Point of Contention: Part One
Alright. Once again, I am in rant mode. I am terribly sorry for the lengthy speech that is about to follow. Plus, I warn you, I am going all literary snob here. Why? Because people are making hasty judgments about the two books without looking at them closely enough to be criticized. Hence, literary criticism, here I come.
POINT OF CONTENTION: Part One
I am so sick of everyone judging these two books and battling them out with shallow analysis. Bestsellers lists are no measure for a book's worth. Bestseller's lists are just lists for sales, not integrity. We can not control what people buy, unfortunately, but we can give some insight. I wrote this articles to shed my personal opinion on both books, backing them up with things I learned over the years. But I am not the be all and end all of literary criticism. Simply a person who can not withstand people making generalizations based on popularity as a measure of competence.
This was not meant to offend people. Please take that into account. Just a person trying to get her ideas out there though a non-entity blog.
Point A. Genre: Fantasizing vs. Fantasy
Twilight, in all actuality is more of fantasizing than fantasy. It is based on one woman's fantasy of the perfect guys and the perfect world. In the perfect world, we can all be happy by the time we're nineteen with a family and kids without the stigma of an society's scorn. In a perfect world, you can marry a guy who has more money than you will ever need to get all the materialistic things you will ever want like evening dresses for hunting and a special occasion car to drive you to prom. In a perfect world we would be incredibly irresistible to all the male population despite being plain and ordinary. Again, Twilight is more more of one woman's fantasizing...or rather the every-girl's fantasizing.
Harry Potter, however, is truly the creation of a world. Sure, it is less than the mythos proportion given to us by the Tolkien, but grand none the less. To create every fauna and flora out there, every minute detail, every nook and cranny of that world that is the Wizarding World is nothing less than a great feat. And please do not give me the argument that she based it on different myths and legends. Who doesn't? Didn't C.S. Lewis base the Telmarines after Mediterranean pirates? Doesn't Tolkein's Rohirrim feel remenicent of Germanic horsemen and the glory days of the Norse conquerors? Don't the Hobbits seem like common folk of the nearby British country. Isn't the Bene Gesserit based off the Jesuit order? The fact is, that argument is invalid because everything in fantasy is based in actuality, to root it's existence in the sentient world. Harry Potter has achieved what Twilight can not even dream to become. It has become a full pledged fantasy. It has created a rational world with its own rules and laws. The fact that Twilight reinvented the myth of the vampire is not even within arms reach of the feat (especially because in order to come to the end that she wanted - Reneesme - Meyer had to break her own world's rules...or rather bend them to an illogical will). I can not even fault Meyer to her speedy writing. Stephen King does it (without outline and without plotting) and he seems to manage it quite well.
Point B. Cliche: The Misunderstood
I believe that the word cliche is too wantonly thrown around. Once a character's make up resembles that of another, people immediately stamp them out as cliche. How does one define a cliche really? I checked it out in the dictionary. It is a phrase or opinion (in this case character) that has been overused and betrays a lack of original thought. Let's break that down shall we. I'll be using Harry and Bella as our base examples, since the are the main protagonists.
Consider Harry, the young boy on the threshold of discovery that he is indeed a being of a magical world, hidden away for safekeeping so that he may fulfill his greater destiny. Born from a parents of boundless talents and integrity, they sacrificed themselves for their child's safety. Saved by love itself, he grew up into a man with rectitude and is able to fulfill his said destiny by destroying the foe and bringing balance once more to the world.
Cliche or not? I say not. Why? Let me slim it down to two major points. One, the element of choice. It was choice that affected Harry's induction to the position of "chosen one". It was Voldemort's choice to brand him as an equal. It was Voldemort's choice to go to that house on Halloween and make sure he died. It was Dumbledore's choice to send Harry into hiding, to send him to live with Muggles when he was but one year old. It was choice that affected Harry's growth into the boy he was, before he became a wizard. He could have become like Voldemort, in fact worse if he did so choose. I will not go into this further, because it is thoroughly discussed by the author in HBP. In summation, Harry was never meant to do anything. It was choice that brought the circumstances around. Thus, in retrospect, we can even deduce that the Harry Potter Septology is actually more character driven than anyone thought, despite the plot driven framework of the individual seven books. Number two point that indicates that Harry is not a cliche, the use of archetypes. No, no. Literary archetypes are not the same as formulas or patters. They are universal themes that manifest themselves individually. Harry can be treated as a hero archetype, which is completely logical since the book seems to be written in the Campbellian Monomyth schema, in which the hero must go through the journey in order to go through the final task in the end (More on this in Point C. Style). The use of archetypes is not to be looked down on, or is to be seen as cliche. Rest assured, many people use them, some unconsciously, some purposely. Examples of the hero archetype, Frodo, Paul Mua'dib, Hamlet. Note how these characters are so different from each other, despite being of the same mold. An archetype only becomes cliche or a stereotype once it is oversimplified and unjustified. Can we say that about Harry? No. Harry's character has motivation, reason and logic, flaws and strengths, individual uniqueness and emotional struggle. His character is indeed complex to the point of debate and discussion (even in the realms of the academe) This point extends to Ron (the lover archetype, despite how unconventional it may seen), Hermione (the caregiver, with an interesting twist, in addition to being the mirror character of Dumbledore) etc. etc. (For more information check out The Hero of A Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell and . Excellent book, if I do say so myself).
Now let's look at Bella. A shy, small town girl with spitfire and spunk. She is horribly plain looking, yet irresistible to all the male population within the school (and our certain vampire heartthrob). Responsible and selfless to fault, she is willing to give up anything to be with her one true love, Edward Cullen, a member of the undead kind.
Upon first glance, we actually see a lot of potential in dear Bella Swan. She seems like an interesting mix of the Caregiver and the Orphan (aka. the Regular Guy/Gal). Her situation with Edward is reminiscent of the "star-crossed lovers" archetype, which has, in the past, served us well with works such as Romeo and Juliet and Pride and Prejudice. But which such promise as this, how did Bella Swan fall to be an overused character? Simply because she became oversimplified. Her entire situation, which had such potential for intricate meaning and depth fell short with her shallow characterization. Why is Bella irresistible? Because of her novelty (so Meyer says). Why is she selfless, it is innate within her. Why is Edward Cullen hopelessly in love with her, and vice-versa? No specific reason, fate perhaps or destiny. It was an inexplicable pull towards the other. Everything about Bella's character was left to either fate or innate abilities. Even her inexplicable power in the end of the 4th Book was not even truly and sufficiently explained. Bella Swan will forever be under the shadow of the Austen and Bronte heroines to which she was molded after. In this point I am reminded of Dr. Frankenstein, in which I think that both he and Meyer are guilty of the same error. Though the monster may be made up of human parts, it does not necessarily mean it will be human in the end. It is the same with Meyer. She admittedly cast her protagonist in the forms of the classical heroines and heros, and yet in her attempt to amalgamize those great chracteristics that we all loved in these said characters, she fell short, leaving her characterization bland and reliant on fate and innate gifts of the anima. Such a fault is also true for the rest of her characters, Edward and the rest of his family, the Quillets and the humans. All created under the design for a unique and empathetic character, but falling under the overconfidence in those inspirations to translate a truly rounded character.
But most would appeal that the element of choice be applicable to Bella as well. Why, Meyer herself attests to it as a viable part of her "message". But the truth is, choice in the Meyer novels is nothing more than a mask for the underlaying fatalism that prevails stronger than any choice Bella may have made. She was meant to find Edward. She was meant to love Edward. She was meant to bear the child Reneesme. She was meant to meet Jacob and kindle a relationship that would bridge the worlds of the werewolves and shapeshifters. All of Meyer's reasoning lies on the thin ice which is fate. She cannot provide a reason as to any of her events. Hence, falling into the crime of cliche, where her star-crossed lovers are just like any other in a Harlequin pocketbook, or her vampires (despite their unique make-up) just another in the string of attempts at creating a grand mythos.
In summation, in bird's eye view Harry's character seems truly like every other hero character out there with a sympathetic past and a glistening future, but the element of choice stirred him away from the commonplace penny-a-piece protagonist and has created him into an individual, both within the spectrum of the novels and in the spectrum of literature itself. On the other face of the coin, we have Bella, who has boundless promise but lacks the drive to fulfill her potential. The fatalistic tendencies of her characterization has pushed her into the eternal abyss of the multitudes of other characters who seem to be nothing more than carbon copies of each other.
Can we fault this to time? Given that Harry Potter had so much time in between them and Twilight only a year to write and publish? No. Time has nothing to do with it. Once again, let me sight Stephen King, who's prolific career has produced an average of 2 books a year (at the highest point), most of them lauded. Other examples? William Faulkner, Alexander Dumas pere, Victor Hugo and many more. All publishing at relatively the same speed as Meyer, but never falling into short, shabby characterization.
Point C. Style: The Fashion of Literature
Before we can even touch on the matter of style, we must first know what style is. Is it the language? The structure? The voice in which the story is told? What is more, we must question how can one be the judge of style? Is it simply a matter of personal taste or something that is judged by a close-cut criteria? I am telling you now that I will never be able to answer that question. The question of style is something that has been discussed and debated for hundreds of years, spurring out philosophies and paradigms of literary criticism, all saying one thing and then another. But what I can give you is my take on style, which I will briefly discuss in three elements. The Heresy of Paraphrase, Language and Structure.
But this is going to be a little long, so please wait for the next article (POINT OF CONTENTION PART 2).
POINT OF CONTENTION: Part One
I am so sick of everyone judging these two books and battling them out with shallow analysis. Bestsellers lists are no measure for a book's worth. Bestseller's lists are just lists for sales, not integrity. We can not control what people buy, unfortunately, but we can give some insight. I wrote this articles to shed my personal opinion on both books, backing them up with things I learned over the years. But I am not the be all and end all of literary criticism. Simply a person who can not withstand people making generalizations based on popularity as a measure of competence.
This was not meant to offend people. Please take that into account. Just a person trying to get her ideas out there though a non-entity blog.
Point A. Genre: Fantasizing vs. Fantasy
Twilight, in all actuality is more of fantasizing than fantasy. It is based on one woman's fantasy of the perfect guys and the perfect world. In the perfect world, we can all be happy by the time we're nineteen with a family and kids without the stigma of an society's scorn. In a perfect world, you can marry a guy who has more money than you will ever need to get all the materialistic things you will ever want like evening dresses for hunting and a special occasion car to drive you to prom. In a perfect world we would be incredibly irresistible to all the male population despite being plain and ordinary. Again, Twilight is more more of one woman's fantasizing...or rather the every-girl's fantasizing.
Harry Potter, however, is truly the creation of a world. Sure, it is less than the mythos proportion given to us by the Tolkien, but grand none the less. To create every fauna and flora out there, every minute detail, every nook and cranny of that world that is the Wizarding World is nothing less than a great feat. And please do not give me the argument that she based it on different myths and legends. Who doesn't? Didn't C.S. Lewis base the Telmarines after Mediterranean pirates? Doesn't Tolkein's Rohirrim feel remenicent of Germanic horsemen and the glory days of the Norse conquerors? Don't the Hobbits seem like common folk of the nearby British country. Isn't the Bene Gesserit based off the Jesuit order? The fact is, that argument is invalid because everything in fantasy is based in actuality, to root it's existence in the sentient world. Harry Potter has achieved what Twilight can not even dream to become. It has become a full pledged fantasy. It has created a rational world with its own rules and laws. The fact that Twilight reinvented the myth of the vampire is not even within arms reach of the feat (especially because in order to come to the end that she wanted - Reneesme - Meyer had to break her own world's rules...or rather bend them to an illogical will). I can not even fault Meyer to her speedy writing. Stephen King does it (without outline and without plotting) and he seems to manage it quite well.
Point B. Cliche: The Misunderstood
I believe that the word cliche is too wantonly thrown around. Once a character's make up resembles that of another, people immediately stamp them out as cliche. How does one define a cliche really? I checked it out in the dictionary. It is a phrase or opinion (in this case character) that has been overused and betrays a lack of original thought. Let's break that down shall we. I'll be using Harry and Bella as our base examples, since the are the main protagonists.
Consider Harry, the young boy on the threshold of discovery that he is indeed a being of a magical world, hidden away for safekeeping so that he may fulfill his greater destiny. Born from a parents of boundless talents and integrity, they sacrificed themselves for their child's safety. Saved by love itself, he grew up into a man with rectitude and is able to fulfill his said destiny by destroying the foe and bringing balance once more to the world.
Cliche or not? I say not. Why? Let me slim it down to two major points. One, the element of choice. It was choice that affected Harry's induction to the position of "chosen one". It was Voldemort's choice to brand him as an equal. It was Voldemort's choice to go to that house on Halloween and make sure he died. It was Dumbledore's choice to send Harry into hiding, to send him to live with Muggles when he was but one year old. It was choice that affected Harry's growth into the boy he was, before he became a wizard. He could have become like Voldemort, in fact worse if he did so choose. I will not go into this further, because it is thoroughly discussed by the author in HBP. In summation, Harry was never meant to do anything. It was choice that brought the circumstances around. Thus, in retrospect, we can even deduce that the Harry Potter Septology is actually more character driven than anyone thought, despite the plot driven framework of the individual seven books. Number two point that indicates that Harry is not a cliche, the use of archetypes. No, no. Literary archetypes are not the same as formulas or patters. They are universal themes that manifest themselves individually. Harry can be treated as a hero archetype, which is completely logical since the book seems to be written in the Campbellian Monomyth schema, in which the hero must go through the journey in order to go through the final task in the end (More on this in Point C. Style). The use of archetypes is not to be looked down on, or is to be seen as cliche. Rest assured, many people use them, some unconsciously, some purposely. Examples of the hero archetype, Frodo, Paul Mua'dib, Hamlet. Note how these characters are so different from each other, despite being of the same mold. An archetype only becomes cliche or a stereotype once it is oversimplified and unjustified. Can we say that about Harry? No. Harry's character has motivation, reason and logic, flaws and strengths, individual uniqueness and emotional struggle. His character is indeed complex to the point of debate and discussion (even in the realms of the academe) This point extends to Ron (the lover archetype, despite how unconventional it may seen), Hermione (the caregiver, with an interesting twist, in addition to being the mirror character of Dumbledore) etc. etc. (For more information check out The Hero of A Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell and . Excellent book, if I do say so myself).
Now let's look at Bella. A shy, small town girl with spitfire and spunk. She is horribly plain looking, yet irresistible to all the male population within the school (and our certain vampire heartthrob). Responsible and selfless to fault, she is willing to give up anything to be with her one true love, Edward Cullen, a member of the undead kind.
Upon first glance, we actually see a lot of potential in dear Bella Swan. She seems like an interesting mix of the Caregiver and the Orphan (aka. the Regular Guy/Gal). Her situation with Edward is reminiscent of the "star-crossed lovers" archetype, which has, in the past, served us well with works such as Romeo and Juliet and Pride and Prejudice. But which such promise as this, how did Bella Swan fall to be an overused character? Simply because she became oversimplified. Her entire situation, which had such potential for intricate meaning and depth fell short with her shallow characterization. Why is Bella irresistible? Because of her novelty (so Meyer says). Why is she selfless, it is innate within her. Why is Edward Cullen hopelessly in love with her, and vice-versa? No specific reason, fate perhaps or destiny. It was an inexplicable pull towards the other. Everything about Bella's character was left to either fate or innate abilities. Even her inexplicable power in the end of the 4th Book was not even truly and sufficiently explained. Bella Swan will forever be under the shadow of the Austen and Bronte heroines to which she was molded after. In this point I am reminded of Dr. Frankenstein, in which I think that both he and Meyer are guilty of the same error. Though the monster may be made up of human parts, it does not necessarily mean it will be human in the end. It is the same with Meyer. She admittedly cast her protagonist in the forms of the classical heroines and heros, and yet in her attempt to amalgamize those great chracteristics that we all loved in these said characters, she fell short, leaving her characterization bland and reliant on fate and innate gifts of the anima. Such a fault is also true for the rest of her characters, Edward and the rest of his family, the Quillets and the humans. All created under the design for a unique and empathetic character, but falling under the overconfidence in those inspirations to translate a truly rounded character.
But most would appeal that the element of choice be applicable to Bella as well. Why, Meyer herself attests to it as a viable part of her "message". But the truth is, choice in the Meyer novels is nothing more than a mask for the underlaying fatalism that prevails stronger than any choice Bella may have made. She was meant to find Edward. She was meant to love Edward. She was meant to bear the child Reneesme. She was meant to meet Jacob and kindle a relationship that would bridge the worlds of the werewolves and shapeshifters. All of Meyer's reasoning lies on the thin ice which is fate. She cannot provide a reason as to any of her events. Hence, falling into the crime of cliche, where her star-crossed lovers are just like any other in a Harlequin pocketbook, or her vampires (despite their unique make-up) just another in the string of attempts at creating a grand mythos.
In summation, in bird's eye view Harry's character seems truly like every other hero character out there with a sympathetic past and a glistening future, but the element of choice stirred him away from the commonplace penny-a-piece protagonist and has created him into an individual, both within the spectrum of the novels and in the spectrum of literature itself. On the other face of the coin, we have Bella, who has boundless promise but lacks the drive to fulfill her potential. The fatalistic tendencies of her characterization has pushed her into the eternal abyss of the multitudes of other characters who seem to be nothing more than carbon copies of each other.
Can we fault this to time? Given that Harry Potter had so much time in between them and Twilight only a year to write and publish? No. Time has nothing to do with it. Once again, let me sight Stephen King, who's prolific career has produced an average of 2 books a year (at the highest point), most of them lauded. Other examples? William Faulkner, Alexander Dumas pere, Victor Hugo and many more. All publishing at relatively the same speed as Meyer, but never falling into short, shabby characterization.
Point C. Style: The Fashion of Literature
Before we can even touch on the matter of style, we must first know what style is. Is it the language? The structure? The voice in which the story is told? What is more, we must question how can one be the judge of style? Is it simply a matter of personal taste or something that is judged by a close-cut criteria? I am telling you now that I will never be able to answer that question. The question of style is something that has been discussed and debated for hundreds of years, spurring out philosophies and paradigms of literary criticism, all saying one thing and then another. But what I can give you is my take on style, which I will briefly discuss in three elements. The Heresy of Paraphrase, Language and Structure.
But this is going to be a little long, so please wait for the next article (POINT OF CONTENTION PART 2).