Both books deal with the notion of heredity and ancestry, but they treat it very differently. In the Twilight books, fate is determined by birthright. In the Potter books, birthright is presented as purely a social construct designed to oppress. Think Jacob and the Native American werewolves in Twilight, doomed to their fate through blood ties, versus Hermione and the other 'half bloods' or children of 'muggles' at Hogwarts, who are continually shown to be deserving of their place at the school in spite of elitist snobbery from Malfoy et al.
No surprise, then, that Rowling herself is a progressive. She was a single mother when she wrote the first Potter book, living on welfare. Now estimated to be worth $1.1 billion, she gives massively to progressive causes the world over. No surprise, either, that her books terrify Christian fundamentalists. Potter books have been banned by many far-right Christian groups.
No surprise, either, that Meyer is a devout Mormon, a graduate of Brigham Young University who says on her Web site that her religion colors everything she writes. She describes herself as "very religious," and her series ends with the female protagonist, all of 18, marrying Edward, becoming a vampire, and bearing his monster child.
There are many examples of Mormon theology flooding Meyer's work, some of it racist against Native Americans, Latin Americans and anyone with dark skin, much of it sexist in the sense that Bella does not exist but to love Edward. (Meyer's adult novel, The Host, is essentially a retelling of the Book of Mormon, set against a sci-fi backdrop.) The constant criticism the Twilight books have received is that Bella is not much of a character; there is no core to her, other than her adjective-laden obsession with the vampire.
Below: "Conservatives understand that we minorities have dark animal sides! Heck, I would've voted for McCain if I'd been old enough!"
6 comments:
Having Read both "The Host" and "The Book of Mormon", I'm curious about your claim that The Host is a retelling of the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon has far too many stories to be summed up in one book like The Host. I mean no offense, but I simply cannot accept your claim without actual evidence.
PS: I'm a conservative Mormon who loves Harry Potter. We can't all fit into these neat little categories, as you should well know.
PSS: Mormons are not taught to be racist in Church. The Book of Mormon talks about dark skinned Lamanites, and among them are some of our most celebrated Heroes (See "Army of Heleman", "People of Ammon" or "Anti-Nephi Lehites", and "Samuel the Lamanite" in the Index. They were amazing!)
Yeah, but real Indians aren't Jews, Bekka. I personally always found the Book of Mormon funny just because if I were looking for the lost tribes of Israel, my search by continent would be as follows:
1. Asia
2. Africa
3. Europe
4. everywhere else
The book of Mormon doesn't express that the lost tribes are in America, but it does mention descndants of one. It might just be your interpretation. Also, in your list of searching the tribes, don't you think is also a bit racist how you imply people from America can't belong to them? After all, americans (continent population) weren't there just by "magic".
Also, I agree with Bekka. Latter-day Saints, or Mormons as you refer, are not taught to discriminate anyone, anyone. If you really read the book, I think you can realize it.
I confess myself a mormon, a Harry Potter fan and a Twilight fan. And also, for that matter, a latinamerican.
I also would like to say that people grow up with backgrounds and believes, if a single story changes your point of view of the world, then I don't think you're a very smart person. They are books that are meant for entertainment. (And in the author's case, to make a living out of them).
Also, I'm a descendant of native people from America, and I don't find anything racist in those books, except for people that clearly shows that's the way they think. I enjoyed both stories and they are counted among my favorites.
I haven't read "The Host". I'd like to do it. But it would be hard to express everything the Book of Mormon says in a sci-fi story. But until I read it, I wont comment more about the subject.
Does anyone else find it an odd coincidence that during the 1857 "Meadow Creek Massacre" Mormons dressed up as Indians to enforce anonymous "blood atonement" on other Christians and here we have white people dressing up as Indians to sell a fictitious view of the world to a young, mainly Christian audience according to one Mormon's imagination?
The whole thing reminds me of the colonialist narcissism so often referred to in the works of Gordon Bennett and the writing of Ian McLean - "White Aborigines" - we are incapable of seeing Indigenous people as themselves - only 'our' own reflections which 'we' project upon 'them'.
I find so much racism of recent years, including my own, comes in the form of what I term "narcissistic rage" - an overwhelming awe at Indigenous survival - combined with a knowledge that white people in general are incapable of enduring what 'we' dish out to 'others' - and most of all a complete inability to even imagine how 'others' are able to survive and therefore terror that at any point 'their' tower of self-control must be going to crack and that 'they' will unleash all the hell on us 'we' so richly deserve.
The claim about The Host was in the original article, Bekka. I haven't claimed anything about it.
Mormons have changed what they teach several times over the years, Phoebz. And what they teach and what people practice are two different things.
Who's talking about a single story changing someone's point of view? Not me.
Post a Comment