I didn't really get that "gatekeeper turned on its head" concept from this article at all. If anything, it seems to imply that Bella is not rejected, and gets everything she wants to the point that it's stupid fantasy: “Twilight” speaks to that basic fantasy of being so enticing that rejection is impossible. Bella has not one, but two men who are so completely in love with her and only her that they can’t even think about anyone else.
I don't know enough about Twilight to know whether Edward's the one saying "no" to sex, but if that's the case, that would contradict the article's assertion that the chastity... reinforces the negative stereotype that women only care about romance and men only care about sex.
It's also a little silly if the article criticizes Twilight for being trashy fantasy while insisting that the Edward character should give Bella whatever she wants and how she wants it. Do you want characters to have their own spines and their own desires or not? Why is Edward not allowed to gatekeep on his own sexuality? If he's Mr. Chaste, that doesn't interfere with Bella's agency. She's perfectly in her own right to leave the dork and go find someone else who will give her what she wants. Her choice to keep staying with him is the problem, not Edward's decision not to have sex. I don't like the idea of guys giving it up when they're not ready for sex any more than I am seeing girls in that position.
Finally, I just don't see the clandestine machinations of male power in this. I see an author who's writing to a lusty fanbase and who needs a cheap source of conflict. Novels fall dead without tension. "Edward and Bella loved each other and gave each other exactly what the other wanted. The End" is not a book. The unresolved sexual tension is a cheap device to keep the readers horny and hanging on to read more. A comparable example that comes to mind is Scully and Mulder (sp?) from X-Files. Viewers want to see sexual tension between these two, but if they fell into requited love, viewers would lose interest.
Most stories are about the money, what sells and what builds tension. It's not a matter of indoctrination but lazy writing. And if this article was about Bella being denied, I came away with the opposite impression after how long the article's author spent complaining about the non-rejection/trashy fantasy angle.
...Which kind of brings me back to my original gripe that women's fantasy gets dragged through the coals like no male fantasy ever would. Feminist readers would complain whether Edward was making advances or being a cold fish. The only neutral ground is if he stays there passively and lets Bella take all the action, which would get accused of being non-rejection infantalizing trash fantasy. How's a woman who wants to read bad escapist fantasy to win?
(And PLEASE don't think I'm defending Twilight for its own merits. I dislike it for plenty of reasons, but I'm sick of people raking women's interests through the coals in ways that makes it obvious there is no possible way it could be written without criticism.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
regna
(no subject)
Date: 2009-11-25 08:53 pm (UTC)“Twilight” speaks to that basic fantasy of being so enticing that rejection is impossible. Bella has not one, but two men who are so completely in love with her and only her that they can’t even think about anyone else.
I don't know enough about Twilight to know whether Edward's the one saying "no" to sex, but if that's the case, that would contradict the article's assertion that the chastity... reinforces the negative stereotype that women only care about romance and men only care about sex.
It's also a little silly if the article criticizes Twilight for being trashy fantasy while insisting that the Edward character should give Bella whatever she wants and how she wants it. Do you want characters to have their own spines and their own desires or not? Why is Edward not allowed to gatekeep on his own sexuality? If he's Mr. Chaste, that doesn't interfere with Bella's agency. She's perfectly in her own right to leave the dork and go find someone else who will give her what she wants. Her choice to keep staying with him is the problem, not Edward's decision not to have sex. I don't like the idea of guys giving it up when they're not ready for sex any more than I am seeing girls in that position.
Finally, I just don't see the clandestine machinations of male power in this. I see an author who's writing to a lusty fanbase and who needs a cheap source of conflict. Novels fall dead without tension. "Edward and Bella loved each other and gave each other exactly what the other wanted. The End" is not a book. The unresolved sexual tension is a cheap device to keep the readers horny and hanging on to read more. A comparable example that comes to mind is Scully and Mulder (sp?) from X-Files. Viewers want to see sexual tension between these two, but if they fell into requited love, viewers would lose interest.
Most stories are about the money, what sells and what builds tension. It's not a matter of indoctrination but lazy writing. And if this article was about Bella being denied, I came away with the opposite impression after how long the article's author spent complaining about the non-rejection/trashy fantasy angle.
...Which kind of brings me back to my original gripe that women's fantasy gets dragged through the coals like no male fantasy ever would. Feminist readers would complain whether Edward was making advances or being a cold fish. The only neutral ground is if he stays there passively and lets Bella take all the action, which would get accused of being non-rejection infantalizing trash fantasy. How's a woman who wants to read bad escapist fantasy to win?
(And PLEASE don't think I'm defending Twilight for its own merits. I dislike it for plenty of reasons, but I'm sick of people raking women's interests through the coals in ways that makes it obvious there is no possible way it could be written without criticism.)