Arrrzzzhhdkdpif Grffffle!!
-
So Stephen King thinks Stephenie Meyer (author of Twilight) "can't write worth a darn. She's not very good." And the renowned tween girl expert goes on to say that "she's writing to a whole generation of girls and opening up kind of a safe joining of love and sex in those books. It's exciting and it's thrilling and it's not particularly threatening because it's not overtly sexual. . . . A lot of the physical side of it is conveyed in things like the vampire will touch her forearm or run a hand over skin, and she just flushes all hot and cold. And for girls, that's a shorthand for all the feelings that they're not ready to deal with yet."
Oh, go fug yourself, Stephen. First of all, she can write worth a darn. Several million darns, as a matter of fact. She's not brilliant, but then neither are you. She's good. Above average. JUST LIKE YOU.
I remember picking up Scott Smith's The Ruins after King raved about it in his Entertainment Weekly column. And I remember thinking after I read it, "Hmm. That was merely good. Enjoyable in a very, very pedestrian way." Could his fireworks over Scott Smith's writing have anything to do with the fact that he likes thriller, and doesn't like teenage girl romances?
Once again, Dear Reader, I smell the ugly rat of sexism at work. People just don't realize how very narrow their own preferences are---and how constantly they mistake those preferences for quality. Not to go all godlike and omniscient on you, but I assure you: Scott Smith is no better a writer than Stephenie Meyer. There's a prejudice against the genre that is coloring critical opinion against Meyer, and it has something to do with Twilight being written for girls and women. Thrillers and action movies (think Bourne Supremacy, think Ronin) are often touted as great, sometimes exactly because of their genre (think phrases like "testosterone-fueled" and "energy-filled action fest"). Not so with female genres: the movie is either good despite the genre, or silly because of it.
I used to take a more chill attitude toward this. After all, women can enjoy male-genre movies, so we have the best of both worlds. If men experience both an interior and societal taboo against liking female-genre movies, then that's their loss. But this year, with the incredible---and, to movie execs and critics, flabbergasting---success of Sex in the City and Twilight, it became apparent how much great art women are denied because of these prejudices.
And if I hear one more man talk about how Twilight represents "safe sexuality" for girls, I will puke. All sexuality in art is safe sexuality. And teenage girls are not particularly known for "feelings that they're not ready to deal with yet" (if ya know what I mean; there's plenty of dealing going on). Can you imagine any critic saying such a thing about boys? Really, imagine reading:
"Maxim is exciting and it's thrilling and it's not particularly threatening because it's not overtly sexual. . . . A lot of the physical side of it is understated, and for boys, that's a shorthand for all the feelings that they're not ready to deal with yet."
I've noted in the past that war and action movies fill a similar fantasy role for boys and men, if fantasy is what you want to call it. Their love of movies like 300, Saving Private Ryan, and Band of Brothers is so analogous to women's love of romantic movies, yet men consider these movies to be primal, brutally realistic, and relevant. I'm talking about men who have never come close to the bottom of a foxhole, and who would probably scream like an infant if they did. But these dramatizations of violence, strength, and bravery connect deeply with us, and deserve the honor they get. I only wish we could expand that circle of honor to include art that connects deeply with women.
-
So Stephen King thinks Stephenie Meyer (author of Twilight) "can't write worth a darn. She's not very good." And the renowned tween girl expert goes on to say that "she's writing to a whole generation of girls and opening up kind of a safe joining of love and sex in those books. It's exciting and it's thrilling and it's not particularly threatening because it's not overtly sexual. . . . A lot of the physical side of it is conveyed in things like the vampire will touch her forearm or run a hand over skin, and she just flushes all hot and cold. And for girls, that's a shorthand for all the feelings that they're not ready to deal with yet."
Oh, go fug yourself, Stephen. First of all, she can write worth a darn. Several million darns, as a matter of fact. She's not brilliant, but then neither are you. She's good. Above average. JUST LIKE YOU.
I remember picking up Scott Smith's The Ruins after King raved about it in his Entertainment Weekly column. And I remember thinking after I read it, "Hmm. That was merely good. Enjoyable in a very, very pedestrian way." Could his fireworks over Scott Smith's writing have anything to do with the fact that he likes thriller, and doesn't like teenage girl romances?
Once again, Dear Reader, I smell the ugly rat of sexism at work. People just don't realize how very narrow their own preferences are---and how constantly they mistake those preferences for quality. Not to go all godlike and omniscient on you, but I assure you: Scott Smith is no better a writer than Stephenie Meyer. There's a prejudice against the genre that is coloring critical opinion against Meyer, and it has something to do with Twilight being written for girls and women. Thrillers and action movies (think Bourne Supremacy, think Ronin) are often touted as great, sometimes exactly because of their genre (think phrases like "testosterone-fueled" and "energy-filled action fest"). Not so with female genres: the movie is either good despite the genre, or silly because of it.
I used to take a more chill attitude toward this. After all, women can enjoy male-genre movies, so we have the best of both worlds. If men experience both an interior and societal taboo against liking female-genre movies, then that's their loss. But this year, with the incredible---and, to movie execs and critics, flabbergasting---success of Sex in the City and Twilight, it became apparent how much great art women are denied because of these prejudices.
And if I hear one more man talk about how Twilight represents "safe sexuality" for girls, I will puke. All sexuality in art is safe sexuality. And teenage girls are not particularly known for "feelings that they're not ready to deal with yet" (if ya know what I mean; there's plenty of dealing going on). Can you imagine any critic saying such a thing about boys? Really, imagine reading:
"Maxim is exciting and it's thrilling and it's not particularly threatening because it's not overtly sexual. . . . A lot of the physical side of it is understated, and for boys, that's a shorthand for all the feelings that they're not ready to deal with yet."
I've noted in the past that war and action movies fill a similar fantasy role for boys and men, if fantasy is what you want to call it. Their love of movies like 300, Saving Private Ryan, and Band of Brothers is so analogous to women's love of romantic movies, yet men consider these movies to be primal, brutally realistic, and relevant. I'm talking about men who have never come close to the bottom of a foxhole, and who would probably scream like an infant if they did. But these dramatizations of violence, strength, and bravery connect deeply with us, and deserve the honor they get. I only wish we could expand that circle of honor to include art that connects deeply with women.
-
posted by Anonymous at
4:20 PM
1 Comments:
well said. when you first suggested the sexism to me, i was skeptical. i think you've made your case. that is, i think it's more than possible that king was blinded by personal preference, and i definitely see a pattern of disparagement of "the chick flick," an odious term in any case.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home