Breaking Dawn by
Stephenie MeyerMy rating:
1 of 5 starsBreaking Dawn is the fourth and final book of Stephenie Meyer's vampire "love" story. This is the hardest of all for me to write about. The story is scattered across different narrators, has no story arc to speak of and drags the reader from chaotic scenes of violence to endless chapters of banal wish fulfillment. But unlike the previous books, there is no definable landing point either for critique or narrative discussion. Reading this book was like watching a slasher film on a TV with horrible reception- the picture keeps flaying out into blurry but disturbing images, only to be interrupted by ads for Hallmark and Wal-Mart: juxtapositions of physical and emotional violence with images of domesticity and consumption.
On top of that, I was bored to the point of literally needing to write "I'm bored" every 20 pages or so. Needless to say, I am not yet ready to equitably or creatively engage the issues of the text. I mostly just want to complain. But I will try to say something beyond “Why? Why? Why? Why?”
Whereas the three previous books in the Twilight Saga used awkward literary intertexts, arguably to underline a theme of Bella and Edward's relationship, Breaking Dawn has no such allusions. The first book,
Twilight, has Bella reading Jane Austen’s
Pride and Prejudice. At first I thought this was an embarrassing plug to encourage girls to do their English homework. After the next two books, however, I realized this was supposed to serve as meaningful literary allusion. Bella reads
Pride and Prejudice then meets an aloof, severe man who then turns out to be her ideal charming counterpart. At least that’s how it’s supposed to come across. Instead, we get the evocation of a classic prototype of the rude, narcissistic, controlling man as dashing romantic hero. Mr. Darcy and Edward Cullen do have something in common: they make women swoon by being uncommunicative and evasive.
New Moon has Bella reading and watching
Romeo & Juliet. Then, surprise! Bella and Edward find themselves in a situation where one lover thinks the other lover is dead and wants to kill themself as a result. We have the reinforcement of star-crossed romance being noble and romantic- i.e.: the pairing of love with tragedy and adversity, rather than health and mutuality. Not to mention the fact that both characters fantasize about suicide and death rather than separation from one another.
By
Eclipse, I’d come to expect these trite intertexts, but I was in no way prepared for the bomb Meyer set off in this third book.
Pride and Prejudice and
Romeo and Juliet are two of the most celebrated love stories in Western literature, so surely Meyer’s third choice would be something even more exemplary of our perceptions (however troublesome) of romantic love, right? Nope. Here I was reading the book through the lens of sadomasochism, and BOOM! Meyer lobs out
Wuthering Heights in the very first chapter! My eyes nearly disengaged from their sockets.
Wuthering Heights is THE sadomasochistic text of all time, barring the actual writings of the Marquis de Sade perhaps. Catherine and Heathcliff threaten one another, abuse and imprison others, and ultimately die in order to torture one another from beyond the grave. While Meyer’s characters debate about the idea of Catherine and Heathcliff being romantic characters- is there anything admirable about them at all?- such in-novel debate does not change the fact that the characters are being evoked and compared. Bella even interprets Edward’s actions using Heathcliff’s dialogue. Eclipse is actually the only case of appropriate intertextuality in the whole trilogy (except maybe the brief reference to
Macbeth in
Twilight). Wuthering Heights’ violence, dominance and dysfunction of enmeshed, co-dependant, petulant adolescents obsessed with one another matches Meyer’s characters perfectly. What her real intent was, I shudder to imagine.
But there is no 11th grade English class intertext in
Breaking Dawn, the final book. Instead, we get Bella’s continually bruised, bleeding, ripped body that eventually (and painfully) transforms into a goddess-like body of a sex object. As usual, she finds continually creative ways to be secretive regarding her real feelings, resorting to manipulation and oftentimes begging in order to be listened to or have her desires responded to. She hides her suffering (physical and emotional) from her protectors (husband, male best friend/father/step-father/intrusive sister-in-law, dissociated mother) and when her injuries are too visible to be hidden, she convinces herself that there’s nothing wrong. This includes her waking up on her wedding morning covered with bruises from her husband’s (vampire) passion. She spends the morning trying to assuage him that the bruises don’t hurt…
Here is where I need about 50 more pages to talk. Fortunately, I’ve given myself a year to work on this text and these issues. So I’ll stop now.
Conclusion to my prolegomena: I find nothing redeemable or enjoyable about these books or these characters. So much suffering, so much guilt, so much dissociation, lying, SARCASM, anger, SARCASM, violence, self-contempt, not to mention the sickening paring of perfect family domestic life with gratuitous conspicuous consumerism. The Cullens are supposed to be the most generous and loving family ever to live, and yet they have millions of dollars just sitting around being spent on fashion, luxury cars and private islands. The Cullens are angelic immortals yet they keep $40,000 in loose change rather than, say, spending their eternal lives giving it away to those who actually need to eat. Also- while I’m on a Cullen rant- I thought it was problematic that Dr. Cullen kept purchasing blood from the hospital for his new vampire family members, but the only issue raised about it was the expense, not the fact that donated blood is there to save human lives, not sustain the appetites of newborn vampires. But I digress…
So many people I trust, value and respect have found great meaning in these stories. Now begins the journey of trying to understand why.
View all my reviews >>
Blaine has been collecting 100 Words from various folk and topics (presumably) connected to them. He gave me "Reading". There's a lot I would want to say about reading, and have previously given 100 words to Story for Joshua. But I went with the first thing I tend to think of with reading, and of course, it's about how much I want a time machine. Here's my 100 Words. 
In late April 2009, I was at a local pub surrounded by friends who had just graduated (leaving me behind to complete my 4 year degree sans all my 3rd year degree friends). Three of us started discussing the recent Twilight film: who'd seen it, who hadn't, and why. Within about 20 minutes a spontaneous group of six had formed, deciding that we needed to watch Twilight together so we could talk through it and by doing so, perhaps survive it. Knowing that if we didn't pick a date right then, that it would never happen, we decided on a Monday three weeks in the future.
And we did. We spent four hours watching a two hour movie. It was incredible In fact, it was because of this friend-movie-gathering, that I arrived at my Integrative Thesis Project topic for the next academic year. One of our main take-aways from the film had to do with the portrayal of male protector and silenced woman. It was also the DFC (as we have now come to know ourselves) who first began referencing similarites of the narrative's ethos to the complementatian values of New Calvinism. Then, during a phone conversation the following Thursday (Stacy had told Kim George about our Twilight night, then Kim called me with some Twilight questions for a course she was teaching on sexual violence in the media) it all coalesced in my brain and I said (outloud to Kim) "I think this is what I'm going to spend the next year working on."
Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives by Phyllis Trible
Eclipse by Stephenie Meyer
New Moon by Stephenie Meyer
Twilight by Stephenie Meyer
What's all that tweeting you hear? Oh, just the sounds of my fifteen minutes of fame getting used up. I'm not complaining. The following is proof that Twitter truly is the most powerful benevolent de-centralized (human-made) force in the universe. 
But in July (last Monday to be exact), we re-deliver our paper presentation along with a film screening at MHGS. Josué suggests we include a write up about the event for the new Experience MHGS website. He goes ahead and makes a paper link in case someone wants to read it. I think, "That's awfully nice, but who that's investigating MHGS is gonna read a 35 page paper about fundamentalism and a cancelled TV show?"
Then this happens. 
My initial tweet is way down there on the bottom, then next thing you know, It's on Whedonesque, the ultimate Whedonverse hub for both fandom and academia. So within a few hours, it went from living in my docs file to being accessible to every hardcore Whedon fan on the planet. By the time I got out of bed, it already had a comment stream 30 posts long. 
A Shining Affliction: A Story of Harm and Healing in Psychotherapy by Annie G. Rogers
Please come- and bring opinions. If you want (its so worth it) Watch the series first. You've got time. Only 14 episodes. And watch Serenity also. The follow up movie kicks hard core ass.
But one non-aquaintance blog that has become a must-read for me is Tacoma Atheists. I discovered the blog through a Bennington Alum on Facebook. (She friended me but I don't think we've ever met, so it doesn't count as a buddy blog). Tacoma Atheist is a group of local atheists and non-theists who collaborate to promote community and education regarding atheist advocacy and rights. 
It's a really amazing collection of people's concern, outrage and passion for freedom of thought, with particular focus on the prejudice, injustice and harm done in the name of religion. While admittedly, the site posts have as much us-them superiour snarkiness as any blog (that is the point of blogs, I think), it's refreshing, humbling and eye-opening to read from the persepctive of the evangelized instead of the evagelizers. 
Most recently, Tacoma Atheists re-posted a Slog article about Mars Hill Church's intentional movement towards Capital Hill. Reading it really made me want to show up at that bar to see how the Capital Hill community would respond to the Evangelical "relational approach" to ministry. While I have my own issues with Mars Hill Church, (and never know if I'm being a jerk or not for my constant disclaimer that Mars Hill Graduate School has nothing whatsoever to do with the church of similar name- except that we're all Christians and that's not insignificant), I think every Chrsitian can learn something from reading people's comments regarding how they feel when they're told that someone is coming to love them intetionally. How can that not sound patronizing? Will you let yourself be loved by the person you're trying to save? And if so, can you do that if you've already decided their fate for them? Will anyone's life ever be changed through agenda'd relationship?
Our Mars Hill Graduate School motto, at least a third of it anyway, ate up four black printer cartridges this term, causing me to actually resort to taking screen capture images of articles so they'd print as color ( I have an endless supply of color cartridges- but not black) . I also, definately, turned in a dark blue assignment on the last day of 'Mission in a Global Context' since that's the class that ate the most of my black ink.
I just watched 98% of the people I started with, graduate on Saturday. The Fellowship has not failed, but we are going our separate ways. Now, but a few of us sit here, with our pints in hand, looking silently at one another knowing what we have been through, and that only we are left to remember it. 
We are the remnant- and will stand together next year- but this time we'll get to board the ships at the Grey Havens, instead of watching our Frodos all head out to sea like they did on Saturday.
It's been a rich, beautifull, complicated three years. We've got one last year together.
I wish I could agree with you Luke- I found the Sufjanesque-ness painfully pretentiously precious. It's hard to imagine this album having taken eight years. It's sounds mannered and unconvincing- the musical equivalent of frat guys wearing plaid and Buddy Holly glasses to look unkempt and indie. it just feels like it's aping a style. While the fact that hypothetically it isn't fake because of the relationship and collaboration with Sufjan- it's really my whole Mamm Mia dilemma- i love ABBA too much to have it musical theaterized. I love Sufjan Stevens too much to have him poorly duplicated- even if he's a part of the duplication. (Benny and Bjorn from ABBA were part of their own duplication too- doesn't make it okay).
