Readers protest teen novel 'Breaking Dawn' (It's anti-abortion)

guelphmercury.com ^ | 8/9/08 | Lee-Anne Goodman/Canadian Press

[wagglebee]

A little over a week ago, the literary world was lauding novelist Stephenie Meyer, a Mormon stay-at-home mother, as the new J.K. Rowling amid the excitement surrounding the release of the fourth instalment in her "Twilight" teen fiction series, "Breaking Dawn."

Today, the bestselling book is the subject of a backlash that's prompted a group in the United States to organize a "return your book" protest.

On Amazon's U.S. website, a group of readers, led by a one-time bookstore employee, is urging former fans to return their copies of "Breaking Dawn" in order to deprive Meyer of royalties.

Employees of the Borders bookstore chain in the U.S. have reported that some copies are being returned by indignant readers. A representative of the Chapters-Indigo chain in Canada, where the book sold 100,000 copies last weekend, could not immediately be reached for comment yesterday.

"Seriously, folks -- don't burn your copies of the book, return them," wrote the protest organizer, nicknamed Baby Strange, on Amazon.com. "I think Meyer's fans would send a much more powerful message if, instead of a book-burning tour, they staged a book-returning tour."

What's the beef for readers? Some are complaining about Meyer's portrayal of her heroine, Bella, as being disturbingly desperate to hold on to her new husband, Edward the vampire. Others are taking issue with the book's focus on Bella's unexpected but post-marital teen pregnancy, while still others see an off-putting anti-abortion message in "Breaking Dawn."

About half of the Canadian readers weighing in on Amazon's Canuck website aren't happy with Bella's behaviour and the turn of events in "Breaking Dawn."

"Not only is this girl seriously melodramatic and clumsy, she's the most weak-willed and pathetic character ever written," wrote a 28-year-old Canadian fan named Claire R.

"She has said numerous times that she would simply 'die' if Edward ever left her. It's like her entire life revolves around him. What are you trying to tell young women, Ms. Meyer . . . don't girls have enough self-esteem problems already? Should they really be reading books about a girl who has no life outside of her boyfriend, a girl who readily admits that she would die if he were to ever leave her?"

Another Canadian reader, Annette from Vancouver, said she hated the way "Breaking Dawn" focuses on Bella's pregnancy.

"I think most readers would have settled for maybe a surprise pregnancy at the end (or something to that effect if Meyer really wanted a baby in this story), but the fact that it swallowed the whole plot just plain sucks," she wrote. "I was extremely disappointed with the fourth book. I want my money back."

Book industry observers say Meyer's entire "Twilight" series owes much of its success to its avid online following of young female readers, and many of the complaints about "Breaking Dawn" can be found on blogs and websites.

Some readers are taking issue with the anti-abortion allegory in "Breaking Dawn," an unsurprising element considering Meyer has described herself as "really, really religious."

[Sgt Joe Friday 714]

Never impressed by her. She got by on her looks, certainly not her brains. She always attached herself with powerful, wealthy men.

She really comes across as mildly retarded in that tv tour of the white house from Feb ‘62.

She was a woman who didn’t bring much to the table besides her looks.

[nathanbedford]

Lets clear away some underbrush.

We're talking about private not governmental censorship therefore I have no constitutional objection to anything these people are doing. Equally, I do not object in any way to you censuring what your own children read.

Having stated my legal/political position on the matter, let me state my subjective position on the wisdom, as opposed to the legal justification, of private censorship. On the whole I think it is wrongheaded and counterproductive but I concede that there are situations occasioned by the egregiousness of the work or the susceptibility of the reader which, on balance, justify private censorship. I think I would be very unlikely to say that it is wise even on a private and familial level to proscribe a book because I objected to its political content as opposed to its salacious/sacrilegious content.

Living here in Germany with four kids who are exposed in the school system to Michael Moore as required reading, I have my hand's full trying to serve up fair and balanced literature to present my side of the political spectrum. But I don't for a minute think that I should censor what they are reading I see my job as a parent to give them a chance to develop their minds and come to the conclusions that are rational. They are not going to be under my roof for too many more years and I do not want them in university to engage in rebellion for its own sake.

I also have an eight year old daughter and I have concerns about what she is exposed to and I am not even talking about rank pornography, I am concerned about the drivel she gets in Disney movies. For example, she is watching today something about a girl who goes to Camp and the whole show is about performing rock 'n roll routines and getting the boy. Now, if I have concerns even about Disney, where can one turn in today's culture?

Now I am much less concerned about what my 17-year-old son sees. He is rapidly approaching an age where he is going to go off on his own to college. There are no channel blockers on fraternity house televisions. So he must make his own intellectual and cultural way in the world. Likewise he must make his own spiritual way. The question is, how much freedom do you let an eight-year- old have? Obviously, not as much as a 17-year-old but I think enough to sort out a Disney film even conceding that its values are all wrong even though superficially its values are all so nice and suburban.

What I objected to by this ad hoc group attempting to intimidate authors and publishers from publishing anything that is not politically correct from a feminist perspective, is that their politics are all wrong. We have established that I would not invoke the government to stop them. But I would not join in with them either. Rather, I condemn them.

If they were to complain about the content of the book because it glamorizes Satanism or witches, I would not invoke the government against them, I would not condemn them, and I would support them if they were attacked for exercising private censorship. I would certainly not invoke the government to assist them.

Thus, to some degree where I stand depends on where I sit. That means that in the private sphere, censorship can be justified depending on whether or not I agree with the contents of the book. That cannot be so when the censorship is public unless you're dealing with pornography (which by definition is not free speech) or with extremely young children, or literature which is imposed on people by the state, such as in a school environment. In these instances government censorship may well be warranted and, in the example of the school environment, it might be necessary to censor the government itself.

So I do not entirely agree with Canedawg who makes no distinction between those who object to a writing because it opposes abortion and those who object to a writing because it advocates Satanism. In the private sphere, I think you can make those distinctions but not in the public sphere, apart from those exceptions, some of which I have mentioned. So I agree with canedawg in the public sphere and not necessarily in the private sphere.

[CharlesWayneCT]

About half of the Canadian readers weighing in on Amazon's Canuck website aren't happy with Bella's behaviour and the turn of events in "Breaking Dawn."

"Not only is this girl seriously melodramatic and clumsy, she's the most weak-willed and pathetic character ever written," wrote a 28-year-old Canadian fan named Claire R.

OK, I've only read the first book so far, but already I knew that. Anybody who is through the first three books and is somehow dissappointed in Bella in the 4th book for being exactly the same as she was in the first book has some serious problems with people staying in character.

Bella is the ultimate pragmatist. She sees things as they are, and not as she thinks they should be, and she very easily changes her worldview when confronted with new information.

She's also entirely in love with a vampire -- but in the 1st book at least, it seems to me Edward is just as hopeless as Bella.

And anybody who thinks they are going to read a vampire book where the girl is perfectly behaved for her parents probably needs to pick something different to read.

[Tax-chick]

I know, I know ... even the library is too embarassed to stock them these days. Especially when there’s drivel like the books which are this thread’s topic, but not so obviously labelled.

Here’s the blog post I mentioned. Ranks with some of the best book reviews I’ve read here:

http://cleolinda.livejournal.com/602881.html

[CharlesWayneCT]

I also note that there is no mention of how many people are actually returning their books. It could be this whole thing is a few dozen people who found a reporter who shared their pro-abortion position.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Edward also said he couldn’t go on without her. Edward gave up his way of life for her. He denied his basic nature for her.

We see it more in Bella only because the story is told from her point of view. But in the end, Bella is no more a slave to Edward than he is to her.

It’s just that when we see the clear signs that Edward is stricken, Bella doubts it and we get that doubt because it’s her story, not his.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Other than the human blood thing, aren’t those the kinds of things people in love do all the time for the people they love? Isn’t a love story essentially about what people are willing to sacrifice for the person they are drawn to?

If a few days of pain would give me a lifetime of bliss in the arms of the person I loved, why is is “self-destructive”?

As to the “take away her humanity”, the point of the story, which is of course fiction, is that these vampires have NOT lost their humanity, and in fact the major subplot in the first book is Edward getting back some of his humanity.

Of course, I’m used to this fiction being a Buffy/Angel fan.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I try to read the stuff my daughter reads. She’s a pretty quick reader, so it’s not easy to read it all.

I’m two books behind on this series, and I only read excerpts from the “ender’s game” books.

[CharlesWayneCT]

My daughter is seriously disturbed, but not because of books like this. She has a taste for the macabre. She watches movies I can’t stand to look at (like Saw), she was fascinated by the Bodies exhibit that kind of creeped me out.

[nathanbedford]

sorry, I forgot to ping you in reply number 62

[TightyRighty]

Bella doesn't stay in character - that's why people are so disappointed in the book. Edward doesn't stay in character either. I won't spoil the series for you but people are not upset because of the anti-abortion stance. If you go to the Amazon site - you will see that out of 1000+ post 1 is about the "religious" aspects of the book.

I only began reading the books a month or so ago (and what can I say, it's summer!) - the books are fluff. The problem here is that her books have been equated to J.K. Rowling but without the detail and plotting. Breaking Dawn is so far out there from the other three books it's as if someone else wrote it. THAT is what fans are upset about.

[Tennessee Nana]

It isnt like this is required reading in the schools.
_______________________________________________

Well not yet, anyway...

not for the Fall semester...

But come Spring....

[Tennessee Nana]

She has a habit of telling her mother EVERYTHING.
_________________________________________

Sounds like she “has a habit of telling her mother EVERYTHING” her mother wants to hear...

But NOT EVERYthing ...

I’m not impressed by parents that boast their children read The Bible and can recite it backwards while playing Chopin with their toes on the pianoforte..

There are other Scriptures in The Bible that tell us to stay away from evil and the suggestion of evil...

Why would you let you underage child read such drek ???

[Tax-chick]

Why would you let you underage child read such dreck?

I'll answer: Because my underage child (in arbitrary legalist chronology) is old enough to say, "Zot, that's dumb!" and go back to reading Shakespeare, Thomas Sowell, and Oliver North. Am I old enough, at 42, to read Barbara Cartland and not get stupid ideas? What about Charlaine Harris? Well, ask my husband ...

In summary, sometimes junk lit is just junk lit.

[Tennessee Nana]

Who are they ????

[CharlesWayneCT]

I’ve been reading Creighton this summer, a bunch of his old books I hadn’t read before (Sphere, Timeline, Next, Airframe). I just started the Twilight series because I needed something to do at the Breaking Dawn party.

We are also working through a book on CD series that I listen to when we are driving on our vacations. This summer we are doing the “Uglies” series from Westerfield. We started with the 4th book because we didn’t know it was a series. But the 4th book was different enough from the first three that it’s not a big deal.

I do a lot of teen books because of listening in the car. I actually like most of them. I really liked the Eion Colfer series about Artemis Fowl.

[Canedawg]

Thanks for the ping.

“So I agree with canedawg in the public sphere and not necessarily in the private sphere.”

Agreed, as i was looking at the issue from a macro or public perspective.

I am also looking at it from a writer’s POV, and understand the challenges of creating plot, character, theme, dialogue, etc.

As a private matter, I think people may restrict the reading list of their minor children as they personally feel is in their child’s best interests. You certainly would prohibit reading pornongraphy, although it may be legal to publish it. Censoring social messages is more of a grey area.

[calicandi32]

would you let your daughter read Romeo and Juliette? a fickle teenage boy and a melodramatic 13 year old girl who kill themsevles for what they beleive to be love. little mermaid? in the non-disney version she kills herself when she finds that her prince loves someone else after giving up her voice just to be with him. i could go on for ever bringing up timeless fairy tales about fantasic creatures and unrational love. Meyer is very careful to differenciate between the way that the humans love eachother, however real it is (like between bella and her dad and Rene and her husband) and the unnateral, uncontrollable connections the supernatural have between eachother.it's not just romantic love. even the werewolves have something similar, and more powerful than anything that humans feel.

[KarenMal]

I’ve read all four books, both my daughters have as well (13 and 16). In fact, I read each one before I let my daughters read them. I haven’t read the synopsis, but the overall theme of the “family” of vampires in the book was trying to live their lives so if they actually had a soul, they would be worthy of not suffering eternal damnation. None of them chose their life (to become vampires). They did choose to live it without killing human beings, which meant they had to fight their “nature” every minute of every day.

Sure its all kinda out there. Its about vampires and shapeshifters, its gotta be out there. And yes, Bella, the teenage girl sees herself as much less than she sees Edward, the vampire she’s in love with. But, he sees her as much more than him. Isn’t that the way a relationship in real life should be? Sorta?

Anyway, we (my daughters and I) all read the books. We enjoyed the books. We talked about the books. And we’re all well aware they are fiction. And neither of my daughters liked Bella at all. They thought she was a wimp!

[trisham]

Am I old enough, at 42, to read Barbara Cartland and not get stupid ideas? What about Charlaine Harris?

********************

Heh. I'm afraid I must refrain from answering this one. :)