A field guide to the many, many intellectual movements that have laid claim to Twilight
TO THE NAKED EYE, IT MAY APPEAR THAT: The Twilight saga is a story about love. And vampires. And family. And abstinence. And racism. And the founding of the Mormon faith. And orphans, in a really weird way.
BUT ACCORDING TO SOME EXPERTS WHO THOUGHT REALLY HARD ABOUT THIS: Twilight is a story about all of these things. And more things.
Since the series' debut in 2005, multitudes of thinkers and scholars have claimed to know the real, profound meaning behind Stephenie Meyer's famous vampire-romance novel series. This tends to happen sometimes when books ignite widespread consumption and discussion: Just run a quick Google search on "The Great Gatsby is a story about" if you need further proof. But the degree to which Twilight has been analyzed, re-analyzed, reframed, and close-read makes it something of a lit-crit Choose Your Own Adventure story.
- Was the Great Emancipator Also a Creepy Slob?
- 'The League': Fantasy-Football Hilarity or Commentary on Masculinity?
- Big Bird: The Most American Muppet on Sesame Street
So because Breaking Dawn—Part 2, the final film in the mega-selling Twilight movie franchise, comes to theaters this weekend, it might be wise to decide just what strain of liberal arts-y interpretation you subscribe to. Take your pick: Twilight and its sequels are one big story about...
The power (and powerlessness) of women.
It's arguably the most notorious complaint about Twilight: That meek, indecisive teenager Bella Swan may be something of a sketchy role model for its largely teenage, largely female fan base. For instance, in 2010, David Cox of the Guardian expressed some concern in a story called (amazingly) "Twilight: the franchise that ate feminism."
"In a climactic argument, [Bella's two suitors Jacob and Edward] debate what's best for her," he wrote. "As they decide her future she sleeps between them, the epitome of submissive passivity. Bella's fate isn't only dispiriting; it's also deceptive. On the whole, beguilement by a teenage bad boy, however courtly his manner, doesn't lead to eternal love; nor is self-abnegation a reliable route to bliss. It's therefore understandable that some have questioned the merits of Twilight's message for womankind."
That was, of course, not the end of that conversation. Critics, fans, and feminist thinkers have continued to squabble among themselves over how to conceive of Twilight's all-consuming love story between Edward and Bella—as a cautionary tale about the dangers of unbalanced relationships, or as a commentary on the virtue of an unswervingly committed partner. In her essay "Bella and the Choice Made in Eden," from the 2010 essay collection The Twilight Mystique, Susan Jeffers characterized Bella as a quietly complicit abused lover:
[Edward's] behavior toward Bella for the first three books is frightening in many ways. Over the course of the series, he watches her sleep, constantly tells her she is absurd, and tries to control who she sees and who her friends are. This abusive behavior is rooted in his inability to recognize Bella's agency, his inability to acknowledge that she can decide for herself what she needs. His refusal to allow her to become a vampire is further evidence of that paternalism. The three later novels focus both on Bella's becoming a vampire and Edward's dawning recognition of Bella's status as an agent. ... Edward's controlling behavior continues in Eclipse, but he is able to make some meaningful compromises. At the end of Eclipse, he finally says, "I've clung with idiotic obstinacy to my idea of what's best for you, though it's only hurt you... I don't trust myself anymore. You can have happiness your way. My way is always wrong."
Later on, though, Jeffers asserts that Bella might be a somewhat feminist figure after all, in that she "rejects the violence inherent in a patriarchal system" because she "refuses to allow Edward and Jacob to remain rivals, and she engineers circumstances that require them to put their differences aside and work together."
Meanwhile, just a few pages away in the same volume, Lori Branch's "Carlisle's Cross: Locating the Post-Secular Gothic" cast the protagonist as a "post-feminist" heroine who revealed a few unforeseen effects of the feminist movement: "The remarkable phenomenon here is the recognition in Meyer's fiction... of the abjected 'Gothic' desires of our culture. Bella's popularity as superstar Gothic heroine reveals precisely that we as a culture have already travelled a feminist road, and that it has left apparently not a few readers with very particular unfulfilled longings and misgivings."
When creator Stephenie Meyer was asked whether the heroine she'd created was a feminist or an anti-feminist one, she responded on her website with the following:
In my own opinion (key word), the foundation of feminism is this: being able to choose. The core of anti-feminism is, conversely, telling a woman she can't do something solely because she's a woman—taking any choice away from her specifically because of her gender. ... One of the weird things about modern feminism is that some feminists seem to be putting their own limits on women's choices. That feels backward to me. It's as if you can't choose a family on your own terms and still be considered a strong woman. How is that empowering? Are there rules about if, when, and how we love or marry and if, when, and how we have kids? Are there jobs we can and can't have in order to be a "real" feminist? To me, those limitations seem anti-feminist in basic principle.