Sunday, November 8, 2009

Say it ain't so, Oprah!

I'm sure by now many of you have heard that Stephenie Meyer is going to be doing an interview with Oprah on November 13th. While I'm sure it's probably to promote the release of New Moon later this month, I can't help but feel a little disgusted by the whole thing. As if we need any more copies of these appallingly bad books circulating (and because of the "Oprah effect", these things are going to fly off the shelves even faster).

I can only assume that Oprah has not read the books. I can't imagine that, if she really knew what was in them (especially in Breaking Dawn) that she would allow herself to be associated with them in any way. Oprah has spent time and money advocating for children's rights, and to get pedophiles and child abusers off the streets. She's talked numerous times about how pedophiles groom their victims. I can't for one second believe that she'd be okay with "imprinting" as it's presented in these books, especially since two major examples involve grown men imprinting on baby girls (with the expectation that they will one day be lovers).

If Oprah is prepared to ask the hard questions, I wouldn't have any problem with this interview. But I expect it will just be a Meyer love-fest, Oprah will be seen as endorsing the series, and millions more women will think it's okay to let their girls read books that endorse relationships with predatory men.


  1. I have no problem with Meyer's novels. I'm a huge fan, I've read them all. It's not paedophilia. Jacob does not feel sexual desire for Nessie in any way, and this is all explained in the books. At the point in which we read Breaking Dawn, Jake feels love for Nessie as an older brother would - that is not sexual. It's all about protection and happiness of the child. The other feelings don't come until the child is much older, when it is not inappropriate. I don't understand why people don't get this when it is clearly explained in the books.

  2. Child grooming is defined as "the deliberate actions taken by an adult to form a trusting relationship with a child, with the intent of later having sexual contact". While a pedophile can get around the legality of waiting until the child is an adult before actually having sex, it's still morally questionable.

    I know what was explained in the books, as I read all four of them. Jacob's affections for Bella (which were sexual in nature) transferred to Renesmee when she was born. I've heard the excuse that Jacob won't do anything with Nessie until she's "old enough" (which is age 7... in Meyer's world, life experience apparently has little influence on maturing a person's mind), and that, until then, he'll just be an older brother or father figure. To me, that's even worse. She's growing up with the expectation that she's going to become Jacob's lover. And because she'll trust him (and will probably have been told about the whole imprinting thing), she'll go along with it. In essence, her free will is taken away... because it's not really a free choice if you've been conditioned to choose one thing over the other.

    If there's nothing of a sexual nature in their relationship, I would really appreciate it if someone would explain both imprinting and the promise bracelet to me. Because, as far as I'm aware, both of those have definite sexual connotations.

  3. Stephenie Meyer on Oprah? Wow... I'm not gonna lie: I was appalled by Breaking Dawn, not so much because I was offended by the imprinting (even though I thought it was a horrible, way-too-convenient way to explain away Jacob's love for Bella and make everyone happy) but because I thought it utterly lacked depth, creativity, and talent at all. Not to mention all the hype with crazy Twilight tweens is driving me crazy. You can't go anywhere these days without seeing it.

    Natalie @ Mindful Musings

  4. You really don't like these books, do you?
    I must confess reading your post has certainly made me look at them in a different way. I've read them myself and must say that I'm a little worried by the age range that seem to read them and especially Breaking Dawn which contained some pretty graphic, gory scenes. 8 years old, too young to be reading these books? I think so.

  5. Totally agree. Meyer even borrowed from Lolita in the naming on the original characters involved in the pedo theme (Claire and Quil). Obviously, Lolita is an amazing novel which does anything but excuse pedophilia. Perhaps Meyer never read it? Perhaps she read it, could not grasp it, but wanted to be referential throughout her terribly written saga?

    Either way, the grooming of a toddler and newborn respectively to become future sexual partners is incredibly disturbing. Meyer should have to answer for this eventually.

  6. Oh, that's right! Clare Quilty. I remember hearing about that when Breaking Dawn first came out.

    If it wasn't meant to be referential, it's one heck of a coincidence (or maybe it was subconsciously done... either way, there seem to be some definite similarities, in both the names and the subject matter).