So I posted on our family book blog about the new movie coming out based on the best selling novel Twilight.
I'm not sure why I stress over this so much. Maybe it's because I teach school and am reminded more than once a day that we have a culture that is driven by the media - for good or ill - and sometimes it seems more like for ill!
And maybe it's because the author is an LDS, BYU English major grad - and you know you should be happy that a "clean" novel is popular. But I'm really not.
There is a running dialogue in the world of the arts in the LDS Church that says that a Mormon can't really produce great art because an active, practicing member cannot dedicate his life to art and still be an active, practicing member. (I assume this refers to the fact that service in the church is a large part of an active member's life. And that such service would preclude having time to dedicate your life to art.)
Just looking at the life of Minerva Teichert negates the viability of such an argument. And there are probably other artists we could cite too.
But I'm really more concerned about the fact that the public continues to embrace mediocre writing as "great" writing. As if they don't really know what great writing is - and they probably don't.
I read Twilight - and it was tough - it was pretty badly written in my opinion, and I resented spending time on it - and even reading the ending first didn't clear things up for me, so I had to read the whole thing - I did skim, but it's a thick book!
The scene with the baseball game was pretty good - and the "stalking" in Phoenix was the best written part of the book - but the rest was pretty dispensible!
I usually like to read the stuff that is popular with the students at our school - and the whole series is very popular at my school - but I'm passing on this one.
Besides, the virtue of a predictable plot is that they are so - predictable!
I'm not sure why I stress over this so much. Maybe it's because I teach school and am reminded more than once a day that we have a culture that is driven by the media - for good or ill - and sometimes it seems more like for ill!
And maybe it's because the author is an LDS, BYU English major grad - and you know you should be happy that a "clean" novel is popular. But I'm really not.
There is a running dialogue in the world of the arts in the LDS Church that says that a Mormon can't really produce great art because an active, practicing member cannot dedicate his life to art and still be an active, practicing member. (I assume this refers to the fact that service in the church is a large part of an active member's life. And that such service would preclude having time to dedicate your life to art.)
Just looking at the life of Minerva Teichert negates the viability of such an argument. And there are probably other artists we could cite too.
But I'm really more concerned about the fact that the public continues to embrace mediocre writing as "great" writing. As if they don't really know what great writing is - and they probably don't.
I read Twilight - and it was tough - it was pretty badly written in my opinion, and I resented spending time on it - and even reading the ending first didn't clear things up for me, so I had to read the whole thing - I did skim, but it's a thick book!
The scene with the baseball game was pretty good - and the "stalking" in Phoenix was the best written part of the book - but the rest was pretty dispensible!
I usually like to read the stuff that is popular with the students at our school - and the whole series is very popular at my school - but I'm passing on this one.
Besides, the virtue of a predictable plot is that they are so - predictable!
25 comments:
Mom, it's a great beach read. I would rather the YW be reading this fluff than some of the other stuff that was out when I was a teen. I am remembering horrific plots from VC Andrews.
So I say, bring it on. It's no worse than Jack Weyland, but appeals to a wider audience.
I think it depends on why you're reading it. I liked it because it is so escapist and I didn't have to concentrate too hard. And I agree with Pheobe...it's a lot better than a lot of the other choices out there.
And I say, as I have always said, why can't escapist writing be good writing?
Can only serious literature be good writing?
And Jack Weyland wasn't so long and tedious with all the lame descriptions of clothing that Stephanie Meyer has a penchant for.
(Look at me, the English major, ending a sentence with a preposition!!)
Mom has a point: at least Jack Weyland books are short--easily read in an hour or two. And if the plots are predictable, they're not too badly written and I think some are pretty funny.
That said, I haven't read the Twilight books yet. Maybe someday. My friends all love them but I have a long list of books to read already.
I also agree that escapist fiction doesn't have to be badly written. Even if it's better than V.C. Andrews, that doesn't make it good.
I suppose if you never eat green veggies, probably better to eat carrots and corn than no veggies at all. (But it's still better to eat green ones too.)
I try to read books that my kids are reading, though it is hard to keep up with them. I've read Twilight and New Moon. Haven't read the third yet even though there is a copy in the house. Just not that excited about it I guess.
I agree that escapist writing could be good writin also.
My 14 year old has read a new(to me?) series with books called Uglies, Pretties, Specials, Extras? Have you read these? I haven't yet but I might read one to see what is going on in them.
I was very happy to be able to see the Minerva Teichert exibit at the MOA when I was down there. Beautiful!
I think, along the Minerva Teichert lines, that it is still much harder to produce great art if your life is not focused on it such that everything else falls to the side. The best art, across the board, comes from an artist's passion-borderline-obsession with a theme or topic or idea, along with a born talent. And so I would argue that it is not impossible, but rather it takes rare talent and drive to live a well-balanced and truly Christ-centered life, and still produce great art.
And Minerva Teichert's art is so good in part because she did have a passion for her subject and a drive to create. But for all of the schmaltzy but well-meaning Mormon art/music/lit out there--the artists might have just as much passion as someone like MT, but just not enough talent to pull it off.
I think Brian Kershisnik's art is pretty amazing, and not all gospel-oriented. He's another example of a real talent who can nurture his art while nurturing other aspects of life, like family and devotion to the gospel.
There is enough of a dearth out there, though, that it really does seem impossible.
i love the twilight books in the same way i love ding dongs. tasty - but only every few months.
I have read all of the Twilight series and agree that they are not the best writing. The first was the best, the second so, so and the third was definitely the worst. I had a hard time actually wanting to finish the book. For Karen, I have read all of the series of the Uglies, etc.... They are in the same venue. They address being different and how to accept others. Some of them are better than others. The Extras was the hardest to get into but it got better towards the end. I am also reading the newest book by S. Meyers... The HOST. It seems a good story line since I am a real SciFi fan but I haven't read enough to decide if it is well written or not. The critics say that the book is about 200 pages too long. I would agree. Some stories don't take that long to tell. I have also read the Thursday Next series by Jasper Fforde. Those are good books with a lot of literary references. Good satire and a bit of scifi. Your kids might like them and be inspired to read the classics that they talk about.
I'm just happy we are all discussing books!!
I think that because everyone is so different we have those who love it and those who hate it. The Twilight series caught fire and she is making some serious cash! But who said fun books had to be well written to be good? Good is in the eye of the beholder!
Why are "Classics" good? Because we are told they are! I have read a few that left me wondering why would anyone consider this well written let alone a classic?
Thank goodness there are so many different "flavors" for each of our different "tastes".
Sorry, I'm not bagging on the "classics" I do love quite a few but there are others that leave me wondering.....
Alice- I loved the Thursday Next series, lots of fun!
I just finished THE HOST. It is the newest Stephanie Meyer's novel. I actually really liked the story. It is quite SciFi but then again, I am a lover of SciFi. It is something that Axel and I have in common. The writing left a bit to be desired but it was a fun read. I couldn't put it down. I started it on Sunday, went a couple of days without reading and then finished it in a marathon 7 hour session yesterday. I had a couple of comp time hours that I needed to use before my supervisor leaves. Heather, when I went home to the States a few years ago, I decided to re-read a lot of the classics. I was glad that I did. I actually had forgotten some of the ones that I had read as a teenager. Also, my perspective had changed a lot so the books were 'new' to me.
I agree with Bonny on the Ding Dongs statement. In fact, I think it describes my sentiments perfectly.
I'm going back and forth in wanting to leave comments on pro-Twilight posts, because I don't want to offend anyone, but I want to keep an open mind too.
I'm in the middle of the third book, and it's driving me nuts that I can't get through it any faster. That's the other reason I haven't really sad much about it, because it's a little hypocritical that I criticize them, yet I'm still eager to finally finish the third book. But that's me keeping an open mind, I guess? Plus, I hate leaving things unresolved.
Also, I don't like the Harry Potter comparisons. It's nothing like Harry Potter! The only similarity is that the books are about things that don't exist. Stephenie Myer needed to buy a thesaurus, where with J.K. Rowling it doesn't seem like she forced herself to fill up that many pages with blah descriptions. (Maybe that's my biggest complaint, that I got sick of reading the descriptions of "onyx/topaz/gold/choose your precious stone colored eyes" over and over.)
And... I don't know what else to say. I didn't graduate in English, which would obviously make me an expert on this, right? ;) (I did work for the English department for two years though... maybe some of the smartness rubbed off on me.)
Also, I have a lot of opinions about the whole argument about not being able to be a great LDS artist. I've probably posted about it too. And President Kimball gave a talk on it (I can't find it anywhere)... and that's like all we talked about in my film classes.
Basically, I do and don't agree with that argument. We have filmmakers like Richard Dutcher and playwrights like Neil Labute who have not only fallen away from the church but create godless works of art. (I'm not sure if that's the right word choice.)
But I think that they're the exception to the rule, although they are very notorious exceptions. I think that MT is also an exception. Most of the other Mormon artists that I can think of are more illustrators than anything, not fine artists.
Anyway. I've spoken too much.
i agree with heather - all classics are not created equally.
and jk rowling - genius - she is in her own category...... with maud hart lovelace.
I think the argument that you can't be a serious artist in the church without dedicating all your time to it comes from the "LDS intellectual" side of the faith. Some of them think themselves right out of the church.
I think that it is a serious lack of faith if we don't believe that God blesses and magnifies our talents when we place his work first. (and who do our talents come from?)
M.T. is the prime example of how putting faith and service first, will bless your life/talent in ways we could not achieve by ourselves.
I notice that I put "I think" in too many of my posts. I think I have to work on that.
God does magnify our talents as we exercise our faith and strive to do His will.'
But His will just might not be for us to be a famous artist. Our talents may be better used elsewhere.
And how do we define fame?
And how important is it?
I know people who would testify that you are famous in your own right. Just ask them about your pumpkin cookies.
I would be happy to be remembered for my pumpkin cookies!
I have read more classics as an adult then as a teen. I usually read one to give myself a challenge. (There is nothing like trying to keep track of Russian names to keep your mind working!)
I have to admit though, I was trying to read Emma again and just couldn't get into it.
I like your thought about it maybe not being God's will that we be famous, that he might have other plans for us. I think in the long run fame is not that important. But for some the desire for fame is strong. (There was a study that showed that kids now say they want to grow up to be famous!) But I think everyone wants to be recognized for what they do (in some way) But mainly by those around them, it is not necessarily a desire for "fame"
And thank goodness for your pumpkin cookies! And for your introduction to the Wombles! And for your love of sewing! (all of which you have shared with me)
You are right Karen, and it's too bad that those actively seeking "fame" at any cost don't realize that just being appreciated and loved is all the "fame" you need.
They should just get a blog so people can tell them how great they are!!
I think everyone already said everything to be said.
Phoebe's right - time for a new post!!
Post a Comment