John Mark Reynolds of Biola/Torrey responded to my critical review of his Scriptorium/WaPo essay, Twilight’s Flawed Faith, yesterday with this short, kind note:
Having read this essay, I am full of eagerness to discuss the other elements of the book. I think (if I read you correctly) that you too find Mormon religious imagery through-out-the books.
Much to discuss . . . though I will note that I argue the books improve as they go (the last is much better than the first so to speak!) . . . and that I could only dream of writing one half so good.
John Mark
His comment invites a discussion about whether or not the books “improve as they go.”
Just to review: the first and fourth books are the “original series” as conceived by Mrs. Meyer. She wrote Breaking Dawn originally as Forever Dawn to fulfill her three book commitment with Little, Brown (it seems to this reader that the place where Dawn was supposed to break into two books is approximately where Nessie all but breaks Bella in half…).
Little, Brown refused the first Dawn and told her the contract was for Young Adult novels. She consequently wrote New Moon and Eclipse as her obligatory second and third books — and Little, Brown urged Mrs. Meyer to tie off the series at the end of Eclipse. She fought for Breaking Dawn, and Little, Brown was convinced to go ahead with the project (who argues long and hard against a magnificent pay day?).
The “filler books,” though, numbers 2 and 3, built as they are on Romeo and Juliet and Wuthering Heights and relatively removed as they are from the original conception of Twilight/Forever Dawn, are arguably the better books of the series as stand-alone works.
That Prof. Reynolds thinks the books “improve as they go,” i.e., that the third and fourth books are the best marks him as an allegory lover. Why?
The character-origin stories we get throughout these last books constitute a veritable Canterbury Tales within the story. In Dawn’s alchemical wedding, baptism by birthing, and the final Mountain Meadows super-powered stand-off, we’re treated not only only to Mrs. Meyer’s hermetic fireworks but also to her strongest defenses of and critiques/corrections to LDS beliefs, history, and practice.
And a lot of readers thought (along with Little, Brown, apparently, who, if Mrs. Meyer is to be believed, didn’t want to publish it) Breaking Dawn was her worst book rather than her best. As a return to her dream allegory, though, of the first book and the story as she conceived it, it is a fitting closer.
Which brings us to the Latter-day Saint content of the books.
After my survey in Spotlight: A Close-Up Look at the Artistry and Meaning of Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight Novels of the four layers of meaning in the Forks Saga (the larger part of the book), I have three chapters on the subject of the embedded LDS beliefs:
– one about the Mormon perspective that shapes the entire series and almost every plot point,
– another about the story points that are her dream-defense of controversial beliefs, historical events involving, and criticisms of the Mormon community, and
– the last about her re-writing the script of Mormon life to change things she disagrees with.
The section of Spotlight with these three chapters is called “Mrs. Meyer as Mormon Artist, Apologist, and Apostate.”
The last two of these chapters involve some deep mining and dream interpretation but the argument asserting Mrs. Meyer is a Mormon artist and that Bella’s journey is her odyssey from life as a gentile to Mormon wife has already been written. By a Mormon, no less. In Mormon Vampires: The Twilight Saga and Religious Literacy, A Master’s Paper for the M.S. in L.S degree at UNC Chapel Hill (April, 2008), Edwin B. Arnaudin reveals clearly and crisply the elephant in the room non-Mormons just don’t get.
As Mr. Arnaudin explains, Stephenie Meyer was raised in the rigors of the Mormon church, was educated in the LDS pressure cooker of Brigham Young University, married young because her faith strongly encourages that (by her admission), and lives and breathes LDS beliefs. Most meaningful book? Book of Mormon. Favorite living author? Orson Scott Card. ‘Mormon Vampires’ runs through the top eight LDS doctrines that shape why things are the way they are and why people do what they do in the Twilight Saga.
It’s not a complete treatment — either with respect to the books (it stops at Eclipse) or to the Mormon memes (e.g., nothing about pre-existence, intelligence, or spirit/matter) — but Mormon Vampires establishes what should be obvious. Mrs. Meyer is a dyed in the wool Mormon and her books, consequently, can only be only understood in depth in light of the doctrines of her church. What else could she be? A Buddhist? Secular Humanist?
Doubt that the birthing scene in Dawn is Bella’s initiation into the Mormon church? Check this out from Mormon Vampires, pages 64 and 68:
Mormons also believe that when a non-Mormon is baptized into the Church, the convert’s Gentile blood is cleansed from their body and they are given a new internal makeup. The Prophet Joseph Smith said that the Holy Ghost “purge[s] out the old blood” to turn the Gentile into a “seed of Abraham” and that such a “new creation” is a necessary part of the transformation (History of the Church, v.3, 380). The Prophet Brigham Young confirms that “[Smith taught] that the Gentile blood was actually cleansed out of their veins, and the blood of Jacob made to circulate in them; and the revolution and change in the system were so great that it caused the beholder to think they were going into fits” (Young, v.2, 269)….
An additional striking similarity is that of each respective conversion’s relation to blood. Despite Edward’s insistence that she not know, Bella eventually catches Alice off guard and convinces her to tell how one becomes a vampire:
It takes a few days for the transformation to be complete, depending on how much venom is in the bloodstream, how close the venom enters to the heart. As long as the heart keeps beating, the poison spreads, healing, changing the body as it moves through it. Eventually the heart stops, and the conversion is finished. But all that time, every minute of it, a victim would be wishing for death (Meyer, Twilight 414).
With the exception of the heart stoppage and inclusion of pain, the perceived blood change of a newly-baptized Mormon is almost identical to that of a human freshly bitten by one of Meyer’s vampires.
Again, ‘Mormon Vampires‘ was written without reference to Forever Dawn (and Bella’s transformation in Nessie’s birthing room) but I don’t think the reader struggles to make this connection.
Is Forever Dawn the best book of the series? If you enjoy hermetic and allegorical writing or if you are LDS or both, I think the answer is, “Oh, yeah!” There is nothing to compare in the first books with the almost over-the-top quality of the series finale. But it is a significant departure from the rest of the series, which has lead many readers to say Dawn is where Mrs. Meyer ‘left the rails.’
Au contraire. As an LDS Pilgrim’s Progress and Everyman Morality Tale wrapped in a Harlequin Romance, Breaking/Forever Dawn is the pinnacle and necessary finish to the story.
Your thoughts?
-
Well. . .I do like hermetic and allegorical writing. I love *Pilgrim’s Progress* and (possibly closer to the point) *The Fairie Queene*, which was intentionally written to be read on a four layer level. I’ve also done a good bit of reading on LDS theology and I do understand what you’re talking about when you connect the books to the LDS world view: for example, I recognized the Volturi as those evil, evil Roman Catholics right away–and shuddered.
Still, I wonder how effective a book can be if one can’t get past its initial level. It’s clear from their reactions that even for people who deeply loved the books, *Breaking Dawn* was their breaking point, or there wouldn’t have been a flood of buyers returning the books to the store. They may not have understood that Bella’s gory birth scene was a baptism by blood, and I did, but if the reader is overwhelmed by nausea, I don’t know how well that can come across.
The books worry me for a number of reasons, and perhaps I’ll write a blog post on this, as I don’t want to hijack your interesting discussion of the *Twilight Saga.* Here is a thought, however: if the confrontation in *Breaking Dawn* is one of the redeemed LDS “family” facing the irredeemable Orthodox/Catholic church, isn’t that a problem for a Catholic or Orthodox Christian? Can one look past the way the Church is depicted–murderous, authoritarian blood drinkers who threaten to expunge the Good and True? It seems that you can, but I do wonder how.
-
Actually, the Romanian Vampires in the Breaking Dawn final battle are the Orthodox Church stand-ins — and their position contra the Roman Catholics/Volturi is historic. Because LDS believers (mistakenly) assert that, since Orthodox Christians are the “original” church and Mormons as the “restored” church these two have more in common than any other of the “Christian denominations,” you get this rather funny portrayal.
I want to stay on subject here, but to answer your question — and ask that this NOT become what we’re talking about, please — I can easily interpret and even encourage others to read a work of artistry that makes arguments I disagree with, so long as those story-transparencies are not too obvious. The Volturi as Roman Catholics is not see-through obvious to most readers or anything like the in-your-face anti-papism of the Da Vinci Code.
As you’ll read in Spotlight, the Mormons take their hits from Mrs. Meyer, too. She’s not blind to her church’s “issues.”
Take, for example, the unhappy Rosalie Hale, the conflicted, unwilling Cullen-vampire who would do anything to escape her loss of humanity. Rose’s cry to Bella to not become a Cullen/Saint is significant because she has the maiden name of Joseph Smith, Jr.’s first wife — and she hails from Rochester, NY, the birthplace of Mormonism. “There’s no escape! The King is a rapist!” You go ahead and guess the twice-annointed King who “Royce King, II” stands in for… You’re not supposed to like Rose, but, nonetheless, the implicit shot at LDS life and history is hard to miss.
Recognizing myself in the Romanian vampires as the LDS idea of Orthodox faith, consequently, actually made me chuckle. The lady has a sense of humor and can laugh at herself, too, right?
Back to Breaking Dawn — anyone else think the bloody baptism didn’t succeed because the surface reading didn’t allow/invite thinking about it at depth?
-
Ha, well, you made me feel a little better about the Volturi/Catholic thing.
I do NOT like gore, or creepy stuff in general–but the bloody birth of Renesmee didn’t really bother me. After the long chapters in Jacob’s angry and disgusted mind, it was a relief to get to the climax. And I knew it was symbolic, though I didn’t have “baptism of blood” exactly in mind; I was thinking more of Bella’s sacrificial death for her daughter at the time. I didn’t think the surface reading detracted at all from its depth of meaning.
I’m only one reader, of course; others may feel differently.
Actually, I really like Rosalie. And even sympathize with her in some ways, especially in Breaking Dawn. Usually I’m a very compliant reader, liking and disliking exactly as the author tells me to, but ah well.
-
You’re not supposed to like her — until you hear her back story.
Then she is a trapped woman and a rape victim and an avenging angel (of sorts).
The least you feel after that is sympathy for her essentially miserable immortality among the Cullen/Saints.
Quite the set-up for a character named after the first among many wives of the Prophet, no? Only Leah, another unhappy woman, is more compelling in her undesired imprisonment in a life of ‘monsters.’
Back to Breaking Dawn — Does anyone agree with enthusiasm that Braking Dawn is the best Twilight novel?
-
At best these comparisons of the series and Mormonism are problematic. Like the original Battlestar Galactica series, the background is far too often are treated like the actual story. Understanding the relationship between story and theology cannot be done without vigorous oversimplifications and outright unwarranted conclusions. To put it another way; to see the Mormon analogies in the books ends up distorting both.
Probably the most troubling idea that these analysis make is that Stephanie Meyers has consciously preached Mormonism in the series. This has been a subject of criticism toward Orson Scott Card as well, although he states openly that it isn’t preaching more than using his culture. There is no reason why either of them should apologize for doing this, because all authors write what they know. Even if S. Meyers did use Mormonism, I don’t think she has demonstrated enough sophistication in her writings to make any lasting impressions. The books are mostly romances with vampires made for young adults. Arguments with any real merit made against the books can be related to any number of literature from the same traditions. The fact that another writer can issue a lawsuit for what has been described as “Mormon” elements should make critics reconsider their conclusions. Mormonism is either more universal or the books are less Mormon than has been supposed.
Even if there is Mormonism in the “Twilight” series, it is so hidden that there isn’t much of a practical value. Like the “Harry Potter” criticism, what is said reveals more about the critics than the author or writings. Calling out the evils of witchcraft in its pages (much like the Mormon labels) end up sounding like unreasonable conspiracy theories put out as facts. No one is going to actually become sorcerers or even learn about real magic from the books. Similarly, the idea that readers will become a member of or really learn about Mormonism by reading “Twilight” is highly unlikely. Context of fantasy has supplanted any viable discussion of real beliefs outside of speculative literary interpretation. The average reader could care less without pre-conceived notions of what they want to find. That goes for Mormon and non-Mormon readers involved with subjecting the series to religious examination. Again, the worthwhile criticisms have been what can be used in examining any literary production.
An analogy can be so hidden or convoluted that it becomes very hard for casual readers, in isolation from other sources, to get anything out of them. The highly praised “Lord of the Rings” and “Narnia” series are examples of this that the “Twilight” series shares with them. It is hard for casual readers to understand how wizards, goblins, faeries, soldiers, and talking animals have anything to do with the theology of Anglicanism or Catholicism, much less vampires for Mormons without troubling biases. Books and papers might explicate the themes, but the original writer might as well have written straight forward papers to get the points across. Doubly so for audiences that are no longer steeped in the cultures that define the analogies meant by the authors.
A real Christian or Mormon literature wouldn’t need images and characters to hide behind for mass consumption. The last real Christian stories for the masses since Shakespeare might have been the “Left Behind” series by Tim LaHaye that didn’t use mere analogies for the stories. Milton, Dante, Shakespeare, and even the writer of Beowulf were not playing Johnathan Swift like games in their literary achievements. The exception might be “Pilgrim’s Progress” by Bunyan, but that is borderline. At any rate, they had specific theological and moral messages and images not stunted behind hidden stories and characters. Heaven, Hell, Satan, Creation, Angels, Devils, and much more were not disguised as something else that had to be guessed at in papers and explications. Even the nearly allegorical Beowulf didn’t need much work determining what the Grendel and mother Monsters or the Dragon stood for in relation to the hero.
Playing the analogy game with the “Twilight” series doesn’t work very well. There are too many assumptions that have to be made about Mormonism, Stephanie Meyers, and the purpose of the books. Sources that are obscure to every day Mormons often have to be trotted out to make a case that is speculative at best. What is brought into the discussion by the critics is at least as important as what the series brings up. In the end the proof is manufactured because the reality cannot be proven without a direct quote from the author accepting or denying the connections. It can be fun, but unprofitable. In the end, the books have to speak for themselves and the readers decide.
-
It’s difficult for me to answer this question. You believe BD is the best of the series, and I can’t argue this out of literaray training or understanding Mormon provenance. My only complaint about BD was that there seemed too much packed into one book.
I thought all the books were good and had value; there is not “least of these.” BD didn’t bother me in its changes. I liked the alchemical wedding, Jacob’s perspective, Leah’s and Rosalie’s struggles, the gathering of the “denominations,” the grand philosophical ending, the resolutions, Bella’s transformative experience and her transcendent life as a “born again” Cullen.
When I read BD, I didn’t see her birth experience as a “bloody baptism,” but rather a completion of her “faith” decision in the woods (Twilight). After this post, I can say “duh.” But my faith roots regard baptism as an important public witness, not Salvation Part B, so this was not obvious to me. I also saw it as symbolic of transformation via death to the resurrected body fit for heavenly New Earth life.
I’m glad Meyer fought for the book, as I can’t imagine the series without it. However, New Moon was my favorite book because of its psychological aspects, which is something that speaks loudly to me in story.
-
I forgot to add the intruiging Renesmee, the androgyne(?) who, with her imprinting of Jacob, unites the werewolves and vampires, and “corrects” the thinking of the Volturi, preventing war. I’m eager to hear what John has to say about her.
-
An interesting take. As someone who has studied LDS theology and history very extensively, I find it amusing to see so much contortionist anylizing of the parallels. Some have more weight than others. I suppose if you look at burned toast long enough the virgin Mary will start to bleed tears.
Are there aspects to LDS belief nestled in the Twilight series? Most likely. However, I think you have the transformation process all wrong. I would not liken it to being converted to the LDS Church. I would compare becoming a perfect, glorious, powerful, beautiful vampire to the LDS doctrine of theosis, the idea that mankind (God’s literal children or race) have the potential to progress to be like their father in heaven. Also, the positive (and highly desirable) portrayal of the Cullen family as a functional, strong unit is probably symbolic of the LDS belief that family units (marraiges, etc) continue forever and do not end at death the way most (all?) religions teach. This procreative, family centered view of eternal purpose is central to the theosis doctrines mentioned earlier. What do children desire to become? Successful like their parents, obviously. Mormons take the Bible at face value when it speaks of a “father in heaven” Furthermore, LDS will tell you that gender, and therefore physically resurrected males and females, have specific purpose in the afterlife. Why else do we retain gender identity and form in the hereafter? That is a long eternity for resurrected men and women to be androgenously defunct physically. Of course, this is a revolutionary understanding of God, but with it a revolutionary understanding of man.
So, do Mormons believe they will get to heaven and sparkle in the sunlight? well, yeah, kind of. I think Meyer, who receieved her English degree from the same pressure cooker where I received my English degree, is merely trying to convey some sense of the elegant, glorious nature of family and the human form in it’s eventually perfected state, thanks to Christ providing the path for all to be resurrected to glory, if you believe in the resurrection.
I have heard a wide range of LDS doctrinal theories within Twilight, many are conflicting and cancel each other out. I would take much of it with a grain of salt. I think in the end Meyer has merely written an intimate romance tale to keep tweens sighing for years.
-
Also, the “LDS conversion” theory that is presented in your post relies heavily on the LDS “doctrine” of a convert’s blood being cleansed and transformed into the literal “seed of Abraham” physiologically. The problem is this is not an official Church doctrine, never has been. The qoute referenced is obscure speculation from the 19th century and does not constitute doctrine. This is has never been taught officially and is not found within LDS scripture.
Personally, I have never heard this before and I doubt that any Mormons maintain this belief. Certainly Stephenie Meyer was unlikely to have been thinking of this belief when she wrote BD. Therefore, I highly doubt that the vampire blood transformation scene has any specific connection. That is why I believe it is more logicaly to assume that she is referring to resurrection and exaltation in the next life.
-
Well, the argument isn’t mine but a Mormon’s, a reader who believes that this doctrine/speculation is sufficiently well known in LDS communities that Mrs. Meyer used it.
-
I’d be grateful, Ethan, if you’d share all the “contortionist anylizing of the parallels” (sic) and the “wide range of LDS doctrinal theories within Twilight”you’ve read. That would be a real help to the gentiles trying to get a grip on this aspect of the series.
I agree that Bella’s conversion is the story of her hermetic transformation and LDS theosis (not to be confused with Orthodox Christian soteriology) rather than just her altar call experience.
Thank you for joining the conversation here.
-
John, I apologize if that comment seemed to be aimed at your blog. I realize you were referencing other writings. I was referring mainly to the many anti-Mormon Evangelical blogs that have taken aim at the Twilight series, ala Harry Potter witchcraft, with all sorts of fear-mongering, “Mormons are trying to take over the world” conspiracies and calls for boycotts. A quick google search can bring up many of the threads. Most of these folks have a very superficial understanding of LDS faith, culture and identity and they rely heavily on misinformation. Mothers have blogged that they will not allow their daughters to read Twilight because they will be led captive into Mormonism, etc. Then they qoute some pastor who has “unmasked” the LDS teachings in the books as evidence of Meyer’s nefarious agenda. Just some ridiculous stuff swirling around out there!
I am not so sure that Meyer really has consciously woven LDS themes into her work to promote LDS ways. Obviously she writes her stories from within the framework of her worldview and religious philosophy. Her values, particularly LDS family themes, are necessarily going to come through, even if it is subconscience. I agree with you that Knowing a little about the LDS faith, especially family units and the afterlife, can make the books more interesting. I have read the books and am as familiar with LDS beliefs as anyone, I simply don’t see them as Mormon propaganda.
Your posts seem pretty even handed. Keep up the good work.
-
They’re not ‘Mormon Propaganda,’ at least, not any more than C. S. Lewis’ Narniad is ‘Christian Propaganda.’ The Alvin Maker series and ‘A Woman of Destiny,’ in being intentional re-tellings/re-makings of Joseph Smith’s Jr.’s life, might qualify as artful tracts and I think Mrs. Meyer borrows consciously and unconsciously borrowed from these books in her dream of Edward — but Ender and the life of an ‘Everyman’ Latter-day Saint rather than the Prophet are nearer marks.
You’re right, if I understand you correctly, that I’m not here to expose the evils of Mormon history and theology secreted away in these books as the boogeys under the bed, the vampire in your daughter’s bedroom. My job, as I understand it, is to try and explain why readers love the Twilight books. My common sense answer is “it has to be in the author’s artistry and meaning.” Getting at that necessarily involves discussing the influences evident in the text as well as the meaning derived from her core beliefs. As her core beliefs are overwhelmingly TBM and the most influential books in her life she says are the Book of Mormon and the Speaker for the Dead, I’m not doing my job if I’m not explaining the aspects of Mrs. Meyer’s writing that reflect LDS beliefs.
I doubt very much that Mrs. Meyer has “woven LDS themes into her work to promote LDS ways.” The series reads much more like a Mormon dream and wish fulfillment, re-writing and re-shaping events and ideas to resolve internal tension, which is to say, an internal, therapeutic work rather than an external, proselytizing effort.
Having said that, Spotlight begins and ends with longer discussions of what the saga means to non-Mormons because they are the much greater part of her audience. Though the first and last books were written for herself (and a sister), i.e., for Mormon readers only, Spotlight is predominantly about the meaning of the books that gentiles respond to. Some of that is LDS meaning not understood as such which is what forces a long look at Mormon beliefs and history as reflected in the texts (Mountain Meadows, certainly, genetics and South American natives, agency, Celestial Marriage, etc.).
Anyway, I hope that helps. I’m writing a longer post on this now because a Mormon blogger (BYU English major…) has decided I’m reading Twilight as if it were a 21st century ‘Dialogue between Joseph Smith and the Devil.’ Lest the FARMS polemical apologists decide to attack, I’ll try to say at length what the LDS chapters in Spotlight will and won’t be about.
Thank you for your notes.
-
I agree with you completely. I don’t think Meyer has woven LDS themes into her novel as a way to preach Mormonism, but perhaps, more likely, as an example of what she, in her heart, really believes about the nature of family relationships and much of that is rooted in her LDS philosphy.
I doubt the LDS apologists will find anything to take issue with from your posts, they prefer to engage on a more doctrinal/historical accuracy front. They’re unlikely to wade into an academic literary discussion of a teen romance novel.
There have been some insightful literary Twilight discussions from within the LDS intellectual community. You may find some good info here:
http://www.motleyvision.org/2008/stephanie-meyers-mormonism-and-the-erotics-of-abstinence/
Thanks for maintaining a fun blog, I’ll be sure to check back in.
-
Ethan, thank you so much for that link.
-
FHS Professor, you were the highlight of SSIF!
First, a disclaimer that I am not a literary “big brain”, I am a psych student who loves to read and I am somewhat intimidated to post here. I cannot speak from a Mormon POV, I identify more closely with Baptist doctrine, but Breaking Dawn is my favorite of the series. I love the resolution. There are many spiritual themes throughout that I believe transcend any one particular doctrine of Christianity. There is sacrifice, redemption, sanctification, ect. Many of the criticisms of the book deal with these themes precisely. For example, some say it works out all too well, Bella gets everything she wants. However, isn’t that exactly what happens when we accept God? We may suffer, we may sacrifice but in the end the result (heaven) is almost too good to be true and yet thats what we get.
Religious meaning aside, I have also seen many upset that there was no loss in the final “battle”. I find it ironic that a generation that preaches that violence is not the answer has a problem when logic saves the day rather than physical confrontation and dominance.
17 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link: http://fhsprofessor.com/wp-trackback.php?p=141