here via your comment on metafandom.paperfloweredAugust 26 2009, 04:38:03 UTC
My understanding of LDS theology is limited, but I did catch some hints of a protestant theology that might be prevalent in the LDS church as well. When I read Breaking Dawn, I thought there were some major religious overtones to Bella's being turned into a vampire. She died, through an extremely painful process (fire of purification?) and when she "came back" she had been "perfected." (On an unrelated note, Meyer seems particularly taken with the idea of bodily perfection.) It read like the vampire (after)life was Heaven, or Heaven-on-Earth, particularly the last few lines of BD. Does that have any connections to LDS afterlife-theology?
Also ...
By the way, just because Edward and Bella don't have sex before marriage does not automatically place this series in the category of 'safe books for your twelve-year-old to read.' Nor should it be guaranteed a spot on a theoretical list of 'moral' books for its (sort of) lack of sex or for being written by an LDS author.
Quoted for great truth. I see this in mainstream Christian circles all the time. It seems to be a not-attitude, like if we can check off a list of things a book is not, we can determine whether or not it is "safe." Rather than something positive and critical, like choosing literature because it is edifying, or challenging, or a number of other good things good literature does. /soapbox
Anyway, thanks for posting, and I'm interested in reading future Parts. :)
Re: here via your comment on metafandom.rose_griffesAugust 27 2009, 03:29:22 UTC
When I read Breaking Dawn, I thought there were some major religious overtones to Bella's being turned into a vampire. She died, through an extremely painful process (fire of purification?) and when she "came back" she had been "perfected."
I've seen other people point to that aspect too--a religious hint of Bella almost as a messianic figure.
The church does teach that people who lived on Earth will be resurrected at some future time in an immortal state. (I don't think that means sparkly, but who knows? *laughs*) I personally didn't connect Bella's vampirisim to an idea of the afterlife/Heaven as I was reading, but I wouldn't argue that there's no connection at all.
I see this in mainstream Christian circles all the time. It seems to be a not-attitude, like if we can check off a list of things a book is not, we can determine whether or not it is "safe." Rather than something positive and critical, like choosing literature because it is edifying, or challenging, or a number of other good things good literature does.
Gah, yes! It can be so frustrating--and I've caught myself doing that a few times, which is even more annoying! Heh.
Checklists are easy and tangible. I can see why people like to use them, but there are lots of things that aren't so easy to measure that should be including in deciding what is 'safe.'
Also ...
By the way, just because Edward and Bella don't have sex before marriage does not automatically place this series in the category of 'safe books for your twelve-year-old to read.' Nor should it be guaranteed a spot on a theoretical list of 'moral' books for its (sort of) lack of sex or for being written by an LDS author.
Quoted for great truth. I see this in mainstream Christian circles all the time. It seems to be a not-attitude, like if we can check off a list of things a book is not, we can determine whether or not it is "safe." Rather than something positive and critical, like choosing literature because it is edifying, or challenging, or a number of other good things good literature does. /soapbox
Anyway, thanks for posting, and I'm interested in reading future Parts. :)
Reply
I've seen other people point to that aspect too--a religious hint of Bella almost as a messianic figure.
The church does teach that people who lived on Earth will be resurrected at some future time in an immortal state. (I don't think that means sparkly, but who knows? *laughs*) I personally didn't connect Bella's vampirisim to an idea of the afterlife/Heaven as I was reading, but I wouldn't argue that there's no connection at all.
I see this in mainstream Christian circles all the time. It seems to be a not-attitude, like if we can check off a list of things a book is not, we can determine whether or not it is "safe." Rather than something positive and critical, like choosing literature because it is edifying, or challenging, or a number of other good things good literature does.
Gah, yes! It can be so frustrating--and I've caught myself doing that a few times, which is even more annoying! Heh.
Checklists are easy and tangible. I can see why people like to use them, but there are lots of things that aren't so easy to measure that should be including in deciding what is 'safe.'
Reply
Leave a comment