What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Thou shalt not discriminate...against monsters

When Little Red Riding Hood is sent by her mother to take a basket to her grandmother's house, her mother warns her not to talk to anyone. Of course, she talks to the wolf, and that (after a few plot twists and "the better to eat you with, my dear") is the end of that. No one who really understands what monsters are, no one who "gets" the Big Bad Wolf, is under the impression that Riding Hood should talk to the wolf because it's not his fault that he is a wolf. No. Big Bad Wolf = Bad Wolf (tautology).

An imagination rightly trained on fairy tales understands that monsters are just bad and are to be regarded and treated as such--preferably, avoided, or perhaps fought, if one is a hero.

Here is an absolutely wonderful (and very funny) video clip of Seattle pastor Mark Driscoll talking about occultic preteen literature. More remarks below the fold.

Driscoll does such a great job that I don't want to gild the lilies by adding too much. But here are a few additional things that occurred to me:

Driscoll's rightly contemptuous reaction to "they practice chastity" skewers what I might call the checklist method of Christian literary and movie review. "Is there premarital sex?" "Is there swearing?" and so forth. Shall we list it as a "pro" of the Twilight series if smoking is not presented positively? Talk about missing the forest for the trees! It is terrifying that Christians should be so clueless, so foolish, so tone-deaf that they can talk with a straight face about a girl's "practicing chastity" because she waits to have sexual intercourse with a vampire until after they are "married" (whatever it means, metaphysically, to "marry" a vampire). The monster instinct has been totally extinguished in such people, and they are literally incapable of seeing the big picture. She marries a monster. Moreover (I understand--I've not read the books and have no intention of doing so), later in the books she becomes a monster, losing her soul in the process. That's the story. That's the big picture. To echo Driscoll, there is nothing remotely good about this on any level. (I could add here a few remarks about the fact that such books are not going to encourage chastity in girls who read them.)

Why are people, including Christians, so clueless? I want to suggest that one factor in killing the monster instinct is the holy commandment of modern liberalism, "Thou shalt not discriminate." Driscoll humorously alludes to this when he imagines his audience chiding him, "Don't be a hater." The audience laughs, but there may be more to it than a joke. Why don't more people say, "This girl is marrying a monster and becomes a monster. He struggles with the temptation to kill her and drink her blood, but she marries him. This is totally unhealthy literature"? Could it be in part because of the idea that we must not think ill of anyone presented to us as a talking being, no matter how dangerous? There have been plenty of satires of such thinking--fairy tales rewritten with sympathy for the villains and even a review I recall at NRO of the LOTR movies that talked about how liberals would want us to sympathize with the orcs. But is it really just satire? I think perhaps we are being taught a frighteningly false compassion according to which there are no dangerous people, no dangerous individuals, no wolves, whom we, like Riding Hood, should have nothing to do with. Everyone is to be pitied or thought well of. To do otherwise is to "be a hater."

It also occurs to me that the foolishness on this topic may arise in part from a loss of the old-fashioned idea that one can be seriously harmed, led down the path to ruin and total heartbreak, if not damnation, by marrying the wrong person. I wonder if Christian parents are so worried about premarital sex that they no longer worry enough about their daughter's marrying a godly man, a good man, a kind man, an honorable man. No doubt any parent worries about the latter to some extent, but I wonder if there are too many parents who, confronted by a bad boyfriend, would encourage a marriage in order to avoid or put a stop to premarital sex rather than strongly urging the daughter to break off the relationship altogether. It used to be understood that a man who married a bad woman or a woman who married a bad man was risking ruining many lives--the lives of both spouses not to mention any children of the marriage. Celibacy was a real option, and both single women and single men had occasion to "thank God fasting" for having avoided the fate of their contemporaries who married, in the quaint old phrase, "outside of God's will."

Finally, and relatedly, Christians need to get over the pagan notion that amor vincit omnia. Sentimentalism is going to kill us. If your daughter loves a dangerous man with twisted and violent impulses, the fact that she loves him is a bad thing, a dangerous thing, not a good thing. Even, for that matter, the fact that he loves her (to the extent that he is capable of love) is a bad and a dangerous thing. Romantic love is not a panacea or a disinfectant. Discriminate against him. Try your darndest to break off the relationship.

But better still, if you have a young daughter, start when she is little: Teach her not to talk to wolves.

Comments (77)

Can't help but wonder how many of the women and their daughters in his audience are readers of this stuff. I'll bet he suspects that there are quite a few, since it was his own daughter's book search that piqued his interest.

Actually, I think it was a reading list Amazon spontaneously suggested because their bot had figured out that he had someone using his computer and doing teen reading. Amazon is like that.

I'm sure he _does_ have plenty of women in his audience who let their daughters read this junk. That's one reason I admire his forthrightness so much. He's basically telling them they are dumb, dumb, and dumber not to see the problem with this, and he's making them listen and take it.

Dumb, Dumb and dumber is about right - its the impoverishment of language, thought, concepts -- the Evangelical culture is utterly and completely devoid of discourse about the deeper things like Beauty (the capital is deliberate) and the allure of the false beauty of evil. We think chastity means not having sex -- we forget that it also means having a virtuous character, avoiding even the appearance of evil, not deceiving your father and NOT sleeping with your boyfriend even if you keep your legs crossed all night long.

I wish someone who had deeper and wider knowledge of these concepts would write a serious piece about the allure of a series like this. What you refer to as, "amor vincit omnia" is also known in the popular literature as "bad boy syndrome". Bella is the poster girl - thinking she can play safely with the bad boy who not so secretly wants to kill her (and, in a way, he does before she resurrects as a monster like he is). But there is another concept that I don't think anyone has written about -- that is glamour in its old fashioned sense. Glamour meaning a love spell, charm or an enchantment which has the power to make evil look attractive.

Taken on its own, I would not have worried about Harry Potter, but with this vapid Twilight series being treated as if it is the most significant thing written since Dante's Inferno, I begin to wonder if things like Harry Potter haven't served to soften us up for something of more obvious danger. (and yes, I am aware of John Granger's defense of HP - just not sure I buy it).

I also recommend the series Doug Wilson did on Twilight, posted at the Credenda website. And, on a related note, I think phenomena like this are why you are so right to defend the language and not cave on whether or not to put scare quotes around same sex "marriage".

Kamilla

P.S. This is exhibit #572 in my list of reasons I no longer accept the label "Evangelical" to describe myself.

The success of this series doesn't surprise me. A lot of women like violent, aggressive, and/or arrogant men - provided they treat them well (for some, that's not a necessary condition). Vampires and werewolves fulfill those sorts of fantasies to a degree mortals cannot.

My issue with the series is less that it dabbles in the occult - believe me, there is a vast gulf between Twilight or Harry Potter and the Lesser Key of Solomon or the Book of Abramelin - and more that it encourages this "bad boy" fantasy. First of all, such men are deplorable to begin with; second, consorting with them will end in heart break, not a fairy tale ending.

In a society so steeped in sin, what does one expect? Little girls are are going through puberty at age seven, sex is being preached almost like a religion in junior high school, bodily mutilation in the form of body piercing or tattos are seen as art work. A culture steeped in shin has a darkened mind that still ongs for and gravitates to the supernatural, but supernatural evil in this case, not supernatural good.

I blame many factors: advertiser's greed, Planned Parenthood, gutless school admimistrators, liberal courts, but most of all, I blame tow sources: parents who, themselves, have been co-opted by the lure of money and sexual license and preachers, both Catholic and Protestant, who have failed miserably to preach the reality of sin, the need for repentance, the Four Last Things, and the true beauty of virtue. Until women see that virtue is the best path to fulfillment, they will continue to be attracted to evil.

Would that we had a Jonathan Edwards or a St. Vincent Ferrer.

The Chicken

Lydia,

I think one of things you should have added was that by becoming a vampire of her own free will, Bella became a creature who can never--ever--be clean and right with God. Her very physical existence becomes an abomination because she lives on the blood of others. At that point, she is literally sustained by sin.

If your daughter loves a dangerous man with twisted and violent impulses, the fact that she loves him is a bad thing, a dangerous thing, not a good thing. Even, for that matter, the fact that he loves her (to the extent that he is capable of love) is a bad and a dangerous thing.

It is important for Evangelicals to understand that female sexuality is hypergamous. Women tend to be attracted to the strongest men, and these men tend to be perceived instinctively as the strongest men because their personalities would have suited them well thousands of years ago as providers and warriors in a very dangerous world (compare the average Roman soldier, whose failure to effectively control the enemy could lead to a genocide of Roman colonists, to the average US Army soldier today).

Chicken, the "steeped in sex" aspect of the culture is certainly relevant. One aspect neither Driscoll nor I (in the main post) touched on is the fact that apparently there are plenty of sex scenes later in this series (after the vampire and the girl get "married") and that no one apparently is supposed to think twice about the appropriateness of this for _anyone_ to read, much less preteen and teenage girls. This has passed into the realm of scarcely deserving mention. Not that I blame Driscoll on that one; he had plenty of other stuff to talk about. But it should go without saying in the _other_ direction that you do not give your Christian girl a book with "scores of pages" of sex descriptions (as one reviewer I read put it).

John H., I think you are right. There are plenty of very foolish women who have that twisted desire to "sacrifice" themselves to a dangerous man. I suspect that this is especially likely to arise in young girls who think themselves unattractive, and it's very, very dangerous.

Mike T--Yes, I think that part of the problem here comes in creating alternative "natures" that are based on depraved human lusts. Obviously, whoever invented the first vampire had a strange and twisted imagination. Now, I gather, the clueless audiences for this material pretend not to understand this and act as though these invented creatures could actually be _real_, in which case we should pity them for "needing" to drink blood in order to live, etc. Then we are also encouraged to imagine that there could be "good" ones who "don't kill innocents" and the like and with whom we are to sympathize. This is paradigmatically the loss of the concept of a monster. Invent a monster and then sympathize with him for being a monster, imagine vividly what it would be like to be a monster trying to limit his monster-like activities, etc. Giving the monster a basically human form encourages this thinking, of course. The monster is then thought of as human--hence sympathetic and capable of marrying a human woman--and non-human--thereby creating the plot of the story. This is all profoundly confused thinking and attacks the very notion of a stable human nature that has moral claims. I had one friend imply to me that some members of the audience for this stuff would not understand the difference between a woman's marrying a vampire and a woman (in Tolkien's books) marrying an elf! I told her that if people are really that confused, they may be too far gone to reason with.

It should also be pointed out that Twilight is female pornography. It hits all of the emotional areas and objectifies men in ways that are analogous to how "male pornography" hits all of the right visual areas and objectifies women. Every description I've read of Edward Cullen, the protagonist, puts him firmly into the category of the ideal man who exists primarily for the pleasure of a woman.

Of course, observing that it is a form of pornography would imply that a significant swath of the mainline church-going female population have a problem that is virtually identical to what many of the men have.

Actually, it is closer to pornography because pornography is derived from "pornos" and "graphos" IIRC which roughly translates from ancient Greek to mean "writing about prostitutes." (I'll shut up now)

What a non-issue.

Just out of curiosity, what do people here think of Tolkien's Gandalf or Aragorn? They're both engaged in bloody battles (they are quite violent), and Gandalf is, of course, a wizard.

Should we not let our daughters read Tolkien's books lest they get the wrong idea from Arwen and Aragorn's relationship, or Eowyn's fondness for Aragorn?

Just out of curiosity, what do people here think of Tolkien's Gandalf or Aragorn? They're both engaged in bloody battles (they are quite violent)

Do you really not understand the difference between Aragorn and the type of dangerous men Lydia and I were referring to, or are you just trolling?

Lydia,

I have to make at least one attempt at a half-hearted defense of the "Twilight" series. Of course, I love Mark Driscoll and that clip was good in many different ways (in particular, I love the way he just goes right after Mormonism, which is somewhat shocking for someone like me who knows intellectually that it is a false religion but shy away from thinking about it since Mormons are generally on the "right" side of the culture wars).

Anyway, these comments are based on my own limited knowledge picked up from my wife who has read the books and seen the movies (I've seen a couple of scenes from the movies). I think you and Mark refuse to accept Meyers' own fantasy world on her terms. What I mean by that is that in the process of attacking Meyers for writing a book about a heroic vampire, you and Mark suggest the idea is ridiculous because vampires are evil. Well, yes, if we assume the vampires as first created by Stoker -- but Meyers asks us to enter a different world. In her world, there are evil vampires (and they are presented as evil and their defeat is a triumph of good versus evil) but there are also vampires who have overcome their bloodlust and decided to live virtuous lives, given the obvious problems that they have vampire characteristics. So they only drink animal blood and do their best to control their desire for human blood -- I think Meyer might be trying to portray their efforts as a noble effort to control their sinful nature just as we have to control our sinful nature. Suddenly I hear Mark's voice in my ear saying something like "but Jeff, they are already dead and what does sin mean for a vampire?" Fine, I grant yout it's not a great metaphor, but I think it's meant to be a metaphor none the less, given the rules of Meyers world. The key idea which you and Mark ignore, is that Meyer's does create very evil characters and these characters are portrayed as such and defeated by the 'good guys'.

To all of this you say:

This is paradigmatically the loss of the concept of a monster. Invent a monster and then sympathize with him for being a monster, imagine vividly what it would be like to be a monster trying to limit his monster-like activities, etc. Giving the monster a basically human form encourages this thinking, of course. The monster is then thought of as human--hence sympathetic and capable of marrying a human woman--and non-human--thereby creating the plot of the story. This is all profoundly confused thinking and attacks the very notion of a stable human nature that has moral claims.

But again, is this really true when Meyer does present very evil vampires who neither Mark Driscoll or you spend much time talking about. These characters form the basis of the 'action' in the stories. Based on the the previews of the third movie, there is even a climatic battle between a bad vampire, his army of bad vampires, and the good guys (who consist of the good vampires and their shape-shifting wolf friends). Given these evil vampires, I still think the reader/viewer can figure out that there is a stable human nature that has moral claims. Of course, in the fourth book this idea does get muddled when Bella makes the decision to become a vampire and I can't really come up with a coherent defense for this idea -- I suspect Meyer is thinking that love conqueres all in the end. Is this perhaps silly and simplistic? Yes, but I'm not sure it is as destructive of the notion that good and evil exist or that sometimes, you need to avoid monsters.

Ah, Jeff. Lydia, of course, will have her own response. In the meantime,

-- your effort might have been more effective and valiant except for the fact that this supposedly "good" vampire offers Bella to a werewolf as a sexual mate because he knows the half-werewolf child won't kill her whereas the half-vampire child will (and eventually does, ushering her into monsterdom).

The problem with vampires is that, try as you might, you can't make a vampire good. These two flout every rule of chastity - disrespecting and deceiving the girl's father, sleeping together while keeping their clothes on (oh right, now that's a good lesson for teenagers!), and even though he doesn't succumb to the urge - every moment of every day Edward wants to kill Bella. It's sort of like putting an alcoholic in charge of the liquor store. At some point he's going to fail. Edward fails when he does give in and he and Bella have sex, leaving her battered and bruised as a result of their "wedding" night.

The problem is that vampires simply are not redeemable -- it is in the nature of the beast that, sooner or later, every single solitary tale involving vampires will also involve aberrant sex.

Kamilla

1) Kamilla is completely right.

2) If there were a person whose sinful nature took the form of wanting to drink a woman's blood, no woman should marry him, period. He would be a person with serious, horrible, psychopathic tendencies. The fact that he tries to control them does not make him marriage material. Portraying him as marriage material is bad, bad news.

3) I have read a review with quotations from this series. The quotations were sufficiently bad that I did not even finish the review. In one quotation, the supposedly "good" Edward openly and without any appearance of guilt enjoys smelling his beloved's neck even though he does not kill her and drink her blood. Is this a person rightly horrified at his own built-in evil tendencies? By no means. Relatedly, when Bella becomes a vampire, she exults in it and feels that she was "born to be a vampire" and has found the place where she really belongs. How does this fit with the "fighting your sin nature" interpretation? Not at all. It glorifies a girl's _acquiring_ these terrible urges (really a desire for a form of cannibalism). If someone struggled with the desire to kill and eat humans, it would be terrible to glorify someone else's coming to be the same kind of person with the same horrific and unnatural desires. And it is terrible.

I haven't read Twilight specifically, but I tend to agree with Jeff on the possibility of the "good vampire" as a metaphor for our struggle against sin.

In the 70's there was a great comic book called Tomb of Dracula. One character was a cop, Hannibal King, who had been turned in to a vampire against his will. He never killed anything (not even animals) to feed, choosing to rob blood banks instead. In the course of the story, all vampires in the universe except for King were destroyed. His survival was due entirely to the fact that he never fed on a living thing.

What I think is key is that the story never loses sight of the fact that while an individual may be a "good" vampire, vampirism is A Bad Thing that shouldn't be desired by anyone, regardless of how "virtously" they plan to live. Given that, however, one who is a vampire (or other monster) can ask "how should I now live?" and the exploration of that question can provide some insight for those of us who struggle with mundane vices.

I haven't read Twilight specifically, but I tend to agree with Jeff on the possibility of the "good vampire" as a metaphor for our struggle against sin.

Vampirism is inherently sinful. Whether it is the blood of humans or animals, it's all the same. The vampire condemns itself every time it feeds.

This is why a story about a truly good, repentant vampire would be a tragedy. In order to effectively repent, the vampire would have to commit suicide either directly or indirectly.

Though I suppose the vampire COULD "go down fighting" by running into gang territory and going down in a blaze of glory like a dark version of Bat Man, but I think most Christian writers would be a mite squeamish about that...

***SPOILER ALERT***

Mike T,

I'm a big fan of Korean cinema and while I can't recommend this film as a Christian-friendly experience (too much sex), the Korean film-maker Chan-wook Park (who is probably one of the best film-makers working today) last film is called "Thirst". The film is about a priest who turns into a vampire due to a medical experiment. As Kamila says, eventually aberrent sex is involved. But the film is a tragedy -- as a man of faith there is only one end for this vampire -- he and his "girlfriend vampire" (it's a long story) watch the sun come up as they burn to death.

Vampirism is inherently sinful. Whether it is the blood of humans or animals, it's all the same. The vampire condemns itself every time it feeds.

For human beings in the real world; absolutely. For fictional beings of a different "kind?" I dunno. I think the question is complex enough that one can explore the "good monster" trope without losing the sense of the monstrous altogether.

It's true that vampires struggle with psychopathic tendencies - but do we really want to put psychopaths beyond the possibility of salvation? Even Jeffrey Dahmer was able to place his life in Christ's hands, despite being incapable of feeling guilt, shame, or empathy.

The problem isn't the possibility of a good vampire, the problem is that we glorify vampirism. It's seen as something "cool" rather than horrifying. And the fact that it is so perceived is truly frightening. Saved or not, no woman should want to be with or become a psychopath, much less a blood-sucking immortal.

CJ,

Thanks for the support, although both Kamilla and Lydia make excellent counter arguments.

All,

In looking for additional background material, I did come across this fascinating article about the "Twilight" series that I think has some facts that help support my case (e.g. we learn more about the effort Edward and his family go through NOT to turn Bella into a vampire) but also some additional facts about Meyer's Mormonism and how they play out in the story that are troubling to me:

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=22-08-024-f

although both Kamilla and Lydia make excellent counter arguments.

Indeed. I haven't read any of the books myself, but they make a pretty damning case against

Twilight
. However, unlike Lydia, I do think there can be morally useful "sympathetic monster" stories.

That should've been italics instead of a blockquote.

John H, exactly. Psychopaths can be saved, but they shouldn't be married. And to be saved, they have to turn to God for help.

Jeff, the whole _thing_ should be troubling to you. What you have to keep hold of is the fact that a literary premise can be pernicious, morally. We shouldn't just say, "Well, if you accept so-and-so's premise..." as though that means we have to suspend judgment. Remember, the _books_ glorify her turning into a vampire. And you simply cannot get around the fact that it is absolutely horrible for a girl to marry a man who struggles with the desire to kill her and drink her blood. She should be staying miles and miles away from such a man, yet she is obsessively in love with him.

Any father who is comfortable with his daughter's reading books with "scores of pages" of sex, extreme gore, and a girl who marries a man who refers to her blood as "wine" which he sensually "sniffs" and wishes he could drink is being terrifyingly reckless with the formation of his daughter's morals, imagination, and her hopes and dreams for love.

Further, monstrous, unnatural vices used as a "metaphor" or stand-in for mundane vices (if that were what the books were doing) is in itself morally pernicious. That's pretty much paradigmatically "defining deviance down."

Further, monstrous, unnatural vices used as a "metaphor" or stand-in for mundane vices (if that were what the books were doing) is in itself morally pernicious. That's pretty much paradigmatically "defining deviance down."

I don't know about that. Examining moral questions metaphorically can be useful: consider Nathan's parable that culminated in "Thou art the man!"

The issue for me is not whether the metaphor ratchets the vice "up" or "down," but whether evil is still evil. Based on what you and Kamilla have said, Twilight fails miserably on that score.

Reverse it: Suppose that David had taken another man's ewe lamb (literally, a lamb) and that Nathan had come and told a story about someone who murdered his neighbor in order to take his wife. To make a point about the evil of ewe-lamb-stealing. See the difference?

But I appreciate your agreement on some other central points.

Being an immortal being in a world with compound interest and six billion happy meals walking around doesn't sound so bad.

Lydia,

Let me say that there are two issues -- the one you will find we are in total agreement on is the question of whether or not it is ever appropriate for my daughters to be reading books with descriptions of "sex" and "extreme gore". The answer you'll be happy to know is no. The second I think CJ summarized effectively -- do the books create a world in which good is good and evil is still evil?

The more I think about Bella's obsession with Edward, the more I think you are right -- the whole premise is rotten to the core. I was focused on Edward (and his "father", who was the first good vampire) and his struggle to do good (i.e. not drink human blood, fight evil vampires, etc.) But Bella's desire to become what Edward struggles against is screwed up at a deep moral level -- you are right, she should be running away from Edward and his "family". So why does Meyer have her character so attracted to Edward? Why is Edward so attractive to Bella (and to millions of young fans)?

Well, I've already admitted to not having read the books myself, so I can only conjecture. First, there's just the fact that young people read what their peers read and what they are told is cool. They will take what they are given, which is rather frightening. Same way with clothes. One answer to, "Why do so many teen girls dress so provocatively?" is "Because that's what the stores are selling for them to wear and that is what all their friends are wearing." It's pretty simple. You tell them that this or that is cool, that it is attractive, that it is enjoyable, and they will make themselves get into it. Cigarette smoking might be another example of the same phenomenon. You cough and choke and don't find it enjoyable at first but teach yourself to enjoy it because it's what the others in your crowd are doing. Then you're hooked.

But I suppose Mike T is onto something at another level: Many women _do_ like bad guys. I suppose there's that whole "alpha male" thing. It's a very dangerous tendency. And Edward is portrayed as incredibly sexually attractive, I gather, which is obviously going to be a draw for girls.

Then, too (conjectural), I think that young girls especially have this desire to sacrifice themselves in some radical fashion, to give themselves wholly to a male figure. Feminists will never truly eradicate this. It is natural and legitimate in itself, but it has to be guarded very carefully, because it can lead them to be exploitable. I think God made male and female to want to make a radical commitment to one another, to want to be bonded to one another in some way that will seem (and be) ultimate. Christianity takes this partly emotional and partly physical-sexual desire for extreme pair-bonding and sanctifies it with the image of Christ and His Church. Christendom has invented male chivalry as the counterpart to female self-sacrifice in an attempt to guard women against being taken advantage of. Literature, of course, is full of examples of women whose youthful desire for radical self-sacrifice to a man leads them into unwise relationships and marriages. (Think of Dorothea and Casubon in _Middlemarch_, if you've ever read it.)

The Twilight kind of literature takes the concept of ultimate female self-sacrifice as central to a woman's search for love and gives it a dark twist: sexually attractive male whose love will kill the girl, fatal attraction between them, girl can't live without him and is willing to die for him, ultimately it somehow "all works out" and she is happy as a vampire with him. This appeals to the young female's notion that if she is only willing truly to give herself to a man, all will be well and she will be loved and happy, she will have found her place in the world. Such literature, in fact, _exploits_ that female impulse (to make money for the author, among other things), titillates the audience with it, and presses it to its limits: Would you really sacrifice yourself to the incredibly attractive man you obsessively love, whom you can't live without, to the point of being willing to die for him? Would you marry him even though he is terribly dangerous to you? How far are you willing to go?

Of course there are girls and even grown women who will be attracted to this.

Although I am way past the teenage years, I do have a reference point to compare the current vampire craze with. Anyone remember, Dark Shadows? Back in the 1960's, the half-hour soap opera was among the most highest-rated of the ones on the air.

Yet, there is something profoundly different between the vampires of that era and the vampires of this era. In that era, even on that soap opera, God was still God, virtue was still virtue, and vice was still vice. Partially because of moral relativism, perhaps, but also because of the effects of sin, virtue and vice have been swapped, today. It is a classic sign of a society infested with evil that good makes it feel uncomfortable while vice makes it almost calm (it can't really be calm in the presence of evil, of course).

I can't say how much this genre in its current form needs to be suppressed. I don't have nearly the problem with Harry Potter as I do with this series of books.

The Chicken

Many women _do_ like bad guys.

Until they find that it was a truly Good Man who was willing to died for them even when they were in sin. True women who have experienced redemption weep at the years they spent liking (this is one of the effects of the weakness caused by Original Sin) bad guys.

The Chicken

For human beings in the real world; absolutely. For fictional beings of a different "kind?" I dunno. I think the question is complex enough that one can explore the "good monster" trope without losing the sense of the monstrous altogether.

When you find yourself creating hypothetical alternate universes for the sake of discussion, you are literally divorcing the conversation from reality.

From the Wiki page on Stephenie Meyer:

Meyer cites many novels as inspiration for the Twilight series, including Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë and Anne of Green Gables by L.M. Montgomery.[36] Each book in the series was also inspired specifically by a different literary classic: Twilight by Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice; New Moon by Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet; Eclipse by Emily Brontë's Wuthering Heights; and Breaking Dawn's theme by Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice[37] and A Midsummer Night's Dream.[38]

Re: sympathetic vampires. For my money, Buffy the Vampire Slayer had the best take on it, with the vampire Angel cursed by the gypsies to have a soul (and thus guilt and remorse) until it was inadvertently removed. Besides the witty premise where common high school anxieties became elements of a weekly horror story, the main relationship worked as a stark warning about the extreme contradictions maintained within abusive relationships.

When you find yourself creating hypothetical alternate universes for the sake of discussion, you are literally divorcing the conversation from reality.

"Fairy tales do not tell children that dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed." — G.K. Chesterton

I think the reason some of you are finding this so hard to understand is because your focusing on only one dimension of Edward's character.

All you are seeing is his "Bad Boy" animalistic side.

It's the contrast between the romantic, committed, gentle, loving, passionate and protective side mixed with his unpredictable, animalistic and rough characteristics, that makes the character so attractive to women. He's the Bad Boy and the Romantic combined. He has the exciting characteristics of the Bad Boy yet has the passion and commitment of a romantic, he wouldn't cheat on her or bore her, he constantly tells her he will love her forever, he has the pluses of both these sides without (well, the majority) of the negatives. He may be on the brink of harming or killing her but they know in the end up he won't because he loves her, so he manages to be both unpredictable and dependable at once. It's the balance between these two sides that make him an attractive character.

The major problem that I personally have with the books is the lack of any real depth within the relationships between the characters, there love seems to consist of no more than romantic lines and gestures contrasted by animal desire and urges for one another. There relationship is not based on knowing or understanding each other or sharing values, or anything else that it would take to make a real relationship last, it just gestures and urges.

All the criticisms I see of Twilight tends to focus on one aspect, the chastity, the violence etc. I think one of the other reasons this is so popular with young girls is partially due to romantic aspects, the commitment that the characters have for each other and the idea that they will love each other forever. With high divorce rates and constant stories of break ups and infidelities in the news (and within there own families), it lets them escape into fantasies where there worries and fears about these things are dispensed, where commitment and life long love is real and does happen, it brings then closer to a reality that they feel they can't reach outside of fantasy. In music and films of the past, people would constantly say they will be together forever or the rest of our life's, but it isn't said much today in these same mediums, as what people see day to day in the life's of those around them doesn't seem to back this up, it seems silly and unrealistic to make such claims nowadays, I think that's why when major romantic fantasies come along (Titanic is another example) they make such an impact, because it some way they speak to something that people want, but are missing in real life.

If we are having trouble judging Edward and Bella's actions because of the outlandish nature of the situation in which they find themselves, consider the following real-world situation. Edward and Bella love each other, but Edward has inherited an addiction to drugs because his mother was also an addict during pregnancy. However, Edward resists the temptation to take drugs. Now, is Edward's resistance virtuous? I think the answer must be 'yes'. Nevertheless, we can still ask about the rightness of the following actions:- (1) Even though Edward resists his temptation to take drugs, sometimes his will fails him, and he wishes that Bella could be an addict so that she could 'understand him more' - is this action, then, laudable? (2) Bella loves Edward so much that she decides to become an addict herself, so that she may fully become part of Edward's world of drug addiction and 'understand him more' - again, is this action laudable or in accordance with right reason? In both cases I think the answer must be 'no', because (1) is a deliberate desire to pervert Bella in respect of her proper functioning and nature, and (2) is a deliberate decision on Bella's part to frustrate her proper functioning in respect of her nature.

Now I think (2) mirrors Bella's desire to become a vampire, and (1) partially mirrors Edward's relapse (I suppose it's meant to be something like that) when he desires to drink Bella's blood. Action (2) in our real-world situation would itself be a disorderly desire, and would come across like some sort of unhealthy obsession if it happened to your own daughter. Also, if Edward were really virtuous he would say something like 'Run, Bella! I love you, but I'm just no good for you. I love you too much for you to become like me. So stay away, girl.' (By the way, whatever happened to manly self-sacrifice for the sake of a loved one?)

Finally, pace the Phantom, to commit an immoral act is bad enough, but to be commited to doing immoral acts habitually is infinitely worse (hence commitment in homosexual relations does not make things better if homosexual acts are inherently wrong).

Aside from "bad boy syndrome", I do have a theory about why these sorts of tales seem to capture young women (and their mothers, by the way) in our culture.

I think part of it is due to the fact that we know, deep down, how things are *supposed* to be between the sexes, what J. Budsziziewsky called, "what we can't not know". This is burried deep under all the muck our culture, churches and even parents throw at us every day - you should go to college and get a good education in case you don't get married or, heaven forbid, your husband gets run over by a mack truck on the way home from work some night. Women are just as good as men and don't need chaperones, they can lead just as well as men and we can pastor churches just as well as men. Women can be firefighters and police persons and fly fighter jets in combat because we are just as good, just the same, we are equal to men.

But, still buried deep under all that, we know that we are not. So, while we hear these messages every day, we know something's not right about it all. In consequence, when we run across the faux knight, we fall for it. We know what we want but believe we must pay a price for it because our culture has told us it is so yesterday - so we fall for the vampire, the bad boy, the user. And, instead of him laying down his life for us, we give our life's blood to have him and keep him. That's the price we must pay.

It's the ultimate reversal of Christ's sacrifice and of the picture marriage between a man and a woman is supposed to give us of the marriage which will end all marriages at the wedding supper of the Lamb.

Tony, I've gathered that in the books Edward does try to leave her for her own good (and to prevent her from being targeted by his enemies), but she literally can't live without him, stops eating, goes catatonic, and so (one way or another) he gives in and they get back together. Such is my impression. Which is just another way in which the books are sort of an exaggerated version of the unhealthy and obsessive teen romance. The people who should be telling her to run are, especially, her parents, but they're divorced, and I guess Dad isn't much of a feature. In the same manner, however, parents should be telling their girls to run from the books!

Phantom, the reason people focus on the objectionable aspects of the books is because they are objectionable! Sentimental romance with lofty feelings isn't nearly so objectionable in and of itself. Monstrous love for a man who wants to drink your blood combined with sentimental "high" romantic feelings and lifelong commitment is poison mixed with sugar. The romance doesn't make it less objectionable but rather worse because more attractive.

Moreover, I'm particularly concerned with Christian parents and children, here. And if mediocre romantic novels with lifelong commitment and without objectionable aspects are something Christian parents want, it's not like they aren't available. Nowadays there's Jeanette Oke. When I was a teenager there was Grace Livingston Hill (and as far as I know the Hill books are still available). Hardly great literature, but neither is Meyer. Of course, the bad boy aspect is missing, and no vampires, intense sensualism, forbidden fruit, etc. But that's kind of the point, right? If what girls want is romantic love novels, people with _real_ morals have tried to provide these. Myself, I'm not sure we've done them such a great service by providing them, but if I had a daughter who seemed to have an uncontrollable yen for some sort of romantic literature, I'd provide her with the clean stuff, not with a vampire version of steamy women's romance novels.

Phantom, the reason people focus on the objectionable aspects of the books is because they are objectionable!

What are you talking about? When did I say they it was wrong to focus on the objectionable parts?

What I said was "All the criticisms I see of Twilight tends to focus on one aspect" point being that when they focus on one aspect it leaves them with the inability to understand the rest and explain the phenomenon.

I was just trying to explain why the books are popular. I wasn't defending them, I was just saying in order for it to make some sense you have to see it within the context of the rest. You didn't seem to understand why girls were attracted to this character and I explained why they were.

The romance doesn't make it less objectionable but rather worse because more attractive.

Again you say this as if I was saying something to the contrary, go back and read my comment and you'll see that I was explaining it, not defending it.

Kamilla,

Thanks for your 8:45PM comment -- I think you are getting at something that rings true to me.

Also, FWIW, I just checked out your blog and enjoyed the experience.

Sorry if I misunderstood you, PB.

I suppose I have to say in honesty that I think there _is_ a desire in young people for a tang of evil. Girls are fallen human beings, after all. It might well be that they would consider better (morally better) romances to be insipid, especially having read some of the worse and more "exciting" ones.

Jeff,

Thank you on both counts.

Kamilla

You didn't seem to understand why girls were attracted to this character and I explained why they were.

15 minutes of reading Roissy or Ferdinand Bardamu (main page is SFW, some clearly marked pages are not) would have made it obvious :-P

15 minutes of reading Roissy or Ferdinand Bardamu (main page is SFW, some clearly marked pages are not) would have made it obvious :-P

Yeah Roissy and the Gamers can explain the female attraction to the negative alpha male characteristics, and the aspects about instant attraction, but I don't think there as good with the romantic or long term aspects. As I said before, I think it is the contrast between these two sides that make's him so attractive to young girls.

When you find yourself creating hypothetical alternate universes for the sake of discussion, you are literally divorcing the conversation from reality.

Any discussion of vampires necessarily involves a hypothetical universe because they don't exist. It's no more divorced from reality than your hypothetical vampire who goes down in a blaze of glory.

Going any further on this would probably be a threadjack, but I am intrigued by fiction (such as Vox's Summa Elvetica) that attempts to determine where rational, non-human beings fit into our moral universe.

Vampires are symbols of disordered sexual desire. This is what makes them monstrous. Instead of contributing vital fluid to the woman's body, they remove vital fluid. It is the opposite of sex. The symbol itself and the interest women show in it are just two more examples of how the sexual instinct has gone wrong in fallen man.

TPB,

Yeah Roissy and the Gamers can explain the female attraction to the negative alpha male characteristics, and the aspects about instant attraction, but I don't think there as good with the romantic or long term aspects.

Most unchurched women would gladly stay with a bad boy who doesn't bring the cops around, can hold a job and doesn't beat them. He could be a completely mediocre father and husband by Christian standards, but as long as he isn't a long-term liability, they'll be happy. Some of those bloggers also teach normal guys how to use "Game" for long-term relationships in order to keep their woman less likely to lose interest and divorce them or cheat on them.

Ironically, I think Game will end up being one of the most important counter-liberal weapons for regaining our culture because it will break a lot of Western men from the mental shackles of feminism. When you read some of the other bloggers like F Bardamu, you realize that their greater topic is to teach men how to be more Rock Hudson (in his move personas, not real life sexuality) and less Zac Efron.

CJ,

Any discussion of vampires necessarily involves a hypothetical universe because they don't exist.

Supernatural vampires, yes. People who practice vampirism, no. Unless you wish to create an alternate reality where even God is different and has no problem with creatures that sustain themselves on blood, then the difference there is superficial between those two types of vampires.

Excuse my innocence aqnd ignorance, but what's a gamer?

The Chicken

TMC,

"Gamers" play "the game," which is applying the principles of sociobiology in order to bag chicks. The idea is that women naturally respond to certain alpha-type behaviors, and to adjust one's pick-up technique to take this into account. Those devoted to "the game" swear that it works.

Most unchurched women would gladly stay with a bad boy who doesn't bring the cops around, can hold a job and doesn't beat them. He could be a completely mediocre father and husband by Christian standards, but as long as he isn't a long-term liability, they'll be happy.
I was talking about women and young girls who are interested in the books, not women in general or more specially the liberal/feminist women who you are talking about.
"Some of those bloggers also teach normal guys how to use "Game" for long-term relationships in order to keep their woman less likely to lose interest and divorce them or cheat on them."
Yeah, I've seen there points and a lot of the time they seem more like common sense principles that men shouldn't have to be taught in the first place, and others see to cover over problems and manipulate situations rather than get to its heart. They seem like short term solutions to problems within marriages and relationships or else problems that arise through male logical and emotional ineptitude. With the later I think Game is useful in order to give men that basic understanding of women that they seem to lack (again to me most of the points seem like common sense, but to others them seem to be revelations). With the former I think the "Power of Game" and what it can do is hugely overexaggerated.
Excuse my innocence aqnd ignorance, but what's a gamer?
There men who use specifically crafted techniques (or create new techniques) in order to pick up (seduce) women or control women there already dating (control can sometimes just mean keep them happy and satisfied). These techniques are based upon developing a knowledge of women through understanding there natural instincts, psychology and desires, plus the environment and social dynamics of the situations there in and using this knowledge to make it easier to seduce, please or control them. Most of the techniques are considered to be successful in practice or within the situations they are used.

No on-going discussion of "game" on this thread, sorry, guys. And people who believe in custody of the mind should not be going to sites devoted to it. Even the little I know at second hand (and I wish I knew less) shows it to be sadistic, disrespectful of women, un-Christian, and pornographic. And no, I'm not saying that to start a debate on the topic.

Sorry, Lydia. I was genuinely clueless about gamers. Sometimes, I am really glad to be so naive.

The Chicken

It's okay, MC. I often feel that way myself. I only wish I were _more_ naive. I'm hoping to keep my children much more naive than I was at their ages. And you can quote me on that.

Lydia,

I'm not sure what "custody of the mind" is, but most of the knowledge I have about Game comes from Links on other websites where it was being discussed, I don't visit there blogs myself (I visited Roissy's blog once to see what all the fuss was about, never again). I agree with all your points. The bits about given men the basic knowledge, so they will not put there foot in it, or to give them help so they will not make clumsy mistakes with women, could be taught or discussed between people without any reference or appeal to Game and all the negative beliefs and baggage associated with it. Sorry for being involved in the thread-jacking.

Has anyone read E. Michael Jones' Monsters from the Id? He has an interesting thesis on horror, and has a chapter on Bram Stoker's Dracula. The original vampire was supposed to horrify, and it represented the horrific results of sexual sin (specifically, syphillis, of which Stoker died, so he knew whatof he wrote).

In a nutshell, Jones' thesis is that the horror genre arose as a result of ambivalence about sexual license. I would suppose that embracing what used to horrify us means even that old ambivalence is completely gone.

Is there any REALLY good modern literature for teenagers involving the virtues? Zenna Henderson in science fiction is all I know. I never read romance literature as a kid. Give me Danny Dunn and Encylopedia Brown, any day.

That said, my parents never had to censor our reading material. Times have changed. Stupid base profit motives!

The Chicken

Yahoo,

I second the hat tip to Jones. I found his thesis in Monsters fascinating and a little bit scary as to what it says about us. His longer work, "Libiod Dominandii", I found too dark to read, but probably very worth reading for someone called to that sort of work and to witness against that darkness.

Kamilla

I define REALLY good in the arts by it being so good at the end that you don't even want to breath for fear of upsetting the moment. That only happen a few times in life, but when it does, it will pretty much stay with you until you die.

Most modern Christian novels are pretty lame. I wish Flannery O'connor were alive, today. She would blow the Twilight series out of the water.

The Chicken

"No on-going discussion of "game" on this thread, sorry, guys. And people who believe in custody of the mind should not be going to sites devoted to it. Even the little I know at second hand (and I wish I knew less) shows it to be sadistic, disrespectful of women, un-Christian, and pornographic. And no, I'm not saying that to start a debate on the topic.

Posted by Lydia | August 24, 2010 3:13 PM"

You have firm convictions about something you have not investigated.

You have firm convictions about something you have not investigated.

I have pretty firm convictions about cyanide. I have not investigated.

The Chicken

So, kids, can anyone spot the fallacy in Mr. Reis' claim?

(1) Even though Edward resists his temptation to take drugs, sometimes his will fails him, and he wishes that Bella could be an addict so that she could 'understand him more' - is this action, then, laudable? (2) Bella loves Edward so much that she decides to become an addict herself, so that she may fully become part of Edward's world of drug addiction and 'understand him more' - again, is this action laudable or in accordance with right reason?

Disclaimer: I've only read a plot summary of these books. From that slim basis, I would say that 1) is a fundamental misinterpretation of Edward's actions, while 2) is a mostly accurate interpretation of Bella's. Edward does nearly everything he can to stop Bella from becoming a vampire, until her pregnancy almost kills her (a vampire conception is itself a major difference from traditional vampire myths) and to keep her from dying he turns her into a vampire. Looking more closely at Bella's motives, I would suggest that romantic love is a sort of an escape from yourself and an obsessive desire to fully understand another.

Controversial statement: Some people think that objecting to a fictional character’s desire for drinking blood is enough to scrap the entire book. It's not like there is an actual religion where drinking divine blood is a transforming event that contains the promise of immortality and mysterious love. Oh, wait.

Most modern Christian novels are pretty lame.
I have read some Phillip Gulley books and The Shack. Gulley is fairly funny with a strong devotion to innocence, he has a really good eye for situational comedy. The Shack has too much New Age mumbo-jumbo, but there were a few powerful moments of ultimate despair tinged with grace that redeemed it.

TMC, my own feeling is that really good literature is really good literature and needn't be particularly _for_ teenagers. I give my children the books I think are just good, period. I don't know of any really good _romance_ books, particularly (that is, books entirely centered on a male-female romance). There's probably a reason for that, but I'm not feeling sufficiently brilliant and inspired to articulate it.

There are plenty of good books that _include_ romances. Some are even modern: For example, Edith Pargeter is an awfully talented writer. Her Brothers of Gwynedd quartet contains several romances but is chiefly about the history of Wales. Hence, it's very sad. As in, nearly everyone you care about dies in the end. But it isn't dark. Pargeter knows how to write with love.

Her sexual morals are so-so as far as her own opinions, but her main character in the quartet, though he is not without sin, has a pretty strict moral code. The Brother Cadfael novels (by the same author under a different name--Ellis Peters) are light and reflect a slightly sentimental and not entirely correct moral code, but I don't think they would do any young person any serious harm. They make good light reading.

Yes, there are plenty of good books for children to read. Do children still order from Scholastic Book Services or has the Internet made them passe? Also, many of the recent Caldecott Award winners are liberally biased.

The Chicken

I have pretty firm convictions about cyanide. I have not investigated.

The difference is that cyanide has been proved by a lot of investigation to be pure poison.

The difference is that cyanide has been proved by a lot of investigation to be pure poison.

The difference is that things like Twilight has been proved by a lot of investigation into broken marriages, wrecked lives, sin, etc., to be pure poison.

The Chicken

The difference is that things like Twilight has been proved by a lot of investigation into broken marriages, wrecked lives, sin, etc., to be pure poison.

True enough. Won't get any argument out of me on that. Romance novels fulfill roughly the same role for women that pornography does for men.

E. Michael Jones's thesis about horror has some validity, but I think he overstates his case somewhat. Another good book dealing with horror literature/movies, this one by a non-Christian critic, is Edmundson's "Nightmare on Main Street." He misses it in some areas IMO but overall it's a pretty good analysis.

Lydia,

I remembered a vampire series that I saw that was actually interesting from a moral angle. It's called Trinity Blood. In it, vampirism is caused by an infection that a number of humans contracted when humanity began colonizing Mars sometime this century. It was a left-over from an extinct civilization. However, there was a highly "weaponized" variant that created a third life form that preyed on vampires and humans alikes. Only four people were infected with the latter, and of them 1 chose to side against humanity, 2 with humanity and 1 to bring humans and vampires together in a truce. They don't actually have to feed on humans, but rather vampires in order to maintain their powers.

Sorta interesting.

On the lighter side of things....

If only that were D...

Stephen King's 'Salem's Lot' remains a very good traditional vampire novel despite its contemporary setting. The genre started to go seriously downhill IMO with the publication of Anne Rice's 'Interview With The Vampire' in 1976. King's book had come out the previous year.

For a non-traditional look, but one with a significant moral foundation, see Tim Powers's 'The Stress of Her Regard.' -- especially recommended for fans of 19th century literature, esp. the Romantic poets. Powers is a conservative Catholic, but doesn't write explicitly 'Catholic' or 'Christian' books.

The Lord of the Rings is a good book of virtues. Also, the Nazgûl (or Ringwraiths) in have some characteristics that are suspiciously like vampirism.

30,000 people starved to death today.

I'm so thankful you're here covering important issues such as vampires. Jesus would be proud.

An overly simplistic analysis of the monster archetype betrays a rather simplistic and underdeveloped world view. The wolf in little red riding hood is not the external devil, but the inner dark side. Simplistic denial of these darker urges (that we all have) isn't particularly healthy. The bible itself warns us to judge not others, and that only he without sin should throw the first stone. We all have darker sides, we all have shadows. The trick is not to pretend they don't exist, but to come to terms with and accept our darkness, such that real progress can be made in dealing with it and maturing as an individual.

From this perspective, the story of Twlight, despite horrible writing, is far more intriguing than you give it credit. The character comes to terms with and marries the inner darkness (and the inner 'masculine' traits (where before she has consistently been stuck in incredibly traditionally 'feminine' rolls.) At the same time, she learns to put a leash on the darkness. Rather than killing humans, the urge is set to kill only animals, a perfectly morally acceptable action in most systems. Likewise, she becomes capable of acting for the first time in four horrendously written books, and actually makes a stand, revealing that her coming to terms with the traits that she rejected from herself has led her to grow and develop as a person.


It is an basic theory amongst those that would study monsters academically, that the monster indicates not only those things society's hate, but that which society rejects from within itself.

You're absurdly simplistic analysis lacks nuance and any real depth. Please consider revising.

So you folks are all about free speech when you want to burn the Qur'an or hassle a bunch of Muslims for wanting to practice their religion near where they live but when I post a comment stating a fact, that Jesus could be defined as a zombie, my comment is deleted?

Living to Dead to Alive again(Undead). Hence, zombie.

I'm not saying we should Bruce Campbell the guy with a chainsaw but he was clearly a zombie.

I'm not telling you to not love your zombie god but I'd protect your brains. Oh, wait not a problem for you. Jesus will be starving in heaven.

Only joking, none of this nonsense is real. The Christian stuff I mean. Vampire are obviously fact.

LOL

It's also typical of a white person , especially a white supremacist like yourself, to delete comments that expose truth - just like white people as a collective like to delete history, the ozone layer and dark skinned populations. Bravo!

BTW the reason why whites are obsessed with vampires is that they see themselves as them - pale, undead,pedophiliac and lecherously sucking the blood out of their victims to survive.

There seems to be an awfully large number of women who are reliving their teenage years through their daughters and their daughter’s friends. Lots of excessive involvement with their daughter’s friends, in their daughter’s social lives, and (unfortunately) in their daughter’s sex lives. Lots of mom’s excessively interested in teen pop-culture and many who dress like they’re 15 years old. Grow up, Moms! And you too, Dads!

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.