I'm Published!!!

Note: If you worship the Twilight books and think Stephanie Meyer is a fine writer and deserved cultural icon, you may want to skip this post!

I am thrilled to announce that Entertainment Weekly published (part of) a letter I wrote in their Feedback section this week! I have been reading this magazine cover to cover for YEARS and I'm pumped to have my name in it (not to mention in an issue with CHRISTIAN BALE on the cover. He was my crush of 1998. His picture adorned my dorm wall ALL freshman year, and I actually even dated someone for six weeks just because he kind of looked like him. But that is really something to be explored in a future post).

The comment has to do with the Twilight issue they put out two weeks ago. And no, it's not about how upset I am that Edward looks like a scary transvestite instead of the chivalric hunk he's supposed to be (apparently fans were in an uproar over this). It was about how upset I am that these books are so popular.

I admit, I only just read Twilight last month (and it is the ONLY book of hers that I have read, for the record). I mainly did so because when I would mention reading as one of my hobbies, people around here would immediately bring up this book. And, without fail, I was met with a look as if I had neglected the holiest writ of scripture when I would admit I hadn't gotten to it yet. Growing tired of these looks of horror, I bumped it up on my "to read" list (additionally, I couldn't resist when my brother started making hilarious jokes about how every girl in his creative writing class at BYU was writing their own version). I was SO sad when, after 500 pages, I found that Stephanie Meyer had romanticized what I felt was a totally unhealthy relationship. Bella, the heroine, makes horrible choices about who she spends time with (based purely on physical chemistry with a bloodsucking man) and even worse ones about her strategy for saving her life once involvement with said crowd becomes dangerous. She survives only because Edward swoops in just in time to save her from herself, and then BEGS him to take her life away. To me, Bella kind of made Lucy Ricardo look like a strident feminist.

On top of that, the writing just wasn't that good. This may sound snotty and judgmental, but after four years in college spent dissecting essays by everyone from Aristotle to Coleridge about what qualifies writing as good, I feel I'm offering an educated opinion here (and yes, the irony that Stephanie Meyer went to the exact same school and was probably forced to read these exact same essays isn't lost on me). Eight sentences every other paragraph contemplating Edward's sexy eyes just doesn't strike me as the stuff of fine literature. And while the story is titillating (yes, there is a big difference between "exciting" stories and "titillating" ones, and I fear Meyer's aim was for the latter), there are glaring flaws in logic. The most obvious being that immortal beings would flock to the local high school to bide their time. In 100 years Edward can't figure out that's the WORST place on earth? I kid. But seriously, I can't understand the fuss. I mean, if somebody is going to knock out the Rose family's beloved Orson Scott Card as the best-selling, best known Mormon author, let it be for an amazing piece of work, you know?

So yeah, to say I had a strong reaction to the book is kind of an understatement. When the magazine showed up in my mailbox a couple weeks later, I couldn't hold my tongue (well, more like my hands away from the keyboard). Here is my letter in its entirety:

I couldn't help but shudder when I saw Twilight receiving more hype from EW. This book truly horrified me (and vampires had nothing to do with it). A heroine ready to toss away her life for the physical "electricity" she feels from a man who admits UP FRONT he is dangerous for her? This same heroine needing to be saved from her physical and mental weaknesses by this same man every few pages? Yes, this is the romantic ideal for young women of the 21st century to aspire to (insert eye roll here). This twenty-eight-year-old Mormon housewife [the article kept touting Meyer as a 29-year-old Mormon housewife when she began the series] is crossing her fingers that her daughters will skip Ms. Meyer's books and turn to Jane Austen (books and movies!) when the need for a good romance arises. Austen managed to create intelligent heroines seeking partners who empowered them--not to mention decent prose!--without the benefit of living AFTER the feminist movement. Meanwhile, your lawyers should gear up for the slander lawsuit that will undoubtedly follow when J.K. Rowling reads that you dared to print her name in the same issue as Stephanie Meyer . . .

I know, I know, pretty scathing. But I wanted to get it printed so I had to get their attention, you know? And it shows my true feelings in an exaggerated (albeit sort of mean) way. Well, here's what they printed:

I hope my daughters will skip these books and turn to Jane Austen when the need for a good romance arises. Austen created intelligent heroines seeking partners who empowered them.

Yeah, not the same umph as the original, eh? And it's even lamer in the magazine, sandwiched between all the letters about what a hunk Edward is and how people shouldn't go around photographing him like a scary transvestite. Still, I'm published! And I went down on record as promoting intelligence and empowerment in romantic relationships. That's what's important, right? There can be worse things than coming off like a priggish Jane-Austenophile-English-Major-type who likes to discuss Colin Firth and his wet shirt in the BBC version of Pride and Prejudice for a good time, right? Anyway, go out and buy a copy of the August 1, 2008 Entertainment Weekly today. Mainly because Christian looks so great on the cover . . .