Tuesday, February 5, 2008

What's On Your Nightstand?



The post below was published yesterday on the Mormon arts and culture blog, A Motley Vision. In it, Anneke Majors asserts that Stephanie Meyer's vampire books should be considered "Mormon literature" even though there's nothing explicitly LDS in the content, that Twilight, the first book in the trilogy, is "one of the most blatantly erotic books I've read in a long time," and that the book does a "dismal" job of upholding the standards of the church. Provocative stuff, eh?

The books are a phenomenon across the country. More than three million copies of the books have been sold. Catherine Hardwicke, director of Thirteen and The Nativity Story, will begin filming a movie version at the end of this month. The books are huge everywhere but Mormons especially are interested in Stephanie Meyer because she's so unabashed about being LDS and having attended BYU. Ward book clubs are reading her stuff, youth leaders are recommending her books to the kids in their charge, etc. For my part, I think every one of my sisters-in-law on Suzanne's side has read at least one of the books and a couple of my nieces too. Naturally, I found Anneke Majors' comments pretty provocative and I wanted to know what good, informed Mormon folks who have actually read the book think about what she wrote. I await your opinions.

Squeaky Clean

By Anneke Majors | 2.04.08

What makes literature erotic?

On a recent road trip with my younger sister, I needed a little help staying awake. She volunteered to read to me from the last few pages of a novel I had brought along. This was my first experience with D.H. Lawrence, which is just as well because I think at a younger age I would never have made it through his deliciously drawn-out descriptive prose. My new favorite Mormon curmudgeon, Arthur Henry King, had recommended Lawrence’s The Plumed Serpent to me in one of his speeches from Arm the Children. He assured me that it wasn’t as obscene as Lawrence’s contemporaries complained. My sister, however, was promptly scandalized. Not even three sentences into the book, she paused.

“Uh oh. This is about to get dirty.”

I, having already finished most of the novel, including the part where an incarnation of Quetzalcoatl gives the protagonist advice on marital intimacy, was pretty confident that it wasn’t going to be dirty. “What do you mean?”

“Let’s just say that the next sentence uses the word voluptuous.”

“The word voluptuous is dirty?” I asked her Socratically.

“Well,” she said, blushing, “yeah.”

“I don’t think it is. Keep reading.”

We finished the end of the novel and successfully made it past the voluptuous, sensual and phallic parts. None of them were obscene; most of them were figurative. We skipped back and re-read a passage of the book I had particularly enjoyed - it defined the distinction and relationship of the sexes in a way that I’ve rarely seen in 20th century literature. The way Lawrence views the roles of male and female is remarkably akin to LDS doctrine. I then talked with my sister for a while about what she thinks makes literature dirty. She’s fairly open-minded and an English major, but she’s young, and we came to some interesting conclusions. It was an excellent opportunity for me to vocalize and evaluate honestly my opinions on what literature I find worthwhile for filling my head.

With Lawrence still swimming around in the murky Mexican lakes of my subconscious, I began reading a new novel a few days later. I must admit that I read this book with the express intent of hating it; I’ll state my bias now, but my opinion of the book did not improve upon reading it. Stephenie Meyer is somewhat of a phenomenon in popular Mormon culture these days. The BYU grad emblazons her About the Author bookflaps with those lofty Provo credentials and then ships her books out to the national teenage market. Maybe the Twillight series is not intended to be interpreted as “Mormon Lit;” its marketing strategies and the fact that you’ll find it in bright endcap displays at Deseret Book seem to argue otherwise. Regardless of its “Mormonness,” it is perceived as a Mormon Book and should be considered one. Anything that young girls are reading at the recommendation of their Mia Maid advisers has a responsibility, in my opinion, to reflect and uphold church ideals. Twilight does a dismal job.

Online reviews I’ve read of Twilight emphasize the “squeaky clean,” “necessarily chaste” relationship of the teenage protagonist and her vampire boyfriend. I would argue vehemently otherwise. Meyer doesn’t once use the word voluptuous, but her novel is one of the most blatantly erotic books I’ve read in a long time. Whether or not a sex scene ever occurs in the lines of the text, the erotic effect can be judged by how many sex scenes occur in the mind of the reader. Meyer’s characters Bella and Edward never do anything technically sexual, but she positions them right at the cusp and holds them there - getting just close enough to titillate her teenage readers without ever using any words she’s not supposed to. In contrast, D.H. Lawrence, the notorious libertine, accomplishes an entire novel on the complex intimate relationship of the sexes without once ushering the reader into the bedroom. Sex scenes occur between Lawrence’s lines, but they are private, quiet, appropriate, and never exploited.

Meyer’s novels aren’t considered serious literature by any scholars that I’m aware of. However, their nearly universal presence in our Mormon culture is something we need to watch. Violating nearly every standard in For the Strength of Youth, Meyer still manages to market herself as a worthwhile, squeaky clean alternative to “worldly” forms of entertainment. I would much rather my teenage sisters read novels that would elevate their world views and deepen their respect and appreciation for human intimacy than see them swooning over the abusive, controlling vampire character of Edward Cullen. I would recommend that any parent read these novels for him or herself before passing them along to a child. And I would hope that we, as an LDS community, could recognize what is “lovely, of good report, or praiseworthy,” whencever it comes, and promote higher standards in an increasingly wicked world.

btw, if you're interested, here's the link to the A Motley Vision.

2 comments:

Paul and Linda said...

Well, this is a fine kettle of worms you've invited us into ! My LDS book discussion group read Twilight as suggested by the former YW Pres. whose teen-aged daughter, whom I respect, had read it, and LOVED it. I did not !!! I found it inappropriate for the target audience, or any LDS audience for that matter. I felt that stalking (which is what Edward was doing), encouraging someone to lie (which was what Edward was doing), lying to a parent (which is what Bella was doing), unmarried people lying (different verb) in bed together, married or not (which is what Edward and Bella were doing) , are not the behaviours we encourage in our young women ...in or out of the Church. I felt as though my moral compass was askew from the others in the group until ... I attended the discussion. We were divided exactly down the middle ... those LOVING the book, and those HATING the book. There was no discussion as neither side wished to entertain the idea of a discussion concerning such a subject felt so strongly by those in attendance. Was I disappointed in those who loved it ? Yes, I must admit, I was. How could they not see my objections. They said, How could I not realize it was about vampires, for heaven's sake, which we know are not real. But, Satan is real, and he entices by pretending he is not. Bella was compromised by Edward. Would we not say : "And so was Eve" ?

Suzy said...

I haven't read the book(s) yet, but I don't understand why it's being sold/endorsed by Deseret, and other LDS sites/stores. Just because an author is LDS doesn't mean they reflect their beliefs in their writing. Same is true for all LDS artists I guess. It's not like they should be expected to either...it is fiction after all and not everyone needs to write like Jack Weyland or Gerald Lund, ya know what I mean?