ms.Vanessa Grigoriadis met her husband at a "Burning Man re-enactment held each year in New Mexico for neo-druids and "druid curious" visitors. Just a bear FYI.

0 members like this

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by ShannonP on September 14, 2010 at 2:27pm

"MS. G's bias against Stephanie's work might come from a "presumption on her part" that SM's works are "distorted" by her Christian beliefs, since she (Ms. G) possibly doesn't hold those same beliefs."

Doc, I absolutely believe as you do, that this is part of Ms. G's feelings about Twilight! There's proof of that in her review. It's evident in the way she chooses to dismiss it as a morality tale about chastity, instead of taking the time to read it and discover the real message.

I think I was more pointing out that, while I do think Ms. G probably doesn't share some of Stephenie's beliefs, and is perhaps biased against some of those beliefs, we can't assume that based on her interest in Druids.

Permalink Reply by Doc B MD on September 14, 2010 at 9:24pm

Dear Shannon,
You say "There's proof of that in her review. It's evident in the way she chooses to dismiss it as a morality tale about chastity, instead of taking the time to read it and discover the real message." I say "Yes, Yes, Yes, you "Clever Girl! (As the Jurasic park hunter said to the Velapto-rapter)

And that has gotten me pondering about:
The Massachusetts's criminal negligence statues, and their relevance to book and movie reviewers.

For the last 60 years the legislators of the state of Massachusetts have, for some reason, seemed to hold a grudge against physicians. One of their more recent laws (designed for, but not EXCLUSIVELY TOO) physicians says: If a Physician does the very best he can (while caring for a patient) and uses the full extent of his knowledge, but in spite of all that, is still negligent, he can be sentenced to serve up to five years in the state penitentiary.

At first that seemed a little harsh to me, until I read a movie review in a major entertainment magazine, of the movie "Twilight." The reviewer said "This 'vampire' movie was doomed from the start, BECAUSE THROUGH OUT, ALMOST THE ENTIRE MOVIE, the heroine, one Miss Bella Swan, was never in any danger of being injured."

What does that tell us? First, that this popular culture guru hadn't bothered to read the lead novel, of a book series that was currently selling 16% of all the books being sold in America. And second that he somehow missed the entire premise of the movie, which was that from the first moment Edward caught sent of Bella's aroma, she was in constant mortal danger. And not in danger of loosing her chastity, as Ms. G seems to imply.

(Spending her life as a ruined woman) Not that Bella didn't work hard, and possibly deserved a scarlet A just for her effort alone.
And then it hit me.

The reviewer had done his very best. He was being paid to stay proficient on both popular literature and cinema. But he had been "grossly negligent." And so it seems only fair that he be sentenced to serve five years in the Massachusetts's Sate Penitentiary.

But you might ask: Is five years in prison REALLY adequate, for a review that was THAT negligent?"?
Maybe a little post "dinner and a movie" chat with Jasper might be in order.

Permalink Reply by Trisha Brown on September 21, 2010 at 3:29pm

LOL I see what you mean. If only everyone were held accountable for negligence in doing their job, not just doctors!