BlackChampagne -- no longer new; improvement also in question.: July 2009
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Movie Review: Peter Pan
Peter Pan is the Disney animated adaptation of the classic childrens' story. Released in 1953, in the golden age of Disney animated classics, it's a gorgeously drawn tale of adventure that's sure to captivate children, while keeping adults interested. (Though more on a meta-level of analysis than with the simplistic, rather trite story and characters.)
Scores, then some comments.
Peter Pan, 1953 Script/Story: 5 Characters/Performances: 6 Action: 6 Eye Candy: 8 Fun Factor: 7 Replayability: 5 Overall: 6.5
The film is fairly light on story, and comes packed with numerous weird inconsistencies in tone and age appropriateness. Most of it is very childish, and I was yawning through a lot of the stupid and wildly-violent pirate antics, the squabbling between the Lost Boys, the incredibly racist Indian singing and dancing (the single most racial/stereotypical scene I've yet noticed in any of these Disney classics), and most of the Darling (that's their surname) family stuff in London. Mixed in with that are some quite interesting and adult meditations on maturity and adult behavior/responsibilities, and the ways adolescents can interact on a semi-peer basis with younger children. None of which I grasped when I first (and last) saw this at about age 9, but all of which interested me watching it again as an adult.
A few of the scenes of violence/adventure are actually pretty shocking, in these days of desanguinated cartoons. Not that there's any blood or damaging violence in the film, at least not onscreen, but that's certainly not for lack of effort. The casually murderous nature of the pirates is amazing. They make constant threats of murder, put nooses around necks and swords to throats (at the same time), threaten to lash and whip and keelhaul each other, hurl dozens of knives with lethal intent at Captain Hook's ass-kissing first mate Mr. Smee, and that's without even mentioning the brutality they inflict upon Peter Pan's merry band of eight year old children. They're far more dangerous and mutinous and violent than any of the crews in the Pirates of the Caribbean films.
The scenes with Peter Pan and Captain Hook are tonally weird also. Peter plays them in a playful, jovial way, taking nothing serious and not trying to injure his opponent. At the same time, Hook is out of his mind. He's murderous, clearly wanting cut the little green boy in half, and he tries to do so at every opportunity, with swords, cannonballs, his hook, drowning, and even a bomb. The good Captain is not without justification in his actions, since it's mentioned early in the film that Peter cut off his hand and threw it to the crocodile. That's fairly dark, eh? Better yet, the hand was such a succulent morsel that the Crocodile, which possesses a semi-human intellect sufficient for determined stalking of its prey, has been following Hook ever since, salivating at the prospect of eating the rest of him. The hunting crocodile is played for laughs in the film, but Hook's horror at the prospect, which nearly occurs multiple times, is very real. And quite understandable.
There's a scene midway through the film when Hook and Peter fight near Skull Rock. At the end of the fight the crocodile appears and starts trying to eat Hook, and it's played for laughs, but it's fucking scary. This massive, 5 or 6 meter crocodile with a malevolent intellect is launching itself entirely out of the water and nearly biting Hook in half. It rips off his pants, it bites off his boot, and he keeps winding up standing in its mouth, his legs in a split as he fights against the animal's crushing jaws. He gets completely swallowed a number of times, yet keeps bursting back out, all the while screaming in terror and dodging the next bite by the narrowest of margins.
I think it's supposed to be funny, Peter Pan is laughing hysterically the entire time, but it's quite unsettling, with the mixture of animal ferocity and violence. Clearly Hook was killed about 5x during the encounter, and he should have had his arms and legs torn bloodily from his torso. He didn't actually suffer any damage other than ripped clothing, but that felt like a cheat to me, and the whole scene was much more horror than humor. It's actually fairly sadistic, expecting the audience to take pleasure and delight in the torture of the man, but that's just another example of the weird dichotomy between childish humor and adult themes that pervades the picture.
Childishness, Adolescence, and Maturity
The level of maturity of various characters is another odd thing. The Darling father is a blustering, cartoonish fool of a man-child. Racing around in a panic, making one foolishly rash outburst after another before lapsing into pseudo-wise melancholy forgiveness; he's something of a prototype for the idiot father figure that modern sitcoms have so thoroughly deconstructed.
Peter is quote intentionally a boy as well. Not a young man, not even a teenager. That's where his magic stems from, his refusal to grow up, and while he never consciously faces any "turn back from impending maturity/mortality" moments, he exists as a bright, impetuous, 12 year old of the pre-Mtv era. He doesn't know what kissing is, he is oblivious to the efforts of the mermaids to flirt with him, and he's not interested in booze or strategy or holding grudges. He doesn't think girls are icky, as a younger boy might, but he's got zero thoughts of a sexual nature. He regards girls as prettier, softer boys who need to be protected, but more as a matter of course than as a way to earn sensual rewards. He just wants to play and have fun with other boys, and while he enjoys besting his enemies, he regards them as objects of play. Which makes for something of a weird juxtaposition, when they're so clearly motivated by hatred and a desire for murder in their interactions with him.
Wendy is about Peter's age; just about to turn 13, but she's years more mature. She realizes that the pirates are mortal enemies and sees the danger Peter is in. She's also conscious of herself as a sexual being, and while she's playful and indulgent with her younger brothers, and motherly to the Lost Boys, she's also got some appreciation of the fact that older men might see her differently than boys do. She's always careful to retain her modest while climbing or flying, holding down her night gown so her shapely legs are not exposed above the knee, and she's starting to see other women, the mermaids, Tiger Lily, as threats, as challenges to her special status in Peter's eyes.
Tinkerbell
That stuff was all well and good, and gave me something to think about during the childish, fairly-plotless film. The thing that most surprised me though, was the character of Tinkerbell. I remembered her as a cute little fairy, dripping pixie dust and helping Peter and the Lost Boys. She's become something of a mascot in the years since Peter Pan, darting around the Disney logo, creating fireworks with her wand, appearing on countless items of merchandise themed for six year old girls, etc.
With those thoughts in my head, I was surprised to see her portral in the film as.... a total sex object! I shit you not. She's got an adult woman's body with an oversized head, huge eyes, and pouty, kissable lips. Very Betty Boop in her styling, though not so exaggerated in the proportions. She wears a ridiculously short skirt over tan panties that are constantly on display, she's got an impossibly narrow waist over hourglass'ing hips, and long, shapely legs with size -2 tiny feet.
More than her body though, it's her posturing and posing, and the positions the animators throw her into, that make her work on an entirely different level for men than for the children this film is allegedly designed for. She doesn't speak, but that just makes her more flirty and pouty. She often ends up sitting flat on her ass with her legs splayed out and a sulky look on her face, doing a very naught schoolgirl thing. When she flies or dings something with her wand, she usually bends at the waist while arching her back while keeping her legs straight, thus poking her butt out in a prominent mating pose.
It's not like her sexiness sneaks up on you either. The collage below is taken from the first couple of minutes of Peter's entrance into the Darling nursery, and I could have put in 15 more shots from other scenes of a similarly revealing nature. She gets stuck in a drawer and does the ass pounding thing against the keyhole, she falls over into the missionary position, she sits on a block and lifts one thigh up high, she falls over and kicks like a Rockette, etc. It's more or less relentless, and it's clearly intentional, by the animators. She could have fallen sideways, or with something blocking the view of her crotch, or they could have kept her skirt obscuring the view, etc.
All through the movie she winds up in the same poses, and they gave her a very feral, willful nature as well. She's always at one emotional extreme or another; jealous, angry, satiated, overjoyed, horrified, etc. Very id, and always throwing herself into the emotions with willful abandon, like a naughty little vixen that needs to be tamed. She gets imprisoned numerous times, has no ability to preserve her personal space, is constantly grabbed and shaken upside down, or spanked, or otherwise manhandled. Literally.
It wasn't exactly sexy to me, but it was clear that it could be taken that way, and that seemed very weird in the middle of a film that was in most other ways written at about a ten year old boy's level. The concept of sexy fairies has gotten very popular in recent years, with all of those new age and/or goth style greeting cards and mascots and such. I thought those were sexualized versions of Tinkerbell's legacy; the original innocent and wholesome fairy slutted up. Having seen the original Peter Pan, I now realize that those apples haven't fallen far from the tree. In fact they might still be on the tree; they're just wearing more black and better makeup.
Overall
Peter Pan was a much better film than I expected, after not seeing it in 25 years. Great animation, memorable characters, excellent action scenes, and fairly good music, after the awful, overblown orchestral chorus that opens (and closes) all of the Disney movies from this period. The problems that keep it from earning a higher score come from the uneven, fits and starts of the plot, and the schizophrenic tone and mood, with so many discordant elements of comedy, horror, and the adult vs. childish nature of events.
I'm not sure why it's popped up now, but I've seen a bunch of linkage to this video today.
Since it's only a minute long and you can watch it faster than I can explain it. So just watch it.
What I find interesting is the pathology behind all of those conservative denunciations (all of which were lies) about the Netherlands. You see the shiny white people on Fox talking, and it's not what they say as much as how they say it. They stress words like "liberal," "free love," and then turn to "anarchy," "cess-pool," "corruption," etc. It's about controlling the language, and since they know 99% of their viewers will never know or care that they're being lied to, it's safe to make such claims.
At the same time, it's kind of amazing how the condemnation and denunciations roll forth, aimed at a country which, as the stats in the later half of the video demohnstrate, enjoys far better public health and suffers far less of a drug problem than does the US, by almost every measure.
What's actually happening in Amsterdam? They're phasing out the licenses to a small amount of the 229 "coffee shops" in the city. Some since they were too close to schools, but the majority since they were clustered downtown near red-light district, and the area is getting kind of seedy.
Needless to say, there are dangerous, violent, anarchistic cell pools in the downtown areas in every major American city where crack, heroin, and every other sort of narcotic (most of which are illegal and nearly unknown in Amsterdam, since people can legally enjoy pot and minor hallucinogens like mushrooms) are readily available. The drug trade in America is far more lethal, profitable, and dominated by organized crime than anything in Amsterdam. And decades of "The War on Drugs" has done nothing but make it harder for junkies to seek treatment, wasted countless billions on ineffective police actions, and filled our prisons. But that's not worthy of mention on Fox News, since (non-prescription) drugs are illegal and bad, and to the Conservative mindset, results don't matter. It's all about pushing the party like propaganda, speaking of ideology rather than reality, and motivating through fear by demonizing those you disagree with.
Officers called to the home early Sunday found the boy's mother, Otty Sanchez, sitting on the couch with a self-inflicted wound to her chest and her throat partially slashed, screaming "I killed my baby! I killed my baby!" police said. She told officers the devil made her do it, police said.
...Andrea Yates drowned her five children in her Houston-area home 2001, saying she believed Satan was inside her and trying to save them from hell. Her attorneys said she had been suffering from severe postpartum psychosis, and a jury found Yates not guilty by reason of insanity in 2006.
In 2004, Dena Schlosser killed her 10-month-old in her Plano home by slicing off the baby's arms. She was found not guilty of reason by insanity, after testifying that she killed the baby because she wanted to give her to God.
Interesting that in even these abbreviated summaries of horrendous filicides all find room to mention that the mothers had a sincere belief in Christianity. A curiosity that will attract zero notice or comment in the mainstream media. But imagine if they'd all said their atheism drove them to murder? Or if they were all Muslims and blamed Allah? Or Zoroastrians disturbed by Angra Mainyu? Two words: Media. Frenzy.
Mentions of "the devil" or not, I don't think these women murdered (and partially devoured) their own children because they believed in God. They did it because they were mentally ill and were suffering from severe postpartum depression and other psychoses. True, they credited their work to God or the devil, but these women were raised as Christians, in a culture permeated with Christian mythology. Naturally, when they tried to find some explanation for their unexplainable actions, they turned to the only existential framework they knew.
Crazy people always find external, usually supernatural, motivations for their delusions. Charles Whitman didn't say, "I'm behaving irrationally and flying into sudden rages because a cancerous glioblastoma multiforme tumor the size of a walnut is squeezing my hypothalamus, extending into the temporal lobe and compressing the amygdaloid nucleus." He just felt out of control and constantly enraged for weeks, before he murdered his mother and wife, then 13 more people from a sniper position atop the University of Texas bell tower.
Unusually for such a case, and despite being raised in a very religious family, Whitman did not leave long rambling notes about how God was testing him or the devil was driving him to do it. He was too intelligent and educated to fall back into superstitions, and he tried to resist his impulses in rational fashion, right up until the end. You have to wonder what he might have said had he survived and had time to stew in prison, consumed by remorse as he sifted through his shattered thoughts for explanations.
Humans (almost) always attribute events to agency. It's why every culture invents a religion. As humans have gained more knowledge of the world around us, we've reduced our need for such explanatory crutches. No one (well, it's less common than it once was) blames gods for rain, or earthquakes, or eclipses anymore. But, even though we've made great progress with psychiatric medicine, the function of the human brain is still dimly understood, and as such supernatural explanations for bizarre behaviors will remain popular. For the foreseeable future. So help you God. (Or Satan. Whichever seems more appropriate in your current state of mind.)
Song of the South is a controversial, "lost" Disney classic. Controversial for the racial elements, which have kept it from ever being released on home video in the US, the only Disney film so stigmatized. (Happily, it's readily available online, and since they don't sell it in the US, it might not even be entirely illegal to download it.)
Released in 1946, it's mostly a live action film, enlivened by several animated segments illustrating the B'rer Rabbit stories told by the elderly, kindly, not-entirely-Uncle Tom'ish, Uncle Remus. Those animated segments are fun, if somewhat sub-Bugs Bunny quality in their anthropomorphized animal antics, of the "wily rabbit outwits blundering fox and bear" style. There are also some scenes of live action with cartoons drawn into them, which work fairly well.
Here's a YouTube clip from fairly early in the film, which is what most people have seen or remember about this film. Zip Dah De Do Dah is the film's signature tune, and it won an Academy Award that year.
Unfortunately, the vast bulk of the film is entirely live action, and it's dreadful. Literally unwatchable. Terrible, boring, stupid plot, sub-afterschool special quality acting (adults and children), ugly, muddy colors, bad dialogue, etc. As such it's a weird film to score, since the animated parts are pretty good, and Uncle Remus is such a great character, and well-performed, that his sections are fine. Yet everything else is "cut the celluloid into ukulele picks" bad, and that stuff makes up the vast bulk of the all-too-long 1:34 running time.
Song of the South, 1946 Script/Story: 2 Acting/Casting: 5 Action: 0 Eye Candy: 3 Fun Factor: 4 Replayability: 1 Overall: 3
As I said, schizophrenic scores. Or at least schizophrenic values for each score that averaged out poorly. Just the cartoon segments are good, and the scenes with Uncle Remus interacting with the kids are good. Tragically, that's less than half the film, and the rest is uniformly horrible. It's like watching a school play someone filmed and ineptly edited into a movie. Well, it's actually a bit more like watching recorded rehearsals of a school play, since most of the actors don't seem to know their lines, or have any idea how their character should react at any given moment.
Part of that is the age of the film. Most movies from the 40s and 50s are done in that stage-like style, where the actors are always consciously acting. They don't try (or succeed) at seeming like real people living real lives. Everything is done as a performance, and it gives all of their actions a very unnatural nature. This tendency is most pronounced with the child actors, most of whom talk in weirdly stilted ways and mug like they're looking at a camera on Christmas morning. Admittedly, I have very little practical experience being around 5-8 year olds, so it's possible that when lots of them hear a question they pause, their faces screwed up in thought, for several seconds before giving a halting, non-sequitur of a reply. But I sure hope not.
The adult acting isn't any better, and it all exists entirely to advance the plot. No one just does anything naturally, where we get the feeling that we're simply observing real life through the camera lens. Every scene is blocked out, with characters facing each other at an angle so they can both look at the camera, sitting in carefully arranged chairs, etc. A lot of it is just the style of movie making at the time, which doesn't make it any less painful to watch today, but at least gives it's suckitude something of an alibi.
I was not able to watch the whole film. I went into this with no memories of anything other than some Brer Rabbit cartoon stuff, and I was groaning during the fantastically stiff acting during the carriage ride that takes up the first five minutes of the film. I had to start skipping forward through the live action almost immediately after that, and I only made it through the film by jumping forward a minute or two at a time through everything but the cartoons. I did force myself to watch the last 10 minutes without interruption, suffering through the eloelably fake "Johnny races the bull" scene (that earned the film its rare zero in that category), and his predictably melodramatic, Wizard of Oz-esque death bed reawakening. I could not have watched the entire film, though. Not even drunk.
Racial Elements
As for the racial elements, they weren't that remarkable, for all I'd heard about their role in keeping this film under wraps.
The movie was released in 1946, and it remains the only Disney film to never be released on home video in the US. That's a fairly remarkable fact, given the way Disney recycles their film properties every few years in "limited edition" home videos, rapes their classics with low quality DVD sequels, and shamelessly churns out anything and everything to siphon money from parents desperate for another hour of digital babysitting. When you realize that they've got a whole film that they've not yet issued in seven different DVD versions, and you hear that it's not been released since it's racially insensitive, you expect lynchings. At a minimum!
Not so much. This isn't exactly Birth of a Nation. In fact, Song of the South is a very simple, friendly, happy little feature written to the comprehension level of an 8 year old. There's no violence, no hatred, no racial discord, etc.
The controversy comes from the racial elements and interactions, with the happily subservient blacks working around the plantation, in constant deference to their white superiors. It's not clear when the film is set, but there aren't any cars, so I guess it's supposed to be the late 1800s, some decades after the Civil War. The blacks aren't slaves, at least not legally, but they clearly think of themselves as second class citizens, cheerfully and uncomplainingly laboring under their benevolent white masters.
It's not so much that the blacks are servile, it's that they're so content and obliging in their behavior, and that the whites are naturally condescending and superior, even when theyr'e kind. They just feel a natural superiority towards the blacks, and while I'm sure that's historically accurate, it's still creepy to watch. The adult whites speak to the black people exactly as they would when fondly addressing a pet, or perhaps a retarded child.
The black/white relations are actually very good in this film; friendly, respectful, unchallenging; which is what upsets people about it today. The film perpetuates the "impression of an idyllic master-slave relationship" as wikipedia quotes the NAACP on the issue. Compared to something like Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury, which shows the cruelty, hatred, and barbarism of a racially segregated society in the postbellum South, Song of the South is happy, peaceful, and utterly unrealistic. If you'll pardon the term, it whitewashes the actual state of affairs, and as such it can be seen as propaganda for white supremacy. As if it's arguing something like, "See how happy those Negros were when they knew their place?"
Walt Disney was aware of this issue while planning and filming it, as some quotes on the Wikipedia page attest. I didn't find it offensive, and I think it's useful as a sort of historical document, but I think it's best that children don't watch this and use it to form their views of black/white relations, or their idea of the postbellum history of the American south. It could be interesting for adults to view, as a sort of conversational piece... except that it's written on such a stupid, childish level that I doubt many adults could get through it, much less enjoy themselves.
Honestly, it's probably best that Disney has only released the partially and fully animated bits, since the rest of the film is terrible, both as a cultural document and as a motion picture.
I'm watching the classic Disney animated features these days, largely for historical reasons. I saw them at various times in my childhood, but never had them on DVD or VHS, and I was too old to care by the time the Disney channel came into existence. I've watched half a dozen of them over the past couple of weeks, and have reviews written and ready to roll for Peter Pan, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Song of the South, Lady and the Tramp, and one or two others. I'm going to stick them into the blogger script and set them to appear every third day. You have been warned.
I'm writing these reviews from an adult, modern day perspective. I'm not reviewing them for how much kids will enjoy them (since I'd have no idea), or how good they were in 1953, or whenever they were released. I usually mention the historical value or precedent, but I'm trying to take them on their own terms, as though I'd never before seen or heard of these films. That's hardly fair for most fifty year old films, but these animated masterpieces are largely timeless, and their source material is usually a fairy tale that's centuries old.
My approach is working pretty well so far, though it fell apart with one film. Pinocchio, oddly enough, since I knew too much about the plot, since it's been covered or ripped off so many times in other forms of media. Pinocchio also suffers for an odd reason; by dint of being the best of the Disney films I've seen thus far, in terms of being a complete, coherent movie. The others tend to be somewhat sprawling and undisciplined, or they pad out very simple plots with lots of wacky side kick type characters and comic relief. Pinocchio stays very much on track, and since I knew the track, there were few surprises.
To my surprise, today's film is a prime offender in the wandering, bullshit scenes to serve as plot-filler category. Here's Snow White and the Seven (excessively silly, annoyingly childish, slapstick-happy) Dwarves Dwarfs.
There are some great, iconic images in the film. The queen with her magic mirror, Snow White singing the birds out of the trees, the seven distinctive dwarves (or dwarfs, as the film calls them), their glittering gem mine, and especially the wicked witch in her old lady disguise/transformation. That's by far the most memorable image in the movie; the wart-nosed crone, gibbering with her shining, poisoned apple. Plus there are three very familiar and instantly remembered songs in the film, and while those type of show tunes aren't really to my taste, I've heard them so many times in so many forms I can't deny that they have some charm.
Unfortunately, the great iconic scenes and music makes up only a small part of the film. Much of the rest of the time is padded out with bad, broad, infant-skewing comic relief. Scores, and then some more heretical commentary.
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, 1937 Script/Story: 4 Characters/Performances: 7 Action: 3 Eye Candy: 9 Fun Factor: 5 Replayability: 4 Overall: 5.5
My score is conflicted. There are 3 or 4 great scenes, and some very memorable images. The gem cave, the mirror mirror on the wall, the wicked witch scene with the poisoned apple, the vista of Snow White in her glass coffin, and the chase scene of the Wicked Witch climbing up the rain-lashed rocks as she flees the avenging dwarves is great. Some of the songs are really good, and the overall look is savory.
Sadly, and much to my surprise, the bulk of the movie is sigh-inducing physical comedy scenes that seem to go on forever. I'm sure I laughed hysterically at age 6, but watching it as an adult I was amazed at how childish and slapstick the comedy was, and how much there is of it. This movie is 83 minutes, and at least 50 of them are entirely occupied by Snow White making small talk or cleaning with adorable furry forest creatures, or endless permutations of bumbling dwarves. They are clumsily comedic, falling over, fighting, washing each other, being humorously scared, sneezing with hurricane force, making messes, etc. And it's not like this happens once. There are several long, 8-10 minute blocks of nothing but dwarf hijinks.
True, it's funny when little people fight, but that's only with real life midgets. When they're cartoons it's as funny as it's drawn to be, and in this film I wasn't laughing.
The first long dwarf nonsense takes place from 26-36 minutes, as the dwarves return from work in their gem mine, notice that someone's in their house, and spend almost 10 minutes falling all over each other as they get up the nerve to enter their own home. Then, after 5 minutes of Snow White interaction, there's another 7 minutes, from 41-48 minutes, of more wacky dwarf antics. Snow White sends them out to wash their filthy hands before dinner, and it's just a 'tard fest as they wallow in the water, trip, swallow soap, blow bubbles, rape and humiliate the non-cooperative Grumpy, etc. Then after a cool scene of the evil queen manufacturing the poison apple, we get another ten minutes of dancing musical dwarves after dinner.
None of this stuff is horrible, it's just excessive and silly, and hard for an adult to sit through. I was bored by it and started surfing to pass the time (benefit of watching it on my computer) and soon made my way to the wikipedia page about the movie. There I learned that this was the first feature length Disney film, that it was fantastically popular at the time (with adults), and that it's frequently been voted as the best Disney film, and sometimes as the best animated film of all time. That perplexes me, but I suppose it's mostly about the history. This was the first Disney film, the first movie length American animation, it's got great animation (though the rotoscoping is obvious at times, especially in the longer shots of the prince walking) and it has 3 very famous songs. The fact that much of the film itself isn't very good is irrelevant.
Just the day before viewing this one I saw Disney's Sleeping Beauty, and there's no comparison. They have essentially the same plot (wicked witch puts animal-charming, singing princess into eternal sleep from which a kiss from her true love prince awakens her), and both have comic relief bumbling sidekicks, but the villain in Sleeping Beauty is so much better, there's much better action and adventure, the climactic battle is great, and the overall tone movie is just much superior. It's like the critical reaction to Snow White is all about potential, or written from half-forgotten memories. The best few sets and concepts in Snow White are great, but there's so much childish filler in between that I can't give it a very good review score, on the whole.
Vanity Fair has posted a marked up version of Sarah Palin's legendary resignation speech, and it's both depressing and amusing. They did the whole speech (earning bonus hazard pay, one would hope), with blue ink for formatting errors, green for factual/research problems, and red for grammatical corrections. Needless to say, there's more red than black, in most of the paragraphs. Here's the start; click through to see the whole thing.
That her rambling, speech-like oration would have gotten her booed off the podium in any high school speech class is indisputable. Fortunately for Palin, her and her husband's inability to write a speech isn't really a problem, since she's so defiantly campaigning for the support of the ignorant rabble. Not being able to talk so purty is actually a boon when aiming for the hard right fringe of the Republican party, since it's sort of a "folks like us" credential.
If she'd delivered the address the Vanity Fair editors transformed hers into, much less one of Obama's intellectually-appealing orations, it would have been a far by any objective, public speaking criteria... but less effective and resonating with the audience it was intended for. They might have appreciated more the words, but there's a whole luggage train of cultural baggage pulled by Palin's "Aw shucks-isms," that wouldn't be so easily hitched to a slick, professional speech-maker.
Among the many benefits of Palin throwing a fit at halftime, quitting the team, and walking out of the arena to try and get a job with a better team (to co-op her chosen basketball point guard metaphor), is the fact that she'll now be making regular appearances on unscripted talk shows, thus greatly increasing the frequency with which she'll bestow upon the American public the unique blend of non sequiturs, malapropisms, and disconnected talking points that make up her spoken dialogue.
Interesting lunch date yesterday, with a woman I met via an online dating site. The whole story of her situation is a fascinating one, but isn't something I want to go into here. Very briefly; she's 29, from India, and moved to the US last year to live with a husband she met via an "arranged" marriage. She'd met him when he came to visit pre-marriage in India, and she was committed to being a good wife and loving him, etc. All the fairy tale stuff girls grow up dreaming about.
Well, that lasted about an hour after she got to America, when she almost immediately realized he'd been lying to her, that he was in love with an American woman, and that he had wanted an Indian wife as a sort of cultural duty/obligation. He probably hoped/thought having her might enable him to change/settle down/feel like a good son/etc, but it didn't.
The weird part is that he's fine staying married, covering all her bills, giving her spending money, etc... but he hasn't seen her in three months, they haven't been "intimate" since last year shortly after she arrived in the US, and he's encouraging her to date and try to find another man to marry. (She wants to meet a rich US citizen and marry him, since she loves living here.) If they divorce she'd have to return to India, since he's not a citizen; he's just here on a Visa. The whole situation is crazy, and the immigration issues and work permit she's after and other bureaucratic stuff is crazier. But that's not what I want to talk about (though it's primarily what we talked about during our 3 hour lunch).
What I found most interesting about our conversation is her online dating history. She's a beautiful woman, and has a fantastic, slender body (5'3", 105lbs, but still sort of curvy), and a very sultry, breathy voice, especially with her Indian accent. I wasn't totally smitten by her (for various personality reasons, more than physical attractiveness) but I can imagine a lot of men would be. Even though the photos she's posted on her profile don't show her off to her best extent, and there's no voice option either.
That established, she's been on the dating service for about a month, and has received 60 or 70 emails/winks. The greatest flood came in during the first couple of weeks, but she said she's still getting 2 or 3 almost every day. I was impressed by that (I've received about 25-35 in 9 months, at least half of them obvious scams.) and more impressed by the fact that I was the first man she'd liked enough to actually meet. I don't think of myself as an especially eligible bachelor, especially not for her, since while I have some desirable traits, they don't really match up with what this woman wanted. (High income and a desire for immediate marriage.)
What, you might wonder, did I do to win her over (as far as I won, which wasn't very)? Timing helped. She mailed me almost a month ago, during the time that my membership was inactive, in her first or second day on the service. Before she started getting all of her incoming mails, and she said that she hadn't done much searching or mailing since then, since all the contacts were coming to her. (I'd never seen her come up on one of my searches, but if I had I'd have clicked through to her profile but not mailed her.)
Temporal coincidence aside, she liked that my profile photo had me in a dress shirt and a tie, that I didn't have any semi-naked or drunken party photos in my other pictures, that my profile was long and detailed and made me sound like I wasn't a player, and that when we traded a couple of emails I didn't make any comments about her beauty, sexiness, etc. (Not that I didn't notice it, but I've been lucky enough to socialize with a fair number of beautiful women, and have learned a few things about what men do that annoys them.
Of the 60 or 70 men who had tried (and failed) to interest her, she said about half were immediately ruled out for being too old, young, divorced, or had kids already. She had set those as iron clad rules. Of the 30~ remaining, about 25 eliminated themselves by being rude or crude or clueless. Remarking about nothing but her looks (she giggled wildly that one man had asked her bra size), making it clear they just wanted sex, talking down to her or treating her like an idiot/child, etc. Which left about 5, whom she'd gone so far as to speak with on the phone. They all D/Qed themselves during the conversation, mostly for doing the same stuff the others did in email. She said two guys had immediately started talking about how sexy her voice was, and the others had just sounded dumb, or had done all the talking and not let her get a word in. Which left me, the one out of the 70 or so not to do anything stupid enough to drive off this lonely, friendly, curious, intelligent woman. And that's despite the fact that I wasn't anywhere near the richness level she wanted, and didn't lie to her about how much I wanted to get married and have kids by like, Halloween.
I was fascinated to hear how blatantly most guys fucked up their courtship attempts, since I didn't think I'd done anything all that special or clever to woo her. I hadn't told her lies, I hadn't tried to flatter her, and I wasn't that crazy for her. Perhaps that helped; that I was looking at it as a curiosity, rather than my heart's greatest desire, so I didn't try too hard and trip over my own feet, as so many of the other guys had.
It also helped that I'm... not a complete idiot. Or culturally clueless. The IG was raised in the Bay Area, but she's half-Indian and we talk about culture all the time. Plus I've read some books about Indian culture, and it's not all that different than Filipino culture (Malaya was Pinay), in that both are religious, culturally-conservative, and fairly patriarchal. That one is Catholic and the other Hindu is irrelevant; it's not what version of the FSM a culture adheres to, it's how they shape the ancient rules of their faith to support the male-dominated "traditional" society.
So, I had a fairly good idea what sort of things would appeal to a woman who had grown up in India. Or at least I knew the things that would immediately turn her off, chief amongst them talking about sex -- in the initial contacts at least. We actually talked a great deal about sexual issues over lunch, and she found the topic fascinating. But it was in the context of curiosity and sexuality in American culture, rather than a stranger slobbering over her via an online dating site. I also knew to treat her like an adult and listen to what she said. True, that's good advice for dealing with anyone, male or female, but I knew she'd been talked at by males her entire life, including her husband, and that she would not take kindly to it from a potential suitor.
All that said, what did it get me? Aside from an interesting lunch and some fascinating conversation/blog material/human nature insight? Nothing, really. But it was more valuable (and a less expensive date) than most of the others I've lined up via online dating, and I certainly enjoyed it more. I don't know if it's going to happen, but we tentatively talked about remaining friends and seeing each other now and then for some conversation and consultation. I gave her some advice on her profile (in terms of how things she said would be viewed by American men) and she talked about what she liked in mine, and of course she imparted a great deal of info about how men approach women via the online dating, some amount of which I summarized in this post.
I don't think I can apply anything directly from her comments to my ongoing online dating efforts, though. I already knew the attractive women received a regular deluge of emails and winks, and I already knew that talking about their looks or bringing up sex in the initial contacts was a bad idea. (I'm sure there are some dumb/vulnerable/slutty women who might go for that, but I've not met them and I'm not looking for them.) I was not aware of just how poorly most men played the "getting to know you" game, but that knowledge has been more depressing than invigorating. Depressing for my opinion of the male half of the human race in general, depressing for thinking about what heterosexual women have to put up with in this world, and depressing for the fact that I've not had more success with my online dating, if that's the kind of idiocy I'm competing against.
Over the past year or two, the ubiquity of those , "check your credit score" websites, ads, ad banners, email spam, has grown disturbing. Lately, it seems like half the banner ads that sneak past my Firefox blocking scripts have to do with credit scores. My dad uses AOL for his ISP (over a cable modem, which drives me crazy) and every email he sends has a little ad bar at the bottom, and it's always full of credit score ads. (Apparently they run TV ads too, though I had no way of knowing before I saw the video at the link below.)
I neither know nor care what my credit score is (too high, judging by all the goddamned pre-approved credit card offers I get snail mailed), and hadn't really given any thought to the ads, other than to wonder who was buying them and how the companies selling them were making enough money off of them to keep up the ad buys. If I'd had to guess, I would have said they were ID-theft scams. Trojan horses to obtain your personal information which would then be resold to every other rip off service on earth. Whether or not they correctly informed you of your credit rating wasn't even something I'd seriously considered.
Apparently they're not that bad, or so this financial blogger informs me. Well, they might be; he doesn't address the info-selling aspect of things, but he does point out what a waste of money any such services are.
First, the score itself is not very useful to consumers. What's useful is the report -- if there's an error on the report, then the consumer can try to rectify it. Secondly, and much more importantly, if you want a free credit report, there's only one place to go: annualcreditreport.com. That's the place where the big three credit-rating agencies will give you a genuinely free copy of your credit report once a year, as required by federal law.
You won't be surprised to hear that freescore.com is not free: in order to get any information out of them at all, you have to authorize them to charge you a $29.95 monthly fee. They even extract a dollar out of you up front, just to make sure that money is there.
Ben Stein, here, has become a predatory bait-and-switch merchant, dangling a "free" credit report in front of people so that he can sock them with a massive monthly fee for, essentially, doing nothing at all. Naturally, the people who take him up on this offer will be those who can least afford it.
I actually think this is good news. Not that Ben Stein is a hack, but that these services are just preying on the vulnerable and gullible to sell them something free for $30 a month. I'd have expected a much more massive fraud.
It's been about eight weeks since I saw or spoke with my former best friend, the IG. We had a fight back in late May; she was the angry one who cut off contact, but it was my behavior that caused her to react like that. So blame to go around; to me for being an idiot and to her for not shaking it off or making herself clear in some less-extreme way. That established, we went about a month without speaking other than some very terse texts, and one brief face to face meeting when I retrieved a cat she was taking care of. Over the past couple of weeks we've gotten back to txting a little more frequently, but it's nothing like it was. During the spring we were trading numerous txts every day, talking on the phone several times a week, trading long emails, and hanging out for several hours at a time at least once a week. Perhaps too much time together, for a non-romantic M/F relationship...
The thing that's interesting to me, on a psychological level, is how she feels about our current estranged state. I spent all that time with her since I enjoyed spending time with her. While I understand that my jokes about, "Have you changed your mind about not wanting to fall in love, or be FWBs this week?" got old, and eventually drove her to demand a break, the way she's acting now is very annoying. And yet psychologically interesting.
Basically, she can't live with the fact that she instigated this, that she hurt my feelings and rejected me, and that she's not being a good (or adequate) friend now. She says we're still friends and that she just needs a break and that I need to understand that she's serious about not wanting to date/romance again. That's all quite reasonable. The part that amuses/vexes me is that she doesn't want me to feel bad about it, and she refuses to take responsibility for being the reason I do feel bad.
As I see it, this is classic female-brain behavior. Women are negotiators and peace makers. They feel a need to patch over and soothe disagreements within the tribe. Not always, of course, and not all women, but the female brain tendency is towards agreement. They tend to be very unhappy and discontent when someone they care about is angry with them.
The obvious analogy harkens back to Malaya. During our relationship, I could never be in a bad mood. Especially not at her. If she did something that upset me, then she'd get upset that I was upset. Especially if I was upset with her. Very quickly things would escalate to the point that I had to stop being upset, since my anger was making her crazy, which in turn upset me. It sounds like a nuclear reactor, accelerating itself into a meltdown. It wasn't that bad, but the net result was that I could never be angry with her, since it made her so unhappy. Therefore, it was more or less incumbent upon me to not be in a bad mood or hold anything against her, and whenever she did something to upset me, that act or event became almost immediately irrelevant. (Because her resultant upset immediately trumped whatever I was upset about in the first place.)
I'm not suggesting this whole scenario was a conscious ploy on Malaya's part to change the subject or take my attention away from whatever she'd done to piss me off in the first place. It did basically have that as the end result, but she wasn't faking or pretending about it; she was genuinely anguished by my unhappiness. (And from my PoV, at least those disagreements were easy for me to fix. I just had to stop being upset. The times she was upset about something not due to me were the hard ones, since I couldn't so easily fix that.)
The IG's reaction now is much the same, at its root. She doesn't do the chain reaction/meltdown of increasing unhappiness (Or maybe she does; she doesn't say so in her sporadic txts, but we're not face to face or even voice to voice, so I really don't know for sure.) but she's totally unable to deal with the fact that she's done things to make me unhappy.
She's told me that she misses the long emails I used to send her (regular readers have probably noted an uptick in blogging frequency in June/July now that my various conversational observations are going up here, instead of to the IG via email), but when I do send her something she doesn't reply, or replies with a pointlessly brief comment. If I make a joke about how I'm going back to online dating since I miss leaving the house with female companionship, she gets all upset, like I'm blaming her for the fact that we're not hanging out anymore. After all, it's not like it was her choice to take some time off... oh wait.
The most recent example was yesterday, when I txted her to ask if she thought I could ever be happy dating a woman who wasn't talkative. It wasn't a hypothetical; I've had 2 online dating emails from a woman who is (apparently) interested in me, and they've been about 20 words. Combined. "Hi, how are you today Eric, I like that new photo, how was your trip to San Francisco?" That's almost an exact quote, of an entire email. With much improved spelling/punctuation.
I asked the IG about that since she's always urged me to date more, she loves to matchmake, she knows me pretty well, and (I think) knows that I could never be happy dating a woman who wasn't a good conversationalist with a lot of opinions and ideas. True, email writing doesn't necessarily preview how a face-to-face conversation will unfold (I've definitely learned that lesson in my months of online dating), but there's some correlation. Especially when this woman is the one pursuing me, she's trying to convince me that we should try a date, and she's read my dating site profile in which I stress that good conversation with an intelligent, informed, opinionated woman is about my #1 dating requirement.
The IG said (as I knew she would) something vague but cautiously encouraging, to the tune of, "Give her a chance, you never know!" To which I replied, "Well this woman has mailed me 2x and used about 15 total words. Most misspelled. Seems an ill omen." The IG said nothing back, and five minutes later I added, "Admittedly, the same is true of your emails. But this woman is trying to date me! In theory...."
In my ideal world, the IG would have replied with something like, "True, but it was you thinking with your dick that drove me to it." Which would be as (arguably) true as my comment, and along the same level of playfully-biting sarcasm. In reality, she said nothing for a few hours, and then sent me a long (for a text), hurt-sounding reply along the lines of, "Why do you keep making those sarcastic remarks. They hurt my feelings. I don't want you to be angry with me." Which is a reasonable remark, stemming straight from the typical female mindset of not wanting a friend to be upset... especially with her.
If we were living together, or seeing each other regularly, I'm sure that the same dynamic that went on with Malaya would be going on now. The fact that I was angry with the IG would be the thing that made her upset, and since her being upset was intolerable to me, I'd have to stop being angry to reset the whole dynamic. That's basically what's happening now, minus the fact that I can tolerate her being upset, and plus the fact that she's continuing to upset me by not communicating, not replying to emails, etc.
So my question, if I have one, is this. Does this sort of thing go on with most/all M/F relationships? Is this how most women react to the unhappiness of those they care about?
It's not that women can't take responsibility for being the source of someone else's unhappiness, and it's not that they must resolve, or at least contain/calm down all conflict, but there does seem to be a strong tendency for women to do all they can to avoid feeling that they are to blame for someone else's unhappiness, if that other person is someone they care about.
I don't think that men are immune to this urge, but as I understand it, the male mind is fundamentally more comfortable with competition and discord, even when the problem is with a friend. Brothers are quite often not at all friendly to each other, as their situation drives them to compete for resources and attention, and male friends can get into physical confrontations very easily. Men are able to make up and forget about it fairly easily too, or so the stereotype goes, and most men are much less bothered (than women) by the fact that they may have upset someone else.
In a semi-related issue, I realize that I'm being much more honest with the IG now than I was during the time we were friends, then dating, then friends, and then best friends. Now that I'm not harboring any thoughts, no matter how back burner'ed, about possible romance, I find myself much less concerned by her reaction to my normal behavior. I wasn't lying to her previously, but I was adjusting my personality in various ways. She's a very sweet, sincere, friendly young woman, so when I interacted with her I toned down my sarcasm and snark in general, and especially towards her. I wasn't doing that for some consciously manipulative, "Maybe now she'll want to fuck!" type reason. It was more about the fact that I knew her very well and had learned that she didn't appreciate that sort of thing. I think everyone does that around friends/loved ones; hides or brings out different aspects of their personality.
When you combine that with the fact that one of my (typically male) ways to deal with rejection or emotional upset is to get sarcastic and biting, it's a bad combination in terms of how I'm going to behave towards the IG. Especially when you add in the fact that I'm frequently annoyed with her, and not all that concerned if she realizes it. It's very male of me, I suppose.
Another related observation. The IG has lost about 3 points in attractiveness to me, since we had our falling out. I was going through the pics on my cell phone a couple of days ago, while trying lying on top of the covers in the early morning, waiting to cool down enough to go back to sleep after waking up in a sweat, courtesy of the two cats who were bookending me. And after deleting recent photos of cats and the garden and other bullshit, I eventually got to the 3 or 4 hot photos of the IG I've long cheered myself up by gazing upon. This time I looked and was like... eh.
The girl in them was cute, but nothing amazing. I found myself thinking, "I wouldn't click the thumbnail to see a larger view of these if I saw them on the Internet." Yet I could remember, less than six months ago, finding those exact same pictures absolutely riveting. Funny what emotional and sexual attraction does to the human mind and its ability to judge objectively.
Finally, I'm pretty sure I'm not going to reply again to the online dating woman. She chose me, and though she's fairly cute and slender, I would not have contacted her if I'd seen her profile first. Furthermore, WTF is with her emails? She'd have been hard-pressed to compose 2 messages that I found less appealing than the ones she sent me. Especially since she read my profile and knew the sort of woman I wanted. It's almost like she's playing a game or trying to win a bet: "Can I get this guy to want to date me despite sending him emails of exactly the type he's sure to dislike?"
I think not, even though if online dating has taught me anything it's that you really can't judge another person from their emails.
I took a long lunch break today, and while preparing and eating two shrimp quesadilla supremes, I listened to several of The Atheism Tapes, a series of half hour interviews with prominent atheist thinkers, originally broadcast on the BBC in 2003. The date is of interest since 2003 was a couple of years before the onslaught of best sellers and consciousness raising by the "new atheists" began to kick in, and there are a few questions, especially in the Dawkins interview, about how there don't seem to be many atheists around anymore, and how the science vs. religion debate is dying down, etc. That zeitgeist certainly changed in a hurry.
All of the half hour interviews are good (Well, I can't really recommend the one with Denys Turner, the theologian. I got bored with him and clicked away after 10 minutes.) but I thought two were embed-worthy. (They're all available via google.video.com.)
Daniel Dennett doesn't say anything I haven't heard from him before, but the conversation went into some very interesting areas. There's a lot about how Darwin's magnificent theory changed the world, emancipating the human mind from the ignorant shackles of creationism. Dennett also gives a good version of his argument observation that most people don't actually believe in their precepts of their religion. They "believe in belief." They like the idea of a supervising father figure in the sky, they enjoy the ceremony and socializing at church, they like some of the Bible (or whatever their holy book is) stories, but they don't *really* believe in the supernatural elements of it, as evidenced by their behavior when push comes to shove. Almost everyone uses medicine to live as long as they possibly can, and cries like their world has come to an end when their spouse dies, no matter what their religion says about eternal reunions in Heaven, etc.
The one I enjoyed the most was the interview with Colin McGinn. He's an English philosopher who I'd not previously heard of, and while his talk didn't seem to be very original, in terms of containing his own theories and concepts, it included a really nice summary discussion of the various historical philosophical arguments for and against the existence of a God, whether theistic or deistic. They start around 8:30.
He covers the issue of how there can be pain and suffering in a world created and supervised by an all-knowing, all-loving god. (As He is claimed to be by the major monotheisms.) The standard apologist claim is that God had to give humans free will, so we can do evil if we choose to. But that just leads to the question of why God included free will, when He had to know what it would lead to. Besides, most suffering comes from non-human sources. Natural disasters, disease, accidents, etc.
The other major argument is that God allows suffering and death and bad things as a sort of test. A way for humans to prove their worth. But, as McGinn points out, that's really quite an awful claim. So God gives 4 year olds cancer so that their parents can be tested by the death of their child? God allows entire villages to be wiped out by mud slides to give them an opportunity to overcome adversity? As McGinn says, imagine if a person did that? Or used that excuse? We'd think it unspeakably evil... and yet theologians use it as their major defense of their allegedly loving, compassionate God?
Even without all of that, it's worth listening to just to hear a clear explanation of the mind-bendingly wacky "ontological argument."
A New Hampshire man says he swiped his debit card at a gas station to buy a pack of cigarettes and was charged over 23 quadrillion dollars.
Josh Muszynski (Moo-SIN'-ski) checked his account online a few hours later and saw the 17-digit number — a stunning $23,148,855,308,184,500 (twenty-three quadrillion, one hundred forty-eight trillion, eight hundred fifty-five billion, three hundred eight million, one hundred eighty-four thousand, five hundred dollars).
Muszynski says he spent two hours on the phone with Bank of America trying to sort out the string of numbers and the $15 overdraft fee.
The part that cracked me up was the overdraft fee. Bringing the total for that pack of bad breath and cancer to $23,148,855,308,184,515! It would have been funnier if the guy hadn't checked his statement, and then at the end of the month Visa stuck on their usurious 23%, and his outstanding balance jumped by like, 2x the amount of money in the entire world.
Not turn this blog into all Twilight, all the time, but after I'd read (and reviewed) all of the books, I remembered that they'd made one of the movies already. I'd never seen the trailer for it, other than some tidbits in online ads and TV commercials, and having read all of the novels, I was curious to see how the film adapted the work. Not curious enough to see the movie; I just wanted to get a two-minute look at the vampires and the girl they picked for Bella, etc.
So I searched for Twilight on the apple trailer site, and in addition to the first film's trailer and teasers, there's already a teaser out for movie two, which is due this November, a year (or so) after the first film. A movie a year? Is #3 due out next year, and then 4 the year after? Damn, they are milking that golden cow as quickly as they can, eh? Probably a wise choice, since unlike the Harry Potter novels, the Twilight books aren't actually any good, so I doubt they'll have the shelf life.
The age thing is funny, since the events in the four Twilight books take place over about 18 months, and most of the main characters are ageless vampires, but since they're all in their late teens or 20s-30s, the actors wouldn't age perceptibly over the 6 or 8 years you'd expect 4 (or perhaps 5, if they double up the last, most plot-filled book/film) films to take. Compare that to the Harry Potter films, which were consciously not rushed to crank them out one per year. A decision that has probably contributed to the movies all being pretty good. The first HP film was released in late 2001, and the last is set for 2011, so the actors aged about 10 years over the cycle. Most of them started out a bit older than the book characters they're playing, too, so it's probably lucky that it worked out as well as it did. They further lucked out on Hermoine turning into a beauty; a stroke of fortune only partially offset by Harry topping off at a jockey height that requires them to film from careful angles and with him standing on boxes and stuff.
Digression!
As for the Twilight trailers, I'm only blogging about it since I watched them and was surprised at how bad they looked. Not so much the visuals... well yes, the visuals. But more over, they both give the films such a TV-movie feel. They seem very small and simple and amateurish. Every conversation seems to be filmed from from the side, with the actors face to face. Every action scene is in slow motion, with corny, gaspy-music like you hear when someone's (unsuccessfully) running for their live in a slasher flick. There are way too many closeups and cheesy low level shots of pretty 20-somethings walking towards the camera. It's all just so remedial filmmaking 101, looking on par with an afterschool special.
I remarked several times while reviewing the novels that they were amateurish and very simplified in narrative and structure. I was frustrated by that, but it's quite possible that it works to their advantage, since the Twilight series is drawing in a lot of inexperienced readers who want formulaic simplicity. No fancy writing tricks to distract from the basic romance and simple character interactions.
I don't think that's such a good idea for the movies though, since occasional book fans are quite likely very heavy duty movie fans. And while they might not intellectualize their analysis and displeasure with the (apparent) mediocrity in the craft and construction of the films, everyone viewing them will notice, and have their enjoyment correspondingly reduced.
Other than the smallness of the look of the films, I was surprised by the casting. It was not possible to get actors who look like the vampires are described in the books, without doing some special effects touch up on every frame of the film. After all, in the books there are hundreds of descriptions of Edward and his family as being impossibly beautiful, almost beyond words in their grace, charm, and elegance, gifted with incredibly pale, porcelain skin, etc. I have no ability to judge male attractiveness, but I've heard enough tabloid reports of fangirls mobbing the actor who plays Edward that I'll take it on faith that he'd good looking. That said, he's far, far, far less beautiful than the character, as described in the book. I'm really surprised they let him be all stubbly and capped with that ridiculous pompadour; I would have expected much more of a Greek God look, as Edward was described in the novels. The movie guy looks like a good looking Eastern European chess prodigy. Or possibly figure skater.
His sister is shown in the second trailer, and if not for her role in the birthday party scene, and her short, spiky black hair, I'd never have guessed who it was. She's cute, but nothing like the goddess described in the book. Which is a problem since they cast a very pretty girl for Bella, and as a result she's as pretty or prettier than any of the vampire women. A major theme of the books is that Bella always feels insecure and undeserving of Edward since he and the the other vampires are all impossibly gorgeous, while she's just a typical 17 y/o girl. They might have removed that bit of psychological depth in the films, and if not they should have, since the all-too-human actors don't live up to their intended appearance. Even the Cullen's house falls short; the books describe it as an architectural masterpiece, which Edward's sister is constantly overdecorating for any occasion. And in the trailer it looks like somebody's basement.
Finally, what the hell is up with Jacob? The werewolf, I mean. He's decently muscled (though the book werewolves were described as being body builder like), but he's short? And white! The whole point in the werewolf mythology in the books is that it's a genetic, inherited thing in the Native American community. And furthermore, all of the guys who became werewolves (well, shape shifters, since they can turn into really large wolves on command, without any connection to the full moon or losing themselves in a murderous rage) go through crazy growth spurts, shooting up to about 2 meters tall, in human form. Admittedly, its probably hard to find half a dozen, basketball player-tall, hugely-muscled, Native Americans actors who are under 20 y/o and good looking enough to be in this teen romance fantasy movie series, but still... they could have done better than Marky Mark, circa 1987.
And how about that wolf transformation? And the wolf itself? The transformation is much as it (unimaginatively) was in the book, with them basically just exploding from human into wolf, with their clothing shredding off in the process. (Though I kept wondering why they didn't go with elastic shorts, since wolves are fairly wasp-waisted and their upper thighs aren't thicker than a man's. Dignity, perhaps. Think how silly a wolf would look wearing bike shorts?) The CGI wolf in the 2nd trailer wasn't as silly as that, but it's not very convincing, or impressive. It looks like a realistic stuffed animal, rather than an actual living creature.
Anyway, these aren't the worst trailers ever made or anything, but they certainly didn't impress me or live up to my expectations, and I'm not even much of a fan of the books.
I wasn't motivated to write down any notes during the course of reading this final book in the Twilight series, so this post will adhere closer to my normal review style. If I have a normal review style?
Why no notes? Several factors. I'd already written about most of the incidental issues that bugged me or stirred my curiosity, and I was tired of writing so much about these stupid books. It wasn't just fatigue or ennui though, since most of the things I've been writing about these have been things that annoyed me. This fourth and final (for now) book in the series had less annoying bullshit. It also had a lot more plot and action, so I had less time to meditate on the annoying bullshit while skimming over 20 or 30 straight pages of Bella worrying about if Edward really loved her and if Jacob would remain her friend and if she might regret it once she was a vampire, and if her father and mother would understand, and how she might fake her death since she couldn’t tell any non vampires about it, etc.
The final reason is fairly prosaic. Jinx broke into a rare (for her) long-term lap nap session on me, and forced me to finish off the book. Jinx is always beside me on the bed, but seldom on me in bed, and almost never on me out of bed. This time she was struck by a sudden lap desire while I was sitting in my seldom-used reading chair in the living room, and once she was settled down, the lights went out. She was motionless, except for a slow rotation onto her back, for about two hours, and since I was feeling lazy about working, and didn't need to pee, and was enjoying the book, I just kept reading. And as I've stressed repeatedly, the books in this series can be read very quickly. I didn't count pages, but I probably did 300+ during Jinx's nap. And she wasn't even done then; I had to kick her off and go change clothes, since my legs had gotten all hot and sweaty under a cover and a cat. But at least the book was done, and I wasn't totally disappointed by the ending. (Though I was by several other non-events during the course of this frustrating, payoff-scene-avoiding novel.)
Scores first, for a change. And yes, this review has spoilers, so beware if you've not read the books and think you might. In this, the 4th book in the series, that's finally a viable warning, since there are actually several plot events you won't see coming 200 pages before they arrive.
I gave this one the highest score of the series, and I think it's the best book in the series, on an objective level. I doubt the fangirls think it's the best book in series though, since it's not as romance-centric and concerned (obsessed) with relationship issues and Bella's personal psychological struggles. Which is, I assume, the main selling point, for the true faithful.
I'd have given it higher scores, since it had a fairly good plot and much more stuff happened than the previous books. The problem, for me at least, was that the author cheated the reader out of several of the best scenes, either by having them take place off screen, or else by leading up to grand confrontations, and then sliding past them with disappointing last second plot twists. (Or perhaps I should call them plot un-twists?)
Cheated Reader #1
The first was the big one; the night that Bella and Edward finally have sex. They get married and fly away that night, all the way to Brazil (arriving a day or 2 later, given the travel time). From Rio they take a yacht out to a private island, and there, on their honeymoon, Edward has finally, grudgingly, agreed to try having sex with the human Bella, even though he might lose control in his passion and snap her like a twig. It's time for love, and Edward has left Bella alone in the bungalow. He's outside swimming in the warm ocean, and Bella is inside freaking out over the sexy lingerie her vampire sister-in-law packed for her. She can't decide what to wear, the bikinis are too sexy, so after showering and brushing her teeth and shaving her legs, etc, she finally gets the nerve to walk outside and stand naked beside Edward in the surf. He holds her hand, they kiss... and then it's the next morning and Edward's all guilt-ridden because Bella's got bruises all over her. WTF?
I wasn't expecting some Valley of the Horses-esque extended porn scene, but JFC, after 3 full books of their chaste hugging and no-tongue kissing and never nudity and not even dry humping, can we at least get some sort of description of how things went? Bella was a virgin, and an inexperienced one. That was the first penis she'd ever seen in person. Much less held, sucked, fucked. (And it's icy cold, as all parts of the vampires are, to the human touch. Dicksicle?) Yet we get none of her thoughts on the issue? Better yet, we found out afterwards that, as I'd suspected, Edward was a virgin too. A 104 year old virgin. One would think the event would have been fairly momentous for him as well. But all he feels afterwards is guilt for bruising Bella. (A little more experience and he'll realize that bruises are just a sign you did it properly.)
Cheated Reader #2
The second big rip off came later on, when the werewolves were all marching to war after they found out that Bella was about to have a vampire baby. (Edward got Bella pregnant, since not only could he get an erection, but he could ejaculate, despite having no circulatory functions and no heartbeat. And she came to term in like, 5 weeks, because that accelerated timeline fit the story.) The wolves found out she was pregnant when Jacob went to visit her, and saw that she was enormously gravid and appeared likely to die from the experience. Yet she refused to try to abort it, since she had a feeling it would turn out okay.
Sam, the alpha male, was appalled by the pregnancy and grew determined to wipe it, and all of the Cullens, out. I was eager for that to happen; not that I thought the Cullens might be wiped out, but because all of books 2 and 3 and the start of 4 were just chock full of constant vampire vs. werewolf threats, insults, bragging about combat prowess, vows to kill if X or Y occurred, discussions of instincts and sworn natural enemies, etc. And yet there hadn't been so much as a sucker punch, a shoving match... anything. I was envisioning a great scene of battle in the vampire house, while Bella screamed for them to stop, and then went into labor in the middle of the war.
Of course nothing actually happened. Jacob, Bella's best friend werewolf, had second thoughts, and as the battle was approaching Jacob realized he could tear himself away from the pack and not follow orders. He argued against Sam, and when he couldn’t convince him Jacob raced off to warn the vampires, throwing all of the wolves into confusion. Jacob's friend joined him, turning Jacob into the alpha male of another pack, and then the friend's sister joined up too, and with 3 wolves defending the vampires the other seven weren't willing to attack their friends and the forewarned vampires. So nothing happened except for the protecting werewolves running patrol laps around the vampire mansion for like, 200 pages. And eating the food the vampires ordered in. And getting to be better friends with the blood suckers.
Bleh.
Cheated Reader #3
The third big rip off was the one the biggest, since it was what the entire last book led up to, and it stole away the promised final showdown. All the evil Illuminati vampires were coming to kill the half vampire baby, since vampire babies were forbidden for centuries, since they were hella cute, but couldn't control their blood lust. It was mistaken identity, since it wasn't a real vampire baby, since it was growing and had a heart beat, etc. But it wasn't clear that the Cullens could convince the Illuminati of that before a battle broke out, and it wasn't clear that it would matter, since the Illuminati were spoiling for a fight.
In an effort to bolster their cause, the Cullens called in all of their vampire friends, along with the werewolves who were now also their friends. They all stood out in this grassy meadow in the forest, the thirty-odd Cullens and friends against the forty-odd Illuminati vampires, and another 40 or so common vampire hangers on/tourists.
This was sure to be the big battle we've been waiting 4 books for, and Bella had made contingency plans to have Jacob run to safety with the baby, and given them cash and fake IDs. And she'd also found new powers of her own, the ability to extend her personal shield over all of her friends, blocking them from any psychic (but not physical) attacks.
The Illuminati wanted to fight, and after their first approach, to kill the demon baby, was rebuffed, they killed some vampire who was a friend of some of the Cullens' friends. That didn't work either, so they had their two mages try to use their long range magical powers, but Bella blocked them all. So they talked some more, and after some random 3rd party vampires gave pointless speeches, the Illuminati backed off and went home to Italy.
No really, that was the big showdown of the entire series. It reminded me of the end of Lord of the Rings, when Aragorn and all his dwindled army marched all the way to the Black Gate and called out Sauron's entire army, and then they talked for a bit and resolved their differences amicably and decided to each go their own way, even though Aragorn knew the enemy forces were sure to attack the minute they saw an opportunity.
Oh wait, that didn't happen, because everyone would have fucking thrown the books into the ocean if there'd been such a fail of a grand finale. Twilight set a far lower standard, so there's less disappointment in the various failings to conclude things, or reward the readers with the big scenes the whole series was building up to.
For the whole goddamned Twilight series, the body count of major characters stood at... 1? None? I think none, actually. A lot of unnamed minor characters got killed; humans we saw only in newspaper articles, hikers found mangled in the forest, dozens of minor enemy vampires who menaced Bella, but not a single sympathetic character was killed in the entire series. One werewolf got seriously injured (his super metabolism healed him in like, four days), and Bella nearly died about ten times while a human, but not a single one of the Cullens ever died or was seriously endangered, and the few named characters who died were all bad guys. Weakness.
Not to get all Ann Coulter here, but this is why women shouldn't be allowed to write fantasy novels. Women want everyone to get along and reach consensus and be friends, and it hurts them to have characters who geninuely hate each other, and then act upon that hate. Only a few very bad people (vampires) die in Twilight, and those deaths take place almost entirely off screen. Everyone else winds up being friends; better friends than ever, in most cases. The sworn, implacable enemies wind up... still being enemies, but their certain warfare and mass slaughter turns into talk, and then fairly-amicable parting. (Which sets up additional novels in this world, though I hope not to read them simply because all the big scenes that should have been in this one were cheated out of at the last minute, and I don't want to reward that sort of behavior, nor do I trust Meyer not to do it again next time.
Not to make every fantasy comparison about George R. R. Martin, but when he builds up to a big battle scene and fills a book with feuding factions... there's some by god bloodshed before the final curtain falls. Perhaps too much unrelenting bloodshed, at times, but you know things are serious and the stakes are very high. Martin kills off major characters all the time, even nice ones, in heartbreaking ways. Nothing like that ever happens in Twilight, and while I spent the whole series never seriously worrying about Edward or Bella, I was sure that some of the supporting good guys would meet a messy end. I'm not sure why I was sure; I suppose it just never occurred to me that any author would be so in love with her characters that she couldn't do what needed to be done for the good of the story.
In the end, Twilight turned out to far surpass even the wimpy ending of Harry Potter, in non-body count. At least HP killed off one of the redundant identical twin Weasely brothers in the finale. (Though minus points for illogically sparring all of the Malfoys, just to set up that stupid "history repeats itself twenty years later" epilogue.) And of course the HP series had some nice twists and turns along the way, and Rowling threw in the deaths of both of Harry's father figures to salt his wounds.
Bonus Ret-Con
A fairly minor point, but it amused me.
Once Bella's a vampire she finds herself watching her daughter dream, and sees the child's dreams in wild colors and vivid sensations. And then Bella's like, "No wonder Edward could just sit and watch me dream all those nights!" This felt like a fix-it to me, since Meyer must have gotten a lot of reader feedback about how creepy/stalkery it was for Edward to just watch Bella sleep, and what a stupid box of rocks he must be to not be bored doing it every night. Solution! He can see her dreams and they're so amazing there's no way anyone wouldn't want to watch them all night long.
Of course that was never mentioned in the previous three books, and it's further complicated by the fact that while Bella's daughter can project her thoughts to anyone, Bella is the exact oppose, and is the only person on earth whose thoughts Edward can't read. Except, apparently, her dreams. When it's convenient for the plot. Three books later.
Mary Sue, You Say?
The ending state argues heavily on the Mary Sue camp, as well, when it comes to Bella Swan. As the book ends: she's gorgeous, in total control of her bloodlust urges, deliriously happy in love, has great sex (off screen, always), is richer than can be imagined, has the most perfectly beloved baby on earth (literally), has a great vampire family, still has her human family, has an extended werewolf family, has resolved everything with her werewolf best friend Jacob, and has developed the strongest defensive power any vampire has ever possessed. And none of her friends or family ever died or were even seriously hurt.
Well, that about covers things, then, eh?
Conclusion
In the form of a question. One that I asked of the only person I know who has read this whole series.
If bella were written 50% less whiny and self-absorbed, a ruthless editor cut 200 pages of fluff out of each book, and all of the big showdown scenes weren't awkwardly plotted around at the last second or described entirely after the fact... would it be a great series? A good series? Or would it still be largely fluff and hype; like Underworld written to appeal to thirteen year old girls?
My review of Eclipse, book three in the Twilight series. As was the case in my reviews of Twilight and New Moon, this one is journal style, written in several chunks during the course of reading the book. Each one features my thoughts on the books, their popularity, writing techniques, and other related topics, before getting to an overview and my review scores at the very end.
Eclipse, pages 1-137. Nothing of much interest yet, in this one. It's not as boring as the start of book 2 was, and I have empirical evidence to back up that claim. I started this one at the gym, just as I did book 2, and I read for the same amount of time while doing 55 minutes of cardio on the same two machines. And at the end of that time I was up to page 153 in book 2, while I'm only at 137 in this one. The difference? Not so much boring "Bella is the most heartbroken girl in human history" bullshit to skim over, thus I'm 16 pages off the previous pace. I think the distractions (AKA slender women in tights) were fairly equivalent during both gym sessions.
Anyway, the start of book 3.
Bella is back in love with Edward, his family is living in Shitsticks again, she's got a few months left in her senior year in high school, and is trying to decide if she'll do college, become a vampire as soon as she graduates and can move out. Edward's family voted that she could become a vampire, since the Illuminati Vampires said she has to at some point since mortals can't know their secrets, and they're going to send someone to check. Plus Bella is inexplicably immune to vampire psychic powers, and they think she'll have some amazing abilities once she becomes a vampire and those are amplified by the transformation.
The only question about her becoming one of the Cullen family is when, and by whom. It's very easy to become a vampire in this world. You've just got to be bitten, so the venom on their fangs gets into your system, and then after a few days of thrashing around in agony, you're a vampire. The tricky part is that you've got to live for those 3 days, and most vampires kill their prey shortly after they hit it. They get a bloodlust and can't help themselves. So you've got to get lucky, like a pitchfork-waving mob chases away the vampire, or else you need a friendly vampire to do it, one with enough control to pull himself away rather than finishing you off.
Incidentally, it's never explained how much blood the vampires drink, how often, etc. That their victims almost invariably die is stressed, but do the vampires have some magical ability to hold pints of liquid and literally suck you dry? Or do they just tear the victim apart so that what they don't drink gushes out and goes to waste? Nothing has been mentioned yet about the vampires being able to moderate their needs by sipping it from blood bags, the way it's done in Blade and Underworld and other modern vampire tales. Since the vampires in this mythology can subsist on animal blood, that would seem a very easy solution. Just work in a butcher shop or make a deal with a slaughter house. So perhaps Meyer's vampires must drink it fresh and hot, pumped by a still beating heart. Which could, of course, easily be provided in a slaughter house or on a farm, though that option isn't mentioned. Instead the Cullens go out and hunt bears and mountain lions and such, since it's more macho than just snorting up rabbits like Lindsey Lohan hunched over a toilet seat.
The other early book plot complication is that Bella's former best friend who is now a werewolf is feuding with Edward. Edward doesn't want Bella every out of his reach since he must protect her since there's still one evil vampire trying to catch and kill her. But thanks to an ancient treaty the Cullen vampires can't go into the Indian lands, where the Indian werewolves are now prowling. They're also after the evil vampire, who must be like, fucking suicidal to keep risking her immortal life trying to kill this one girl when the largest vampire family and the largest werewolf pack on earth are both protecting her. If not suicidal, she's definitely stupid, since her plan seems to be to try to run through the forest and right into town, since she knows where Bella lives. How about driving into town and firebombing Bella's house? How about hiring a hitman? If not to kill her, at least to kidnap her and bring her out of the range of her protectors?
There's no hint yet of the ultimate plot of this one, but I'm hoping something big comes up, as it did in book 2. I can't take another 200 pages of Bella feeling torn between her immortal love and her werewolf friend. Her schism is a bit iffy anyway, since on several occasions she's been more than ready to start becoming a vampire right then and there, despite knowing that means she can never come back to Shitsticks since if one of them bites her, even consensually, it breaks the treaty the Cullens have with the local werewolves. One of whom is the friend she's supposedly so concerned about.
I'm not saying that Bella can't or shouldn't want the greatest gift ever. I'm just saying her eagerness for it puts a lie to her, "Oh my poor furry friend Jacob!" since she knows he won't be her friend or ever see her again once she's changed. Which makes the whole "plot" of the early sections of book 3 (and the later sections of book 2), entirely irrelevant.
WvV
The method of combat between wolves and vampires has never been explained (that's probably for the best, as poorly as Meyer writes action sequences). Vampires apparently use just their bare hands (and fangs) when they go into combat. That's plenty for humans, but werewolves are like gigantic wolves, and are as fast and strong as the vampires. So isn't a vampire at a severe disadvantage, with soft human fingers and a tiny human mouth, against a wolf the size of a horse? I guess the vampire could simply tear the werewolf apart if he got a hold of it, but the werewolf could do the same to him, plus the wolf has massive jaws, sharp fangs, and rending claws. One would think the vampires would carry swords, or guns, or wear body armor, or something.
The same thing goes for vampire combat. They just sort of wrestle each other? Again, that's never been explained or seen in the books, thanks to the cheated, disappointing climax of book 1, but how does a vampire fight another vampire? There's much talk of their scary growls, but they don't transform into huge demon bats or anything. And they don't have bigger teeth or wider jaws than any normal human. And none of them seems to have any training in or knowledge of combat or martial arts. If they fight each other to spar, it's never mentioned, and since vampires very seldom fight, and their usual prey are helplessly weak humans... I don't see how a vampire would have the first clue how to fight. They'd be like two overgrown children rolling around in the dirt, scratching and clawing without any real technique. You'd think a smart vampire would invest some time in MMA training, and learn how to break arms and ankles and move an uncooperative enemy into a choke hold. Sure, the other vampire could heal the wounds very quickly, but you break an arm or leg they're going to be greatly slowed, making it all that much easier to tear them apart, etc.
Vampire Sex? Another issue that's never addressed is Edward's sexuality. He was 17 years old when he "died" so he's 17 forever. Isn't he horny? Is horny even possible? There's one brief bit in book one when Bella asks about vampire sex, and Edward says they do it much as humans do. But how? Why? There's never any indication of sexual lust with their attacks on humans; it's just about feeding their blood need.
Furthermore, the vampires in this mythology have no pulse and don't need to breathe. They just do it out of habit, and because they need to breath to use their sense of smell. So if their hearts aren't beating, then how do they function? An organism has to have some means of moving nutrients from the stomach (or wherever the blood is digested) throughout the body. That's what hearts are for; they pump blood which carries oxygen and other essentials from the functional organs out to the extremities. The vamps don't need oxygen, since they don't need to breathe, so how do they heal, if they don't have blood or some sort of circulatory fluid?
Leaving that aside, if they don't have pumping hearts then they don't have blood circulation. So speaking just on the physical question; how can a male vampire get an erection? Erections (page very NSFW) are caused by blood flowing into the corpora cavernosa and being held there by a muscular contraction. How can a vampire do that, if there's no blood flow, or blood to flow?
Physical issues aside, what about emotional? Do vampires, M or F, get horny? They still seem to engage in heterosexual pair bonding, but is that just a habit, is it purely intellectual/emotional, or is there sexuality involved as well? Edward has said no sex with Bella since he might lose control in his excitement and accidentally kill her, but for all we know that's just an excuse. He certainly never seems to be horny, she never notices anything poking at her when they're doing their long embraces on her bed, or she's sitting in his lap, or they're making out.
Also, is he a virgin? He probably got some before he died of TB at age 17, in the early 1900s. But there's no indication he's ever had sex since. He's never been interested in a human female, the females in his vampire family are sister-like or "involved" with other male vampires, and there's very little socialization between vampires, so I can't see him having dated.
It would be funny and a great plot twist if Meyer actually had followed the vampire physiologically issues through to their logical conclusion, determined that no, they can't get erections. Then constructed Edward's, "I might kill you by accident." excuse as just that. An excuse. He's actually incapable of using his penis for anything other than urination, and he has no sexual urges at all, which is why he's so content just holding and lying next to Bella, why he never has any interest in seeing her naked or caressing her body, etc.
I'd find it incredibly funny if all of his impossibly non-intrusive behaviors -- never pushing for sex, never trying to feel her up, never exposing himself to her, etc -- all those actions (and non-actions) that make him such a safe and wonderful crush for the 14 y/o girls this is written for, weren't just signs of his control and patience, but were physical symptoms of his total asexuality.
I'm sure that won't be the case, and finally in book 4 when he's given Bella her ultimate wish and she's a vampire too and they're married and together forever and blissfully happy, they'll retire to the best sex imaginable. (Which will take place entirely off screen.) But imagine the reactions of readers if physical reality intruded, and once Bella was a vampire she found that she had no physical desire but the urge to drink blood, and realized that all those kisses Edward planted on her were entirely for her benefit, and that they meant nothing to him, and that in his condition he's got no more desire to fuck her than to eat a blueberry muffin. Even if he could get his dick hard. Which he can't. Since lacks a functional circulatory system. I would give book 4 a 10 if Meyer did that, no matter how bad the rest of the series is.
Incidentally, I don't know how the series ends, or I didn't know anything about the plot of the books other than some tidbits about book one that I gleaned from movie reviews. I was told that Edward eventually grants Bella her wish, but I don't know if it's all she hopes it will be. That said, even had I not heard that, I would have absolutely no doubt in my mind that that's what will happen. Bella will wind up a vampire, she'll still be impossibly in love with Edward, and he with her. It's a series of romance novels for pubescent girls. I've never even considered the possibility that there won't be a happy ending.
Time of the month One other physical issue the book has never (and will never) address. Menstruation. It's well-established that the vampires are insanely attracted to blood. The sight of it, and the smell of it. Edward is always lingering and sniffing over Bella's neck, wrists, etc. When she got a paper cut and a drop of blood on her finger at her birthday party, the youngest and least controlled vampire went crazy and almost attacked her. So what happens when she's on the rag?
Edward sleeps (well, lies beside her, since he doesn't sleep and has nothing better to do than sit and watch in the darkness while she does) in bed with her most nights. But 3 or 4 or 5 nights a month, she's going to be smelling like prime steak, to him. Not to mention the aroma left in the bathroom trash can, or flushed down the toilet. If a single drop of blood can drive a neutral vampire into a frenzy, the smell of it on her tampon or pad would be impossible to ignore for Edward, to whom Bella's blood smells like the finest nectar on earth.
This issue has never been mentioned, and I'm quite sure never will be, since it's just one of those messy human details that books glide over. I don't need a page on Bella's every bowel movement (though those are literally the only things not so far described in the obsessively diary-like writing style), but her shitting, or not, isn't of any importance to her vampire paramour. Her blood is, and at some times of the month he'd either be unable to be near her with his excitement, or would find her aroma impossibly delicious and would be inseparable. Or something. Anything.
Pages: 138-399. Hark, a plot?
After spilling so many words about the first two books in this series, and then all of the remarks about miscellaneous issues I sandwiched into the first update about book 3, I've got little left to say. This book is probably the best one, so far, on an objective scale. Bella hasn't spent hundreds of pages pouting or whining about how her heartbreak is the worst in the history of humanity. Or slobbering and mooning over how impossibly beautiful Edward is, or how their love is the most amazing emotion ever felt in the history of humanity. Dozens of pages of that, but not hundreds.
Plus book 3 actually has something of a plot, beyond Bella's day to day activities and her current emotional state. It's a very simple plot, to the point that calling the minor complications "twists" is something of a misnomer. I assume the book was written deliberately to allow the reader to feel smart, by telegraphing all of the developments so far in advance. I've personally found it fairly frustrating, since it's so obvious what the evil vampires are doing, what's going to happen when their schemes advance a little further, how the heroes are going to react, etc. But maybe I'm giving the general reading audience (of these books) too much credit, and most people are surprised by the revelations, when the characters eventually figure out something the reader (me) knew 50 or 100 pages before.
Looking at how obvious are the turning of the gears is in this book, I'm forced to think back to the one plot twist that I did enjoy, in book two. Was it actually a good twist? Or was it just that I failed to anticipate it as I have all of the others? After all, a "plot twist" is a subjective thing. If you don't see them coming and appreciate them when they're revealed, they're plot twists. If you don't see them coming and they don’t seem logically supported by the rest of the book, then you feel ripped off or manipulated. If you see them coming, you think the book is stupid. So it's not so much the plot twist itself that determines if it's a good turn of writing. It's more about the reader, and the rest of the book.
Semantics aside, I don't claim to have a perfect vision of how the book is going to unfold. It's just that most of the major plot developments are fairly obvious well in advance of their ultimate developments. The ones that aren't totally telegraphed are fun to consider, and at least that gives me something to think about while I'm reading, since the material is so light and easily-digested that my mind never feels especially engaged.
At this point in book three, we know that the evil vampire has made a bunch of new vampires, her own army, to come and kill the Cullens and Bella, since they were involved in the death of her mate. Her obsession with this seems absurdly drawn out, since she's got the whole world to play in and forever to play. "Solipsism" is a great word, but I don't think it's correct in this case. Bella isn't solipsistic, since the whole world really does revolve around her. All the Cullens are obsessed with her, so are the werewolves, and so are the bad guy vampires. It's literally unbelievable, since she never seems 1/1000th as special and amazing as all the other characters make out. I guess we could call the author solipsistic, since Bella is pretty much Stephenie Meyer's Mary Sue, and she's written these books to make the Bella the center of the universe?
I'm not sure that's quite the right use of the word, but it's definitely the situation. And it's not that Bella is the center of everything that's objectionable; it's that she's not deserving of that much attention, since she's not that remarkable or important or smart or beautiful or personable. She's just a fairly average girl with a weird anti-psychic sort of gift, and yet the vampires, werewolves, etc, are all obsessed with and by her. That is a drawback of the plot, since while things are happening, at their causal level (the amazing Bella Swan) they don't really make any sense.
At any rate, the good guy vampires are readying for an attack by the horde of evil vampires, and the werewolves are going to help them, since they all love Bella, and they want to kill bloodsuckers. I saw this collaborative battle coming from about page 50, when the first very obvious hints were dropped that the evil vampire was raising her own army up in Seattle. Needless to say, none of the supposedly brilliant characters realize it until about page 360, and they never consider that the enemy might come at them, instead of placidly and cluelessly waiting for them to bring the war to Seattle, until about page 380.
This complicates my guessing about the plot twists, since I think of events that would be really cool (what I'd do if I were the author), and then I lose confidence in them when I remember who the author is and who her target audience is. I was certain (and hopeful) that there would be some losses to the good guy vampires in book one, after the way Meyer spent the second half of the book building up the reputation of the evil vampire. And then when the confrontation came, he was disposed of, effortlessly, without so much as scratching any of his killers.
In book 3, with the big fight coming up between the evil vampire horde and the Cullens + the werewolves, I'd write it with massive casualties on both sides. Actually, I'd have had part of the battle already; I'd have had a small squad of the evil vamps infiltrate and attack during the big graduation party, when the Cullens were relaxed and off their guard, and there were tons of innocents to get in the way and slow down the good guys. Needless to say, that didn't happen.
So now the psychic Cullen vampire says the bad guys will come in a pack in 4 days, and the Cullens and the werewolves are in an unprecedented partnership, and are out in the woods at night practicing so they can coordinate their efforts. I'm quite sure there will be a big fight, and I'm quite sure the good guys will win. They'll have to take some casualties, but I’m afraid it'll be like the big battle at the end of Harry Potter book 7, or every scene in Transformers 1, where the good guys win with like 1 casualty, despite the fact that the bad guys massively outnumbered and outgunned them. At an absolute minimum, Bella and Edward will survive, but if I had to bet I'd say that no more than 2 of the Cullens die, and none of the important werewolves. Though possibly Jacob will die, just to provide a convenient solution to the awkward love semi-triangle that's developed.
If I were writing the book, it would be very different. I'd have the good guys win after a tough fight, and just as the Cullens start their bittersweet celebration, hugging their survivors and cradling their dead, the surviving werewolves would break their ancient truce and turn on them, taking the opportunity to wipe out all of the vampires in one swoop. In that scenario Bella and Edward would have to flee, and they'd be trapped and at the mercy of Jacob... who would let his love for Bella color his judgment, and would show a moment of softness and spare Edward's life, (perhaps even killing one of his pack-mates to do so) since Edward's the one Bella really loves and Jacob couldn't kill the man (vampire) who makes her happy. Even though he (Jacob) wants Bella for his own. And then just as Jacob lets them go, some of the Italian Illuminati type vampires descend from above, slaughter Jacob, and demand that Edward turn Bella into a vampire immediately, or they'll kill them both, as promised/threatened in book 2.
That would be a (series of) plot twists that I'd really enjoy. But I think it's far too ruthless and serious and adult for this book, which is why I'm betting on scenario #1; some Harry Potter-esque conclusion where all of the bad guys are disposed of with almost no losses to the good guys, and no lasting changes to the state of equilibrium that's been established throughout books 1-3. Bleh.
I'll find out soon enough, even though this book still has, improbably, over 200 pages to go. Even with the simplicity and speed of Twilight reading, that's more than an hour's work.
Gym Reading Complications
One amusing side effect of the speed with which this fluff can be read, is that I have to plan ahead for the gym. I do about an hour of cardio every time, and I must have enough reading to take me through that whole session. These books go nicely with exercise, but they read so fast that I have to count pages to be sure I have enough left to occupy me through my whole workout. Two days ago when I was nearing the end of book two, I was all ready to leave for the gym, when I realized I only had about 75 pages left, with another 20 of so after that giving a special preview of book 3.
That wasn't enough; I'd have hardly gotten into my elliptical session when I finished the book. I knew I wouldn't want to reread earlier sections. And I knew I didn't want to carry two big hardcover books to the gym with me. So I had to sit down and speed read the last few chapters before I could leave. It actually became a sort or race at the end, since from July 1-5 there's a state fair at the fairgrounds on the other side of the freeway from my apartment. They shoot off fireworks every night after dark, at around 9:30. The show lasts about 15 minutes (I assume it'll be longer tonight, on the actual 4th of July) and as soon as it's over the roads become totally gridlocked, as everyone runs for their cars and squeezes into the freeway via an onramp that is entirely inadequate for that big a crush of traffic. I have to pass over that same onramp myself to get to the gym, so it's essential that I leave before 9:45, and that I return after 11, when the last of the going home traffic has cleared out.
And yes, I could have taken them both and read the last of book 2 in my car in the gym parking lot. Or just grabbed one of the various non-fiction books I've got sitting around to be read. But I wanted to finish book 2, and take book 3 with me to the gym! I don't set a lot of goals in life (much to my detriment) but I do set some for reading, and even more unusually, I tend to stick to them. And my goal in this case was clear. Which is why I flashed through the last 25 pages of book 2 while ignoring the explosions and flashes of light washing over my back patio. Fortunately (?), nothing of any consequence or interest took place at the end of book 2, so my less than total concentration was not a factor in reducing my enjoyment of the work.
Eclipse: Final.
RIP OFF! So comes the big battle, and not only did Meyer avoid doing anything interesting or plot twisty, she even watered down Rowling's watered down, happy, friendly, peaceful, only bad guys get hurt, bullshit. (Which was disappointing from Rowling, since she'd been pretty realistic on most things until she wimped out at the end.) Not one of the good guys died, not one of the vampires was even hurt. Just Jacob the love triangle werewolf, and he only got crunched a bit, when the battle was all but over and he had every other werewolf and vampire there to rescue him. And then the vampire doctor to help heal him.
Better, or worse, the Italian Illuminati vampires did show up right after the battle was over, just in time to not see a trace of the werewolves, who they didn't suspect at all. Even though the book has a thousand times stressed that the werewolves smell horrible to the vampires. So the Illuminati vampires are standing around, being smug and gloating, and giving some grudging props to the Cullens for wiping out the whole mob of evil, untrained, mess-making vampires, and they never wonder about the incredible stink of wolf everywhere, or hear a mention of wolf from the one evil vampire who surrendered. Nor do they give the Cullens any shit about Bella still being human, or even give an ultimatum for her to be changed to a vampire, etc. They just talk for a minute and then wander off. There's not even any menacing mention of them stopping by Shitsticks for a quick snack, just to fuck with Bella's head. Nope, they're happy to just head right back to Italy.
Lame!
Far more annoying was the pre-battle, all of which Bella spent whining and worrying and dithering over the upcoming fight, worrying about Edward, worrying about Jacob, worrying about how she'd feel if either of them got hurt, etc. I'd been annoyed with her previously, but not until near the end of book 3 did I start to hate her. It's not so much that I want her to die, I just want her to stop being such a whiny bratty little bitch. Stop ruining these mediocre stories with your sniveling twatery!
Plot or not?
One related thought. I think I was too harsh on Meyer with my earlier comments about the books lacking a plot. They don't entirely lack a plot, it's just far too flimsy and uneventful a plot to sustain such a long narrative. A really good writer would have packed so many more events and occurrences into these books than Meyer did. Or if written with the same plot, the 4 books of 500+ pages each would have been 2 or 3 books of, at most, 300 pages.
That said, these books aren't about the plot. They're about the characters, or more specifically, about the emotions felt by Bella. The emotions of the males are always very simple and straight forward. They love her, they want to win her over, and their only contradictions and difficulties come from warring against their own natures, or wanting what's best for her. Bella is the one who is constantly a simmering stew of contradictory and warring emotions, and vast chunks of the books are spent entirely in her head as she flips and flops and changes her mind and regrets earlier decisions, and talks herself out of hard choices, etc.
I made some comments elsewhere in these notes about how these books are targeted to girls. Not women. The usual saying is that something separates the men from the boys. The Twilight books separate the genders, and further separate the women from the girls. Not so much chronologically, but emotionally and psychologically. Mature women just wouldn’t find that much to like about these, unless they could really go back to their youthful, indecisive, insecure, love-addled mindset. That's not necessarily a bad thing; we can all enjoy simple, childish pleasures from time to time. But I'd hate to think of a mature, competent woman getting all Twilight fangirl, since it would be an indictment of her own fragile psychological state.
As for men, I'm not sure. I'm kind of enjoying them, but I wouldn't have paid for them or gone to the effort of checking them out of the library. I'm only reading them since Malaya had the four-pack sitting in her bookcase, and I saw it there on a cat-trading visit, and thought to ask her to borrow it over the summer while she was out of town. I'm not alluding disparagement about her psyche by the fact that she owns these books; she buys tons of books and has always been a big gothic romance vampire book fan, so there was no way she couldn't have read these at some point. (Plus she usually uses my "Buy crap!" link, thus giving me 4% cash back on her buys.) My point wasn't that reading them is bad (naturally I'd say that, since I’m reading them) but that any woman over the age of about 17 who becomes a huge fan and obsesses over it or gets all love struck for one or more of the characters is advertising their own psychological immaturity.
I'm not sure that simply liking or emphasizing with Bella is a bad sign, psychologically speaking, but I'd regard it with a bit of suspicion. She's not without redeeming qualities, and I'm sure the author thinks she's the most wonderful character in all of fiction, but I think the series would be, objectively speaking, improved by giving it less reliance on time spent inside of Bella's dithering, dipsy head.
I used the scores for book 2 as my template, and found myself ticking most of them up a notch or two. This is definitely the best book of the lot, simply because it had the most plot and the most activity. At the same time, I realize I'm being worn down by the familiarity of things. If I'd just picked up this book without knowing anything about it, I'd never have gotten through the whole thing. It's an overlong holocaust of emotional whinging, and if I hadn't gotten to know the characters and didn't find myself harboring some vague curiosity for exactly how things are going to turn out in the end, I wouldn’t have finished this one, and I certainly wouldn't have scored it so well.
I almost feel like I’m rating this one compared to the others in the series, the way my scores for chop socky martial arts movies are only relative to other chop socky martial arts movies. In objective movie terms, a chop socky movie that gets an 8 is equivalent to about a 4 in a real world movie, but they're such low budget cheese fests that they can't be evaluated by the same criteria without flattening their scores into a meaningless smudge at the bottom of the scale. The Twilight books aren't quite that bad, but the best of them is nowhere near as good as any competently-written love story or occult tale.
That said, they're better than Anne Rice's vampire stories. I've never made it more than 50 pages into any of her gothic schmaltzes, and here I've read 3 books in the Twilight series in a week. True, I can read 200 pages of one of these in the time it takes to get through 50 pages of an Anne Rice novel, not even counting all the stops and starts her florid, torrid prose gives me, but Rice has more plot in 50 pages than Twilight has in 200, so that should even things out.
