What Twilight Means: John Granger, Professor of Meyerology

The Cullens as Trinity or Divine Human Triptych are just background figures for this Eden drama which is the core allegory of the Forks Saga. Again, you cannot get at this if you’re fixated on the YA Harlequin genre, the borderline politically incorrect details of the allegory (Edward as Stalker), or the relatively pedestrian prose of the novels. Meyer’s millions of readers obviously enjoy the simple prose without aesthetic majesty or heights for the accessibility it provides to the greater meaning and experience they get from the story.

You — somewhat reluctantly, but very sportingly — examine the question of how Meyer’s Mormon faith gets worked out in her fiction. What influence does Mormonism have on Twilight?

You can read Meyer and love Twilight, obviously, without knowing anything about Mormonism. Relatively few of her readers understand the depth of the Latter-day Saint influence on her work (or, frankly, care to know about it), so its not the focus of Spotlight. But I had to explore it at some length, however indifferent her Gentile readers are to the subject and despite how prickly to the point of nasty Mormon readers have been in nay-saying that the books are LDS fantasy.

Reading Meyer’s work at any depth and neglecting her LDS world-view is as fruitful as closing your eyes to the Christian content of Lewis, Tolkien, or Rowling. Lewis said once that “to construct plausible and moving ‘other worlds’ you must draw upon the only real ‘other world’ we know, that of the spirit.” The only real “other world” Mrs. Meyer knows, of course, is that of her faith, the Mormon faith of her childhood — complete with rules governing her diet, dress, and dating — of her family life, of her education (BYU), and of the place where she lives. Her personal, family, community, and spiritual identities are all LDS. Her favorite author? Orson Scott Card. Most influential book? Book of Mormon.

It’s daft, then, to think her books can be understood without looking through Mormon seer stones. The mythic content of her stories which are the power of her writing and the real Romance of the books in Frye’s terms, come wrapped in an LDS cloak.

In the last part of Spotlight, consequently, I am obliged to look at Meyer as a Mormon writer. I do that by reviewing the way her books reflect core dogma as well as peripheral LDS beliefs, the ways her books act as apologetic “fantasy conquests” of controversial issues dividing Mormons and Gentiles, and in the several fun ways her books act as criticisms of the LDS world in which she lives, especially the prevalent misogyny. Taking the alliterative route, I think Meyer has to be understood as Mormon Artist, Apologist, and Apostate simultaneously and I try, even though I am not a Mormon, to begin this discussion.

I’ve been disappointed, if not especially surprised, by the Mormon maven response to my taking Meyer’s faith and works seriously. It’s very sad that they dismiss the possibility that she is writing at multiple levels and using traditional tools like literary alchemy and archetypal allegory just because she “isn’t that smart.” A good bit of her books’ criticism of Mormonism, as I said, is about individual and cultural misogyny, and that quality is hard to miss in the patronizing responses to her as a writer made by her faith community’s apologists.

Worse, though, is the online insistence by these Melchizedek priesthood types that there is no meaning in Meyer’s repeated use of Mountain Meadows as scenes of revelation and conflict, of Carlisle Cullen being a 17th century Christian from London, or that Meyer gives Rosalie, the raped and left-for-dead fiancee of Royce King II in Rochester, NY, the maiden name of Joseph Smith, Jr’s first and only legal wife. These religious readers and LDS gatekeepers are as nominalist as the academic deconstruction hard-liners and even more insistent that story only be read at its surface. It reminds me of the odd bed fellows that made up the Harry Haters back in the day: Ivory Tower eggheads and Christian fundamentalists, which groups despised each other as much as they shared a common enemy in Rowling’s literary magic.

Related Topics: I am heartily sorry for having offended thee, stephenie meyer, the holy trinity, twilight, Gaming & Culture
  • omahalawyer

    Lev — this is great. I have not read Meyer’s stuff (my wife couldn’t get through book 1 and told me I would hate it), but with a healthy background in qualitative pop culture critical studies, I appreciate the seriousness with which Granger evaluates the cultural phenomenon that is Twilight. Has he deconstructed your book yet?

  • http://www.twitter.com/leverus Lev Grossman

    Ho yes he has! Rigorously in private, somewhat more mercifully in public:

    http://www.hogwartsprofessor.com/lev-grossmans-the-magicians/comment-page-1/

    p.s. don’t use ‘Granger’ and ‘deconstruct’ in the same post. He’ll cut you, I’ve seen him do it.

  • masurix

    I love this guy’s work and I think his Harry Potter stuff is spot on. However, about this Twilight stuff? Balderdash, sir.

    Harry Potter was a layered, intricate tale with lots of influences. I feel like Granger is reaching to brand Twilight as the same. Twilight is sheer wish fulfillment, and it’s about as deep as a sheen of water over the road after a brief rain storm. The Cullen family as mythical and/or the Holy Trinity? Seriously?

    The story Meyer is trying to tell is actually really amazing if you think about it. I mean, vampires, werewolves, supernatural love triangle, Native American myth, an undead gestapo that rules its subjects with an iron fist – what’s not to love? The only problem is that Meyer just can’t write well enough to get that great story out onto the page. And while I think it’s important to see beyond the words to the plot, I don’t think she should get marks for the story she almost told. The words got in the way, yes, but I think it’s irresponsible to almost completely disregard that when discussing Twilight. (He touched on this with the polite euphemism of ‘pedestrian prose’ but come on, dude. Let’s call it like it is – terribad.)

  • tereglith

    I would like to agree with Masurix – we need only look at the inception of both series to see why. Rowling meticulously planned out the plot of HP before writing to be able to integrate the Christian allegory in the seventh book, and used all of her symbolism very conciously throughout the planning. Meyer, on the other hand, had a dream about a sparkly vampire running through a field and decided to right a book about it.

  • crispy

    I’m sorry but my BS meter is deep in the red. This guy comes across about as succinct and coherent as The Architect in the Matrix trilogy.

    As for his claim that the Twilight books “act as criticisms of the LDS world in which she lives, especially the prevalent misogyny,” I have to wonder if he’s actually read the books! I have. They’re not critical at all, but more like a Mormon manual. The heroine aspires to do little more than cook and clean for the male characters (and later procreate even if it kills her), and at one point she hurls herself off a cliff because her high school boyfriend abandoned her. How could anyone see that as anything but misogyny?

    I find it especially disheartening that the Twilight series now permeates pop culture given that just in the last 10 years we’d finally gotten away from damsel in distress archetypes. Buffy, The Spice Girls, Shrek, Harry Potter, even recent Disney princesses all featured empowered young women. But along comes Stephenie Meyer and her archaic Mormon beliefs to bring that momentum to a screeching halt.

    One would have hoped that Granger’s analysis would be a bit more palpable.

  • masurix

    @crispy: This is gonna sound weird but I’ve come full circle and I’ve finally found some love for Bella. Maybe even a little bit of respect for her.

    I’ve been reading a lot of urban fantasy,which Twilight certainly is, and every single heroine is exactly the same person. The wise-cracking hottie who ends up in some kind of sexual relationship with one or more weird monsters. She’s an independent woman! She’s a butt-kicker! She’s making it on her own! She’s different in exactly the same way as every other urban fantasy heroine. They are Buffy clones without Buffy’s charm.

    Bella is none of those things. She’s a shy, awkward girl who is neither pithy nor butt-kicky. Her self-esteem and self-worth hover around zero and when the most beautiful boy in school looks at her, her common sense goes right out the window. She makes foolish, even dangerous, decisions based on that infatuation. In short, Bella is so much closer to a real teenage girl than people want to give her credit for. And I think that’s the heart of why a brazillion females have glommed onto this series.

    I keep reading about how Bella sets us back 50 years, how real women’s lives don’t revolve around their men and their babies (except that for a lot of us, they actually do). I’ve decided that I kind of like it that Bella got a normal girl’s happily ever after, even if she got there in a roundabout way.

  • crispy

    @masurix: Funny, I was JUST reading your comment in the older John Granger thread and nodding my head, YES, this person totally gets it!

    Your comment above, however, hasn’t convinced me! I suppose I want fantasy stories, particularly those that enjoy such a rabid young following as Twilight does, to feature characters that youngsters can aspire to, not necessarily a reflection of reality. Perhaps it’s true that Bella does indeed reflect a lot of women; still it would have been nice if the character had some personal aspirations beyond Edward. Had Meyer made Bella an aspiring author (not a stretch by any means), she could have easily deflected most of the criticism waged at her.

    In the time since I’ve read the books, though, I have befriended online several fans of the series and am forced to report that even my own mother (sigh) has devoured the series. So I’m not as big a hater as I once was. Many fans I’ve talked to know it’s fluff. The setting-women-back-50-years accusation might be a bit hyperbolic. I’ve no doubt Buffy’s descendants will go on despite Bella Swan.

    Now just don’t get me started on Twilight as an ex-gay allegory!

  • masurix

    Yeah, Bella used to really offend me. However, I now feel like in a sea of “I want to be her” urban fantasy novels, here’s one “I am (or was) her” novel. She’s an everygirl who does stupid stuff for a boy, it just has some novel circumstances around it.

    Mind you, I’d have loved to have seen it done the way you describe. Bella being a capable, confident young woman rather than a mouse would have made the series better all around. I say let’s give the whole thing a reboot and put it in the hands of JK Rowling. That would be awesome.

  • natalie wilson

    Masurix and Crispy,
    I enjoyed your comments above. I agree with Crispy that the series is regressive in many ways, but I also agree with Granger that Meyer does, to an extent, critique Mormonism. Yes, she holds up the “marriage and baby is everything for a woman” idea, but she also shows that it’s’ normal for females to have sexual desire. I think she also hints at the idea that females need more than married monogamy as a goal — Renee is not happy with this set up and many other characters show the importance of mental/career pursuits. I wish she would have gone further, though, in considering the possibilities of a female deity (as I write about here: http://seducedbytwilight.wordpress.com/2010/01/24/where-is-twilight%E2%80%99s-feminine-face-of-god/).
    In general, I think the series is regressive in many respects, but it certainly has hints of subversion…

  • mlwl

    I totally disagree with the BS argument! Meyer admits very little about this and Mr. Granger has only touched the surface, but there is a TON of Mormonism in her books. Bella refuses to get married without the promise of an eternity (heaven); Edward refuses to turn her into a vampire before marriage (LDS followers believe that they will not only live eternally but also have the potential to become creators if they are perfected enough in the afterlife.. to which they bring all knowledge and experiences from the earthly life). The fact that Bella’s life is immensely better after she dies and is reborn as a vampire? Hellllloooo Eternal Marriage. The fact that Rosalie doesn’t feel her life really complete without a child? Very LDS. I’ve even heard a lot of arguments that she actually described Edward as looking like Joseph Smith (except for the golden eyes, hehehe).
    The Host, her sci-fi novel, is rife with their beliefs, too, but the more mundane ones… working as a community, rationing… it’s been too long since I read that one, but there are quite a few there, too.
    It may or may not be intentional, but there is MUCH that correlates.

  • coldshowers

    Sounds to me like a case of “You’ll find anything if you look hard enough”. What about the relationship between Edward, Jacob, and Mike all going for Bella? What does this symbolize? Or about Renee and Bella’s Dad? Or the Swan family, the Cullens, and Jacobs family? Any mystery there?

    How about the secret meaning behind Arizona and Washington being the main two states talked about? Or the # and different kinds of wolves? Anything there?

    It is easy to find some connections in the story and think “something deeper is going on!!” Yet if you go through and point out all of the places where no connections exist, such as in Twilight, you might reconsider the effort you are exerting to find hidden meanings where most likely non exist.

  • coldshowers

    Also, does the writer understand what the trinity is? Clearly, that is a negative. Jesus is included in the trinity, not a fourth part… of a trinity…

    It seems you are making something fit where it does not.

blog comments powered by Disqus