# So, I Read Twilight **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [April 11, 2009, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-read-twilight/492774 "2009-04-11T21:20:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-read-twilight/492774/101 "2009-04-14T15:31:23Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > In the latest issue of _GQ_, there’s an interview with Pattinson. He made a bet with Rupert Grint, who plays Ron in the _Harry Potter_ movies (Pattinson played Cedric Diggory in _Goblet of Fire_) to read them. Grint thought they were horrid. Even Pattinson hates Edward-so he said he plays him as someone who basically hates himself. Good call. I do have to say that as much as I am indifferent to the _Twilight_ books (and imagine if I knew them better, I would activley dislike them), I much more dislike Pattinson’s attitude. As an actor, I think he should respect his material. If he’s doing things he can’t respect, then he’s a hack. I think that acting like he’s too good for the role that _he himself has chosen to play_ is extremely unprofessional of him, as is disrespecting the author while taking huge sums of money to embody her character. It the material is crap, then you’re a person who would spout crap for money. Why he thinks that puts him on the artistic high road, I have no idea. Now, his dubiousness about the screaming insane fans, I can completely get behind. The rest of it – not so much. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-read-twilight/492774/102 "2009-04-14T15:54:48Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > I do have to say that as much as I am indifferent to the _Twilight_ books (and imagine if I knew them better, I would activley dislike them), I much more dislike Pattinson’s attitude. > > As an actor, I think he should respect his material. If he’s doing things he can’t respect, then he’s a hack. I think that acting like he’s too good for the role that _he himself has chosen to play_ is extremely unprofessional of him, as is disrespecting the author while taking huge sums of money to embody her character. > > It the material is crap, then you’re a person who would spout crap for money. Why he thinks that puts him on the artistic high road, I have no idea. > > Now, his dubiousness about the screaming insane fans, I can completely get behind. The rest of it – not so much. I actually think Pattinson has a better grip on what Edward’s all about than Stephenie Meyer does. Edward does hate himself, and that’s why his life is so empty and meaningless before he meets Bella. He believes that he is a degraded monster, a sinner, damned to hell, before he meets Bella (that’s why he doesn’t want to make her a vampire: he believes he will be damning her soul to hell, an objection that clearly falls by the wayside when it becomes inconvenient). In Bella, he finds someone helpless and totally devoted to him, whom he must protect and defend. He can control her and she belongs to him utterly, and she reflects back to him the image of himself he most wants to believe is true but couldn’t before, which gives his self-pitying life meaning and makes him be, in the words of Melvin Udall, a better man. It’s the epitome of co-dependence, a type of relationship chosen by people who have no real sense of self. I don’t think Stephenie Meyer sees Edward that way, since she openly states that she’s “in love” with him, but sometimes, objective third parties can see your work more clearly than you can. Pattinson is seeing the truth of Edward’s character and the sick nature of his love affair with Bella, and is doing a good job depicting it. I don’t think that makes him a hack. That makes him an actor who is doing the best he can to bring truth to mediocre material. If he played Edward as a straight up romantic hero, it would be even more inauthentic and nausea-inducing. ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-read-twilight/492774/103 "2009-04-14T16:24:10Z")
Eh, and maybe he had some bills to play. I don’t think every role played by an actor has to have that actor’s approval. IMO, most likely, Pattinson sees all the flaws of Edward and doesn’t respect him-good call. I do see what **Jodi** is saying, though–it is snide to “diss” a role that you are now tied to publicly. There are classier ways to show you don’t agree with Eddy’s worldview or the author’s. You could insist (much like Renee Zellwegger did) that he is an interesting character and you welcomed the chance to play someone so unlike yourself (she said something similar re Bridget Jones. I think she was afraid of being typecast forever as BJ clones–afterall, look what happened to Meg Ryan). Then again, we are not in the world of the Harry Potter actors. This particular Brat Pack must face pressures and temptations we cannot envision, so I cut him some slack. ---
**Author:** ![phall0106](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/phall0106/32/5934_2.png) [@phall0106](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/phall0106)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-read-twilight/492774/104 "2009-04-14T16:30:58Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > I read the first book and found it both tedious and poorly written – not a winner combination, but then I’m 20 years older than the target audience. (Which brings me to the phenomenon I don’t understand, the Twilight Moms, who _are_ women about my age, who apparently _adore_ these books: Really? I can see a 13 year old falling for the “romance” of being completely over-mastered by a male, and overlooking the shitty writing, but what’s your excuse, ladies?) > > Anyway, I couldn’t be arsed to read any of the rest of them. This thread (and the links in it) have been way more entertaining than the book was. Hallgirl (almost 25) and I read the books, but aren’t rabid fans by any means. (I wouldn’t even call us fans…) Anyho, we were at the mall and walked by Hot Topic and were simply amazed at all the Twilight stuff in the window–keychains, stickers, tees, jewelry, so we went in to see how much bizarre crap they could put out to sell that featured the Twilight logo. We’d not made it much past the door when one of the employees came up and was THRILLED that the DVD movie was coming out (this was before the movie was released on DVD) and went on and on about how they were throwing a Twilight Screening Party. Hallgirl and I were staring at her like she was insane and we quickly got the hell out of there. The employee was at least in her late 30s and the whole thing was creepy. I later saw on TV the number of GROWN WOMEN at the screening… ---
**Author:** ![anu-la1979](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/47e85d/32.png) [@anu-la1979](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anu-la1979)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-read-twilight/492774/105 "2009-04-14T16:34:31Z")
I actually think Pattinson elevated the role with his snarky take on it. Edward is a 108 year old virgin and a bloodsucker. He’s by himself in a family full of banging couples. He pretty much hates himself and his life till Bella comes along. To StephEnie a 108 year old dead virgin with stalker tendencies may be the greatest/hottest thing ever but I agree with RP’s take on it that the average intelligent person is going to think that a guy like that is supposed to be a priggish weirdo. For all that he has snarked on the source material, he didn’t check out of the film when he easily could have. It’s almost like he read Cleolinda’s take on the series before he showed up on the set-the books only work if you look at them as a creepy infatuation between a priggish ancient bloodsucking virgin and a lonely bland and hey…whatever works for the weirdos. They’re delectably snarkable because they’re marketed as Twue Wuv. So yeah, he called the author out for being crazy (and she comes off as crazy) and said the source material is crap. I’ll give him a pass because he improved on it instead of just sitting aside and b\*tching. (as an aside, we should start a “Why don’t girls like me” authored by Edward Cullen thread with all the usual suspects weighing in to berate the OP and make him feel like a tool. I’m dying thinking of what **WhyNot** , **mssmith** and **Argent Towers** would could come up with regarding dating advice on that front. **Dangerosa** would probably weigh in too) ---
**Author:** ![Malleus\_Incus\_Stapes](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malleus_incus_stapes/32/3293_2.png) [@Malleus\_Incus\_Stapes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malleus_Incus_Stapes)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-read-twilight/492774/106 "2009-04-14T17:20:47Z")
You know, it’s funny. I just finished a book where the supernatural suiter also breaks into the heroine’s house and watches her sleep. Although, unlike Bella, Our Heroine immediately freaks out and changes her lock. And unlike Edward, with Supernatural Stalker it’s a cultural thing. And he just likes annoying the Heroine, and she knows it. ---
**Author:** ![cher3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/da6949/32.png) [@cher3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cher3)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-read-twilight/492774/107 "2009-04-14T18:39:12Z")
My daughter has read them. She’s 11, which seems to be about the sexual/emotional level of the books from what I can tell. I haven’t looked at them and now I’m somewhat afraid too. I’ll just have to take comfort that she was innoculated with Terry Pratchett first. (She’s reading _Small Gods_ right now.) ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-read-twilight/492774/108 "2009-04-14T18:41:01Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > I don’t think Stephenie Meyer sees Edward that way, since she openly states that she’s “in love” with him, but sometimes, objective third parties can see your work more clearly than you can. Well, I disagree with this totally. I don’t think there’s much more of an authority over what a character is about that its creator, and I think it’s presumptious to allege that she’s subconsciously written something that’s basically the exact opposite of what she’s apparently written and states she’s written. I don’t grant any reader or critic that much authority over the work of any living author. > [@](#): > > Pattinson is seeing the truth of Edward’s character and the sick nature of his love affair with Bella, and is doing a good job depicting it. I don’t think that makes him a hack. That makes him an actor who is doing the best he can to bring truth to mediocre material. My point is that if it is mediocre material – and I agree that it is – it is nevertheless mediocre material that _he is choosing to play_. So being contemptuous of it is hugely hypocritical. IMO, he can either embrace the mediocrity, as some actors do in a frank “hey, I was making a house payment” kind of way, or he can stand by the “truth” he “brings” to the material. Neither option requires him to piss all over either the character as written or the character he brings to the screen. Much less the author. > [@](#): > > If he played Edward as a straight up romantic hero, it would be even more inauthentic and nausea-inducing. Nausea-inducing, maybe. But if Meyer wrot a straight up romantic hero, and that was what he brought to the screen, by definition it could not have been anything other than completely authentic. If what she wrote is a two-dimensional cardboard cut-out, then a two-dimensional cardboard cut-out is the only “authentic” portrayal. I don’t have any problem with him disliking the source material. I have even less of a problem with him trying to improve it – with him inventing a more nuanced back story that moves the character _away_ from being a cardboard cut-out to something more interesting. BUT none of that requires him to be a jerk about the original character or the author, and it is the hypocrisy and ingratitude of his attitude that I found distasteful. It’s the same exact reason I didn’t like Jonathan Franzen’s attitude about being on Oprah’s book club with _The Corrections_ – that he’d take the money and sales that come from that kind of publicity, while simultaneously shitting on OBC as being low-brow and beneath him. Same attitude here, and I really dislike it. If _Twilight_ is crap, it’s crap Pattinson has chosen to peddle, and he needs to suck that up. I happen to agree that it’s crap, and I’ll be damned if I’ll give him a gold star for holding his nose long enough to enact it. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-read-twilight/492774/109 "2009-04-14T19:15:44Z")
Franzen REFUSED the money and publicity of the OBC. He never asked for his book to be in her club and immediately asked for her name to be taken off of it. He wanted nothing to do with her. If that’s “accepting” something, what does refusing look like? There’s also a difference between an actor simply showing contempt for a role he’s chosen to play, and making an attempt to elevate it a little. That shows respect for the job, not contempt. Contempt would be walking through it with no effort at all. At least he’s trying to put an interpretive spin on the character and make it more interesting. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-read-twilight/492774/110 "2009-04-14T19:17:15Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > Well, I disagree with this totally. I don’t think there’s much more of an authority over what a character is about that its creator, and I think it’s presumptious to allege that she’s subconsciously written something that’s basically the exact opposite of what she’s apparently written and states she’s written. I don’t grant any reader or critic that much authority over the work of any living author. This view doesn’t make sense. To put it bluntly, it doesn’t matter if the author thinks a character is a kind and wonderful person, if they eat kittens and small children for kicks, the textual evidence takes precedence. Yes, Meyer thinks Edward is great. This is because she has no taste. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-read-twilight/492774/111 "2009-04-14T19:39:59Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Franzen REFUSED the money and publicity of the OBC. He never asked for his book to be in her club and immediately asked for her name to be taken off of it. He wanted nothing to do with her. If that’s “accepting” something, what does refusing look like? This is simply incorrect. Franzen may have never “asked for his book to be in her club,” but he did not turn Oprah down; she disinvited him after he was an ass about being in OBC, and _after_ he had indicated his willingness to participate. A balanced look at the entire story, with blame all around, is [here](http://www.complete-review.com/quarterly/vol3/issue1/oprah.htm). What he did, looked like “accepting with churlish reservations” – exactly as Pattinson did here. “Refusing” would look like saying “No, thanks,” and not participating. > [@](#): > > There’s also a difference between an actor simply showing contempt for a role he’s chosen to play, and making an attempt to elevate it a little. That shows respect for the job, not contempt. Contempt would be walking through it with no effort at all. At least he’s trying to put an interpretive spin on the character and make it more interesting. “Contempt” would _also_ be dissing the author and the character _that you are choosing to play_ in interview after interview. As I said, I have no problem with him trying to “elevate [the role] a little,” I have a problem with him being contemptuous of the very character he’s trying to play and of the author who wrote it. It’s not like it’s an either/or proposition; you either must absolutely love every aspect of a character with slavish devotion or you must spit on it while grandly attempting to “elevate” it. You can show a small degree of tact, if for no other reason than you don’t look so much like a big ol’ hypocrite. > [@Grumman](#): > > This view doesn’t make sense. To put it bluntly, it doesn’t matter if the author thinks a character is a kind and wonderful person, if they eat kittens and small children for kicks, the textual evidence takes precedence. What doesn’t make sense, of course, is the assertion that an author who was not mentally ill would genuinely think a character “is a kind and wonderful person” while simultaneoulsy having them “eat kittens and small children for kicks.” In reality, we are not dealing with a book – and I actually can’t think of a a book – where the author’s intentions are so completely at odds with the what the author describes or conveys. But this is Lit Crit 101: Is the “reality” of the book set by the author, or the reader? IMO, the ultimate “truth” of any work of art must lie with the creator, so long as he or she chooses to explain it, if for no other reason than that “textual evidence” is not objective, it is subjective. Who can best say, subjectively, what a work “means”? The creator, of course. (But many creators do _not_ choose to explain their art, leaving it to the person experiencing it to decide the POV and the reality.) This assertion of ultimate creator authority over a work, is in no way undermined by hypotheticals that are so intentionally ridiculous as books in which wonderful people eat children. In the world Meyer created, Edward _is_ great – he is Teh Awesome! You and I may agree that she has no taste, but we are hardly in a position to inform her of what her book must mean or her character must be about. Pattinson certainly has more authority to do so in the process of translating a character in a book (which is hers), to a character on a screen (which is in part his, perhaps chiefly his). But – again – he doesn’t have to shit on her creation to make or to defend his own. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-read-twilight/492774/112 "2009-04-14T20:05:39Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > Well, I disagree with this totally. I don’t think there’s much more of an authority over what a character is about that its creator, and I think it’s presumptious to allege that she’s subconsciously written something that’s basically the exact opposite of what she’s apparently written and states she’s written. I don’t grant any reader or critic that much authority over the work of any living author. No surprise that I disagree with you totally on this point. The creator, in this case, is in love with her creation. She thinks she has created a beautiful love story with a feminist protagonist and an ideal male love interest. Unfortunately for her, she doesn’t get to dictate how readers perceive her story. Clearly almost no one who has posted in this thread concurs with her assessment of the plot or characterizations. Does that mean our assessments are all wrong because Meyer disagrees with them? No, it does not. It means that she didn’t create what she thinks she created, and lots of people recognize that. Robert Pattinson is one of them, and he’s playing Edward as he sees him, not as Meyer wants him to. Consequently, he does a good job with the part. I don’t see what the problem is. > [@](#): > > My point is that if it is mediocre material – and I agree that it is – it is nevertheless mediocre material that _he is choosing to play_. So being contemptuous of it is hugely hypocritical. An actor can’t be contemptuous of the character he’s playing lest he be a hypocrite? Sorry, I don’t buy that either. I’m sure many actors feel that way, but still do the best they can. > [@](#): > > Nausea-inducing, maybe. But if Meyer wrot a straight up romantic hero, and that was what he brought to the screen, by definition it could not have been anything other than completely authentic. If what she wrote is a two-dimensional cardboard cut-out, then a two-dimensional cardboard cut-out is the only “authentic” portrayal. I find that ridiculous. Pattinson brings complexity to a two-dimensional character. Sometimes the acting can elevate the material. He had limited resources to work with, and the story is crap, but he did the best he could. > [@](#): > > I happen to agree that it’s crap, and I’ll be damned if I’ll give him a gold star for holding his nose long enough to enact it. I guarantee it’s not a gold star he was after. > [@](#): > > But this is Lit Crit 101: Is the “reality” of the book set by the author, or the reader? IMO, the ultimate “truth” of any work of art must lie with the creator, so long as he or she chooses to explain it, if for no other reason than that “textual evidence” is not objective, it is subjective. Who can best say, subjectively, what a work “means”? The creator, of course. No, that’s not what “subjective” means. If it’s “subjective,” then there is no authoritative reading of the book, and the author’s interpretation is no more privileged than a careful reader’s, possibly less so due to a lack of distance from the material. I feel like I have this discussion about once a year on the Dope, but… You do realize that there are some very well-respected schools of[literary theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction) that violently disagree with your premise here. They contend that the author, once the work is out in the world, no longer has any say in the interpretation of the work, and that any text-based interpretation that the reader arrives at is just as valid as the authorial intention. The author cannot and does not dictate how a reader responds to a work. How could she? She’s not you, and she’s only seeing the work from her own, limited POV. It’s a ridiculous assertion. You’re basically saying that, because Stephenie Meyer thinks Edward is perfect and wrote him, to the best of her ability, to be perfect, we all must therefore agree that he’s perfect. That’s just not how it works. She can think he’s perfect all she wants-- that’s her interpretation. The interpretation that says he’s a pathetic, controlling loser is equally valid. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-read-twilight/492774/113 "2009-04-14T20:48:44Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > No surprise that I disagree with you totally on this point. The creator, in this case, is in love with her creation. She thinks she has created a beautiful love story with a feminist protagonist and an ideal male love interest. Unfortunately for her, she doesn’t get to dictate how readers perceive her story. Clearly almost no one who has posted in this thread concurs with her assessment of the plot or characterizations. Does that mean our assessments are all wrong because Meyer disagrees with them? No, it does not. It means that she didn’t create what she thinks she created, and lots of people recognize that. The difference between us is that while I am willing to grant two valid perspectives – both the reader’s and the writer’s – while giving the writer primacy only if for some reason we need to authoritatively decide what the work really “means” – you are completely comfortable declaring that your POV is correct and the author is simply wrong – she “didn’t create what she thinks she created.” Well, excuse me, but yes, she did. She created exactly what she thought she created, as is evidenced by her own perspective as the author, by millions of fans who buy into her creation utterly, and even by your own ability to recognize the creation from _her_ POV. This is nothing against you personally, but I find it incredibly presumptuous for you or anyone to announce that a creative work is not what the creator says it is. Her authority over its meaning is obvious; what is yours? > [@](#): > > Robert Pattinson is one of them, and he’s playing Edward as he sees him, not as Meyer wants him to. Consequently, he does a good job with the part. I don’t see what the problem is. Again, the problem is not with how he plays the role (which I have not seen) but with him dissing the author and the book while playing it. Because that comes across as hypocritical and churlish. > [@](#): > > An actor can’t be contemptuous of the character he’s playing lest he be a hypocrite? Sorry, I don’t buy that either. I’m sure many actors feel that way, but still do the best they can. “Many actors” may feel that way, but very few express it. Because it makes them look like hypocrites and jerks. > [@](#): > > I find that ridiculous. Pattinson brings complexity to a two-dimensional character. Sometimes the acting can elevate the material. He had limited resources to work with, and the story is crap, but he did the best he could. Again, I have no problem with his portrayal or whatever he might, as an actor, choose to do with the material at hand. I have a problem with him expressing contempt for the material and for the author. This is not a problem with his performance, it is a problem with his personal views as expressed in interviews. > [@](#): > > No, that’s not what “subjective” means. If it’s “subjective,” then there is no authoritative reading of the book, and the author’s interpretation is no more privileged than a careful reader’s, possibly less so due to a lack of distance from the material. I think I’m pretty clear on what “subjective” means, thanks. And, again, who has authority over the work is Lit Crit 101. I do not agree with the assertion that a creator’s interpretation of his or her own work is no more “priviledged” than any reader’s, no matter how careful. I think it’s pretty self-evident that a creator has ultimate authority over how the work is to be interpreted, because it is his or her creation. I realize this is not the only defensible view, but it is certainly mine. As an author, I feel strongly that no one has the right to tell me that anything I have written means anything other than exactly what I say it means. A reader may decide it means something completely different, but I certainly can tell them they are, quite simply, wrong. I have that authority because I am the creator. I decide what I mean. > [@](#): > > I feel like I have this discussion about once a year on the Dope, but… You do realize that there are some very well-respected schools of[literary theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction) that violently disagree with your premise here. They contend that the author, once the work is out in the world, no longer has any say in the interpretation of the work, and that any text-based interpretation that the reader arrives at is just as valid as the authorial intention. I feel like I have this discussion about once a year on the Dope, but . . . You do realize that there are some very well-respect schools of literary theory that violently disagree with your premise here. To the extent I give a shit about literary criticism (now that I’m out of school, and given that these discussions always go in circles), I am obviously a textualist who rejects New Criticism. But thanks for assuming that because I don’t agree with you, I must not know what I"m talkign about. > [@](#): > > The author cannot and does not dictate how a reader responds to a work. How could she? She’s not you, and she’s only seeing the work from her own, limited POV. The authory obviously cannot and does not dictate how a reader responds to a work. But to talk, as you have, about an creator beings simple _wrong_ about what _her own work means_ is ridiculous. Remember, you have not merely argued for multiple legitimate points of view, you have argued that Meyer is _wrong_ in her interpretation of _her own creation_ – that “she didn’t create what she thinks she created.” > [@](#): > > It’s a ridiculous assertion. You’re basically saying that, because Stephenie Meyer thinks Edward is perfect and wrote him, to the best of her ability, to be perfect, we all must therefore agree that he’s perfect. On the contrary, it is YOU who are arguing that because YOU think he’s ridiculous, he is therefore ridiculous, and everyone must agree with YOU. _That’s_ just not how it works. One reason I reject New Criticism is that by elevating the reader’s perspective and their experience of a book over all, it reduces literary value to the merely personal, where the individual’s “take” on a book can be the only measure of its value – because anything else is external and non-experiential, and the external and non-experiential are for some reason valueless. IMO, your opinion of Edward is NOT as valid as hers, because she created him and you did not. To me, your opinion is only of more value that than that of one of a zillion screaming 12 year old Twilight fans because I happen to personally largely agree with you and disagree with them. I give her ultimate authority to tell me what Edward means because she invented him. I give you no such authority at all. I frankly don’t care whether you agree with this or not, but it is my opinion and the chances that you’ll be able to argue me out of it are vanishingly slim. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-read-twilight/492774/114 "2009-04-14T21:10:34Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > The difference between us is that while I am willing to grant two valid perspectives – both the reader’s and the writer’s – while giving the writer primacy only if for some reason we need to authoritatively decide what the work really “means” – you are completely comfortable declaring that your POV is correct and the author is simply wrong – she “didn’t create what she thinks she created.” Do you think she created The Perfect Man in Edward? That’s what she thinks, and it’s simply not factually true, since some of his behaviors are demonstrably flawed. Insisting over and over that he is perfect because Meyer says he is doesn’t make me wrong and her right. It means that she has a very different idea of what the perfect man is, one that is largely not accepted by grown ups. The fact that her fan base is mostly underage girls and grown women clinging to romantic fantasies seems to bear that out. If you feel this is not true we’ll have to agree to disagree. Is Edward perfect to them? Sure. But if she thinks she created the ultimate romantic hero, clearly she failed to do that. > [@](#): > > Well, excuse me, but yes, she did. She created exactly what she thought she created, as is evidenced by her own perspective as the author, by millions of fans who buy into her creation utterly, and even by your own ability to recognize the creation from _her_ POV. This is nothing against you personally, but I find it incredibly presumptuous for you or anyone to announce that a creative work is not what the creator says it is. Her authority over its meaning is obvious; what is yours? She has no more authority over its meaning than does a careful reader, which I’ve already said. Her opinion is valid for those who hold the same paradigm as she does. That paradigm is by no means universal, and thus, Edward’s perfection is by no means universally recognized. > [@](#): > > Again, the problem is not with how he plays the role (which I have not seen) but with him dissing the author and the book while playing it. Because that comes across as hypocritical and churlish. I don’t see what’s hypocritical. Pretending to like the book for money would be hypocritical. Being paid to play a character you don’t personally like, in a movie whose plot you aren’t particularly fond of, isn’t hypocritical to me. I think many actors are in movies and play roles that they aren’t all that fond of. Pattinson had what you would consider the bad grace to say so. That’s the opposite of hypocrisy. > [@](#): > > I think I’m pretty clear on what “subjective” means, thanks. And, again, who has authority over the work is Lit Crit 101. I do not agree with the assertion that a creator’s interpretation of his or her own work is no more “priviledged” than any reader’s, no matter how careful. You can disagree with it until the cows come home. That’s your right. Personally, it makes total sense to me. Meyer is not sitting with me as I read, correcting what she perceives as my misapprehensions of her story. Unless I seek out interviews with her, I really don’t KNOW what her intent is. All I have to go on is what I’ve read. What I read is a sick love story about two co-dependent people. Now, I know Meyer disagrees with that, but why should that change my reading? Really, why should what she thinks alter my impression of the novel? > [@](#): > > I think it’s pretty self-evident that a creator has ultimate authority over how the work is to be interpreted, because it is his or her creation. I think it’s pretty self-evident that the author does not have ultimate authority over how the work is interpreted for reasons outlined above. Once you release your work into the world, you can’t control what people do with it. They bring their own POV to the table, and that will color what they get from it. You cannot mandate a certain interpretation of a text because that implies some sort of thought control. All you can do is write as clearly and cogently as you can, and hope your intent shines through. Meyer is a perfect example of someone whose intent deviates very far from many people’s readings. Hers absolutely does NOT trump that of her detractors. I don’t see how it can. > [@](#): > > I realize this is not the only defensible view, but it is certainly mine. As an author, I feel strongly that no one has the right to tell me that anything I have written means anything other than exactly what I say it means. A reader may decide it means something completely different, but I certainly can tell them they are, quite simply, wrong. I have that authority because I am the creator. I decide what I mean. It’s just as arrogant for you to tell a reader, who has textual evidence to support her view, that she’s wrong, as it is for her to tell you that you are. I am a writer too, and when my writing was workshopped, sometimes I was shocked to hear what people got out of it. That meant that I had not communicated what I meant to, and that was, in fact, a fault of my writing, not a fault of my reader’s. That meant I needed to revise, in all likelihood. It did not mean that I could tell that person in my workshop he or she was WRONG, because I said so, and I’m the author, dammit! I would have looked rather petulant and dictatorial. If a reader has a valid reason for his interpretation, then it’s just as valid as yours. Sorry if that’s hard to swallow as an author, but it’s reality. > [@](#): > > I am obviously a textualist who rejects New Criticism. But thanks for assuming that because I don’t agree with you, I must not know what I"m talkign about. You dismissed out of hand the idea that the reader’s view could be on par with the author’s. Fine, if that’s where you’re coming from, but it’s not the only way to look at it, which is how you were depicting it. > [@](#): > > The authory obviously cannot and does not dictate how a reader responds to a work. But to talk, as you have, about an creator beings simple _wrong_ about what _her own work means_ is ridiculous. Remember, you have not merely argued for multiple legitimate points of view, you have argued that Meyer is _wrong_ in her interpretation of _her own creation_ – that “she didn’t create what she thinks she created.” She did not create the perfect man in Edward. Perhaps to her, he is, but to say unilaterally that’s what she created, is wrong. > [@](#): > > On the contrary, it is YOU who are arguing that because YOU think he’s ridiculous, he is therefore ridiculous, and everyone must agree with YOU. I didn’t say he was ridiculous. I said your mandate that the author have the final word on the meaning of a text was ridiculous. How can she, in a very literal sense, control what people get out of her work? Most readers have no idea what the author thinks of a book. They just pick up a book and read it, and arrive at whatever they get. Meyer’s words about what she meant will be lost to most readers and therefore, largely irrelevant. > [@](#): > > IMO, your opinion of Edward is NOT as valid as hers, because she created him and you did not. To me, your opinion is only of more value that than that of one of a zillion screaming 12 year old Twilight fans because I happen to personally largely agree with you and disagree with them. I give her ultimate authority to tell me what Edward means because she invented him. I give you no such authority at all. You don’t have to give me any authority. Nor does Meyer. I require no one’s permission to arrive at my view, and need no validation of my view. My view is firmly text-based and therefore, it is as valid as Meyer’s. You are unlikely to change my view in the slightest. > [@](#): > > I frankly don’t care whether you agree with this or not, but it is my opinion and the chances that you’ll be able to argue me out of it are vanishingly slim. Oh, I’m sure that’s 100% true, and back atcha. ---
**Author:** ![anu-la1979](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/47e85d/32.png) [@anu-la1979](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anu-la1979)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-read-twilight/492774/115 "2009-04-14T21:14:26Z")
I don’t remember him publically saying “it’s crap.” The 2 interviews that I think everyone is talking about (and certainly me) is one where he basically says 1. StephEnie is in love with her own creation (which she has publically admitted) 2. That the reason people like the books so much is that it’s voyeuristic insight into someone’s fantasy about what the perfect guy is like (this statement and the one above are from the same interview) 3. The interview where he discussed how he played Edward differently than how the fangirls see him. In statement 1 is possibly the most snarky of the lot because he said something like “she’s mad…she’s in love with her own creation” about meeting her. I fail to see how 2 and 3 are in any way snarky-he gave a perfectly rational response as to why so many people are into the books and the reason why he comes across so intense-emo in the movie. I haven’t read any interviews where he has outright said that the books are the worst trash he has ever read. And I will admit that I am far too interested in this clusterf\*uck of a series. It’s just that it’s so so so _bad_ and so easily mocked. ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-read-twilight/492774/116 "2009-04-14T21:15:18Z")
I agree that Pattinson could have been more diplomatic re his characterization of the book and his character. That said, though, I think **Rubystreak** has a good point: IMO, Meyers is too close and identifies too closely with her protagonists to be the last word in her works. She is more than somewhat biased. Frankly, I’d respect her more if she were a bit more objective in her interviews about her writing process and her characters. The fact that she admits she’s in love with Edward (or the notion of him) is a red flag to me that she is no longer acting as a creator of an artistic act, but as an acolyte to a shrine of her own making. That in itself is weird as hell and worthy of its own thread. [QUOTE= Rubystreak] It’s a ridiculous assertion. You’re basically saying that, because Stephenie Meyer thinks Edward is perfect and wrote him, to the best of her ability, to be perfect, we all must therefore agree that he’s perfect. That’s just not how it works. She can think he’s perfect all she wants-- that’s her interpretation. The interpretation that says he’s a pathetic, controlling loser is equally valid. [/QUOTE] But that is not what **Jodi** is saying, if I’m following this correctly. **Jodi** is saying that Pattinson can have any opinion of the work that he likes, but to diss it in public is not cool. I agree. She is also saying (I think–I don’t speak for **Jodi** ) that Meyers is the ultimate authority on her characters and novels. True as far as it goes, but I disagree that StephEnie’s “take” on them is the last word. Once the art work is out in the world, its perception and reception bring new levels and meaning to it. This can only be good for Meyers, given the vapidity of her work to begin with… ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-read-twilight/492774/117 "2009-04-14T21:21:06Z")
> [@eleanorigby](#): > > But that is not what **Jodi** is saying, if I’m following this correctly. **Jodi** is saying that Pattinson can have any opinion of the work that he likes, but to diss it in public is not cool. I agree. She said a hell of a lot more than that, but really, what “dissing” did Pattinson do? I don’t follow his interviews, but from what I recall, he said that he played Edward as a person who hated himself. This is not what Meyer intended when she wrote Edward, so he is defying authorial intent when he plays the character that way. However, I think his interpretation of Edward is text-based and valid, and led to a decently complex performance of a crappily written character. Consequently, I say, screw authorial intent. Pattinson did nothing wrong by playing Edward that way or interpreting him that way. It’s a valid view and a damn sight more interesting and nuanced than Meyer’s view. > [@](#): > > She is also saying (I think–I don’t speak for **Jodi** ) that Meyers is the ultimate authority on her characters and novels. True as far as it goes, but I disagree that StephEnie’s “take” on them is the last word. Once the art work is out in the world, its perception and reception bring new levels and meaning to it. This can only be good for Meyers, given the vapidity of her work to begin with… And I’m saying she’s not the ultimate authority on her characters and novels. All she has control over is what is in the text. What we as readers do with that text is out of her control, which ends as soon as the book leaves her hands and enters the public domain. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-read-twilight/492774/118 "2009-04-14T21:24:35Z")
[QUOTE=eleanorigby] But that is not what **Jodi** is saying, if I’m following this correctly. **Jodi** is saying that Pattinson can have any opinion of the work that he likes, but to diss it in public is not cool. [/quote] Yes, exactly. > [@eleanorigby](#): > > She is also saying (I think–I don’t speak for **Jodi** ) that Meyers is the ultimate authority on her characters and novels. True as far as it goes, but I disagree that Stephenie’s “take” on them is the last word. Once the art work is out in the world, its perception and reception bring new levels and meaning to it. This can only be good for Meyers, given the vapidity of her work to begin with… I don’t totally disagree with this. But if her “take” isn’t the last word, it surely is the first, and should be given additional consideration simply because she is the inventor. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-read-twilight/492774/119 "2009-04-14T21:32:52Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > She said a hell of a lot more than that, but really, what “dissing” did Pattinson do? I don’t follow his interviews, but from what I recall, he said that he played Edward as a person who hated himself. That’s not what I’m talking about. Pattinson said some very uncomplimentary things about Meyers and about her books in the course of doing publicity for the first movie. To his credit, he seems to have recognized that was a mistake and backed off of it. But I’ve already said about 100 times that I have no problem with any artistic decision he might have made about how to play the character. I certainly never said he did anything “wrong” by “playing Edward that way or interpreting him that way.” ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-read-twilight/492774/120 "2009-04-14T21:36:18Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > That’s not what I’m talking about. Pattinson said some very uncomplimentary things about Meyers and about her books in the course of doing publicity for the first movie. To his credit, he seems to have recognized that was a mistake and backed off of it. But I’ve already said about 100 times that I have no problem with any artistic decision he might have made about how to play the character. I certainly never said he did anything “wrong” by “playing Edward that way or interpreting him that way.” I honestly don’t know what he said about her or the books. Someone upthread said she was “mad” because she’s in love with her characters. Perhaps that’s rude, but it’s pretty true. So, impolitic, I’ll give you. I don’t see how that’s remotely hypocritical or jerkish. She’s not his boss, she didn’t write the movie, and that’s not dissing on the movie or the book. As for what else he said, throw me a link so I can know what you’re talking about that warrants accusations of hypocrisy or jerkishness. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-read-twilight/492774.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-i-read-twilight/492774.md?page=7)