December wrote:
To you (for example) it’s axiomatic that contempt demands expression, and that bad books need criticizing. You’re prepared (grudgingly) to forgo the pleasures of really swingeing denunciation because I’m not going to let you write things here that are hurtful to the author or her fans; but you do genuinely think it’s vital that legitimate criticisms be aired. The idea of quietly disliking the damn books and going your own way bothers you. Even though we’re only talking about a pop teen romance (which will almost certainly peak in popularity soon and sink back into ordinary company of other popular novels).
Whereas to Jazzgirl (for instance) and many other fans, this driving need to take a stand against a slice of popular culture you personally dislike is mystifying. As JG says: “if you don’t like it, why not just move on?”. If one’s own impulse is to simply shrug one’s shoulders at other people’s foolish fancies, the anti’s need to voice their contempt looks a bit like sheer meanness. (“I don’t go trashing your favourite authors; why do you want to trash mine?”). In general, I think, Twilight fans are less troubled than antis by culture wars, the need to define literary canon, the establishment and defence of objective aesthetic standards etc. So it’s hard for fans to see why the antis are getting so het up about Stephenie’s writing except out of some kind of tribal antagonism (our people hate your people...).
Well said! I think this is why I had such a difficult time understanding the purpose of some of the posts on this thread.
In my own experience, it takes so much more energy to ridicule and stay bitter and angry about something than it does to shrug your shoulder and walk away. I have determined for my own well being that I don't want to spend that kind of energy on situations that I can not control or alter. Maybe that's due to how I was raised, but talking down to someone else because your opinons do not agree, does not mean that your opinion
is better, only that
you think it is. Just because you have an opinion does not mean that you always have to share it. Being so consumed with making sure everyone agrees that you are right take the focus away from what you may have wrong.
Disliking something means, for me, avoiding that which I dislike instead of submersing myself in the culture and trying to persuade everyone else why mine is the right view. I think of it as standing on shore watching a feeding frenzy and shouting for it to stop. Then because your shouting is ignored, you swim through to the center only to realize that now you are in the center trying to stop it and have to keep yourself from drowning also. Just seems to be a lot of trouble to go through just to get your point across...

Things usually happen the way they are supposed to. It's only when we decide to get involved and control the situation does the meaning get lost.
Knives wrote:Now, as for the Anti vs. Fan thing, there's a reason folks like me always air criticism - because that's how people improve. Cheerleading only helps in sports; everywhere else, someone needs to tell you what you're doing wrong so that you can improve it. In many cases, it's blindingly obvious that no one bothered to do this, and thus do you get a core of antis (usually starting with nascent writers like myself) that air the criticism in lieu of whoever it is that got paid to NOT DO THEIR JOB. I mean, put yourself in my shoes for a moment. I've been spending five years honing my prose and getting rejection letter after rejection letter in an attempt to be published and then that crap (Twilight/Inheritance/Mortal Instruments/Whatever) makes it past the radar? In the genre I write in? To popular freaking acclaim? Good GOD there's nothing more infuriating. It's like watching all your hard work get spat upon and then thrown into a cesspool. What have I spent all that time learning to write for?
I am not certain I understand this version of the "Anti". In what society does someone against, a work of fiction in this case, criticize the author for the purpose of helping the author to improve their writing skills? I've often found that praise and constructive criticism works as well and sometimes better than bashing...Is it really necessary to criticise someone personally for a work of fiction they have published?
December wrote:
Gah! Getting sidetracked here, and I haven’t even got to your original, very intriguing distinction between, if one could so describe it, books that appeal to the mind and books that reach straight for the emotions. You've definitely articulated something I wholly agree with (and that's been discussed here in passing before): Stephenie's preternatural knack for manipulating the reader's emotions so that they become immersed in Bella's immediate experience. But this is something I really want more time to think about: best save it for another post![/color]
People are going to do what they can to explore possibilities and theories if they find those paths meaningful for them. They are going to pull from personal experience when they read for enjoyment and even for the purpose of education. The meaning in a book may be different for me now than it was 10 or 15 years ago. I can't stand to read even something I wrote myself that long ago because I have grown as a person and my views are very different than they were. If a headline in the newspaper catches my eye or I see a book title and it sparks my interest, ultimately it's from the same place. It's from the place that motivates me to be who I am; an individual made up of both emotion and reason, or if you will, chaos and logic. Emotion is defined as a "complex psychophysiological experience of an individual's state of mind as interacting with biochemical (internal) and environmental (external) influences." I believe that the distinction between the mind and emotion is unnecessary. I do not read subject matter that doesn't elicit an emotional response in one form or other, because for me, reading for any other purpose wouldn't be logical.
I would venture to say that Stephenie's fans are drawn to this story because it does draw out such extraordinary emotions and because it can be discussed rationally and logically? Though I have found some would be fatal flaws in Stephenie's writing and the editing process, I have found that it's much easier for me to enjoy where the story takes me rather than trying to steer it where I decide it should go. Maybe that means there is no hope for someone like me to ever be a literary critic...(probably means that yes); but since that is not something I aspire to be in the first place, is there a reason to question overlooking the parts of the story that exasperate my rationale?
Knives wrote: We've actually discussed this idea before in numerous other threads under the guise of numerous other concepts; Bella-as-Everygirl, Edward-as-Soulmate, et cetera, and this is one of the big reasons that Twilight comes under fire from academics a lot. People trained in literary critique tend to read the story straight and examine the concept of archetypes later, which is why you get a lot of antis from writing or college backgrounds giving the series flak for its characterizations and portrayal of relationships. Taken at literal face value, just about every relationship in the book (including Charlie's with Bella as a father) is dysfunctional, irresponsible, abusive, or any combination of the above. Taken more archetypically, these considerations fade out or move to the background. It's largely a matter of how much one project's oneself onto the novels.
I've found that people will give the series "flak" for every reason. I challenge that to measure how "dysfunctional, irresponsible, abusive..." the relationships portrayed are understood by any given person is not largely a matter of abundance of their projections, but of the critics understanding of the archetypical relationship. What you believe to be normal, I may consider to be vastly exaggerated ideals. There are many different types of relationships and families these days. Traditional roles are not what they used to be. I suppose what everyone thinks of the way Edward attempts to control the situation and keep Bella safe, to be the "abusive" part of the relationship. If I were taking the cynical and rational stand on the story as a guide for how teenagers should act, I would have to agree. Since it's a fictional 100 year old
teenage vampire, with extra abilities and powers, trying to keep the love of his life from being killed (several times over) I would have to say that he's remarkably restrained, and relatively unobtrusive in her life. Until she decides that it not what she wants anymore. This is not a 14 year old girl who's swooning over her first crush. This is a 17 going on 30 woman who has been self sufficient and knows herself better than a lot of adults.
Take out of the story that Jacob is a shapeshifter, Edward is a vampire, and all the rest of the supernatural elements and yes, you are left with an emotionally abusive relationship, a dysfunctional family and friends who are controlling and manipulative to the point that it's criminal. Sadly, that's too much like real life for me to have ever picked it up in the first place. I have yet to hear of criminal activity that is caused by someone reading the Twilight Saga.
The saga itself has brought me closer to my husband, and my stepsons, who love the werewolves, and shown me that all modern romance novels do not have to be trash. I have discovered a new depth for my capacity to love unconditionally. I'm glad I read the saga and that it touched my life.
Congratulations on the birth of your son! What an amazing journey you have begun.
