Why it's Okay that Vampires Sparkle.
By Catherine Smith
It's official. It's the dawn of 2010 and it's the year of the supernatural. Right now everybody is going gaga for the gothic genre and they can't seem to get enough of the Vamps' and Were's and their hot-under-the-collar sex appeal. So what started all this craze? Well, if you haven't heard of Twilight, where have you been for the past year? The vampire phenomenon is the new global obsession. Thanks to this book half of the female population are now fang fanatics and can only breath one name: Edward Cullen. Twilight was written by the Mormon author, Stephanie Meyer, who had a dream one night about her heart-throb hero, Edward Cullen, and the dream created such an impact on her that she wrote it down and it turned into a bestseller. Despite the book's success, she has received a lot of criticism on the Twilight Saga, and because the books have been made into films, people are now too hasty to judge the books and splatter their opinions everywhere on the internet without even reading the saga.
I believe that the critics have been far too harsh on Stephanie Meyer because she has hit sudden fame and success, although to a certain degree I can understand where they're coming from - Twilight isn't exactly Bronte calibre. They usually point out the same old reasons why they are 'bad books', and sneer at them for having 'endless paragraphs of Bella's interior monologues' or a 'simple sentence structure' (J.E) I believe that we could all pick endless faults with every single book which has ever been published. However over the past year the saga has been bashed, walloped and tormented by a handful of literature 'loving' critics and snobby keyboard-ninjas, who write entire blogs on why it's stupid that Meyer's vampires sparkle and don't burn into a pile of ashes.
Snobbery amongst literature is not an uncommon thing. Some people will only read books by acclaimed authors, maybe because pompous critics have brainwashed them into thinking this is what we should be reading as if it's a fashion trend. Mills and Boone are a pristine example of snobbery among readers as people seem to say 'It's a bit Mills and Boone' if a book is referred to being bad or an over-the-top romance. What people don't understand is that this particular genre is an escapism for many as they enjoy venturing into a different world where chivalry and romance isn't dead. You'll find that most people are still stuck in that closet when it comes to reading Mills and Boone, and I think for a long time it will be secretly kept on their 'guilty pleasures' list.
Many a time I have been on the receiving end of one of those looks from an utter stranger which spells 'Oh dear, what is she reading,' Whilst I've had one of the latest Harry Potter books open on my lap. It's not that I'm condemning the likes of Austin and Dickens, because they have written tremendous literature, it's just that in this day and age some people, especially younger people, find that those classics can be considered as 'hard work' because they are representing an era that some people cannot fully understand.
Another issue for some people is that they find these books hard to read because of their old fashioned language, and lets face it, having to skip to the dictionary every ten minutes can suck your love out of literature. Should you feel guilty for reading more contemporary literature than classic? The answer is no. No you shouldn't, because at the end of the day if you're trying your hardest to read something because it's 'acclaimed' and finding that you're getting nowhere, and having to reread pages, maybe you should review the reasons why you are continuing a book which makes you feel lost in a fog of meaningless words.
Let's rewind back to my initial point about the Twilight Saga. Many of people have expressed their feelings on the saga and have branded it as being 'sexist'. On what grounds? I do not know. I feel like I'm repeating myself, as I believe people are trying to fish for bad points on the books because of it's sudden success. Some people have said that they believe the books are sexist because Bella has no hobby, but of course, nobody refers to reading as a hobby anymore. Throughout the four books it is understood that she's an avid reader - mainly classics - and this in turn has encouraged Twilight readers to pick up an edition of
This 'bad' piece of writing has been such a gigantic influence on young adults. Twilight has re-launched the gothic genre into the stratosphere and has encouraged non-readers to pick up the book and be left with a thirst for more vampire action, which is encouraging the readers to go out and find more fang-related books. Twilight has triggered the success of other vampire books such as The Sookie Stackhouse Series, Vampire Diaries and the House of Night series, half of these have now been turned into hit T.V shows. Another reason why Twilight has a positive effect on young readers is because these books carry a hidden message: celibacy. The books promote the message throughout, 'The success of the Twilight books comes from the fact that fans can lust after Edward and yet, certainly in the first book, there's no actual sexual contact between him and the series heroine. Twilight is a big metaphor for sexual abstinence, and yet it's erotic underneath.' (Robert Pattinson who plays Edward Cullen in Twilight). Twilight is encouraging young women to wait until they find that special someone and I don't think any parent would complain about that.
Other books, such as Harry Potter (which have also had it's fair share of abuse, being labelled as sexist and satanic) encourages an anti-racism message, as J.K. Rowling uses the word 'mud-blood' which is used as an insult to wizards/witches who have a parent who doesn't possess the gift of magic. This hopefully helps teach children about how we shouldn't be prejudice against other people because of their differences, and how we should respect people for who they are. All in all, I believe that the Twilight series and children's books which are similar, are great to give to children aged 12+, because the saga has mild violence and sensuality and no sex or drugs. So what I can't understand is how this book has been thrown onto the bad literature pile when the plot is so appealing, the characters are so mouth-watering and the outstanding message is so positive.
On a more serious note, England's children's literacy levels are one of the worse in the developed world which is extremely worrying, especially since 'more than £600million has been spent on primary school literacy schemes alone since 1998' (Daily Mail).
As long as people are reading, does it really matter what they choose? Today we might be reading Twilight, then tomorrow we could be reading Bram Stoker's Dracula and maybe next year we will be delving into Ian McEwan's Enduring Love. What matters is that we are reading, and if it's vampires that starts us on our love of books, then is that a bad thing?
Now I'm going to post it, I feel like I'm slightly contradicting myself, but, oh well.
