Saturday, March 13, 2010

BLOGGING TWILIGHT, pt. 20: Fear and Loathing in Phoenix

Previous entries can be found in the directory.

We were somewhere near Phoenix, on the edge of the desert, when the vampires began to take hold. I remember saying something like “I feel a bit lightheaded; maybe you should drive…” And then suddenly there was a terrible roar all around us and the sky was full of what looked like huge bats, all swooping and screech and diving around the car…We had one energetic and eccentric Alice, and one calming and lethargic Jasper. Not that we needed all that for the trip, but once you get locked into a serious relationship with a vampire, the tendency is to push it as far as you can.
–Bella S. Thompson

Chapter 20: Impatience

This chapter starts out by jumping ahead a day or so and then hazily working its way backward—it’s the first moderately “structured” chapter we’ve seen. It leads to some confusion with past-perfect tense—Bella talks about things that “had happened” but lapses into regular past tense and then shifts back again—but that’s really ground we’ve tread before. It does, however, bring some form/content questions into the fold. That isn’t to say I have any answers, but it’s worth bringing up.

Like everyone, I don’t really know what we mean when we say “post-modern” but a good working definition is “pertains to a work of art that in some way calls attention to itself as a work of art.” Semi-self-consciously toying with vampire myths aside, Twilight is not a post-modern novel. Most YA Fiction is not, and in some ways it might be one of the last bastions of “non-post-modernism,” if that is a thing. To quote David Foster Wallace’s self-deprecatingly post-modern essay “Joseph Frank’s Dostoevsky”:

Upon finishing Frank’s books, though, I think any serious America reader/writer will find himself driven to think hard about what exactly it is that makes many of the novelists of our place in time so thematically shallow and lightweight, so morally impoverished… why we seem to require of our art an ironic distance from deep convicting or desperate questions…[W]e now presume as a matter of course that “Serious” literature will be aesthetically distanced from real lived life.

So, okay, Twilight is not necessarily Serious Literature, and it is definitely “morally impoverished,”( profoundly so). But what’s key here is the fact that it does lack the ironic distance we are (supposedly) accustomed to. The Harry Potter series, books we can at least credit with skimming and appropriating most of the western cannon’s deep convicting and desperate questions, also lack this post-modern, form-over-content sheen. So why do we seem to exempt kids from the ironic distance we apparently require? Or is that what makes it YA fiction? (Is that why we like it despite it being YA Fiction? Aren’t we the ones who designated it YA Fiction in the first place?) Can the Great American Novel only be written by white men with post-graduate degrees?

Plenty of adult-fiction writers don’t write very well—John Grisham, to use an example DFW invokes in his essay. What makes Twilight for kids, exactly? Because it’s about kids? You can see how that logic would break down pretty quickly. Is it just a question of marketing, then? Adults like sexy legal dramas and kids like chaste vampires? As you are probably thinking, John Grisham is another one of those writers who lacks ironic distance, and he is not considered a YA writer. But he is considered a bad writer. Are we sure he actually is? Or is he just writing against the scholarly grain? Is the only thing stopping John Grisham from being a YA author the fact that he writes about the judicial system? In one way or another, it seems like we manage to find a way to relegate most of the new fiction not written by over-educated white men (like, it should be mentioned, David Foster Wallace) into one cultural ghetto or another. See also: Stephen King.

Are we sure Stephenie Meyer is a bad writer? If we limit the definition to “one who is able to structure dialogue properly, use capitalization and punctuation consistently, and avoid periodic Sarah Palin-esque syntactical train-wrecks,” then yes, she is a bad writer. But is that really the definition we want? Those are my most specific complaints with this book, but I was never making the argument that Twilight does or does not deserve to exist, nor whether or not Twilight deserves to be relegated to the intellectual dustbin. Adults who like Harry Potter do so with their own kind of ironic distance—you’ll find very few unabashed supporters the higher you go up the intellectual ladder. Why?

Let’s end the serious theoretical discussion here, but if anyone has an answer to the barrage of questions above, I’d like to hear it.

At the start of this chapter, Bella wakes up in a hotel room, unable at first to remember how she got there. She wanders from her bed to find the place trashed; Alice can’t find her pants, Jasper is missing a tooth, and there’s a tiger—okay well I made most of that up.

Bella does wake up in the hotel room dazed, after a marathon drive from Forks to Phoenix. Apparently she spent a good portion of the trip crying against Alice’s “granite neck,” and only remembers bits and pieces. They found a hotel near the airport in case they need to flee again, since we’ve already observed that their plan sucks and is doomed to fail. Alice dragged the still-half-conscious Bella to a bed; She’s woken up some undetermined period of time later. Bella eventually discerns that it is three in the morning, but isn’t sure of what day. Alice and Jasper are sitting in the other room, watching TV silently.

This chapter gives you the sense that being a vampire must be really boring most of the time—both of them are incredibly good at sitting completely still and doing absolutely nothing. It is suggested that they aren’t even really watching the TV, and that maybe they operate on a different time scale than normal humans do—their lives are apparently so uneventful that they’ve gotten used to just letting hours fall away, wasted.

This is actually a video clip, but you'd never know!

Naturally Bella is not so content, and she basically spends the chapter wandering back and forth from the bedroom being eaten alive by anxiety. She’s also a little suspicious about her protectors, who seem to be A) keeping something from her and B) as much concerned with controlling her and keeping her in one place as they are with protecting her. Bella thinks the weirdness and vague stress in the room has something to do with the fact that Carlisle hasn’t called yet and probably should have by now. Jasper doesn’t understand why Bella is afraid, as they are keeping her safe—none of the vampires seem to be able to grasp the idea that Bella is worried they themselves could get hurt trying to save her.

“What if something goes wrong, and they get separated? If something happens to any of them. Carlisle, Emmett…Edward…” I gulped. “If that wild female hurts Esme…”

Notice that Bella apparently could give a fuck if Rosalie dies. Alice tells her they are concerned for her basically because this is the first time Edward has been happy in a hundred years, and if anything should happen to Bella now no one will want to deal with the kind of super-asshole Edward will surely become for the next hundred. She says it in a nicer way than that, I’m just cutting through the bullshit.

Alice calls down to the front desk and tells them to ignore maid service for a while, and they proceed just sit in the hotel room for hours more. What must that look like to the hotel staff? Putting aside for a second the fact that three underage kids could even get a hotel room—two girls (one of whom was barely conscious) and one guy check into a hotel room and ask to not be disturbed for the next few days? Either it’s a serious drug binge or a serious orgy. Really, I’m surprised one of them hasn’t suggested doing either of those yet. They are really just going to sit in the room and do nothing? I feel like they should at least fool around, just for something to do. Maybe the drugs are in the subtext somewhere—Bella talks a lot about tracing abstract patterns in the wallpaper to pass the time, so she must be stoned right?


Bella knows that Jasper is controlling the emotional climate in the room—he’s basically got Bella on magic telekinetic vampire Quaaludes—and she doesn’t want to be sedated anymore so she decides to go back to bed to get away from him. Alice casually follows her into the bedroom. Cue porn music, but not really. Alice has no real sense of personal space, and because she’s a girl she thinks she can just follow Bella into the shower or whatever. It becomes abundantly clear that she is not going to be leaving Bella alone anytime soon.

They talk, and Bella gets Alice to explain how vampires get created, despite the fact that Edward apparently didn’t want her to know. Vampires have venom, which is meant to incapacitate their prey. Alice calls this “superfluous”—which is a weird concession to the theory of evolution, when you think about it. Vampires have a bunch of redundant abilities, sort of like how snakes have vestigial limb bones. It flies in the face of Edward’s earlier contention that humans and vampires must have been intelligently designed. I hope we get some kind of ideological tension in later books, like Edward is the Kirk Cameron of vampires and Alice is the Richard Dawkins (I’m Team Alice). But the use of the word “superfluous” as opposed to say “vestigial” leads me to think that S. Meyer actually wasn’t thinking about it that much and maybe would have changed the line if she knew it could be construed as a nod toward Charles Darwin.

So the thing with the venom is, if someone manages to get bitten by a vampire and NOT killed immediately thereafter, then after three days or so the venom goes all the way through his or her body and they have become a vampire. Apparently this process is rare, because A) few vampires have the self-control to do it, as in not just kill the person they’ve bitten, and B) it is also very painful. But Alice doesn’t remember her transformation, so she doesn’t really know how painful. She reminds us that she has no memory of being human at all. Why do I feel like that’s going to factor into the plot soon?

So something happens while they’re sitting on the bed—Alice gets a vision of the tracker in a room with a lot of mirrors. Then she sees him a room operating a VCR. Has he traveled back in time to 1996? Jasper explains that the vision means the tracker has changed course, and has now embarked on a series of actions that will eventually lead him to a VCR. So naturally no one has any idea what the fuck that means or what to do, whether they should call Carlisle and tell him to hang out at Blockbuster or just do nothing. Then Carlisle calls and talks to Alice, and then she puts Bella on the phone with Edward. Weirdly, this is the first time they’ve talked on the phone, right? I feel like they are missing out on an important rite of passage. Edward tells Bella they’ve lost track of the tracker, and she’ll be safe, and he misses her. Bella tries to be flirty, and Edward’s voice gets “hard,” but not in a good way. He’s too busy thinking about the tracker to have phone sex, which is too bad for him.

Alice starts sketching the vision she had of the room with the mirrors, and Bella points out that it looks like a ballet studio. In fact, it looks like the same dance studio she went to as a child, which is right around the corner from her mom’s house. Then everybody’s like, oh shit, but then they think for a little longer and they are all like wait, why would you go to a dance studio now? And they dismiss it outright, so I’m sure nothing will happen at all involving Bella and a dance studio for the rest of this book.

And that, I think, was the handle - that sense of inevitable victory over the forces of old and evil. Not in any mean or military sense; we didn't need that. Our energy would simply prevail. We had all the momentum; we were riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave. So now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill in Phoenix and look west, and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high-water mark - that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.- Raoul Swan

9 comments:

Ritz said...

Hi Zach,

I've been following your blog for a while. You do a great job of critically (and fairly) analyzing the Twilight series. I'm not the posting kind, but your very interesting discussion of Wallace's commentary on the "requirement" that serious literature be distanced from real life drew me in. I think this has a lot to do with intellectual segregation - keeping literature in the hands of the experts, who are obviously rich, privileged, educated white men. The picture that springs to mind is a middle aged English professor in a tweed coat with elbow patches. I remember reading this somewhere (can't recall the source, sorry!) that most Victorian literature was penned by and for the society's elite. Maybe this is a natural evolution of that trend...

As far as the question of YA fiction being "allowed" to be more realistic, perhaps that's due to the ability of youth to see through the intellectual BS. However, to be fair, the criticism levelled at Meyer is less due to literary realism, but more due to the fact that she's a terrible writer. And I'm not talking about her not following some preset rules of the literary world, but her inability to invoke an emotional response in me apart from a few (very few) scenes. That and the fact that her characters lack consistency. If she wants to make Bella an angsty teen, she needs to commit fully to that vision. I feel that she stops just short of achieving it, which frustrates me. I could go on, but I won't test your patience there! :P

I'll be interested to hear your thoughts on this... Keep up the good work!!

Ritz

ZL said...

I think we should take pains to note that it's not just that Stephenie Meyer doesn't follow "some preset rules of the literary world" that is the problem so much as the fact that she obeys the rules sporadically. I guess putting another indent in a scene of dialogue is a way to conceivably emphasize a point by forcing a pause, if that is what she is (subconsciously) doing.

As to the rich,privileged, educated white men, I think that is very much the case-- there was a discussion a few weeks ago when an article (in the NYT Magazine, probably?) about the new generation of male writers (Jonathan Franzen, That Everything Is Illuminated Guy, et al.)noted that all of them are bad at writing sex scenes... I didn't care about that point so much as I was just struck by the fact that we have such a big group of apparently prominent young white men writing fiction still, and that is all we apparently have. It's 2010, right? Even as a white male, I'm sick of listening to white males.

It also reminded me of a line from John Hodgman's first book, about how there was a time when books were only intended for scholars and aristocrats and often specially designed "to be held by foppish, consumptive hands."

-Zac

Ophiucha said...

I've been following this blog since, like, chapter 3 - but I rarely comment. Since you asked, though, I thought I would elaborate on my own opinions.

Firstly, the simple answer as to why she is a 'YA' writer - or, at least, Twilight is a 'YA' series - is because publishers like to group things together for marketing purposes. That is basically all there is to it. Certain genres have a greater percentage of writers in them, and 'YA' is certainly one of those. It is, henceforth, only logical that a great amount of these published works would be trite nonsense. Particularly because most of the people who read Young Adult fiction are, in fact, relatively young adults. Those who read it want to write it, but let's face it, young adults are less likely to be talented because they've yet to have the experience. But, even with that flaw of the genre, this can be seen every time a genre raises to popularity. When Harry Potter came out - and back when Lord of the Rings and Narnia came out - there was a mass influx of fantasy writers, and it ended with the genre, as a whole, being discredited. Given enough time, post-modern, magical realist novels will probably come to a point where one goes Twilight-level mainstream and the genre becomes discredited.

Secondly, as a middle-upper class, white, over-educated, North American woman, I do happen to think we should all conform to the standard of writing you so aptly described as being "able to structure dialogue properly, use capitalization and punctuation consistently, and avoid periodic Sarah Palin-esque syntactical train-wrecks." I suppose it isn't wrong to break away from these structures, but you need to be aware that you are doing it, and it needs to serve some purpose. The flaws in SMeyer's writing comes down to bad editing - maybe not even on her part (but instead her editor's), although she should have still noticed a few of the more glaring mistakes and misuses of certain words. And, truth be told, she's not terrible by most standards. She just gets it bad because she doesn't have "up to par" writing ability, yet she is still famous.

In the end, lit critics can say what they want, praise what they want, dismiss what they want - but nothing can guess what will stand up to the test of time. While I do somehow doubt Twilight will be taught in school's 100 years down the road, could Harry Potter? Will people like Jonathan Safran Foer (who you mentioned in your comment) or Cormac McCarthy, who are praised today, be remembered a few years after they've died? We really can't guess which of our generation's writers will be remembered, and literary critics quite frankly basically only serve the purpose of telling people of similar mindedness what books are worth reading.

But hell, I'm a snooty bitch about writing and I still love the fantasy genre. And nobody could tear me away from a good John Green book (but then again, I am a Nerdfighter).

ZL said...

I too believe that proper grammar and usage should stop at the water's edge, but of course rules should only be broken by those who KNOW they are breaking the rules and do so for a reason and do so consistently. Cormac McCarthy is an example of that, as is the previous sentence.

Kira said...

okay, a few thoughts...

1) i read a lot of books about dragons and/or magic, and the fantasy genre is another genre that deals with heavy duty conflicts, especially good vs. evil. it is also known for often not being well written. it does seem like a lot of what is considered "bad" writing is over-earnest. that is certainly not the only thing that makes it bad but it definitely makes it embarrassing for people raised to hide their general discomfort with strong emotions behind ironic detachment.

2) do people feel like stephen king is a bad writer? i know he's a mainstream writer, and there is something unseemly about how prolific he is, but it seems unfair to categorize him as a "bad" writer. if good writing is telling a story that is engrossing, with characters you believe in and conflicts that feel like they matter to you on some level, then he seems pretty successful to me. and he certainly doesn't seem amateurish, which i think is one of the main problems with stephie meyers. i certainly wouldn't say that every stephen king book is a good one, but i would state solidly that he has written good books, and is a skilled writer.

3)i got into an argument with some ladies who were appalled at my mostly-unapologetic fascination with twilight. one of them actually said that she thought it would be better for tween girls to just not read anything than it was to have them reading this, which was just so ludicrous to me. to prefer illiteracy to the voracious consumption of mildly-to-strongly ridiculous reading material is just taking things way too far. i get it, overzealous defender of Literature and female empowerment. sheesh.

ZL said...

I think people consider Stephen King a popular writer, which is almost always different from "good writer" at least in the minds of... whoever. Other white people? Writers for Salon.com? I don't know who to blame. But it's out there. Maybe Dan Brown is a better example? I don't think Stephen King is thought of as a bad writer, but he is also not thought of as a good writer. Does that make sense?

And yes, of course, kids should read no matter what. So few people actually read books (or kindles or whatever) and we reading people need to take whatever we can get. Someday Twilight kids will come around to better stuff. Twilight is a gateway drug for them. For us it's like, rediscovering our old drug abuse.

rosanne said...

The main difference with YA and Adult fiction, aside from the setting, is the style of writing. Something intended for a YA audience is generally written in a much more direct, literal style since that is typically where developing young adult brains are. Twilight is just about as direct and literal as you can get, which is why I imagine it caught on so well with the younguns. As adult readers, we so often feel that we need to be reading complex, image-rich prose that when we do read something as literal as Twilight, we are totally swept up. Many of the mass market paperbacks for adults could easily be read by teens if the setting were something that interested them.

Meyer is a "bad writer" because she makes the mistakes that young writers use. An impoverished vocabulary which occasionally over-adapts, poorly constructed sentences and paragraphs, too much description or not enough description. A John Grisham or a Stephen King would not make the mistakes she did. Neither would a lot of other YA writers. I haven't read any of the books from Meyers' other series, The Host, but I wonder if she grew at all as a writer subsequent to some of the Twilight criticism.

ZL said...

"An impoverished vocabulary which occasionally over-adapts" is an especially good way of putting that problem of S. Meyer's.

TeamHarryJamesPotter said...

Hi, Zach. I've been reading this for awhile, and I love the comments on Twilight. They could be a bit more acidic, but I've read these and decided to hate them on my own terms. You have to be a fair critic. :P
However much I agree with your analysis of the Twilight series, I disagree with your comment about Harry Potter. You claimed that there will be very few unabashed supporters of Harry Potter the "farther you go up the intellectual ladder". I've been reading them since I was seven years old. I am now in high school, I have an IQ of 145, and I still love them and am not afraid to say so. Both my parents have read and enjoyed them, and I know several other adults, people my age, and children (personally) who love them. Just because young people can understand them doesn't mean they're not intellectual. Ms. Rowling touches on some very deep topics, and she is a fantastic writer. Unlike Stephenie Meyer, who abuses her thesaurus, structures her sentences poorly, gives little to no thought to the plot, under-develops her characters, and often leaves gaping plot holes because she breaks her own rules (like Renesmee being conceived. Hello? ALL fluids in a vampire's body turn to venom. ALL OF THEM).

Anyway, I enjoyed the previous chapters' analysis and am hopefully going to continue through all four books!