Is the Twilight series a faith-based paean to chastity? That is what author Stephanie Meyers claims. As Kathleen Gilbert notes,
Twilight author Stephenie Meyer is widely known to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS), and openly acknowledges that her faith has had an impact on the books. “Unconsciously, I put a lot of my basic beliefs into the story,” she has said.
Hence, several of Twilight‘s LDS elements fall in line with a broadly Christian outlook, such as the emphasis on self-control and chastity until marriage, the centrality of the family, and the dignity of motherhood.
Meyer is a very sick puppy.
The literary tropes of sex and death in the Twilight series, it has to be said, are well worn, as worn as the ruts in the Roman roads that turned into the standard gauge for European railroads. They infest the folklore of Christian (and Jewish Europe) in the form of incubi, succubi, silkies, nixies, Wassermaenner, and fairies. Heinrich Heine’s poem “Begegnung” (Encounter) has the Water-man and the Nixie meet by accident at a village dance where both are Jonesing for youths and maidens to be lured to a watery death; the two spirits treat each other with cold professional courtesy. Every Gothic novel, and Bram Stoker’s Dracula most emphatically, revolves the theme. All literary pornography from the Marquis de Sade through the Story of O culminates in death, for that is what copulation for its own sake leaders us to.
There is a Deuteronomic duality to the sex act, a blessing and curse. Human beings don’t couple like animals. Unlike animals, we know that we are mortal, and that bearing children is the precondition for conquering mortality. The culmination of sexual relations, the petit mort, recalls our mortality, for we produce children precisely because we know we are going to die; the sex act for its own sake is redolent of mortality without the promise of immortality. The subordination of sex to family relations within a faith community whose premise is the conquest of mortality, and the sublimation of sex into romantic love are the means by which civilization links sex to live. Take sex out of this context and it becomes a curse rather than a blessing.
What is new about the Twilight series, whose premise is that the heroine may not have physical relations with her vampire lover on pain of death, is not the theme itself: the same twisted sexuality pervades the whole tradition of literary pornography. Gilbert argues that the result is “girl porn” of a special sort:
the book’s narrative reflects what appears to be a mistaking of healthy boundaries for a wooden set of “thou shalt nots” detached from a realistic understanding of sexual impurity. For example, despite the prohibition against sensual kissing – an obvious and admirable moral in the stories – the books constantly use very vivid imagery in the tradition of seedy romance novels, building to scenes of throbbing sexual tension that are just as explicit, if not more so, than a typical kiss scene. A fine example of this is Bella and Edward’s first kiss; in both the movie and book version, the scene is made explicit (in the uncut film version, extremely so) by the exaggerated sexual tension of what should have been, in real life, a simple, chaste kiss. In these scenes, it’s obvious that the belief that lovers literally “can’t touch each other for fear it will lead to sex” is no exaggeration.
Thus this false idea of chastity contributes significantly to the series’ “girl porn” effect, despite the lack of actual sex – something that might not be apparent to men, but is all too clear to women. Touted for promoting chastity, the books in fact offer a combo of emotional titillation and steamy sexual near-misses, all bound together with a steady undercurrent of rape fantasy, that is deadly for women. These elements, as in sex-laden romantic novels, are geared toward over-stimulating female emotions and sending women hurtling towards an unhealthy escapism. Instead of the selfish male ideal of regular pornography, i.e., the perfect-bodied female delivering the ultimate sexual climax, women reading Twilight can find themselves craving a different and equally selfish fantasy: the perfectly “intense” male delivering the ultimate emotional climax.
There’s merit to this way of thinking of it, but there is also reason to view the Twilight series and its innumerable imitators in an even more sinister light. There’s nothing new to the sex-and-death dynamic in the books; what is repulsively new is the normalization of this pornographic trope. In folklore and literature, the theme of erotic death always was situated at the margin of society, either as a terrible lesson to those who strayed from the path of faith-based marriage, or as a nihilistic statement of rejection of civilization itself. But the heroine of Twlight is an ordinary girl with whom ordinary girls can and, in huge numbers, do identify. The fact that she does not engage in the sex act which inevitably will lead to her physical consumption and death does not change the fact that sex and death are wound together as inextricably as in de Sade.
Why?
For the first time in modern history, young girls come of age in a world in which their expectations are limited to hooking up with men who wish to use their bodies for gratification. What young girl today awaits her Prince Charming, her soulmate, her beschert (“apportioned,” in the Yiddish term), the man whose life she can transform and who will transform hers? What young girl believes that the man who loves her will demonstrate his love by marrying her rather than hooking up with her? Young women today typically live with the sort of sexual objectification that folklore and literature associate with death.
That is why popularity of Twilight among young women around the world should horrify us.
July 19th, 2010 | 1:28 pm
I read all four of the Twilight books after my wife did. One of my major problems with the books (and the reason my children will not be allowed to read them) is the pervasive fact that 17-year-old Bella would rather die than live without her boyfriend. This “death or Edward” mentality is dangerous in its own right (to young girls especially), but it also presents a warped view of relationships. Throughout the books, sex is shown as existing solely for pleasure—not for procreation, not for reflecting God’s Trinitarian nature, and really not even for uniting a married couple. Due to the over-sexualized nature of their pre-marital relationship, their eventual coming together doesn’t seem to change much. Also, Bella states affirmatively that she only wants Edward and doesn’t care about having children. Yes, the two main characters do wait to have sex, but only because Edward is “old-fashioned” and refuses Bella’s numerous advances. In the final book, Bella and Edward finally get married, consummate their marriage, and conceive a (half-vampire) child. (I apologize if I’m ruining this for anyone, but I suspect that Breaking Dawn is not high on any of your reading lists.) The arrival of a child is a shocking plot-twist because in Twilight-Land, as in much of America, procreation is not necessarily related to or a result of sex. Indeed, Edward’s immediate instinct is to kill the child in utero so that it doesn’t hurt his wife. Their relationship is one of utter selfishness.
And, yes, even as a man, these books struck me as the kind of emotional porn that Gilbert (and others, like Doug Wilson in Moscow, ID) have written about. Which is borne out by some of the responses I have seen evoked from (oddly) older women. I know some older single women who now speak in terms of looking for “their Edward”, and who repeatedly read the books and watch the movies. That can’t be healthy.
July 19th, 2010 | 1:38 pm
It’s also troubling that Twilight goes back to the idea of women being wholly responsible for the virtue of their men. Edward repeatedly tells Bella that if she provokes him, he will hurt her badly or kill her because he can’t control himself. It is her responsibility to prevent him from being aroused, and if she does not, her death is her own fault.
Edward speaks in the voice of an abuser, who blames the victim for forcing his hand. This model, which seems to exalt women as bastions of chastity, reduce men to primitive, craven creatures. Both sexes are done a disservice.
July 19th, 2010 | 2:58 pm
I got the opposite (though equally negative) impression as Leah. Bella looks to Edward to preserve HER virtue: he’s the rock of strength, not her.
For example, he’ll lie in bed with her and she’ll practically throw herself at him sexually, but he’ll stoically choose to abstain and leave.
Not terribly realistic, and it sets young girls up for one heck of a disappointment if they’re going to look for their teenage boyfriends to hold to chastity when the girls get weak.
July 19th, 2010 | 3:09 pm
I recall taking a class on death, and someone gave a presentation on “all the vampire novels.” Apparently Twilight isn’t the only vampire-love series, and there is a fandom that sees it as pitiably lowbrow (huh?). When I asked about the relation between sex and death, and what seems to be outright necrophilia I couldn’t get a straight answer.
I guess she had never thought of it that way.
July 19th, 2010 | 3:30 pm
No, there is a whole sub-genre of vampire-werewolf-monster themed novels, usually shelved in the SCiFi/Fantasy section of your local bookstore. I tried to read one of the series aimed at adult women and it got too sick too fast for me to follow through – necrophilia doesn’t even begin to cover it.
It’s more than simply a relationship between sex and death – the sex is also sterile (which is why Bella’s pregnancy is so very unusual). Vampires are usually dead in more ways than one.
Kamilla
July 19th, 2010 | 3:57 pm
In some places – my city, for example – you don’t even have to go to a bookstore. The ‘genre romance’ books are on the shelf at the supermarket, next to the bread or the eggs, not to mention the book sections of all the big box ‘superstores’.
July 19th, 2010 | 4:01 pm
“For the first time in modern history, young girls come of age in a world in which their expectations are limited to hooking up with men who wish to use their bodies for gratification … Young women today typically live with the sort of sexual objectification that folklore and literature associate with death”.
Another good explanation of why so many American parents are flocking to the banners of serious, traditional Christian and Jewish movements and sending their kids to parochial schools or home schooling, despite the expense. Why give your kids a big cup of spiritual death to drink at the elite public high school, even if they offer advanced Japanese and AP Organic Chemistry (that’s not to say that my daughters’ Jewish parochial school doesn’t offer very good academics, it’s just not the only priority).
July 19th, 2010 | 6:03 pm
Laurel Hamilton’s vampire series, for instance, are considerably worse than Twilight at its worst.
Much of the “urban fantasy” features werewolves and vampires, though of varying quality.
July 19th, 2010 | 6:41 pm
And besides all that, they really are kinda boring. It is the same book written four times (or a least I presume the fourth is like the first three — I couldn’t make myself read it).
July 19th, 2010 | 7:12 pm
Slight change of subject: Has anyone seen “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies” and the other two titles in the same series? They are best-sellers in the bookshops. They look ridiculous to me. Anyone read them?
July 19th, 2010 | 8:11 pm
Yes, but, I’ll say this for LKH’s books: She never presumed to teach a moral lesson on chastity. (which in the Twilight series seems to be “attempt to avoid it whenever possible”)
There are few mothers or religious magazines that would praise and recommend even the earlier Anita Blake novels for their moral examples to be read by our children. (an LDS online magazine, Meridian, had an article praising Edward’s example of “true love” as shown by his sexual self-control. Oh, my.)
Twilight is far more dangerous because it’s revered in pretty religious (in the sense of worshipping the God of Israel, not just the gods of Babylon) homes, usually by the mothers our youth are looking to for direction on chastity, modesty, and healthy relationships with the opposite sex. Twilight IS girl porn.
I’m 30 and LDS and I pity the Twilight widowers who will never be their wife’s Edward. They’re in a worse position than porn-addict widows, because at least the Church condemns visual porn. But Twi-Hard Sisters are free to pass around the books at church and invite each other to exclusive fan-only Twilight parties, all with the tacit approval of leaders and right in front of their long-suffering husbands.
One of my friends in another congregation was excluded by the other sisters there because she hadn’t read the books. I’ve never heard of this happening with Jane Austen or any other book, not even the scriptures. Anything that inspires this kind of exclusivity, this kind of distraction, is not a good thing.
July 19th, 2010 | 9:48 pm
I concur wholeheartedly with previous comments. The Twilight series is, to be quite honest, an abomination and it is quite frightening to witness girls worshipping Edward Cullen as “the perfect man”. As a college student, I am really shocked that my classmates hold such a trashy book at a high standard, perhaps even higher than respectable literature. What I find even more horrifying still is that other females are taking the themes presented in the Twilight series to heart and giving up themselves to men who are abusing them emotionally or mistreating them and brushing it aside as “true love” and the boyfriend in question as “passionate and romantic”. I abhor the series and I truly believe that something that propagates such horrible behavior and thinking should not be glorified in the way that it is today. Something needs to be done to correct the message that is being proclaimed to women.
July 19th, 2010 | 10:32 pm
“Pride and Prejudice and Zombies” is pure spoof. The author can’t resist making the heroines more amoral and bloodthirsty than Jane Austen would ever have countenanced, but it’s not extreme, and it does keep closely to Austen’s original story and characterizations. I suspect the weaker moral themes are simply a product of it being a 21st century work, not because it’s part of a death-culture genre — it’s really not, it’s a spoofy book in which Austen characters chase around and are chased around by zombies while going about their Austenian business.
July 20th, 2010 | 4:59 am
Wow. I have seen some fairly harsh criticism of Twilight before, but this sort of takes the cake. I must say the only group that comes close are militant lesbian feminists.
David, I think you, as well as many others, may misunderstand the Twilight series. Speaking from a academic/literary perspective, Twilight is a God-and-man allegory showing Bella — an unreliable narrator, with an unpolished narrative style — who reaches divinization through commitment, love, and sacrifice. The key here though is that she, like many people, fails even to see her own self very clearly (as her Edward points out often) until the very, very end of Breaking Dawn. You will notice many references to lying in the series, suggesting that Bella is “lying,” or at least incorrect in how she sees things. The surprising thing, at least to me, is that so many people believe her wholeheartedly.
For example, she is lonely for the god-like presence of the Cullens after they depart in New Moon, the possibility of reaching a heavenly state in their presence, and when she seeks comfort with the earthy wolfpack, readers assume that she is hopelessly dependent upon men. Yet she saves every other character in the series, especially the men, who are hopelessly mistaken and wrong-headed in every decision they make. The girls, especially Bella, need to rescue everyone else over and over again. Still, feminist critics complain that she is weak. Just because Bella views herself as weak doesn’t mean the readers shouldn’t notice that she is the dominant savior for the entire series.
Others complain that the stories are morally bereft because she is sleeping with a vampire. Only sleeping, but still they complain. Yet Edward is expressly said to be her “guardian angel” repeatedly in the series. In the incomplete “Midnight Sun,” this is made expressly specific; Edward realizes with chagrin that while Bella certainly needs a guardian angel to watch over her, that God had, in fact, sent him. So, he is watching over her, and providing a tangible goal as she sets out to discover the godly in life and within herself. When she herself becomes a demi-God, the most powerful vampire in the world because she has diligently sought to be more godly, these readers still complain. Who among them strives to “see as she is seen” by God as Bella has?
Then there’s the “Bella is a zero” readers. Why all these other complaints if she is merely nothing? Surely the reader enjoys a profoundly subjective experience through Bella’s first-person perspective — which is why 100 million readers have become immersed into the story. But if she had no perspective, what is with the hundreds of opinions that litter the entire series? She hates occasions, values her friendships, worries that she is unnaturally clumsy, and so forth. She has an opinion on virtually everything she sees. The immersive experience of seeing life through Bella’s eyes is not only not a nothing, it is a something which they not only engage with, she is someone they aspire to become more like. Why? Her fans enjoy watching her choices, because they then feel empowered to make their own choices in their own lives.
And it concerns me when a cultural milestone like this awakes so many in our culture, yet is so widely misunderstood by its critics and is criticized not on what it offers, but on what they imagine it doesn’t offer. For example, feel free to visit TwilightNewsSite.com and have a look at the Meaning area, or listen to a recent podcast. There is more there than meets the eye. Which is Meyer’s main point — for Bella, for the series, and for each of her careful readers who she rewards in remarkably profound ways.
July 20th, 2010 | 5:02 am
P.S. I realized that the “militant lesbian feminist” comment may be offensive to your readers. I apologize if it is. I don’t mean to offend in anyway.
For the record, the primary thing that Bella does that infuriates many feminists so much is that she refuses to abort her pregnancy even though the birth threatens her life.
July 20th, 2010 | 8:50 am
James,
I’m not a feminist. I’ve read the series, and will respectfully disagree with you on its literary merits. It’s an immersive story because it’s verbally pornographic; praising how it’s written is like praising the cinematography of an XXX-rated movie. Of course the story is immersive. This is not a virtue of itself.
And it’s laughable that Bella’s choices somehow “empower” readers. I lost count of how many times Bella passed out, fainted, needed to be carried someplace by another, or whined and refused ot make a decision until someone else made a decision.
Also, I am told that people love the books because they couldn’t put them down, and return to the book’s world again and again. This is great for sales, but not being able to face real life issue.
What I think this article addresses, and what worries me, are its moral and spiritual merits, or the saga’s lack thereof.
We can discuss a book’s literary merit, or even its place as a cultural artifact, but my final litmus for books (and movies and music and anything else we consume) is, does it lead us to do good? What behavior does it encourage? Where do people place their thoughts and hearts?
Twilight seems to encourage a narcissistic desire for readers to be Bella, who can treat anyone however she wants and still retain their ardent affection, who ignores those who aren’t supernatural and supernaturally good-looking, who ends her story by being better at everything than anybody else and essentially being worshipped.
Not only is this the literary equivalent to “male porn”, it’s also a collection of flattering deep lies that I believe help bring out the more selfish impulses in women. I think we women can be better and need to be, especially for the sake of our families.
July 20th, 2010 | 11:35 am
“Others complain that the stories are morally bereft because she is sleeping with a vampire. Only sleeping, but still they complain. Yet Edward is expressly said to be her “guardian angel” repeatedly in the series. In the incomplete “Midnight Sun,” this is made expressly specific; Edward realizes with chagrin that while Bella certainly needs a guardian angel to watch over her, that God had, in fact, sent him.”
Dude, you are seriously asking us to buy into the notion of an undead abomination sculpted out of the sophomoric fantasies of the world’s most famous fanfic writer as a “guardian angel”?
Not even Joss Whedon was willing to go that far, and his vampire was named “Angel”.
And no, Meyer is no Whedon.
“David, I think you, as well as many others, may misunderstand the Twilight series.”
Saith the fanboy to reality.
Look, you can infuse all of Meyer’s well-meaning into that mess she calls a novel, but at the end of the day, its still chick porn. All this talk about Bella’s and Edward’s “virtues” are about as convincing as a purity ring on a Jonas brother. The Mouse was selling tiltillation, and so, in the end, is Meyer.
July 20th, 2010 | 12:47 pm
“Porn”?
Have you read the books? Bella and Edward are courting. It is about as chaste as popular literature can be, while still observing that they are courting. Do you seriously expect that, in the day and age, a portrayal of courtship would exclude any mention that the two who intend to marry are physically attracted to one another? And that makes it “porn?” Really?
Yes, Edward absolutely is Bella’s guardian angel, and acts accordingly. Do you understand anything about LDS theology, or does that not qualify as religion to you? “Angels” as mentioned in the LDS scriptures, are sometimes people who are acting on behalf of God, just as “saints” are a typical member of their church.
Edward protects Bella, enlightens her about the value of her soul, the importance of chastity to her eternal fate, and about her own immortal potential.
She learns and grows until she transforms into an immortal, and through her experiences, gains understanding that allows her to not only become immortal, but divinized, the most powerful immortal alive.
Now you may not recognize the very obvious parallels to the Mormon teachings, including their conception of eternal life, but within a fictional, metaphorical concept, these metaphors could hardly be more clear.
You may have your own opinion about the value of the work, and you may not agree with the concept of a hierarchal heaven as LDS people do, but to deny that the underlying allegory of a literary work — popular or not — even exists is either poor reading or willful ignorance.
July 20th, 2010 | 1:21 pm
I’m LDS and I think that Twilight is to Mormon doctrine as The Da Vinci Code is to Catholic doctrine.
That you compare Twilight to holy books of scripture and revealed doctrine proves how misleading the book can be to the vulnerable and easily flattered.
July 20th, 2010 | 2:09 pm
James,
Excuse me, but Edward is a vampire. He drinks blood. Yuck. I very much doubt that the LDS Church would want to identify angels with a monster of this sort, despite the author’s suggestions.
In his poem Atta Troll, Heine offers a dream in which he falls in love with the ghost of Herodias, who rides at night in the troop of spooks that German myth calls the Wild Hunt. Says Heine: “I know that you are not just dead, but also damned. I’m not prejudiced.” But that was supposed to be a joke.
July 20th, 2010 | 4:41 pm
No matter how beautiful and virtuous a vampire might be, a romantic relationship with one would never work out: to me, she would be my sweetie, my one and only, the spring in my step; to her, I would be the other white meat.
July 20th, 2010 | 9:43 pm
Neither Meyer or I aren’t making any literal statements about the LDS faith; I am observing the obvious parallels. You can disagree with the faith, or the artfulness of the allegory, but the allegory is there within the text.
And 100 million readers out there are effected by the positive metaphorical impact of the works. Again, you can say that it is actually a negative impact, because it doesn’t underscore the evils that are married sex or whatever, or you can say all those people are all the worse for its impact (good luck with that), but you can’t reasonably say that Twilight isn’t have an impact.
Try to look at it this way: All of you are religious. You (should) understand not only the external meaning, but also the deeper, metaphorical impact of your religious beliefs and ordinances. Are you with me?
You find these metaphorical experiences a positive and worthwhile experience; others don’t. And some critics will go so far as to offer snide and biting criticism of your teachings and ordinances. I was going to cite examples, but we all know what I mean; no need to go into the details.
Now if you wanted a non-believer to learn more about your faith (i.e., the truths you believe and their value), who would you recommend the talk with?
– The person who sees no relevance or value from the teachings and ordinances?
– Or the one who does see and believe the value of the metaphorical truths within?
I am not comparing the truths of your religion to a popular novel. But I am saying that unless you understand the metaphorical impact and meaning that is impacting the worshipers/readers, then you really won’t understand what is truly going on in the hearts and minds of those who worship/read.
Truth is sweet. Does popular culture offer a faux spiritual experience to the secular mind? Eliade says it does; other scholars agree. But however shallow it may be, truth is still truth. And people love and respond to it.
And I would like to think that a caring Father would reach out to his children every way He can, bringing them as much truth as they can stand. Perhaps, even through a novel.
And Twilight, inspired by a dream, with its implicit spiritual allegorical content is, I feel, part of God’s efforts to spread truth. Even to us heathen children of God.
So, its just my opinion, but I think knocking people’s source of truth will not go well. People generally defend the truths they believe.
“And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if… this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.”
July 21st, 2010 | 9:37 am
James is promoting the ideas of John Granger, who makes money by writing books and lecturing on Twilight, trying to convince people there is intellectual and positive spiritual substance in it. I guess he sees it as a win win: he makes a living by thus “salving” many a troubled conscience.
July 21st, 2010 | 12:43 pm
I am planning to write a very long blog on the Twilight Saga. Like James I see that it has far more than meets the eye of the critics and many commenters. The emotional response it has stimulated in a generation of young women is absolutely significant in the history of sexuality in the western world. I suppose all those growing up within free love, recreational sex, and SM porno cannot understand what this series is all about. Being old enough to have lived through them all and what came before the freedom I think I do. As Durrell had two male characters say in a novel after the Alexandria ones, (paraphrasing) now with the pill a woman will no longer be an experience, an encounter, an event in a man’s life, she will become a commodity like hay, corn or pork bellies. And if you read Houellebecq you will get an extended treatise on this theme as capitalism invades the erotic relation between men and women. So there is much to think about with these novels. Whether they are written well, or whether the films are Hollywood cliches are simply not the point at all. Everyone is writing in the wrong Discourse.
July 23rd, 2010 | 4:19 am
Thanks, Abbeysbooks. I hope that I get to read your post(s) one day.
Lady, you are right that I do enjoy John Granger’s books, although as you can tell from the podcasts, we differ on many points.
You seem to suggest that readers of popular fiction all have troubled consciences — a fairly dour view of our good neighbors, don’t you think? Isn’t it at least as likely that they are enriched by what they read — which is why they are reading it, over and over?
We are human; we love truth, and are thrilled to discover it, where ever it is found. And wouldn’t you agree that, having discovered truth, such people would like to be able to share, explore, and better articulate the truths they discover?
And, I am sorry, but I must say that if you knew anything at all about John’s personal life, you would realize that you are seriously misjudging him in a manner that is most unkind.
On the other hand, perhaps it is I that has misjudged this community. I assumed that a group seeking “religiously informed public philosophy” would welcome fresh ideas about religious ideas making surprising in-roads into our culture.
I apologize for my intrusion. Best wishes to you all.
July 23rd, 2010 | 9:50 am
“And 100 million readers out there are effected by the positive metaphorical impact of the works.”
You mean, like all those women who’ve stopped sleeping with their husbands because they don’t sparkle in sunlight? Like all those yuppies who have debased themselves like 13 year old girls before a prettified monster*?
There was an immense impact alright. I wouldn’t go to the bank with the “positive” though.
And don’t come with that 100 million angle. 100 million Da Vinci Code fans did not make the book any less crappy.
“The emotional response it has stimulated in a generation of young women is absolutely significant in the history of sexuality in the western world.”
So did porn and the 60′s, but I’m betting you wouldn’t be trumpeting that fact. The emotional retardation triggered by Twilight in the millions of “Twi-Hard” women is the reason why it is “chick porn”. What makes it more debased than any of its other imitators is that, again, like a purity ring on a Jonas brother, it has but mere pretense on being on our side of the culture war.
*http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-twilight-addiction-20100627,0,1321211.story
July 23rd, 2010 | 11:08 am
I would draw a sharp contrast between Meyer and Anne Rice, who renounced her position as the leading purveyor of vampire porn and instead took to writing novels on explicitly Christian subjects. Whatever one thinks of Rice’s literary standing, she is a woman of principle: Once she embraced Catholicism she turned her talent toward apologetic historical fiction. The notion that a demonic creature can become part of a nurturing Christian allegory seems to me revolting on the face of it.
August 4th, 2010 | 1:28 pm
[...] Twilight series, and why it is so troublesome. You can find a great analysis from David P. Goldman here, which sums up some of the more destructive elements at work in the [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact