Spring Break
'Twilight' sucks, and yes, I'm judging you
Ryan Nowell
Issue date: 12/3/08 Section: Opinion
Researchers have found that pornography has a corrosive effect on the minds of habitual users -- scrambling fight or flight responses, altering serotonin levels, decreasing satisfaction with real-life sex partners and generally muddling of one's ability to empathize.
It is this informational tidbit that pops in my head every time I hear another 20-something declare that Edward Cullen, the fictional vampire protagonist of the "Twilight" series, has ruined real men for them.
Granted, it's not an entirely fair comparison. As far as I know, "Twilight" fans have yet to be associated with the words "compulsive," "soiled," "carpal tunnel" or "dungeon." But it is nonetheless another instance of the pervasive machinery of commerce slipping its way into our hearts and bedrooms.
And don't be fooled, this is a matter of commerce. Pornography is the commercialization of de-contextualized sex; "Twilight" and its ilk are the commercialization of romantic sentiment.
The series, and of course the movie, are products tailored to elicit a specific response from a specific market-share. You're in love with a fictional character? Well of course you are, you have an entire multi-million dollar marketing firm pandering to you in the guise of a laddish vampire boy. He wants nothing more than to gaze at you adoringly, right after he finishes a refreshing Diet 7-Up. Ah! Seven flavors in one drink!
It's rather ingenious, considering the whole vampire myth has been a running penetration allegory since Dracula washed up on British shores to bedevil the neighborhood debutantes and hock chocolatey cereal on the side.
"Twilight's" vampire-that-cannot-partake shtick is the modern, supernatural predecessor of the chastity belt, resulting in enough sexual tension to garner a $70.6 million dollar opening weekend, not to mention a thousand swooning hearts. *sigh*
Of course, this isn't anything new. As anyone who has worked in a book store will tell you, romance novels are the reason the printed medium has endured this long (we probably would've gone back to the chisel in the mid-80s had it not been for Danielle Steele), and "Twilight" is nothing if not an escapist paperback, tarted up and toned down to fit the teeny-bopper demographic.
It is this informational tidbit that pops in my head every time I hear another 20-something declare that Edward Cullen, the fictional vampire protagonist of the "Twilight" series, has ruined real men for them.
Granted, it's not an entirely fair comparison. As far as I know, "Twilight" fans have yet to be associated with the words "compulsive," "soiled," "carpal tunnel" or "dungeon." But it is nonetheless another instance of the pervasive machinery of commerce slipping its way into our hearts and bedrooms.
And don't be fooled, this is a matter of commerce. Pornography is the commercialization of de-contextualized sex; "Twilight" and its ilk are the commercialization of romantic sentiment.
The series, and of course the movie, are products tailored to elicit a specific response from a specific market-share. You're in love with a fictional character? Well of course you are, you have an entire multi-million dollar marketing firm pandering to you in the guise of a laddish vampire boy. He wants nothing more than to gaze at you adoringly, right after he finishes a refreshing Diet 7-Up. Ah! Seven flavors in one drink!
It's rather ingenious, considering the whole vampire myth has been a running penetration allegory since Dracula washed up on British shores to bedevil the neighborhood debutantes and hock chocolatey cereal on the side.
"Twilight's" vampire-that-cannot-partake shtick is the modern, supernatural predecessor of the chastity belt, resulting in enough sexual tension to garner a $70.6 million dollar opening weekend, not to mention a thousand swooning hearts. *sigh*
Of course, this isn't anything new. As anyone who has worked in a book store will tell you, romance novels are the reason the printed medium has endured this long (we probably would've gone back to the chisel in the mid-80s had it not been for Danielle Steele), and "Twilight" is nothing if not an escapist paperback, tarted up and toned down to fit the teeny-bopper demographic.
Viewing Comments 1 - 8 of 9
Lavar
posted 12/03/08 @ 12:54 PM MST
Right smart prose.
But I don't pine over a mythic golden age where everyone loved Joyce and Proust; there never was one. Modern trends don't bely any dumbing down. (Continued…)
Props
posted 12/04/08 @ 2:11 AM MST
Way to go with the reading rainbow reference!
Jay
posted 12/04/08 @ 4:39 PM MST
That has to be the best headline I've ever seen in my life. Well done.
Mark
posted 12/04/08 @ 4:44 PM MST
This piece is incredibly self-indulgent. It's also the funniest thing I've read in months.
Jackie Fortier
posted 12/06/08 @ 4:25 PM MST
Obviously some people haven't read into our media past. In response to the first comment, the media has been pandering to the lowest common denominator since the 80's. (Continued…)
Azeo Sparker
posted 12/06/08 @ 6:36 PM MST
hmmm, i dont like your approach to this, and twilight dosent suck, but twilight is very addictive. it kinda makes you feel like real world isnt worth it. (Continued…)
Lavar
posted 12/08/08 @ 11:31 AM MST
I'm indeed familiar with media, and don't need a movie to give a ham-fisted punch to my intellect. I concede you may have a point with the "dumb-down" of media beginning in the 80s, mostly because this has no century associated with it. (Continued…)
Jeff
posted 12/08/08 @ 10:03 PM MST
*sigh* if only the Rocky Mountain News had published Twilight excerpts...
The "twilight" craze may be annoying because now a bunch of kids want to be mythical blood drinking creatures originally coined after what we would refer to today as war criminals to scare the illiterate public into church; but its just that - a craze. (Continued…)
Post a Comment