The Twilight Saga

"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?

 

 

"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.

 

Views: 391

Replies to This Discussion

I have to say this is just silly I don’t think the Twilight books promote chastity just because Edward doesn’t want to take Bella's virginity until they are married what’s wrong with that? Did she not understand that Edward is from the early 1900’s?? Also he is worried he will hurt her!!

I don’t think they make Vampires sound like sissy's just because the Cullen’s have chosen to be vegetarians doesn’t mean there aren’t any viscous vampires in the books!! I don’t think there is anything wrong with the way SM changed the outlook of Vampires what was wrong with that?!?! Not all Vampire books have to be Dracula or Lestat!!!

I really loved the books because im severely dyslexic & have a lot of trouble reading books & the only other author I have no problem reading is Jodi Picoult.

Dear Twinard,
I agree with you. Just because Edward didn't want to make love with Bella, until after their wedding doesn't mean that there was anything wrong with him. When I was 17, which was over a million years ago, but I can still remember the first time I fell in love. And I remember that she was such a beautiful (personality wise, and physically too for that matter) that both of us wanted to reserve making love until after we got married. To us it seemed that the experience was something very special.Almost sacred in a way.

I have a feeling that people that don't respect themselves and who don't respect the people they go with, tend to resent and project their self loathing on those that don't feel the way they do.


And I agree with you. As an artist (the writer) Bram Stoker certainly had a right to envision vampires anyway he wanted. But Stephanie has just as much a right, to envision them in her own way as well.


Personally I think that if our society sees Carlisle Cullen as a "SISSY" we are doomed. It takes a MUCH, MUCH bigger man to be willing to die for his family than it does for a psychopathic monster to kill defenseless people.

Your friend, Doc B


Bear time story, about dyslexia:

Dyslexics are often are very gifted people. Over 4,000 years ago when writing was first invented "The more gifted people were most all dyslexic so they read from right to left. That is why all ancient writings (ie Hebrew, Egyptian, Greek A FORM, not B form. are written to be read from the right to the left.

Later since (for some reason) since most people, can read easier from the left to the right, writing was reversed. But dyslexics are just genetic decedents from the gifted scribes who invented writing in the first place. ! ? dyslexia your about better feel you don't, Now
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."
I really don't see how Edward or any of the Cullens are "sissy". They are vampires with a strong desire not to hurt humans. They fight alot of different vampires through out the saga. Just because SM didn't write all kinds of horrific details with blood makes them "sissy's"??

2. Were talking about the (sissy) played by Robert Pattison in the "Twilight" series.
Edward's love for Bella strenthens him, it does not make him weaker!!

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)
How?? He didn't destroy anyones opinion, everyone has a right to thier opinion, I just don't like hers!!

4. The "Twilight" series is primarily an allegory about chastity. A kind of pre-teen fantasy, keeping men in a perpetual state of agony.
Really I don't see it......what is wrong with teaching our children that waiting for marriage is not bad!! Everything in our culture seems to point gradification, and how you shouldn't have to wait.

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.
WOW, she didn't read any of the books did she.....Edward and Bella consumate thier love on thier honeymoon, like the way it used to be, before the world became so wicked and sexually based.

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.

It is a sad day when a magizine, which is not important, thinks they review a book, they seemed to not even read. Let's knock a book that truly has a great love story through it, and a great message to the younger generations. I think maybe a magizine that refers to it's readers as Stoners, is not a reliable source for a book review.

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?

I think that alot of Authors have changed character because of Twilight, mostly because they saw how many people loved Twlight. They figured that Twilight fans will watch and read thier book and shows as well!! They are trying to make a buck of Twilight!!

Dear Renessme's Mother,
To me you hit the nail on the head. How is it possible for the contributing "literary" editor of Rolling Stone Magazine or Entertainment Weekly Magazine, NOT TO HAVE READ THE LEAD NOVEL IN A SERIES THAT SOLD 16% OF ALL THE BOOKS IN THE "WORLD" AT THE START OF 2009!!! As a Doctor, that would be like me saying "I am "ABOVE" reading anything related to the "heart or kidneys" That is stupid. And it demonstrates a level of narcasism that is beyond contempt.

And then to have the audacity to critique "Twilight" when obviously the only things you know about the story, are what you have heard from "the peanut gallery" on the "Chelsey Lately" show.
I agree I think that a lot of "screen writers" are modifying their characters to mimic "Twilight's" popularity. Vampire Bill, Q: "I would go with out your blood!" (PP) Or Vampire Diaries registration day. Etc, Etc.
Stephanie's "Nobel Vampire" image is every bit as powerful as Stoker's "Monster" and the genera will NEVER EVER be the same again. Vampiric monsters will continue to be made but in the back of the audience's mind the memory of Carlisle will always linger.
Thank you, as always for sharing with us.

Okay here we have another writer thou for a magazine still a writer nontheless criticizing a novell for portraying a creature in a way from that of what legends, myth or folklore say they are. Every author has his/hers view of which way they want to portray thier main characters, so why do they insist of just attacking twilight. I guess an this is my opinion is since rollingstone magazine might have lost some of their teenage readers, they figured they try to make a favorite novell not only by teens but adults also look bad and weak ( unintresting ). First of all the Edward character in twilight is never portrayed sissy or weak at any time in the books, just because the vampire starts feeling something he was years or centuries ago it doesn't make them a sissy or weak now Ms.Grigoriadis would've known this had she read the books and not scanned thru them. Second Twilight has never spread around destroying other opinion, as a matter of fact it has created more opinion or else Ms.Grigoriadis article would've been made would it. Thirdly Twilight is not an allegory of chastity the character Edward is from a time when real men and women waited until being married before the broke chastity, I find that great because it tells the teenagers that it is wonderful or great to wait for marriage and that specail someone before you give yourself to them completely. Fourthly againif Ms.Grigoriadis had read the books Edward can't have sex with Bella because in a moment of excitement he with his strength could kill her and also his not going to lose his and her virtues remember Edward's from a different time. Well the quote from Stephen King also I disagree just because the teenagers love vampires it doesn't mean that they are physically insecure, all types of people read these books and believe me they are not insecure. Because I work for a moving co., here in town and all we do is houseold goods moves for military personell and I've seen the books even guys who do very dangerous jobs yes including SF also. So in my opinion Stephen King's quote is completely wrong and of base.
Were talking about the (sissy) played by Robert Pattison in the "Twilight" series.
If she considers someone who overcomes what they are above all odds, then I guess Edward is a sissy

If sacrificing your needs to keep the ones you love safe is also considered a sissy, than so be it.

I would think, a romance story about a vampire would be a nice change from the horror that usually surounds that type of character.

Steph's writing is a breath of fresh air.
The easy way of writing stories about monsters with the same old kill everyone perspective, I guess is what Ms. Vanessa Grigoriadis is about. I guess she could never understand a Twilight fan, if you are not interested in romance & rising above what you are than that is your loss.

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

You see what I mean? She doesn't get it at all. Last time I checked, I am not a pre-teen.
It's like she has only read the first book & seen only the movies. Anyone who has read Breaking Dawn would not have said this quote.

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?

I don't think that Twilight has influenced as much as we think it has. These types of characters have been around long before this series.
My first vampire romance was actually Buffy & Angel. LOL

My first love with vampire love was also Buffy & Angel but think thats different because Buffy was a slayer in Twilight Bella is just a "normal" human.
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.

So let me get this straight. Stephenie's vampires are sissys based on the actions of the Edward character? I guess she forgot about all the nomads like James and Victoria, or about the Volturi--because, you know, Jane's a total pushover and so is Felix. Or about Emmett Cullen, who, despite foregoing human blood, is always ready to step up for a fight.

See, this is what bothers me about critics like Ms. Vanessa Grigoriadis. There is nothing sissy about resisting the baser instincts of the animal within. In fact, that type of self-restraint takes a kind of strength that people like Grigoriadis dismiss. They think that a vampire should just give in, take the easy route and overpower weaker humans and take what they most desire, and that if they don't, the vampire isn't a monster at all but a sissy.

I say the real sissies are the vampires like James or the Volturi who take advantage of those who are weaker in order to satisfy their animalistic needs. Any bully can do the same thing until a bigger, stronger, or smarter bully comes along. But it takes real strength to resist those urges and do the right thing, especially when doing the right thing comes at great personal difficulty. Call me naive, but I don't find anything manly about overpowering those who are obviously weaker. And I don't find anything sissy about being manly enough to deny yourself out of respect for your own sense of right and wrong.

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)
Well obviously Twilight hasn't "destroyed" other opinions, because if it had, we wouldn't still be hearing from people like Ms. Grigoriadis, whining over the way vampires "should be." One reimagining of the vampire myths is not nearly enough to destroy the vast body of vampire literature that has gone before.

I do find it curious that so many critics of Twilight like to cast the saga in this role of "great destroyer of all the vampire canon that came before." Perhaps they are nervous that--because the main vampire protagonist, Edward, and his family deny their more animalistic urges--people who read the genre and think about it will come to regard the sexualization of bloodlust that is so prevalent in other vampire literature as perhaps a moral weakness of those other vampire characters. And if so, perhaps they are afraid of what their preference as readers for that other type of vamp literature--the bloody, sexy, take what you want kind--says about their own moral character?

I'm only suggesting a hypothesis to explain why some fans of those and other types of vampire literature seem to feel so offended and threatened by Twilight. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that type of vampire fiction, or that enjoying it actually does make some sort of moral statement about the reader. There's nothing wrong with it, in my opinion, and some of it is great fun to read!

4. The "Twilight" series is primarily an allegory about chastity. A kind of pre-teen fantasy, keeping men in a perpetual state of agony.
Has she read the books? I have to wonder, because the man--Edward--is not the one in "a perpetual state of agony". That would be our horny little heroine, Bella, who does everything up to and including begging and emotional blackmail to get Edward to give up the goods.

Besides, chastity isn't the main point at all. It's one of them, but chastity can be lumped in with all the other desires that are denied in the books. The books are really about doing the right thing even when it seems impossible, instead of doing the easy thing because it's what you really want to do anyway. And of course they're about love, always love, in all its many forms, and the ways in which love can shape a person.

Anyone who reads the books and only sees chastity as the theme is missing the point entirely, or else is being deliberately obtuse. Perhaps Ms. Grigoriadis is reading into the books what she presumes to know about the author's purpose in writing the books (based on Stephenie's religious beliefs). In any case, the dismissal of the books as only an "allegory about chastity" shows a basic lack in her ability to analyze the books on any level beyond their surface.

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.

yep, the subtext is clear as mud.

"RUINED FOREVER!" Umm, no. How about dead forever? If it were only about her virtue, Edward wouldn't still be resistant to the idea even after they were married, and even after Bella is no longer chaste.

"SHE may be ruined"? hmm . . . it seems to me that Edward is very explicit about this point--that it's not only Bella's virtue he's worried about, but also his own. Because he tells Bella quite particularly that even though he doesn't believe as she does about him still having his soul, that he wants to leave the rule about giving in to lust unbroken just in case she and Carlisle are right. Because Edward has already broken all the other commandments, and he "wants to leave that rule unbroken." Not just for Bella's sake, but also for his own. You know, just in case. And then, there's the whole idea of having to live an eternity with himself if he somehow lost control and killed Bella in the process of having sex with her. That would ruin Edward too.

Yes, Bella and Edward's sexual relations (and lack of) play a big part in the third and fourth books. But not as much in the first, or the second. If we're supposed to dismiss the books as being about chastity, and the subtext is that sex with Edward would ruin Bella forever, then how is that portrayed in the first book, where sex is only one small conversation? Perhaps it's more accurate to say that Twilight is a book about loving someone even when it's difficult and staying the course, or deciding what risks you're willing to take in the name of love--romantic or familial?

Where is the chastity theme in the second book, where Edward leaves not because of the sex issue, but because he's trying to protect Bella from the dangers of being surrounded by thirsty vampires? Perhaps it would be more precise to say that New Moon is a book about love and the moral dilemma of trying to honor and protect the one you love even when doing so comes at great personal cost?

"even as they exchange dewy eyed close-ups"
This, combined with her lack of comprehension of the literature of the books, leads me to believe that Ms. Grigoriadis has not actually read the books but has only watched the movie versions. Otherwise, perhaps she would know that there is more to the story than the "dewy eyed close-ups" the movies have shown.

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.

Really? Really?!! Come on, Mr. King! Surely the author of Salem's Lot can understand the appeal of vampires better than that! I never thought I'd be schooling the King of horror on the appeal of vampires or human nature 101. Then again, I never thought I'd see the "King" make it his personal mission to be dismissive of a particular series of books and their author based on some sort of prejudice against a kindler, gentler vampire.

"vampire's urges are completely oral" Of course vampires pose the traditional animalistic urges to feed and keep feeding, but this isn't really about impotence. It's about satisfying our hungers, and about learning the restraint necessary to feed those hungers without excess. And if I'm not mistaken, the vampire canon has lots of hungers for vampires that are not in the least oral, not least of which are the sexual urges.

And of course, there's the interesting angle of human sexual desire. We all want to feel wanted, and we enjoy the idea of being desired "for all eternity." Not because we're physically insecure, but because emotionally we fear being rejected or abandoned. These fears apply not only to teenagers, but to people of every age.

Vampires appeal to readers for many reasons. There is something interesting about immortality to human beings who must always contemplate their own mortality and their legacy. Vampires pose a potentially fatal danger to humans--a chance to face our mortality, to fear it or accept it--while at the same time representing one of the biggest desires of the human race--the need to feel immortal in some form.

Even if we believe Mr. King's argument, how exactly does his opinion support Ms. Grigoriadis's? King is saying that the appeal of vampires is that they are not sexual, thus posing no risk of impotence, because their urges are completely oral in nature and are thirst driven.

If that's the case, then Edward's urges, by King's definition, are "completely oral in nature" which means that the books can't really be about Edward's sexual urges, and thus Ms. Grigoriadis's assertion that the books are primarily about Edward and Bella resisting those urges and keeping Edward in a "perpetual state of agony" is rendered inaccurate according to King's argument.
Extra Credit:
Regarding Vampire Diaries, the books were written well before Twilight. So the author didn't derive any influence from the Saga, though I would venture to say that there would not now be a television series based loosely on the Diary books if it weren't for the surge in vampire popularity as fed by Twilight. And I believe the series is quite a bit different than the original books, but I don't know in what ways or if the popularity of Twilight has been a factor in those changes. I watch the series, and I only see a surface resemblance to Twilight.

The Sookie series--books and tv show--is absolutely not influenced by Twilight, in my opinion. Nor are the Underworld movies, which have also been hugely popular in recent years. In fact, Victor (underworld) is a vampire who makes Aro seem kind.

So I don't think Twilight has been a dominating influence on authors, but perhaps it's popularity has paved the way for some other works that may not have received attention if not for the renewed interest in vampires.

Of course, I'm aware that in the YA market there are several new or newer series that center around vampires, wolves, or other supernatural creatures. I'm sure some of this is due to Twilight, and that some authors may have chosen to write about vamps in order to cash in on a trend. But other authors, I'm sure, are only trying to lend their own unique voices and interpretations to the vampire genre.
Concerning the FYI story, I find it interesting, but I don't think it has any bearing on Ms. Grigoriadis's feelings on Twilight. The Druids are not the only religion or culture to have elements of human sacrifice. It would be just as revealing to say that my sweetie and I share an interest in Aztec culture, even though the Aztecs were believed to have sacrificed a human every single day in order to help the sun rise. Understanding ancient cultures and beliefs can play a huge part in deciphering how we arrived at our current ones.
Well, there's not much I can say after all the intelligent comments here thus far, but I will say this. This review PISSES me off! First of all, READ the books, half the criticisms clearly show you did not. second of all, if Rob/Edward is a sissy, or Carlisle for that matter, hey, BRING ON THE SISSIES!!! These vampires are of ironclad will and more humanity than could ever be attributed to typical vampires. They CARE about humans in their own way,even while trying to stand apart and not get involved. Edward's lonely heart and self hatred is positively banished by the love of Bella. She takes him back to the boy he was before he was a vampire, while still keeping him rooted in who he is now. He is fiercely loyal and protective of her, and his family. These vampires override all their natural instincts to become better "people" No nasty reviewers or haters will every sway me from my undying love of Twilight, Edward, Bella and the Cullens, OH and of course, Charlie!!!

Dear Shannon,
You raise so many topics that I want to address. But I should address the "Burning Man" first. I am afraid that you caught me, on my Druid observation. Your right, my implication on the "Burning Man" was a (not so) veiled implication that 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.

But the truth is, that I have always been fascinated by ancient religious belief systems myself. My ancestors were Anglo-Saxon druids. And I even took my Tween-aged son to study Henry the Eight's torture chamber in the "White Tower." (as well as where the body's of "The Little Princes" were found.") For some unfathomable reason Honey preferred to spend her time studying the crown jewels.(Freud, Q: "Women!")

And I studied the Hawaiian human sacrifice shark pens in Kona. As well as the Mayan sacrificial alters in Belize. So a biographer could just as easily draw implications about my nature as well. Especially since my interests are, if anything, along those lines, even more intense than Ms, G's.

As "The Beven" would say " I enjoy it when friends are kind enough to politely point out weaknesses in my arguments.

Thanks: Your Friend, Doc B

RSS

© 2014   Created by Hachette Book Group.

Report an Issue | Guidelines  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service