The Twilight series: Parsing images in the arts
When providing politically correct criticism really doesn’t help
posted 11-19-2011 - 7:45 pm CST

 
I got an e-mail yesterday from the Women’s Media Center. I’m on their list for a reason: they have a program called Progressive Women’s Voices that spends decent money to train women like me to be op-ed writers and opinion shapers and gives them the necessary connections. E-mail from the WMC is one of the very few ways to learn when the next class term will be scheduled so that I can apply. So when I get an e-mail from them, I usually glance at it right away.

This one arrived the very same day that the Twilight film franchise’s latest installment, “Breaking Dawn, Part 1,” debuted at movie theaters nationally. The digital missive came with a link and a provocative headline: “Exclusive: Breaking Bella – When Love Equals Violence.” That raised an eyebrow.

Like many other women, I’ve read the books, and that wasn’t exactly the impression I got from reading them. Yeah, they have some serious flaws, but they’re not dangerous or evil. The premise of that headline struck me as too simple minded and not a little blindly PC, but I reminded myself that headlines can be misleading. So I figured I ought to read the column before drawing conclusions.

I read it, all right ... and found myself remembering when I was young, passionate, and foolish enough to try to construct an argument while conveniently ignoring inconvenient facts. I’m still that passionate, no longer that young, and haven’t been that foolish in decades. The same cannot be said of the column’s author, Caitlin Moran, a newbie writer who just graduated university earlier this year. I’ll do her the courtesy of taking her argument seriously, but she won’t like my analysis. Her column is well written; her thesis, however, is not well constructed: it’s a little too PC, too oversimplified, ignores certain facts about the books and this film, and is too over the top to be effective.

Unfortunately, there are those out there who will read it and blindly agree with it in the name of feminism. That’s just silly. Mind you, I’m not against provocative positions. I’m a feminist, plain spoken, and don’t run from an argument or an opinion. I’ve verbally lopped some heads in my day. That said, I also think for myself, don’t go with the herd or trust true believers of any stripe, including politically correct ones. I don’t approach life or discussions from any particular philosophical, religious, psychological, intellectual, or party perspective; instead, I tend to first look for facts, then to analyze them. I have a pretty good brain and mind, and I trust both my brain and my mind to lead me to sensible conclusions.

When it came to this story, I just didn’t see the plot of the books and this film as violent in quite the same way young Ms. Moran does. Oh, there’s plenty of violence, but it’s mostly among vampires or between vampires and wolfy shape-shifting Quileutes. Edward, the romantic hero of the series, has gone out of his way to warn off his beloved, the protagonist teen girl Bella, from himself and from the vampire life in general. She’s not buying it. I may disagree with some of Bella’s choices, but she’s not written as an idiot, weak, masochistic, or unwilling to defend herself. She’s written as a generally well-spoken, thoughtful, modest, non-egotistic, reasonably intelligent teenager, but a teenager nonetheless – and adolescents can cling stubbornly to what they want, even when it doesn’t make sense to do so. So, Bella does some goofy things now and then. In that respect, the character of Bella is realistically written. The violent images that bother Ms. Moran, however, are not the ones between opposing groups of vampires or the vampires and the wolves, and the context of these images isn’t entirely as she represents it.

Yes, there are serious questions to be addressed in the story of Breaking Dawn – ones that a responsible parent will sit down and discuss calmly and rationally with his or her daughter(s) – but the matter is nowhere near as black and white as Ms. Moran presents it. If you can’t make your case without being selective about which facts you’re willing to consider, you’re doing a poor job of it.

Now, I don't usually discourse at this length about every piece of lit criticism I dispute. However, the Twilight franchise, in print and film, is a multimillion-dollar industry and an influential part of popular culture where young girls are concerned. That makes parsing its images a bit more important.

By now, most people who have read the Twilight books know that the author, Stephenie Meyer, is Mormon. There's a valid point to be made about how poorly the Mormon church treats its women and the attitudes its teachings instill in young women. Mormons also have a really big family ethic, so I can't see them encouraging a woman to end a pregnancy even when medical advice dictates an abortion to save the mother's life. And they’re generally anti-abortion anyway.

I don’t have that problem because I don’t consider conception to be the point at which human life begins. To me, according to the physical facts, it's only a potential human life that begins at conception. It can’t actually be a person unless it has fully human consciousness – and that requires a human brain with a sufficient degree of development to support true human consciousness, equivalent to that of a full-term newborn, which happens somewhere late in the third trimester. It isn’t sufficient for the fetus’s brain to be developed enough for a cat’s or a rat’s or even a chimp’s degree of consciousness; that stage is still a potential human being, not an actual one. It is human consciousness that makes a person, not a tiny cluster of dividing human cells. Without that consciousness, a living body is just an empty machine. We recognize this fact when we concede that a brain-dead human is no longer alive because consciousness is irretrievably gone. And that's as true at the beginning of life as it is at the end.

However, there are people who will disagree with me about all that; for them, the possibility of Bella’s fetus being aborted, even though it’s literally killing her, seems a form of violence possibly worse than any other that the vampires might commit. Ms. Moran, on the other hand, implies that Bella’s decision not to abort is a form of self-abuse. We’ll have to agree to disagree about that, even though I don’t agree with Bella’s choice, either.

And here’s where the real problem is, one that Ms. Moran never brings up: the plot is structured to deliberately encourage us to think of the fetus as an actual person in utero, instead of as a potential human being gradually forming until it is developed enough to be an individual and is born. How the story gets us there is sneaky. Edward has a gift for reading minds. We’ve had three previous books to get used to and accept the idea. The only person alive or undead whose thoughts Edward can’t read is Bella. As a plot device, it’s been an exceedingly convenient one throughout the series. But the fourth book is the one in which this device gets an anti-abortion subtext.

At a critical point in Bella’s pregnancy, Edward suddenly ‘hears’ the fetus’s thoughts – and informs Bella that it already knows and loves her. Well, now: that certainly makes this hybrid creature unusual. Human infants have no understanding of love, only an instinct for attachment – love is too sophisticated a concept for a newborn mind to handle when it can only just about recognize its mother. Moreover, human newborns and infants are physically designed to create attachment in their parents and other adults, to help ensure the child’s survival. But of course, in this story the fetus is a part vampire offspring that matures during rapidly progressing pregnancy (barely four weeks long: Bella is already a vampire a month after the wedding); so we are expected to suspend disbelief and entertain this notion. Which makes even Edward love the murderous fetus then (nope, I didn't buy that, either, and neither does Jacob). The plot soon reveals that the newborn’s post-birth development is also unusually rapid and advanced, so this is supposed to rationalize the whole overhearing-the-fetus’s-thoughts nonsense. This insistence that fetuses can think to that degree and even love, despite evidence to the contrary in newborns, is problematic all by itself. But wait, there’s more.

There's also a larger point to be made about how all vampire stories are at least in part about potential violence against others, primarily women either willing or seduced. Not to mention the fact that although most women don't have rape fantasies, many of us are still attracted to vampire stories despite their potential violence. And a small percentage of women are attracted to rape fantasies as well. Where does that come from?? Hell if I know. I’m not one of them.

We should ask ourselves why we like vampire stories at all. The appeal of Charlaine Harris’s Southern vampire series, adapted for HBO’s cable show True Blood, is in part that Harris portrays the vampires as pretty much like everyone else – they’re individuals, some good, some bad, some indifferent, all with their own agendas – except that they’re mortality challenged. Her books are also pretty funny in places: she has a way with zingers and understatement with a Southern twist. But of course, that’s not all of it.

Is it vampires’ physical strength that attracts us on an instinctual level? Aren't women actually programmed by nature to look for that in a mate? Is it their massive self-confidence that we admire, their ability to kick butt and flout authority that we envy? Chloe Neill's Chicagoland vampire series, for example, is about women using their supernatural sides to empower themselves. Same goes for some of Kim Harrison’s books. Maybe we like the idea of women having supernatural powers that let them fight back, and then some. Or is it the possibility of redemption in the Twilight books, of a 'good' vampire struggling with his own nature and trying to prevent his bride from being in his predicament, the essence of what we like about the Twilight series, and so we want to see Edward and Bella succeed? Maybe it’s a combination of things, a little different for each reader.

Well, there's no rape in the Twilight series, no assault between Bella and Edward, and not much actual seduction, unless you count Bella trying to seduce her own boyfriend, now husband. That’s also pretty true to life. Parents may still think that boys are always behind the push to have adolescent sex, but these days it’s just as likely that the girl is behind it. Like nearly every other girl her age, Bella is interested in sex, even though she doesn't get any until after marriage. That isn’t the only reason she wants Edward, of course. Don't we all know of at least one adult woman among our acquaintances who still goes for rebels and 'bad' boys, including their streak of latent (or not so latent) violence? Besides, Edward is a ‘good’ bad boy, i.e., reformed, with great hair, a good mind, a fast car, and courteous manners. It’s not a stretch to think that maybe that influences Bella’s attraction to Edward just a tiny bit.

We also know of or have read about women who insist on carrying fetuses to term against medical advice, regardless that they risk their own lives in the process. That’s a reality, too. They either think they're being moral or ethical or good mothers, or else they can't bring themselves to end a potential life that was co-created by someone they love. Or, perhaps, they have multiple reasons for going to term. And they insist it's their right to make that decision. I’m not one to tell them they can’t. Bella is one such young woman. Life is complicated sometimes, and so are people’s reasons for doing things. It's not always about masochism or weak character or peer pressure, and to reduce the entire discussion to an accusation of that sort is to do an injustice both to the discussion and to the people involved.

To be fair, Bella is more contentious in the books than she is in the films. She often disagrees with Edward and doesn't do things just to please him most of the time. In Breaking Dawn, the only thing she agrees to is marriage, and that's just an excuse to get a sex life and become a vampire so she can be with him forever. Bella thinks she knows what she's up against, at least intellectually. Edward warns her repeatedly that the honeymoon should wait until after she's been turned because with his strength and the distraction involved in sex, he could easily kill her, and that's the last thing he wants. He goes out of his way to point out that everything about him is designed to entice her, so that she shouldn’t trust her attraction to him. He also considers his own soul damned already but not hers, and he’d like to leave at least one rule unbroken while he preserves her virtue. All through the books, he's the one saying no while she pushes him to say yes. Deflowering her (and himself) while she's still human isn't what he had in mind. But it’s what she wants.

True, Bella does overreact to their break-up in the second book, but Edward's overreaction is far greater when he thinks she's dead. They're just rehashing Romeo and Juliet, which is truly idiotic, but they're not the first or the last teens to love that story and emulate it. Shakespeare made those characters teens for a reason (adolescence seems to be a prerequisite for certain kinds of hyperbolic stupidity; if we're lucky, we outgrow them). I don't think that accurately portraying such stupidity is the same as condoning it, but I'll agree that Meyer skirts too close to the edge in that instance.

The bit that I really don't like is that Bella seems to underrate her own abilities through most of the series while putting Edward on a pedestal – right up until she gets the cockamamie idea to endure this crazy pregnancy. Suddenly she's massively self-assured. How credible is that?? Consider: she arrives from Phoenix in the first book as a student with top grades who's been taking advanced placement courses for two and a half years; she knows all the answers in science class, and she reads a lot, more seriously than many of her contemporaries. She and Edward debate books. Yet she considers her intelligence nothing special compared to his, and when it comes time to apply to colleges, she thinks her grades are way too average to get her into Dartmouth (on the contrary, she's probably book-smart enough to get in without any influence from his family). Yeah, all teens are at least a little insecure, but Bella's too-modest self-image is a bit much. It's unsupported by the facts. Then she gets pregnant, and her undue self-effacement suddenly morphs into overweening overconfidence. It's not that she's a martyr: she really doesn't think she's going to die from carrying this killer. Detached from reality much? But again, this is typical teen behavior. No news there. We just wish she'd wise up.

Then there’s the matter of the bruises. At no time does Bella downplay them because she thinks it's okay to endure them for Edward's sake: her reaction has nothing to do with Edward. Rather, she really doesn't feel the injuries and doesn't think they're that bad compared to previous ones from other causes, like exercise. Moreover, she's willing to risk a few bruises on her honeymoon because she's just discovered orgasm and really likes it. Is that truly so surprising?

Let’s face it, lots of average people have vigorous sex that sometimes ends up leaving marks and wrecking furnishings without anyone intending to hurt himself/herself or the other person. Who among us hasn't sported a hickey or been stuck in a hotel room at least once next door to a couple who insist on having headbanging sex and knocking the furniture about just when you're trying to sleep? Hickeys are just the least objectionable side effect. It doesn’t mean the people involved are sadists or masochists. There are also those who simply bruise easily, like me; it doesn't take much for me to get marked – no brutality, just minor clumsiness. I had a few purple splotches after my own honeymoon many years ago, and my spouse and I weren't remotely violent, just highly enthusiastic. We don’t know whether or not Bella has a predisposition to bruising easily, as Meyer doesn’t say; we only know she’s a klutz as a human, then amazingly graceful as a vampire.

Do I consider Bella’s bruises after her wedding night as evidence of masochism that she entertains because she loves Edward? Nah. She’s just a lot more breakable and willing to take a risk than he is. Within a few days, however – before they realize she’s pregnant – even he agrees that with a little practice, the risk isn’t quite as bad as he’d thought (he is, after all, breaking the furniture, not her bones).

So: Bella is 18, hormonal (like all teens), horny (ditto), romantic, googly-eyed in love with her new husband, and desirous of a real human honeymoon before she becomes a vampire and has to be 'in recovery' for a while, perhaps as long as a year. The logic circuits in the front of her brain, like those of all teens, won't even fully mature until she's at least 21, maybe 22 (which, if she gets bitten soon, means maybe never). Are we really surprised that her judgment is maybe a little impaired? But: if she's old enough to be legally married, she's old enough to make her own decisions and live with the consequences. And consequences are what Bella gets, in spades. Breaking Dawn is as much a cautionary tale as it is a romance. Besides, if Meyer had written Bella as agreeable to an abortion, that would have ended a good chunk of the plot right there.

Would I, at that age, have let an unwanted pregnancy go to term when I was about to leave for college? Especially if I knew the pregnancy threatened my life?? Oh, HELL no – I'd have had an abortion in a nanosecond, but that's me. Then again, I wasn’t that careless, either, so the decision never came up; I was prudent about birth control. Moreover, I never had the urge to procreate. Not once. I don't regret not having kids on an overburdened planet that just tilted over the 7 billion mark (I’m also in the minority on that).

But that doesn't mean I haven't been jerked around by my hormones as nature's tool now and then. I've just learned over time not to trust 'chemistry' with any particular person: that's merely nature manipulating me so that I'll get pregnant. A good fit relationship-wise comes from knowing each other well, having complementary dispositions and attitudes, being able to tell the difference between hormones and infatuation versus real affection and admiration, being realistic about each other’s flaws, and a whole bunch of other factors that are best left to another discussion. But chemical attraction as a reliable indicator?? Please. That’s for idiots.

We really shouldn't minimize the strength of the biological imperative. Nature made it virtually irresistible for a reason. But nature is also painfully slower to evolve than the earth is to populate itself. It's only the power of reason, which has evolved almost in opposition to biological urges, that gives us the ability to contravene instinct and choose when, whether, and under what circumstances we women will have sex or children. And we have to fight that biological imperative every second of our childbearing years, lest it ruin our lives in the process. The thing to remember here is that sometimes, nature is the enemy: nature doesn't give a rat's ass about your personal happiness, only about populating the species. Nature only cares about getting you bred with the ‘right’ person, meaning one with a complementary MHC (major histocompatibility complex) so that you make genetically 'good' babies from nature's point of view – and if getting you pregnant ruins your life, hey, them’s the breaks. Tough luck. Nature’s a bitch.

That's what Bella is up against. Just like the rest of us. Reason, free will, and reliable birth control are the only things that give us any choice whatsoever. In Bella's case, nobody for a moment thought that she could get pregnant by Edward, thus the lack of birth control on her honeymoon. She’s not irresponsible or ignorant in that respect. The fact that she does get pregnant almost immediately isn't impossible even for a normal human couple ... but it does indicate that at least one thing about Edward's otherwise growth-frozen body is still working and replicating: sperm. That’s not something that makes sense in the context of a vampire story, given that a vampire’s body is essentially dead and the cells have stopped renewing themselves, but then the whole premise of a vampire story doesn't make sense, either. That doesn't keep us from telling such stories, of course. Neither fantasies nor fairy stories are known to be particularly rational or realistic.

As for the birth scene itself, yeah, it’s bloody and gruesome. Most emergency C-sections are, especially when there’s no time for the pain-killers to get into the mom’s bloodstream. They’re cringe-inducing for the idle bystander. And this fetus has a placenta you can’t cut with a chain saw, let alone a scalpel. That leaves only vampire teeth for a cutting tool. Hey, it’s a half-vampire baby being born – did anybody honestly think this would be a happy, drug-free delivery with whale song playing in the background? Really? Once the delivery is over, Edward races to save his wife’s life, and there’s only one way to do it: try to turn her before her heart gives out. You can guess the rest. So is this worse than you would expect, given the set-up? Truthfully, no.

All of the Twilight books have a unifying underlying question that the books pose: namely, when is it okay to not put your own survival first, or even dispense with it? Answer: when you’re trying to save the life of someone you love. And this premise is supposed to justify Bella’s choices throughout the series. In this case, it’s this horrifying, murderous fetus that she already ‘loves,’ even though everyone other than Rosalie thinks she’s crazy. Is this a first? No: pregnant women with cancer or some other deadly disease who delay treatment until their offspring can be born aren’t unheard of and are the stock in trade of many a TV melodrama. Like it or not, that mother-protecting-her-young instinct is every bit as strong and unreasoning as is the biological imperative.

The crux of the matter is that self-sacrifice can be a noble thing as long as you don’t throw your life away stupidly; but in the end, nobody else can make that decision for you if you’re an adult, even if you’re being irrational about this particular decision. I don’t think that Meyer made her case as well as she could have, but she certainly does set up some dramatic tension. Which is why the books sell.

Bottom line: if you're really worried about what your kids are going to take away from this movie or the Twilight series in general, you need to sit them down and have exactly the kind of discussion I've had here all by myself – and then be sure to tell them that being a pushover is not acceptable and not a survival trait. In the process, don’t shy away from confronting complicated realities or gloss over facts you don’t like; when your kids question you about those inconvenient facts, do your best to address them rather than avoid them. You can't shelter your kids from the world or from popular culture forever, but you can make sure they see it within a proper context and learn to get all the facts, then think for themselves. And you can let them see you doing the same. Example makes a far better case than any argument can supply.

The flawed position Ms. Moran presents, however, doesn’t remotely do the job. Let’s hope she quickly learns not to write arguments that other feminists, let alone any opponents, can pick apart this easily.