Twilight and Young Adult Books
Just the one question today. Anonymous writes:
Q. (I hope this doesn't come off as insulting, because I'm a fan of yours...) I've noted that you sometimes make off-handed remarks about Stephenie Meyer's books -- Edward/his grating perfection/ etc.. But I don't hear you slamming other YA books, you either praise them ad nauseum (Octavian Nothing) or don't mention them at all.
You've classified yourself as writing for "smart" teenagers, and I'm guessing that you consider SM books to be not as "smart." But many teens have Twilight and LFA on their bookshelves and like them equally.
Yours have heavy duty themes. Hers are page turners. Both have their merits. I think your struggle to figure out SM's success is your tragic flaw. Is it?
A. First, let me say that I hope my praise for Octavian Nothing (which is the greatest accomplishment in the history of children's literature sorry I can't stop myself) didn't LITERALLY induce nausea. That certainly wasn't my goal. My goal was to get people to read books that are "hard but brilliant," because in doing so they will learn that such books are not actually "hard." They are just brilliant.
Secondly, have I ever said that I write for smart teenagers? I hope I haven't (and don't think I have). I've said that I like to write about smart teenagers. But books about smart teenagers aren't only for smart teenagers any more than books about drug-addicted teenagers are only for drug addicts or books about vampires are only for vampires.
And one last thing before I get to the core of your question: I don't feel as if I'm struggling to understand Stephenie Meyer's success. (It may be happening unconsciously, but I don't think so.) I envy a lot of writers, but I would find the pressure of being Stephenie Meyer absolutely unbearable. One of the (many!) things I admire about her is that she has continued to work through pressure and expectations that would probably paralyze most writers--and would certainly paralyze this one.
But there are many other things I admire about Stephenie Meyer, including that I think her books (particularly Twilight and The Host) are really fun to read. I'm not a pretentious reader--and I hope to God I'm not a pretentious writer. Books should be fun to read, and hers are. The romance is drawn masterfully (I like romance novels and have even occasionally reviewed them). The pacing is perfect, particularly in the first book, and the world is so complex and well-imagined that you feel part of it in an exciting way.
I think Edward Cullen is an idealized asshat, an empty vessel into which we are allowed to stuff our hopes and aspirations. But that's not in any way a knock on the books. Books don't have a responsibility to present characters who are good boyfriends.
I believe that we as readers should read both as a sweet devouring (as Eudora Welty famously put it)--but that we should also be able to read critically at the same time. Which is to say that I think one can read, and love Twilight while simultaneously being troubled by the manner in which it romanticizes and objectifies the other.
Teenagers, I would argue, are actually very good at this--which is precisely why so many of them count both Twilight and The Catcher in the Rye among their favorite books. They are able to read broadly and without the built-in expectations adult readers tend to have. (I don't like fantasy; YA is sophomoric; literature is boring; whatever.)
I treasure this about my audience, and I certainly don't want them to give it up and start reading only, say, historical fiction set during the Revolutionary War.
posted by John Green @ Monday, April 13, 2009
63 Comments
63 Comments:
Thank you so much for commenting on the Twilight books. I've also been trying to figure your take on Stephanie Meyer as you don't seem to be the type of author to slam others. You're much more professional that that. I also LOVE you for also pointing out that you can love a book with flaws. Sometimes fans of that particular series can get a little bent up if a reader does not slavishly devote themselves to story and agree that everything within it is perfect. But I also get frustrated when people don't acknowledge what made it a wonderful series to begin with.
Firstly this quote,: "I think Edward Cullen is an idealized asshat, an empty vessel into which we are allowed to stuff our hopes and aspirations. But that's not in any way a knock on the books. Books don't have a responsibility to present characters who are good boyfriends." made me almost pee myself i laughed so hard. I agree wholeheartedly.
ANYWAY
I just wanted to ask if you have any thoughts/suggestions on reading/understanding on a deeper level Moby Dick. I am reading it in my English class right now, and I, because I have certain issues with my teacher (i.e. he continuously talks in circles, never arriving at any conclusion, and reads poetry like he were on fire and the world were ending) can't really take what he says about the novel seriously. I just wanted to ask if you had any thoughts on it.
(P.S. I truly love your books, and love Octavian like nothin' else..)
Edward Cullen is a creeper. But he is my favorite creeper. Thank You for finally writing about SM, I was curious about you're take on her because you mention her so very often.
I read Twilight about a year before it became the worlds most popular book. I now spend a great deal of my time insulting the book adn the fangirls who breathe deeply and sigh "edward".
When I first read Twilight, I poured through the book and although I definetly thought HP was better I enjoyed it. I enjoyed it a lot. After finishing it I moved on to other things, when I came back to reread it. I love rereading books. I realized it wasn't as fascinating as it was when I first read it. Edward really irritated me. (I didnt even like him that much when I first read it.)
I realized that as much as I enjoyed the book, it wasn't well written. The usage of words was poor. The main characters( Edward and Bella) really were pathetic. Alice, Jasper, Emmett, and Rosalie much better characters.
I truly don't know now if I like the book. It seems to remind me of my 7th grade history teacher. Everyone thought he was the best teacher in the world; I agreed. The next year however, when I thought about it I realized how pathetic he was. All the fame had gone straight to his head. He didn't teach anything meaningful and he never even managed to teach what he was supposed to. He kept going off on random tangents.(Yes, I do realize I did jsut that.)
The main point is THANK YOU FOR THAT MAZING POST.
I'm the only one in my family who doesn't like Edward, my sister and my mom both like him. I think he's sort of flat and vapid. I found Jacob to be a much better crafted character, much more interesting. However, reading the pages of Twilight from Edward's perspective I actually find interesting because his mind reading actually makes it a kind of omniscient perspective.
We know you've always been a talented liar, and proud of it. You once told us you became a writer because "telling lies, and sitting" topped a childhood list of your best skills. And, even if we can't take your word for it, Hank once topped a list of childhood worries with "John lied and Mom believed him" - so it's probably true.
But in recent years we've seen you caught in various lies, like when 22-year old John is videotaped exaggerating his role in his legendary high school prank, clearly not anticipating its appearance on YouTube six years later. Or, when John2004 writes that his award-winning third grade masterpiece "It Just Isn't Fair" is about a boy named John who is uncool because he buys the wrong Swatch, and that it concludes with "John felt cool as a cucumber" - but he doesn't count on Hank2007 reading the book to 27,000 people (at least one of whom read that 2004 article), revealing that the book is in fact about a boy named Alvin who buys the right Swatch but is uncool anyway, and I don't remember the last sentence but it doesn't end with "cucumber".
We know it bugs you when you're not believed - for example, in "An Elf", circa 1984, you're more worried that Mom doesn't believe you than you are about the elf in your shirt.
So, do you think your rise to the status of moderately famous multi-media personality has made you: A) a better liar, B) a more careful liar, or C) more honest?
Or some, or all, or none of the above? Have you taken any steps toward maintaining better consistency in your lies, across time and media? And should we believe your answer?
Thank you so much for talking about this..."Edward Cullen is an idealized asshat" made my day. =] The problem I have with the Twilight books-I could go on forever-is mostly with the obsession people have over him. No one is that perfect in real life and fantasizing that way ruins you for some perfectly normal guy down the road. I also found Bella insecure and hollow; her thoughts tended to run along one track and she didn't come across intelligent or thoughtful like the characters in many other books, including yours.
Anyway, thanks again. It's always great to hear what over authors think about something like this.
As difficult as pronouncing Chabon is, I think I'm finding Lecomte harder to verbalize. You mentioned The Mysteries of Pittsburgh earlier, and it's among my favorites, along with Looking for Alaska. There are so many passages to that book that I wrote all over. So many paragraphs that could stand alone as great works of fiction. The Cloud Factory is a huge, sweeping, brilliant metaphor. I was wondering what your take was, on Chabon, and on The Mysteries of Pittsburgh.
Thank you! My friends often accuse me of being a hypocrite because I claim to love Twilight but often make fun of the series. I read Twilight back in 2005 before the rest of the world read even knew who Edward Cullen was, and I find the hype surrounding the last book and the movies to be ridiculous. The plot of the first novel is excellent, and I really enjoy reading it. However, I also enjoy pointing out that Edward Cullen is a psychologically abusive boyfriend and that he is, above all, a character in a book.
I love young adult novels. I also love "adult" novels like Anna Karenina and Wuthering Heights. Maureen Johnson's books have competed with Brave New World for a place on my nightstand. Why? Because the point of reading is to read. Read what you like and read a lot of it. I like YA, science fiction, and books that I can use as door stoppers when I'm done with them. Does that make me a hypocrite for including Twilight alongside the Aeneid on my book shelf? No, that makes me interesting.
Question: What do you think is the biggest issue facing unpublished authors today?
Hey, I love your comments on Twilight. I read the book when it first came out, and I actually enjoyed it. But ever since the books grew into a literary phenomenon (and the butt of everybody's jokes), I've felt like I have to justify why I read the books. So many people hate the them and Stephenie Meyer just for the sake of hating something collectively.
Maybe her books aren't as "intellectual" or "deep" compared to other books, but people feel something emotionally when they read them, so that's got to count for something.
Anyway, thanks for your honesty - it's refreshing.
I dislike Twilight due to its complete lack of real characters with, y'know, personalities, and its atrocious writing.
Edward's perfect, marble-like body and liquid topaz eyes are mentioned every third page. Bella's entire life and personality seem to consist of cooking for Charlie and being with Edward.
Bella and Edward's relationship is an awful example for today's young girls, the ones who are reading Twilight. It's borderline abusive. Edward is manipulative and controlling, preventing Bella from seeing her friends (Jacob), having Alice "kidnap" her over the weekend and hold her hostage, taking parts OUT OF HER CAR so she can't drive anywhere. It's disgusting how this is viewed as such a perfect romance that young girls are looking up to, and I fear for their safety in future relationships if they think that's okay.
Bella is intentionally devoid of any distinguishing personality so that readers can happily insert themselves as her. (Bella, by the way, is also obviously a younger, more attractive version of Stephenie Meyer.)
Please don't get me started on the writing itself. Inserting too many fancy adjectives does not equal good writing. And the woman should buy a thesaurus. If I have to read the word 'chagrin' one more time, I am going to vomit.
And the thinly veiled Mormon symbolism is laughable.
Bella: Oh, Edward, I want you to "change" me!
Edward: No, Bella, I can't "change" you until we're married!
Substitute "change" for "have sex with" and you've got the abstinence-only sex education that I have to sit through every year.
That being said, if you ignore all that, it's a mildly cute and entertaining book. Just not deserving of all the hype and praise it's getting.
(Oh, and has anyone heard of the ATTACKS by fans on non-Twilight lovers? Just Google "Twilight fangirl attacks" and you'll see what I mean.)
Wow. That was long and obnoxious. Guess I just had to get that out of my system.
Oh, hey, I'm also curious to know your thoughts on Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. The original is one of my favorite novels, and I happen to be a big fan of the zombie sub-genre, so I think it's wicked cool. (I've yet to actually read the book, so I can't comment on it myself, but I'm excited to get my hands on it.)
What do you think of authors taking apart classic novels and reconstructing them with a modern kick?
What book that is considered 'good' by many people do you absolutley hate?
May I say "bravo" in this day and age without sounding like a schmuck?
To hell with it.
Bravo, John! That was a perfect response. I agree with every word of your post (though I don't know anything about The Host, having not read it). It's perfectly valid to like Twilight as much as Alaska, but as a nerdfighter (I think) it would be odd not to appreciate Alaska more.
A question, though:
How do you feel about the idea of having a national holiday in celebration of the accomplishments of Christopher Columbus?
In reply to Kat B.:
How can Bella simultaneously be devoid of any distinguishing characteristics and be a younger Stephanie Meyer? Is Stephanie Meyer somehow also devoid of personality? I doubt it.
Though everything else you said is pretty much spot on.
Wow CalculatedPlans that was an extremely incisive comment, and with so much detail!
Have you ever been to/seen Warren Wilson College? You've mentioned that your parents live in asheville, which is where WWC is, and my sister goes there.
I don't understand how anyone could misunderstand your views regarding Stephenie Meyer, as I think you've made them pretty clear in many of your videos.
I'm part of the camp that thinks the entire Twilight series is absolute drivel. I can't even enjoy it as a guilty pleasure; the whole series just sickens me. I can't get into books where the characters are that empty, the plot is that predictable, and the writing is just generally very poor.
Are you surprised regarding the quality and/or quantity of the questions you have been receiving?
Um....How's Life?
Why do you think it is so many young adults have little to no interest in reading for Pleasure and instead only read for their education (and not even for that sometimes). Is there a way to try and change this?
~Wynn
I read Octavian Nothing at the prompting of Nerdfighters and I LOVED it. It was the most complex YA novel I've ever read. I was actually sort of surprised that it was targeted specifically towards young adults. It amazes me how far YA literature has come in terms of quality from when I first started reading it just ten years ago (at age 9).
As for Twilight, I'm about to embark on the process of reading it, since people in my life are sort of harassing me to do so. I don't fear the trappings of Edward though, lol. I've already learned my lesson about imaging attractive boys with grotesquely limited complexity. The thing that worries me about the idolization of Edward Cullen, a fictional character, is that - when do these girls come to the realization that he is flawed? Because the boy I idolized in high school was a real person, I was eventually let down in a harsh (but necessary) way that allowed me to grow as a person.
I guess the Twilight lovers will learn eventually, on their own, that Edward Cullens just don't exist.
Nicely done, John. I love that you treasure your YAs, respect that they read EVERYTHING and love them more for it.
I put your Edward as asshat quote as my Facebook thought for the night. Too good not to share (with credit, of course...I AM a librarian).
I don't believe you. I have a hard time believing someone of your talent and knowledge would find anything positive in any book that Stephenie Meyer's writes. I think you were just trying to find the "positive" in her and her books but didn't really mean it. I'm sure you don't want any drama with SM but i have a hard time believing you could respect her. And Twilight really isn't even worth blogging about. Don't enough people blog about it? Good lord.
So I also read Twilight before it was huge huge. I recommended it to a friend, who told me she wasn't interested. At the time I had only read the first one and thought it was really good, but that Edward was indeed "an idealized asshat." I have always hated him for being such a control freak. So then a few weeks later, while I was in the middle of New Moon, my friend tells me she read Twilight and loves it. Now the series is basically her life. And I pretty much hate it. The more I thought about it, the more I realized it sucked. My main problem is the obsession, especially with the movie. People go crazy over Robert Pattinson and are constantly say how gorgeous he is, but they would have said the exact same things about anyone who had been cast as Edward. I don't know why this is getting so annoying for me, but it is. I feel ashamed that these books are even marketed at the same people as yours John because they really don't even come close in merit. So anyway, your books are amazing John. Twilight, not so much. Sorry for going off.
Thank you for explaining yourself. I think Edward Cullen is too perfect, and gives a lot of girls an unrealistic impression of boys to us impressionable teenage girls. Thank you for pointing out the flaws you think it has as well as the things you like about them.
At this point, Twilight is one of my favorite books, right alongside Animal Farm, Q&A (Slumdog Millionaire book), and LFA.
Although all the fangirls who think Edward Cullen exist annoy me.
I am so happy to hear this view, John. It bothers me that so many people slam Twilight and I have felt that it seems you can't be a "true nerdfighter" without slamming the books. I really love Twilight. And I realize it has flaws. But I adore it anyway. But I also adore The Catcher in the Rye (thank you so much for inspiring me to read that).
I'm so glad to know you're not one of those people who thinks only shallow morons can read Twilight and actually love it.
(and I know a lot of people will think I sound ridiculous, but Edward doesn't really bother me. I'm not OBSESSED with him, but I don't dislike him either. I'm pretty neutral. I guess because he's so ridiculously "perfect" and unrealistic, I can read about him and not be phased either way. He's a character, a flat-two-dimensional character. The other characters I can see coming to life, but Ed is pretty fictitious to me.)
John Green, I would ask you why you are so much better than studying for organic chemistry, but that would be like asking a pillow why it is softer than a brick wall.
Q: Why do you think that we procrastinate, even for the things we like, simply because we have to do them? I procrastinate even though I know that it is something that will only hurt me later, but I can't even understand why I do... As an experienced procrastinator, what is your opinion on this phenomenon?
Hi John, um I need your permission to use the project for awesome screen shot in my school's newspaper. I'm writing am article about it in order to find/convert people to nerdfighters and help people understand what the YouTube community is doing to support charities. So, can I put the screen shot used for this years p4a In my school's newspaper?
I just had a mini-epiphany. It's not a hugely important one since I don't really like Twilight, but still somewhat important since I can apply what I got from Paper Towns to other things. I can think! Sometimes.
Edward is the epitome of a paper boy.
I would elaborate, but sleep calls to me.
DFTBA
~Wynn
I have tried to read "Twilight." I work in a library, though I am not a librarian, and when the teens ask me if I have read it yet I say no. I cannot get into the vampire vibe. I want to. I really do. I actually started really the book before it was popular. I liked the beginning. Edward was odd to me. I understood the pining aspect of the relationship though. Now, I am a tad bit older and I want to read the series but not enough I suppose. I want to read "The Fetch" or "Jellicoe Road" or "Fakie" first. I guess I am judgemental. I am glad though that the series exists. It has brought much attention to the genre. Be it negative or postive. "If I Stay," "The Angel Experiment" are being turned into films. I am going to read "Twilight." Someday.Soon.
For your next question post:
What sort of legal channels would one need to secure in order to make/sell products related to your books and nerdfighters?
How are you so put together?
I admire any author who can get young people interested in reading, but while the Twilight series has an interesting premise,it lacked something for me and I actually found Bella quite unlikable. For my money, The Host was a much better effort. I also thought the decision to pull the plug on Edward's story after it was leaked online resembled a temper tantrum and wondered if Bella is patterned after the author.
You said two today, John! BEDAFail.
I agree with everything you said about Twilight. You handled the question rather brilliantly.
Now, a very imporatant question I must ask of you:
I will be attending the Melbourne Gathering on May 31st, and very much look forward to meeting you and having my books signed. However, I have not been able to locate An Abudance of Katherines or Let It Snow anywhere. Would it be possible for you to bring along some copies of those books for us poor Australians to purchase?
A big problem I have with the Twilight series (out of many, not going to lie) is the romance and how it's portrayed to girls. It's so creepy and controlling from Edward's side that it just borders on abusive to me. Yet half of my friends talk about wanting their own Edwards, which really and truly bugs me. Honestly, if a guy jacked up my car so that I couldn't see my friends, I would drop him on the spot because that's creepy as hell. I wouldn't think it was sweet or protective as many of my friends think it is.
I felt like Bella and Edward's love wasn't properly developed either. It was just like he hated her because of her ~special blood~, then she hated him because he thought she hated her, then somehow they just fell in I-will-die-for-you love after a few conversations. Also, I hated how much of the books were devoted to describing how perfect Edward was. WE GET IT. HE'S HOT. HE SMELLS NICE. HE SPARKLES. HE'S COLD AND HE'S MARBLE-LIKE.
I have a bunch of problems about how women are portrayed also, but that would take me too long to type out.
And yet I read all the books like they were going out of style. It's definitely a page turner and I understand why so many people like it.
Captcha dictionary:
Washoly (n.): Someone who was once holy. Lame definition is lame.
Your third to last paragraph was really comforting, as I often find myself being really pissed off at the characters yet somehow I have to give Twilight props because it was a page turner, which are generally good books to me.
If you don't mind, I use your "Edward is an empty vessel" (which you've used before on a Vlogbrothers video) to explain my dislike towards Edward to my friends. It's exactly how I feel in the best words. I've said he's a bit abusive, too, and yet they reply that that is hot. I sometimes don't understand girls and I am one.
I've never read Twilight because it seems vastly uninteresting and a waste of time to me, but thank you for promoting the crap out of Octavian. It wasn't a book I'd typically read either, but IT WAS FANTASTIC
Edward Cullen is not an asshat!
The good thing about the Twilight books is that a librarian can read all 4 in a few hours--there's *nothing* to slow you down. But try describing them to a colleague, which I've done, in a few sentences, and you can grasp why they appeal to many and not to others. As for Octavian, it truly is nothing to me. I read it because of your recommendation, and it reinforced for me how different each of us is. I detested it.
Re CalculatedPlans:
I think what you're attributing to John's lying skills should more appropriately be attributed to John's skill to forget things and exaggerate to compensate. Welcome to the human condition.
Also, anticipating a relatively insignificant story's effect on the rest of one's life is not really a skill most 22 year olds have. It's why I don't envy people who are famous. (Or even semi-famous.)
This comment has been removed by the author.
I just recently did a critical analysis on the Twilight series and although I love them, some of the things are almost laughable. But they are fun books and the whole point is to get teens reading. Although I have to admit, Octavian is not one of those books. I read and presented on it for a state library conference this year, and my whole class of graduate students are struggling with it. It's certainly an important book and extremely well written, but I don't see teens really getting into it unless they are major history buffs. I personally wanted to poke my eyes out half way through. I still think other books would have been more appropriate to earn that Printz award, say "Paper Towns" (which I loved and was demanding Printz committee blood for not getting a nod!)
I originally read Twilight because the thought of sparkling vampires made me laugh uncontrollably. But as I started paging through the book I had fewer laughs and I was actually absorbed in the story. (Which is to say that I enjoyed reading it and have read up through about the first half of Breaking Dawn.)
However, I still think it is a badly written book. On the sentence level, the sentences are very dull and often the diction and grammar are bizarre. Not all books have to be great literature, but the number of errors I found in my copy was a bit appalling. (Um, it should probably be noted that I'm an editor so I'm probably more sensitive to those issues than the normal YA audience.)
I'm surprised that you complimented the pacing because that was something I found to be one of its greatest flaws. Bella discovered Edward was a vampire fairly quickly but the book spends a lot of time with her "still discovering" it. I really enjoyed the end plot with James—and I wouldn't change the pacing there too much—but I felt like the first 200 pages could have been handle much better if SM had tightened up the story a bit more.
I will admit that another issue I have (which probably influenced my views on the pacing) is that I find Bella incredibly dull, and so when there are events outside of Bella, the writing is much more interesting since we're not entirely caught in Bella's self-absorbed head.
Nice to read your thoughts on Twilight. It's pretty much what I'd gathered from the vlogs. And I agree with you—reading critically and reading for enjoyment can be done at the same time.
Do you read James Patterson?
"...and I hope to God I'm not a pretentious writer."
i don't know, man. tony kushner did this speech for a bun ch of writers on the merits (and pitfalls) of pretention that kind of rocked my socks. he published it in a book called "thinking about the longstanding problems of virtue and happiness"...it's so good i keep cornering people in dark alleyways and reading bits of it out loud to them.
so i'm into embracing pretentiousness lately. it's risky, but it's tasty and good for you if you do it right.
Okay, color me confused. I'm not a huge SM fan, but...
Quote: "...I think Edward Cullen is an idealized asshat, an empty vessel into which we are allowed to stuff our hopes and aspirations..."
This quote sort of negates your whole post about thinking Twilight is a good book because SM didn't write Edward to be an asshat, she wrote him as a straight up romantic interest, which was evident throughout the books.
That would be like someone praising Paper Towns and then saying Margo was really just a whiny bitch (by labeling her that, it would be evident that they truly missed the entire point of the book).
And then a bunch of people chime in with, "Edward is an asshat, yeah, yeah!" Uh, okay, so much for critical thinking :)
Hi @Calculated Plans,
John is not the biggest liar in the Green family. I am.
You have asked some great rhetorical questions in your comment. My answers follow:
CP asks: "So, do you think your rise to the status of moderately famous multi-media personality has made you: A) a better liar, B) a more careful liar, or C) more honest?"First, my rise to the status of moderately famous multi-media personality is nowhere near as steep as John's (or Hank's). It felt more like riding a Wright Brother's Model B than an F16.
My answer is "None of the above". In my vlogs, I've told big lies, small lies, and all in between. I don't think I've gotten any better at hiding the truth, I don't think I've gotten any better about hiding the lies, and I'm as honest as I ever was.
I do think I've improved at making my lies obvious, but that wasn't one of your options.
I believe it is impossible to make 100+ vlogs about yourself without lying, especially if by lying you mean forgetting. It is also impossible to avoid telling the truth.
CP asks: "Have you taken any steps toward maintaining better consistency in your lies, across time and media? And should we believe your answer?"No, and no.
Best wishes,
Secret Brother Tom
CalculatedPlans, your post is highly amusing. And that's no lie.
While I do agree that Edward is unrealistic and idealized, I don't necessarily agree that he is an "asshat," lol. Not without more convincing, anyway.
Anywho, I like how you make the distinction between the "brilliant" books and the "fun" ones, and yet still validate the fact that it is okay to love both of them.
I LOVE books like The Book Thief, Octavian Nothing, and Looking for Alaska for what they are-- books that make you think about life, feel connected to the situation and characters, and leaves you slightly (or perhaps more than slightly) changed because of it.
However, I think books like The Host or Twilight and others can be appreciated in an entirely different way for what they are-- perhaps "fluff," but good fluff. Fun, entertaining, and encompassing. They're not masquerading as great literature, and if they succeed at the aforementioned, they are succeeding at what they're meant to do.
I don't think we should delude ourselves about which category a certain book we like falls into, as long as we understand which one is it and realize both can be appreciated and good for what they are.
That being said, certain books do fall into both categories, and this generally ends in an overload of awesome.
*Cough*HarryPotter*Cough*
Your response is awesome! As a reader that loves to devour every genre, finding joy in most through pure entertainment or intellectual stimulation, I totally agree with you!
Thank God! Someone finally articulates ("Which is to say that I think one can read, and love Twilight while simultaneously being troubled by the manner in which it romanticizes and objectifies the other.") how I (as a 33-year-old reader) feel, exactly, about this entire series.
You've been writing the Paper Towns screenplay throughout the beginning of this year. After working on a screenplay, do you think you'd ever write a play for the stage?
Thank you, Secret Brother Tom, for sharing your perspective as the biggest liar in the Green family. Your responses, in conjunction with today's blog entry from John, resolve a few burning questions - though as with all good answers, they raise as many new ones.
Good thing April's not even half over.
Thanks Jesse, Lara, & milowent also for commenting on my commenting.
I couldn't stop laughing when you described Edward Cullen as an "asshat" and an "empty vessel". So true!
I believe the idea that you write for smart teenagers goes like this;
1. You've said that teenagers are smart and are underestimated.
2. You write for teenagers
therefore; you must write for smart teenagers...
That is of corse taking into the equation that ALL teenagers are smart and underestimated... hum perhaps this is a pot of worms best left alone.
I'm late to comment (and this is my first - so hello :), but I SO appreciate this discussion. I thought Twilight was fun too. However, when I brought up a specific dislike with a group of friends, they went postal. They became rude and angry like I was talking about a real person, not a fictional character. What bothered me in particular was a scene in the last book. Bella wakes up covered in bruises and begging for more sex. That made me feel kind of sick. I think the scene could have been as effective without the bruising. I worked in a women's shelter for awhile and saw too much bruising justified as "love". I knew Edward wasn't violent, blah blah blah. I just thought that part was a bit gratuitous. I don't mind that they had sex. I just don't think bruises are sexy. I saw the same thing in "The Host". The girl fell in love with two guys - one who slapped her so hard she bashed her head against the concrete, one who tried to strangle her . I think SMeyer has a beautiful imagination. I like reading her work. I just don't like the violence. I feel like the way she writes it comes off as a very trite treatment of traditional masculinity. For me, it only made the guys in the novels seem like jerks.
I so wish I could hear you call Edward an "idealized asshat" on video, so I could watch it over and over and over.
First off: I am a teenager.
Second: I've read Twilight.
Third: I cannot stand it. I was sucked in, but I've realized now how pointless the series seems to be. Yes, it was a fun read at the time. Now, I can hardly read a page without criticizing all of its flaws. The only character with true growth was screwed over in the end, leaving the boring protagonist and the empty vessel whose trap everyone falls into.
I'd much rather read the classics. Bring me Jane Austen!
Ok, I don't normally comment on here but I have to say I loved this post. As someone who kinda loves Twilight for how addictive it is but also has certain issues with it, and thinks it's good for us to read 'good but hard to read' books too, thank you :) And thank you for being able to say that there is some value in books like Twilight, when so many people have to see it as a black and white 'it is bad in every way and if you like it you're stupid' thing.
Also, I think it's right there in the book that Edward is an idealised asshat, if you can take a second to remove the blinkers of being Bella Swan.
Q (because this post has reminded me of it): Do you think our society has a tendency to place less value on things that are aimed mainly at girls or that are very visibly more popular with girls? I wonder quite alot if Twilight is an example of this...
I agree with you about Edward, but did you notice how utterly weak and dependant Bella is? That's an issue I've got with the books.
They are addictive books, though...
Thank you, Mr.Green. You just made my day :)
"I think Edward Cullen is an idealized asshat, an empty vessel into which we are allowed to stuff our hopes and aspiration" lmao! that's dead on john green. That's exactly why twilight is so popular. Does Bella have any interests other than edward? Does she have any quirky idiosyncrasies that make you love the character?? No! She's a blank slate, she could be any teenage girl in the world (and maybe a couple teenage boys, who knows?) therefore... If you feel like your Bella, Edward seems more real, Annndd it's not like edward is exactly bursting at the seams with personality either. so I guess my conclusion comes to this:Does it take half a brain to write it? no. Is it a fun, easy read not to be taken seriously? Yes. Is it literature? no.
btw, sorry about my horrid grammar I was writing this in a hurry
Just a quick thought in piraterita's comment.
You said that Edward Cullen Is too perfect and gives girls an idealistic view on guys. But then the whole point is him being so perfect, that Bella has trouble believing he's real, and that he'll be there the next time she turns around.
I for one, don't mind that he's "too perfect". It gives girls a chance to dream, you know? That maybe, somewhere out there, there'll be someone just as special and perfect just waiting for us to fall into their life.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home