The Ninja Reader

Before I begin I should probably say where I'm coming from before I delve into my review. I was never really raised as Christian. Technically, I am, but I never really went to Sunday school or had the Bible interpreted for me. I suppose I just don't see religion as a big deal. So I can't offer my interpretation on the finer points of this book.What I can do, however, is offer you a little video on the straw feminist which you should watch if you want to understand what I'll be talking about in this review.It has become normal to stereotype Stephenie Meyer as a 'Mormon housewife', without quite understanding the full implications of it. The message of abstinence in Twilight, apparently, is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to religion in that book. Elain A. Heath takes the saga and looks at the way it uses metaphors in order to promote a message of tolerance and love, as well as provide a criticism of organized religion.Um... okay?Yeah, I can't help but think that the title here is misleading. I mean, yes, the topic of women and sex is briefly touched upon, but the majority of this book is about how Jesus' teachings are conveyed in Twilight and how it can actually serve to introduce a positive image of Christianity to cynical teenagers. It is not a feminist critique of Twilight, although that is what the title implies and that is what I was hoping for, which is strange because the author is very much aware of the shortcomings of the series, but downplays them in order to bring the bigger message.Confused yet? Let me clarify.Heath starts the book by examining some of the problems with the series - the way couples and marriage are made holy, the way female characters are always abused in some way, the way Edward is a controlling a-hole, that kind of thing. She then says there is one silver lining in his relationship with Bella, and that is that he struggles, Christ-like, and that he loves her, and that Genesis is reenacted only in this case Edward resists temptation because of his love for Bella... and then it just went downhill for me.See, the abusive relationship, the poorly treated female characters, the way single people are left out isn't important, not in the grand scheme of things. The series is actually about Edward and Bella overcoming hardships through their love for one another, about them and Carlisle fighting temptation (blood, killing), and about Bella bringing peace between vampires and werewolves. Even Jacob's imprinting on Renesmee, which Heath discusses in the first part as textbook paedophilic, is seen not as creepy, but as a metaphor for the new kind of peace between vampires, humans and werewolves. Which would have been a nice little message, if Twilight wasn't one of the most racist, homophobic and misogynistic series out there. I've read around other people's review on this book. Most focus exclusively on the first part, thinking it bears no relation to the second, when it's actually the second being apologetic about the faults found in the first. It is said that the claim on violence against women is too strong, and that it is taken out of context. Well, they are right.Because when you take Edward's behaviour out of the context of Twilight, he would look like a sociopath, but in the world crafted by Stephenie Meyer, he is a perfectly acceptable symbol, and all his creepy tendencies are excused because they are necessary in this world. So hey, you say, it's okay. It's FICTION! Surely we can count on teenagers to tell fact from fiction (even if someone tried to ban SPEAK last year because it was 'soft porn' and corrupted young minds). Well, sure. But the thing is, the world of Twilight isn't some utopia where the only problem stems from the fact that there are good vampires and bad vampires, or that vampires and werewolves are natural enemies. This is where the comparison with the Straw Feminist comes in - Twilight perpetuates all kinds of disturbing behaviour, but it is all excused because the story requires it. Is this possible? Well, let's see:Why are the wolves the only characters of colour, and why are they so conveniently defined by their nativeness?Why are the majority of the cast white?Why are there no homosexual characters?Why is it that single characters are always inadequate, bored or ridiculed?Is the answer to those questions of any relevance to the plot? Yes, by all means, if we look at it from the perspective of establishing peace between two groups that have been at war with one another, and perpetuating a 'love beats all' message, Twilight is a pretty neat read. And I'm not saying that emphasising core Christian values is a bad thing. But you cannot possibly dismiss it as all being one big metaphor, and you cannot brush off the horrible, horrible messages about women and relationships that this book perpetuates. Because when tweens and teens open this book, they won't go all: ZOMG, the symbolism here! OMG! Equality for all! No prejudice! (you'll find that most teens would actually scoff at such a simple message: "Psst, I know all about equality!"). No, when they open Twilight, they'll pick characters they love and characters they hate and read on to see what happens to them. They might not necessarily pick up on the Christian overtones, but suggesting that they are the most important thing and disregarding all the other issues is an accurate analysis.