ANNOUNCING: Blogging Looking To Alaska

John Green's first novel, Looking For Alaska, will be the next work to be examined in this never-ending book-club of ours. And that series will begin soon...ish! I started a new job this week, and also I'm working on some bigger picture stuff. But anyway, in the meantime, I want to keep posting about stuff. SO: What do you want to talk about? Any movies (preferably on Netflix Instant) that were really great or really horrible or just that you've been meaning to watch? Any short stories worth discussing? Articles worth arguing with? The floor is yours.

Ashley Greene Is Fucking CURSED

First there was Skateland. Then LOL. Then The Apparition. Then there was her spread in Esquire which was downgraded to her spread in Esquire Mexico. And now Ashley Greene has killed Pan Am. Probably.  AG was spotted in NYC the other day, looking all Elizabeth Cady Stanton and shit, taping a guest arc on ABC's attempt at Mad Men. Then, today, we got word that though Pan Am is not exactly cancelled (yet), it's pretty much dead. (There can only be one Don Draper, and he rides first class; he doesn't pilot like a chump. How are you supposed to grab vaginas if your hands are busy trying to land a fucking plane?) AG's episodes will probably air, but is it really a gig she'll want to stick in her hat now? Isn't it sort of like getting the call that they want you for the Titantic house band, but AFTER the iceberg?

Anyway, is there nothing Ashley Greene can't destroy? I hope there's a Jonas fan out there who really loves Pan Am. HA! "First Joe's hymen, now this!"-you

BLOGGING THE HUNGER GAMES, pt. 27: Watch The Throne

So the last chapter ended with "And right now, the most important part of the Hunger Games is about to begin." And of course, it's right before the very end of the book. Guhhh. I gave up hope of a pat resolution a long time ago, but are we even going to get ANY resolution?

Spoiler alert: NOPE! Previous entries can be found in the directory.

Chapter 27 (Last chapter)

We're in an era of franchises. I get that. New ideas don't sell like prepackaged old ideas; people like to know what to expect! That's why Michael Bay will be making Transformers movies forever (and now that Shia LeBeuouaf is out, I support that decision completely). The economic push for multipart book-and-or-film series is a powerful one, but like all economic pushes it's (probably*) cyclical. Stephenie Meyer wasn't sure if there'd be a demand for more than one Twilight book. She had an idea for what later became Breaking Dawn but came up with New Moon and Eclipse when the opportunity presented itself. But The Hunger Games came later in that cycle. Collins obviously sold this book as part of a series, and that sort of thing was conceivably made easier due to Twilight. So while that's great for Collins like, in terms of stuff she wants to buy, it's not ideal for the reader. Because here, we're expecting something major to happen between Katniss and Peeta and it just... doesn't. To be continued!

(*Conceivably someday we'll circle back around again, and people will get so sick of franchises they'll want a few one-and-done stories. But feature films have been stuck in this part of the cycle for like, ten fucking years.)

Katniss comes up on the stage and Peeta is standing there looking all suave and she throws herself into his arms and they make out for literally ten minutes. Caesar Flickman finally gets them to settle down--the standard HG champion's throne has been replaced with a "plush red velvet" love seat (from the Rathbone collection)--and they watch a three hour (three hour!) highlight reel from the games. Katniss kind of numbs herself to the violence on the screen but notices that the editors have shaped the narrative of the reel around her and Peeta's romance. She re-lives their courtship, and you think that this will be the moment when she realizes her feelings for him were real.

And thematically, it would be perfect, right? The Hunger Games are a TV show after all, and even though the general theme has been that televised entertainment is brutal and crass, it would be interesting to double-cross that theme a little and show how the mass media can clarify things for us in a positive way, too. Wouldn't it be ironic if watching the Hunger Games helped Katniss bring it all back home? Oh well!

The broadcast ends and Katniss is escorted back to her room. She tries to go find Peeta but no one is on the roof, and when she goes back to her room someone locks her in. She says she feels like she's a prisoner awaiting sentencing. (I can't help but feel like this is another Volturi-like psyche out. It's funny, after seeing Breaking Dawn pt. 1 I have lots of positive feelings toward Twilight, but there's still a lot of negativity and jadedness too. It's confusing. I'd characterize my emotions as Everdeenian.)

The next day Cinna puts Katniss in another innocence-enhancing "gauzy" white dress and she and Peeta sit down for a televised interview with Flickman, the Ryan Seacrest of Panem. Katniss leans on Peeta's shoulder and mumbles through it, and at some point realizes that Peeta's leg has been replaced with a metal-and-plastic prosthetic. The sight of the thing freaks her out so much that Peeta answers most of the following questions. This is interesting, because while it's so far underdeveloped you could see why Katniss would be buggin'. Peeta was afraid the Capitol would change him, and they very literally did, altering his physical form.

But she scores a few strategic victories. Flickman asks when she fell for Peeta, and when Katniss is at a loss he suggests the moment she shouted his name in the tree. Katniss says that was the first time she thought there was a chance she could "keep him," and Haymitch breathes a sigh of relief off-camera. So, is that it then? Is the Volturi threat--I mean the Capitol threat--done with?

They board a train back to District 12, and Katniss starts to feel a disconnect between her televised, Peeta-loving self and the girl she used to be. Changing back into her regular clothes and removing her makeup while the train moves along is a montage-worthy transition, and when Peeta puts his arm around her, his touch feels "alien." This is fine, but it would sort of make more sense if Katniss had ever fully committed to the "I actually love Peeta" column. But she never did, she hung out in the middle of the Venn Diagram Collins put her in at more or less the start of this thing. We're getting the illusion of an arc right now, but there never really was one.

And they stop to gas up or something and Kat & Peet go for a walk along the train tracks. Haymitch catches up to them and tells Katniss they're probably in the clear, and then of course the jig is up. Peeta is like, "huh?" and then more or less figures out the whole thing without another word from Katniss.

"But you knew what he wanted you to do, didn't you?" says Peeta. I bite my lip. "Katniss?" He drops my hand and I take a step, as if to catch my balance.
"It was all for the Games," Peeta says. "How you acted."
"Not all of it, I say.

Peeta walks away, and then Katniss drops an exposition bomb on us.

I want to tell him that he's not being fair. That we were strangers. That I did what it took to stay alive, to keep us both alive in the arena. That I can't explain how things are with Gale because I don't know myself. That it's no good loving me because I'm never going to get married anyway and he'd just end up hating me later instead of sooner. That if I do I have feelings for him, it doesn't matter because I'll never be able to afford the kind of love that leads to a family, to children. And how can he? How can he after what we've just been through?

Holy shit! Tell us how you really feel! And maybe, you know, start telling us 300 pages ago? And who the fuck is Gale, I mean really. ARGH. And then you turn the page, expecting some of this to go somewhere, and the novel is fucking over. They pull in to D12 and Peeta holds her hand for the cameras and she says she can feel him slipping away, and then there's "End of book 1" like a middle finger in your face.

I could say more, but I think it fits better if this blog post just abruptly cuts off, too. Boo!

Every Thought I Had While Watching The Trailer For A Warrior's Heart

When did they make this movie? 1995? The opening shot and the opening music strongly evoke 1995. If I'm ever at a wine tasting I think I'll taste some and say it strongly evokes 1995. Ashley Greene is narrating and she sounds like she has too much saliva in her mouth. I am OK with this. Ashley Greene is in a school girl's uniform. I don't know how to feel about that. I saw a few interviews with AG on various Breaking Dawn carpets in which she coquettishly mentioned how nice it was to have male fans in attendance this time. She's a sociopath. Kellan Lutz's facial expressions are inscrutable. HER NAME IS BROOKLYN!? "To really understand why" Ashley's character fell for Kellan's character: "You have to know a little about the game he loves." Wait, why do you have to know about lacrosse to know why she fell for him? CUT TO NATIVE AMERICANS. WHAT IS HAPPENING. Also the Iraq War is up in this bitch? Hold on. Think about how far we've gotten from where we started. In less than a minute! Where else will this movie go? Post-funeral necking! Mental instability! Aaaand now the Iraq War and the Native American tradition are united in the form of one person. Holy shit. And did we ever find out why we needed to understand lacrosse in order to see why she fell for him? I like that AG spells out the film's thesis. "You know, like, I guess SOME HEROES ARE MADE BY CIRCUMSTANCES." And then she says it again, in case you didn't get it or maybe couldn't understand her because of all the spit in her warm, wet mouth. Cue Regina Spektor and uplifting camera angles! Chord Overstreet is someone's name? Ashley Greene's mouth has been open a lot in this trailer. How does she keep it so moist if it's open all the time? Kellan Lutz has been shirtless a lot in this trailer. OH I GET IT: this is a movie for fathers to watch with their daughters, so they can both get horny. Perfect. I can't wait for (selected theaters and Video On Demand) December 2nd! Thanks for the tip, Emily. And again: holy shit.

ASK NICK SULLIVAN: Letters To Esquire's Fashion Director, Answered by Zac Little

I am getting ready to jump into the business world. What is your opinion on wearing a three-piece suit to a job interview? If not, can I wear a three-piece suit without the vest?

CJ Zeilenga, Columbia MO

As it happens, I am also joining the business world, and in most of my job interviews what I did was I wore a zoot suit with a fedora and spoke in the cadences of a 1930's gangster. IT WAS SO FUN! Nobody called me back though, except for that improv troupe. But I only interviewed with them for practice.

There's something to be said for dressing formally so as to convey how seriously you're taking the prospect of employment, but there's also something to be said for not looking like a fucking goober. And on the serious/goober continuum, I'm not really sure where you're at. To be honest, it really depends on what you look like. Would you say you're closer to Jon Hamm or Christopher Mintz-Plasse? James Caan or Ed Begley Jr.? Hamm/Caan-types can pull off almost anything. Three-piece? Sure! Eight-piece? Even better! Those on the Mintz-Plasse/Begley Jr. end of the matrix have to be a little more restrained so as not to look like either a boy playing dress up in his father's closet or a crazy guy who blew his scratch ticket earnings at the Salvation Army. Or both! Plain dress shirts and unadventurous blazers are the way to go. Hamm/Begley Jrs are wildcards, but usually look best in a sweatervest for some reason. Caan/Mintz-Plasses have never been spotted in the wild, but many experts contest that they do exist. But only in Iceland.

Will someone design a Hamm/Caan/Mintz-Plasse/Begley Jr. style matrix for me? I feel like there's money in that banana stand, so to speak.

I will be visiting Thailand soon, and I plan to get a few custom shirts while I'm there. I have never ordered a custom shirt before. Any advice you can give me?

Steven Ford, San Diego CA

I think I see what's happening here. So you want to order a "custom shirt," but you're worried about doing it for the first time in a foreign culture. Well, the good news, Steven Ford of San Diego California, is that "custom shirts" work the same way in Thailand that they do over here. Handjobs are the cheapest, blowjobs run the price gamut depending on quality/mouth condition, and some "custom shirts" won't even do anything else. But that's probably a good thing. When the customs agent asks if you have anything to declare, you don't want to have to tell him about the herpes. Don't think that counts? Re-read the latest Foreign Aid bill, asshole.

And sure, if you accidentally harm or murder your custom shirt, you'll probably hear from the tailor. But with those California good looks and those American Dollars you'll be on your way in no time. Have fun with those prostitutes, Steven Ford of San Diego!

How much wear should show on the heels of shoes before they might be accused of being "down-at-the-heels"?

George Crews, Mary Esther FL

Oh dearest heavens! A gentleman such as yourself surely shant ever be accused of being "down at the heel"! I doff my monocle at the very thought! Shant! A pox on the house of a knave who'd ever speak forth with such a vulgar utterance! As for the care of one's shoes, surely you have servant boys to do your walking for you?

Previously: "Disproportional Hand Disorder is no joke, and literally tens of people every year suffer from its weirdness."

Twilight Hate-Hate Is The New Twilight Hate

I was happy to have correctly predicted the wave of backlash that would hit Twilight after the release of Breaking Dawn pt. 1. But I did NOT anticipate the backlash to the backlash! Look where we are already!

Earlier today the author Maureen Johnson tweeted a link to an article defending Twilight from the sort of accusations this blog has been leveling at it for years. Twilight is female fantasy, the article argues, and the attacks come from, dare they say it, a sexist place. GASP.

Why is it that female fantasies are such a source of derision and fear? The male species is allowed all manner of violent, creepy, ludicrous and degrading movie tropes, and while we may not embrace them as high art, no one questions them seriously as entertainment, even when sometimes we probably should. (Violent imagery is, after all, associated with violent behavior.) You want to saw someone in half or put their head in a vise? Showcase naked strippers as a fake plot device? Pair a beautiful and successful career woman with a slovenly, unemployed man? Pretend you are Wolverine? Go right ahead. We know you can’t really be serious. But watch a tender wedding night between a virginal, undead superhero and his teenage, human bride, and the scolds come out in force.

I've been called a lot of things, but it's rare that I am even indirectly accused of sexism. I carry around a picture of a woman in my wallet, okay? But seriously: this article gave me pause. I in fact considered the merits of this (however muddled, in the original article) argument ( even though I feel like, since most of y'all are lacking y-chromosomes, you'd have called me on it if I were being sexist at any point). And on her Twitter feed Maureen Johnson has been elaborating: "[A]re the same hammers coming down on books written by men? In the same way? Are we saying, "But! Role models!" in the same way?" Her thru lines are basically A. the amount of criticism Twilight gets is in part due to the fact that the author is a woman and it covers girly concerns, and B. people shouldn't be moralizing about Twilight, expecting morals from book is a dangerous path.

WELL. Twilight is an INCREDIBLY POPULAR book series, so the attention it gets is more due to that than anything else. Also due to that popularity: it's hard to find a male analog to see if the accusation holds water. In fact, the only analog I can really think of, in terms of popularity, is Harry Potter. And J.K. doesn't stand for JACK KEVIN, you know?

(Then there's the fact that people who accuse Meyer of being a bad writer are like, objectively correct, but anyway.)

Item B: I agree with the assertions from Johnson and her followers that expecting books to be moral leads to book burning. But when I complain about Meyer's cracked moral compass, that's not exactly what I am doing. Twilight is the one who is moralizing, see? In Breaking Dawn, abortion = killing beautiful, magical, full-of-potential Renesmee. Abstinence = control, clarity, and goodness, and giving in to even SOME of your desires = evil and/or death. We are not saying "Twilight should be banned because it erodes morals," we are saying "Twilight is bad because it tries to subtly replace NORMAL morals with CRAZY ones." Meyer is closer to the book burners, on the moral spectrum, is what I am saying.

That said, hey, this is a fun discussion to try and wrap my head around. Go piece together what Johnson et al are saying on her Twitter feed before it gets buried by strange banter with John Green!

Evening Links!

Vulture's interview with Melissa Rosenberg is ARGUABLE, to say the least. The bruises are OK because Bella asked for it? Hmmmmm.

Oh, and the Mary HK Choi and Natasha Vargas-Cooper convo about BD you have been waiting all weekend for is finally up! I'm all over the comments in that shit, guys.

Got any BD-related articles to recommend? Hit me with it!

Also, dudes: two K. Stew movies are on Netflix Instant now: Welcome To The Rileys and The Yellow Handkerchief. I've seen the former, and will check out the latter soon. Yay K. Stew!

BLOGGING THE HUNGER GAMES, pt. 26: I Wanna Be Sedated

Last time, Katniss and Peeta won the Hunger Games. And it was a fucking bummer. Previous entries can be found in the directory.

(We’re almost done, by the way, so I feel comfortable announcing that our next project, after our usual bullshit interlude, will be BLOGGING LOOKING FOR ALASKA, by John Green. At some point soon I will probably be reading Catching Fire and writing briefly about it, too. Maybe.)

Chapter 26

A hovercraft shows up overhead and brings Katniss and Peeta aboard. Peeta’s in pretty bad shape, and once they’re on he’s rushed by a group of paramedics.  Katniss is instinctively terrified of them and freaks out; they shove her into another room and she’s forced to watch through a glass door while they operate. There’s a running suggestion in this chapter that Katniss isn’t quite ready for civilization again—she’s too animalistic, too raw. That’s fine, but I sort of feel like the preceding text doesn’t do much to back that up. Sure, living in trees and killing people is not exactly normal behavior, but there was never a suggestion that Katniss was even BEGINNING to lose her grasp on her own humanity.

Peeta’s heart stops twice while they work on him and Katniss thinks of the doomed mine victims her mother used to try and save. She sees her “rabid, feral, mad” reflection in the glass just as they start to move Peeta somewhere else and really lets loose, slamming herself against the glass (I’d say good luck, Jennifer Lawrence, but I bet she can handle that shit) until someone jabs her with a tranquilizer.

So you’re expecting Katniss to be brought to some kind of throne or something, right? She’s the victor, where the fuck are the spoils? Instead the Capitol begins a careful re-assimilation process—and the degree of sinister intent is sort of hard to gauge. Kantiss wakes up naked (hot) in a bed, tied down around her waist (HOT). She realizes that her skin has been cleaned and her nails have got did, and when she’s inspecting her hair she discovers that hearing has been restored in her left ear. Cool, right? That redheaded Avox chick brings her food, but it's only a small portion of some clear broth. And when she tries to wriggle out of her restraints (still hot) she is drugged and immediately passes out again.

Oy, the drugging. This is like, the most standard sci-fi thing ever, right? I mean, I used the random-drugging and resultant loss of passage of time in a sci-fi story I wrote in the eighth grade. Go figure. But it works well enough. Katniss wakes up, sees that her scars are fading, hears a man yelling, passes out. And so on.

A couple days or hours later, Katniss wakes unrestrained, finds her clothes, and is released into a hallway that leads her to Effie Trinket, Haymitch and Cinna. Hey guys! Katniss surprises herself by running into Haymitch’s arms first—one of the more interesting things Collins has accomplished in this book is making Haymitch a major character despite the limited amount of time he’s actually around. He’s sort of the most identifiable and understandable character in here. Or is that just my alcoholic, jaded self connecting that dot?

Apprently they don’t talk about anything very interesting though—I mean, Katniss hears that she’s to be reunited with Peeta on live TV but that’s about it—because next she’s whisked away to be dressed for the ceremony.  Cinna’s latest concoction is a subtle number, a yellow dress that is reminiscent of candlelight. Katniss starts to sense that something is up, because rather than make her look like a hot mamacita this dress emphasizes her girlishness.

Next, Katniss waits on a platform to the stage where she'll meet up with Peeta and have a kind of exit interview. Haymitch shows up and gives her a hug, and when he does he begins quietly and quickly warning her in a whisper. The Capitol is pissed that Katniss showed them up--they're "the joke of Panem" now. He tells her that her defense has to be that she was "madly in love" and not responsible for her actions.

On the one hand, this is kind of a fun idea. Collins is showing how love can be crassly exploited and used to hide all kinds of behavior. On the other hand: ENOUGH ALREADY. Katniss asks if Peeta knows and Haymitch says he's "already there." Katniss wonders if that means truly in love or strategic enough to know without being told. ENOUGH ALREADY!

(The Hunger Games trailer was in front of Breaking Dawn pt. 1, a movie from which large portions of mental intrigue were cut due to unfilmability. Will that be the case for the Is He Or Isn't He aspect of the Will They Or Won't They in THG? Or will they just show two characters watching the games on TV going "She doesn't know how much he really loves her!")

The Reviews Are In!

  

One reason to see this shit in the theaters: that nipple will almost certainly be removed on the DVD. But it was SO THERE, you guys.

No Church In The Wild Episodes 3-5

The absence of a proper NCITW column this week is mostly because I posted so many times earlier in the week. Breaking Dawn week, ahhh! And to be honest, I could have written 3x as much. But it's also because I released three episodes of the VIDEO edition, and how much advice can y'all really take in a week-long period? Anyway, here are the episodes! Use it to come down from the high (or up from the low) of Breaking Dawn part 1. (Open thread for that is here.)

BREAKING DAWN part 1 OPEN THREAD

DID YOU SEE IT? DIDDDD YOUUUU SEEEEE ITTTTT? I haven't yet, I will maybe go on Monday? Or Sunday, who knows? But anyway if you have thoughts to share, share them! Don't worry about spoilers in the comments, because A. we already read the book and B. I will just read them later.

A few links from this week:

• COUNTDOWN TO BREAKING DAWN: La Isla Indescrita
• There But For The Grace Of God Go Die
• Viva La Ashley Greene
• Kellan Lutz Likes Having A Gay Around
• Does The Black Carpet Match The Drapes?
• NOBODY IMPRINTS BABY IN A CORNER
• Turning And Turning In The Widening Gyre
• Blogging The Hunger Games: Killing Yourself To Live
• COUNTDOWN TO BREAKING DAWN: Honor Amongst Louts, Rapists & Thieves
• One More Thing
• [via 247Greene] AG on Jimmy Fallon

A few notable reviews (i.e. the ones I have read)

• Alison Willmore at the AV Club: "Where Twilight started as a “true love waits” metaphor, it makes in this segment a grotesquely unconvincing argument for maternal martyrdom, in the form of taking a baby to term even if it kills the mother. But that’s overthinking things..."  
• Andrew O'Hehir at Salon: "Rarely have the metaphorical transformations of horror fiction been carried to such rococo extremes. Is this a story about a young woman coming of age or a deviant, heretical Christ legend with a female hero?"
• Dana Stevens at Slate: "In the book, I gather, Breaking Dawn’s unplanned-vampire-pregnancy plotline is something of a Trojan horse for a conservative, pro-life agenda: Apparently immortal mutant vampire life also begins at conception. Here, I wouldn’t say that’s a major factor (or if it is, there’s so much other allegorical weirdness in the air it’s hard to separate it out.)"
• Linda Holmes at NPR: "But when a saga popular with pre-adolescent girls peaks romantically on a night that leaves the heroine to wake up covered with bruises in the shape of her husband's hands — and when that heroine then spends the morning explaining to her husband that she's incredibly happy even though he injured her, and that it's not his fault because she understands he couldn't help it in light of the depth of his passion — that's profoundly irresponsible."
• Dan Kois at The Village Voice: "Expect much to be written about this, and for op-ed hacks on either side of the debate to squeeze Breaking Dawn for all it’s worth; the film’s actual politics are muddy. Bella, who’s willing to have the baby even though it’ll certainly kill her, could best be described as anti–life, while the vampires trying to strong-arm her might be pro–abortion, but they’re pretty determinedly anti–choice." 

One More Thing

What the hell, you guys are probably in line at the theater reading this on your phone anyway, right? So when I was in college I surprised myself by once coming to the defense of John Yoo, the scholar and former Bush administration official who was the architect of many controversial policies including but not limited to what we refer to somewhat ironically now as "enhanced interrogation" techniques.

Yoo wrote a book on Presidential war powers, which is a major source of contention among political scientists. Who has the power to Make War? The President or Congress? The constitution empowers the President to be "commander in chief," and the Federalist papers elaborate on the importance of "secrecy and dispatch" (Federalist Papers #70, I think, but I'm not going to check) that only an Executive, lone actor could accomplish. Whereas Congress is assigned the power to "declare war." Some argue that this was tantamount to Congress simply signing off on a war the President wanted to wage, others believed Congress was meant to be more involved in the process (and in fact, the Founding Fathers use "make war" and "declare war" interchangeably in the Federalist papers). Regardless of what scholars think, though, Presidents have seized more and more war powers over the years, and Congressional attempts to rein them in (like the 1973 War Powers resolution) have failed or backfired.

Anyway, on a midterm we were given a piece by John Yoo arguing in favor of Presidential supremacy, and another article favoring Congress, and were asked to explain who made the most compelling argument. Much as I didn't like the power-grabs of the Bush era, I had to hand it to Yoo: he was describing the world as it was, and saying that it was meant to be this way. The other scholars were in a dream world, imagining an alternative US in which Congress was capable of being assertive.

Over at The Hairpin, Sarah Blackwood has made a similar defense of Breaking Dawn, only John Yoo is Bella Swan. Give it a read.

COUNTDOWN TO BREAKING DAWN: Honor Amongst Louts, Rapists & Thieves

Breaking Dawn part 1 will be released at midnight this evening ("Tonight's the night!"-Dexter). Shit, so I guess this movie is really happening, huh? I'm republishing some MOBFD stuff over on my Tumblr, and here I'd like to discuss the last three things I find really terrible about the first half of Meyer's magnum opus.


1. Rosalie's Baby

Breaking Dawn transitions from a romance about abstinence (which Robert Pattinson himself said on David Letterman last week) to an anti-abortion parable. As much is telegraphed early on, when Bella starts dreaming about having to defend beautiful children from various murderers. But it's thrown into stark relief when Bella gets pregnant and the Cullens and their hangers-on take sides. Edward and Alice, it is revealed, are very firmly pro-abortion. Rosalie and Bella are fiercely pro-life, and the rest fall somewhere in the middle. But Stephenie Meyer stacks the deck against a Woman's Right To Choose every step of the way. In a lot of ways, it's perfect. Those of us on the left of this issue (and all issues, really) tend to meet our opponents half-way, anticipate their arguments and bring them up ourselves. And the Other Side ignores all of that and bolsters their arguments with magic.

Bella's baby is established right away to be a miracle conception, if not quite on the order of Jesus than at least a high-ranking senior Heaven official. Earlier in the book we've established female vampires' inability to conceive (and the heartbreak that results--vampire women are, as a people, so baby-crazy that they've attempted vamping human children just to have a cute little thing to hold for eternity) and Bella smugly recalls that fact minutes after realizing she's with-child or with-whatever. Bella loves being a mother immediately, by the way. The narrator we've had for three books, the one who is ambivalent about marriage and even uneasy about the love she feels for Edward, is immediately born again. Thematically speaking, it would have made more sense for that motherly conversion to come during Bella's later transition to vampiredom. But again, this is a heavy-handed abortion parable, and the desire to abort the child has to come from external sources. But the mother of all political cheap shots comes when Bella realizes she already has a baby bump. Life very literally, graphically starts at conception here. No question about that! The fucking thing is already kicking before Edward gets up off the ground.

Bella goes on to nobly forsake her own health for the sake of the chill (and even though she didn't need a slate of Republican legislation to make the decision for her obviously other women can't be trusted, right?). The bloody, bewildering birth scene that functions as the climax for the whole series is basically a GOP wet dream: [spoiler alert] a healthy child and a dead, torn-open mother.

Further reading: "Mama I'm Swollen"

2. A Gentleman's Agreement 

This is the most vaguely appalling part of the first half of Breaking Dawn. After the honeymoon and before the birth, Stephenie Meyer seems sort of at a loss to fill the space. So she gets weird with it. The wandering plot digressions that lead essentially nowhere creates the hard-to-shake feeling that you're reading particularly strange fanfiction. Anyway, what happens is, Bella's pregnancy drives Edward a little crazy, which is maybe supposed to be symbolic of the way dudes get squirrely once you fuck them? But anyway he misinterprets Bella's love for her baby to be love for like, any baby. The good news is he doesn't go steal an infant. He pulls Jacob aside and asks him to be a surrogate. And he doesn't plan on doing it test-tube style. Dude is like, "Hey, want to fuck my wife?"

Again, it's hard to suss out where this came from. It happens in the middle of Meyer's struggle to establish Leah Clearwater as a "feminist" character--which is either an attack on feminism or well-intentioned mega-gaffe. Even Bella practically calls Leah Clearwater a shrew. (For more on that: "Stare Decisis") But assuming the latter, maybe Edward and Jacob's plan is supposed to show how stupid and patriarchal dudes can be? Anyway, Jacob thinks the plan is stupid but asks Bella anyway. And she weirdly scoffs at "artificial insemination." ("Edward and I actually had other plans..."-Jacob)

What I wrote back in February about this is coherent enough, so if you'll pardon me I'm about to quote myself at length.

I thought Bella was a modern woman. She's anti-artificial insemination now? I'll give Bella this much: she is being more ideologically coherent than most pro-lifers. I've long complained, when debating issues like stem cell research, that those who oppose abortion should also oppose in vitro fertilization. That's the argument put forth by Sam Harris in his great, short book, Letter To A Christian Nation. He points out that the process of in vitro actually creates and destroys several embryos; if you believe that life begins at conception, several "babies" die in order for one to be born. Of course, Harris's point is that pro-lifers DON'T oppose artificial insemination. He is trying to rhetorically box them in. And yet, this is the second time in two days I have encountered a conservative who is actively against artificial insemination (Bella and some random asshole on Facebook). (The counterargument to those rare folks is, first, a number of Bible passages that support the life of the mother over a child and/or imply that life does not begin at conception, and second, the fact that about 50% of all pregnancies terminate spontaneously. Which, to paraphrase Harris, makes God the most prolific abortionist in town.) 

And yet conservatives who oppose artificial insemination don't do so out of ideological coherence. Make no mistake, it comes from an anti-feminist place. Artificial insemination leads to single mothers of the worst kind: the empowered ones. Nothing erodes the sanctity of the family more than an empowered woman, you know? 

Once again we must invoke the bizarre fact that S. Meyer claims to have studied feminism. Her writing flies in the face of this, but there you are. Of course, she studied feminism at Brigham Young University, which is like studying evolutionary biology at Trinity Bible College. Or studying child-labor law in a Chinese sneaker factory. If they even offer classes.

So I guess my point is: What the fuck is with this part? I hope it makes it into the movie.

3. Beach Party

If you had to pick a single-worst moment in Breaking Dawn, it would come right at the start of Book II, after Jacob has assumed the reins as a narrator. He wanders down to the beach and encounters his friend Quil, who has imprinted on a toddler (foreshadowing the fact that Jacob will soon fall in love with Bella's child literally before it is even born) named Claire (If you think about the Lolita allusion in their names for too long your brain will break). They're playing in the water without even a single member of Child Protective Services watching, and Jacob and Quil both lament their sorry lots. Jacob is still in love with a newly married woman, and Quil has to wait fifteen years before he can fuck his girlfriend.

The good news for Quil is that as a werewolf he can linger in his physical prime for as many years as he wants--wolves don't start aging until they've learned to control their transformations completely enough to stop. And Jacob gets an even better deal: Bella's daughter Renesmee ages rapidly, so he won't have to wait very long to fuck her at all! But anyway.

Jacob and Quil trade homophobic jokes, Claire prattles on in adowowbul baby talk, and overall it feels like Meyer is giving us a very strong warning to stop reading now, before it's too late. Why I didn't follow that instinct is a question that will probably haunt me forever.

More: "Jacob The Obscure"

BLOGGING BREAKING DAWN: A Directory

BLOGGING THE HUNGER GAMES, pt. 25: Killing Yourself To Live

Previous entries can be found in the directory.

Chapter 25

Funny thing about this final deus ex gamemaker: at first I was like: “WEREWOLVES!? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?” But then I was like, “Oh, maybe they're not werewolves...” And then I was like “HOLY SHIT THIS IS FUCKED UP AND AWESOME.”

Because at first, yeah, it seems like Cato is being chased by giant wolves. He runs, Katniss and Peeta run (it's interesting to note that Katniss seems to keep forgetting Peeta is even there, obsessed as she is with her own survival) and Katniss doesn't get a good look at them. But she signals for the outraged YA fans to wait up a second—this isn't another damn werewolf book, Katniss promises!

Up close, I'm sure their more menacing attributes will be revealed.

Cato climbs the cornucopia, and Katniss follows while Peeta limps along trying to catch up. At the top (the shape and look of this thing is kind of hard to imagine. I mean I guess it's like your standard Thanksgiving centerpiece, but gold and enormous and flat enough for three people to stand/lie down on?) Cato is lying down, catching his breath. Katniss is about to kill him when she remembers Peeta (“Oh right, Peeta exists!”-Katniss) and sees him struggling to climb up, wolves on his tail.

Two things happen before our heroes and villains get their acts together and fight. Peeta gets bitten on the leg but subdues his attacker with a knife. Then Katniss looks one of them in the eyes (don't look them in the eyes, idiot!) and has a horrifying realization.

“It's them. It's all of them. The others. Rue and Foxface and...all of the other tributes,” I choke out.

She recognizes their human-like eyes and sees collars with identifying district numbers (classy touch, Gamemakers). YIKES. I mean, we knew that the government of Panem didn't care much for the lives of these kids, but to create monstrous creatures in their images is some next-level shit. I don't even want to think about the actual mechanics of doing such a thing, because any way you slice it (cutting out eyeballs, reanimating and genetically enhancing corpses) shit is DARK. Recall Peeta and his vow to make sure the capitol knew they didn't own him—that certainly wouldn't have been the case if he'd been killed in the games. Overall it's such a grisly and horrifying moment that I tried not to fixate on Katniss's further descriptions of the creatures, because them shits is still werewolves. But anyway.

Katniss eventually recovers her wits enough to remember to kill Cato, but by then motherfucker has Peeta in a headlock. Katniss takes aim and he points out that if she kills him, Peeta will fall and die too.  They have a brief standoff before Peeta draws an X on Cato's hand. He figures out what it means a split-second after Katniss's arrow pierces his hand, and he falls backward to the beasts below.

And here's another fucked up part. Peeta and Katniss wait on top of the cornucopia for the cannon to signal Cato's death, but it doesn't come. The beasts are killing him slowly, dragging it out. Hours pass, night falls, and poor Cato is still getting torn up on the ground.

Peeta's leg wound turns out to be pretty bad, so as they wait out the clock on Cato's life and the games Katniss makes a tourniquet (out of her shirt! HUBBA HUBBA) to try and save Peeta's leg. More time passes, and Katniss is filled with pity for Cato, being tossed around below her. At some point he lands close enough to them, and Katniss decides to use her last arrow to put him out of his misery. She looks at the “raw hunk of meat that used to be my enemy” and thinks she can hear him say “please.” So she kills him.

We've certainly had periodic glimpses into the capital-e Evil of Panem before, but never has it been thrown into such stark relief. The end of the Hunger Games proper is a stone fucking bummer. Suzanne Collins makes sure any kind of thrill we might have gotten from the violence before now is long gone. I thought I was signing up for George Orwell-lite, but this is more like Michael Haneke-lite. And Haneke-lite is still HEAVY AS FUCK.

The cannon sounds, the wolves run into a trap door, but nothing happens to signal the end of the games. No fireworks, no dancers. Katniss and Peeta limp down to the lake, and an announcement blares: they're taking back the rule change; there can only be one Hungerlander again. O cruel!

Peeta stands up, and Katniss immediately points her bow at his heart. And then he throws his knife into the lake. WHOOPS. I hate it when that happens! He offers to kill himself—which would have been easier with the knife—and unties his tourniquet.

“You're not leaving me here alone,” I say. Because if he dies, I'll never go home, not really. I'll spend the rest of my life in this arena trying to think my way out.

Peeta mentions that “they have to have a victor,” which gives Katniss an idea. If they both kill themselves at the same time, there will be no winner. So she pulls out the berries that killed Foxface and holds them out for the world to see ("If there are poison berries at the start of Act III, they'll come back before the end of Act III"-Chekov). They agree to do it on the count of three, and when they reach it Katniss wonders if her gambit won't work. But at the very last second the Gamemakers announce that they've changed the rules back, and Peeta and Katniss are the winners of the Hunger Games. Huh!

Turning And Turning In The Widening Gyre

Thanks Kim, for linking on Twitter yesterday to this i09 interview with Breaking Dawn director Bill Condon, the pull-quote of which is that he called BD a "uniquely female horror story." He avoids directly characterizing it as "feminist" of course, and also even ducks the question of whether or not Bella is a "role model." Another interesting moment comes when the writer of the article subtly impugns Stephenie Meyer's intelligence:

And we've written about the fact that Melissa Rosenberg brings a layer of knowingness to the screenplays that isn't there in quite the same way in the books. 


I think that's true, yeah, and I also think there's just a completely different kind of political perspective, and just a sense of the world. I do think she's such a major collaborator, as well as Kristen Stewart. There's a lot of [Stewart] in this movie version of the character, that somehow exists between the Bella in the novels and what Kristen Stewart brought to it.

That layer of knowingness is there, for sure, but to me that's why the movies always seem so incoherent. Like Ron Paul, Meyer is at least absolute and consistent with her craziness. The Twilight movies are a hodgepodge of sensibilities, which is why so much of it falls flat.

And then the subject of imprinting comes up. The writer throws Condon a rope along with her question, but that doesn't make his answer any more comforting.

Speaking of Jacob, can we talk about the imprinting scene, where he imprints on Bella's baby? That seems like a weird thing to have to externalize. Did you struggle with how to make that something a mainstream audience can understand? 

Absolutely. It is so... it is absolutely one of the most controversial ideas in the book. There is a very reductive take on this as just "falling in love with the baby," which it isn't. I have to say, we just saw it for the first time with the audience, of four thousand people. There was... Oh my god, it was the biggest thrill for me was that moment, where people embraced it entirely. There was just a complete warmth that was felt. I think it was about visualizing in a way, a spiritual connection to the soul of that other person. So it's not a baby, it's the entire expanse of what her life is, that hits him in an instant. And it's such a powerful, magical feeling that is impossible to resist.


SO. I mean from the get go we're off to the races, with Charlie Jane Anders implying that our reading of the text is unsophisticated. Condon keeps that thread going, obviously, calling it "reductive" to say that Jacob falls in love with a baby. I think we should be conservative with the sort of things we call reductive.  Writing an anti-abortion parable in which the choice is whether or not to abort a magic baby is reductive. Implying that domestic abuse could drive two people closer together is reductive. The character of Leah Clearwater is reductive. Saying that Jacob falls in love with a baby is stating a fact. And the anecdote about 4,000 people in a theater warmly embracing their union sounds FUCKING HORRIFYING.

Anyway, I think it's notable that every day we have another principle member of the Twilight Industrial Complex being confronted about the questionable ideas in Meyer's book. Strain is showing. (Weirdly, Kristen Stewart seems to have doubled-down on her defense of Bella and Twilight in general, whereas Robert Pattinson's loathing of the series is becoming increasingly obvious. Have you seen any of his recent late-night appearances?) The whole enterprise is becoming too self-aware to sustain itself, the falcon can't hear the falconer, and I eagerly await the fast-approaching day when someone finally sits Stephenie Meyer down and makes her explain her damn self.

Nobody Imprints Baby In A Corner

Hey gang, I wrote something about Imprinting and Breaking Dawn, but since it was sort of written for the uninitiated I posted it on Tumblr instead of here. But go check it out, and share it with people you think might benefit from knowing about it. Thanks.

Does The Black Carpet Match The Drapes?

Hey it was the Breaking Dawn premiere last night! Also, the Raid of Zuccotti Park! But let's focus on the positive(ish) okay? Thanks, Rosanne, for linking me to these outfits! LET'S MAKE FUN OF THEM!

Taytay looks dapper as fuck, okay? The guy knows how to rock the Brooks Brothers boys collection, Tommy Fresh-style. And that rape-stache he's been rocking looks a little better than normal. Robert Pattinson looks the same as he always does. Dude has been more consistent in his red (or black in this case) carpet looks for the last four years than any of the Cullens, movie-to-movie. And Legsten Stewart looks very Kristeny!

COUNTDOWN TO BREAKING DAWN: Kellan Lutz Likes Having A Gay Around

Can you spot the gay sensibility in this photo?

So Kellan Lutz talked to The Advocate (LOL at whoever at The Advocate thought that would be a good/ funny idea) and praised the "gay sensibility" that Bill Condon brought to Breaking Dawn. Oy. Condon himself reacted to the original quote (I'm imagining he mumbled a lot of it) thusly (via The Frisky):

“What is a ‘gay sensibility’? It’s just a sensibility, but part of who you are is that you’re gay. So in a way, yes and no — you know? Now I’ve got to read it and hear what he said. But you know, I think what’s legitimate about it is that the thing that’s really remarkable about ‘Twilight,’ to me, is that it’s not necessarily about teenage boys’ concerns. Certainly that’s an aspect of it with Jacob and the wolves and all that, but it really puts things that are more explicitly female center-stage in a tent pole that a ton of people go to see. I think probably that stuff interests me more than another comic book action movie might, or blowing up trains and things. So in a way, I can see that that makes some sense.”

Female-centered and not "feminist" is a distinction I'm glad he (even accidentally) made. But Kellan Lutz AND Bill Condon are crazy if they think the Twilight films didn't have a gay sensibility before. The books, to be sure, are a homophobic nightmare, but the camp-infused movies are a big gay party. Ashley Greene's haircut knows what I'm talking about (do you feel like when AG keep saying "modern" re: that wig she's referencing ambiguous sexuality? I hope so). The tent also would know what I'm talking about if it could understand human speech and culture.

Either way, are you seeing a pattern here? Ashley Greene confronted about domestic abuse. Kellan Lutz starting a conversation (however meatheadedly) about gay sensibility in Twilight. I was worried, in the run up to Breaking Dawn's release, that this stuff wouldn't be discussed on the national stage. I'm happy to be wrong!

RELATED POSTS: "What We Agree About When We Talk About Twilight: No Homo" "On Robert Pattinson & Self-Awareness"

Viva La Ashley Greene

Thanks to 247Greene we have a glimpse of Ashley Greene's Esquire Mexico cover. WAIT, Esquire MEXICO? MIERDA! If this means we're going to miss out on a bizarro Tom Chiarella profile of AG I am going to cancel my subscription. What is the point of reading Esquire if not  to read a thousand (mostly ridiculous) words about the way Ashley Greene eats sweet potato fries and how it's a metaphor for her career? 247Greene says she'll be on the December US cover, but Esquire just filed their December articles and it looks like Mark Kelly is on the cover instead. LAME. I mean, dude only went to outer space and weathered his wife's attempted assassination. BFD am I right? Anyway. (Related: The Predictive Ashley Greene Profile)

In other AG news, girl got some work! Word is she's doing a 2-3 episode arc on Pan-Am, which as I understand it is the poor man's Mad Men. Well, hey! Good enough! There's lots of other news regarding AG and everybody else all over the Internet at the moment, and if you want to hear Jackson Rathbone explain how "all art is subjective" go here. Hahahaha.

But the super-notable AG interview of the day comes from Karen Nicoletti at Movieline. Nicoletti just earned a lifetime pass with me, because she asked Ashley Greene what she thinks of all the creepy domestic abuse imagery in Breaking Dawn. AG mostly ducks the question (and starts talking about the damage the baby inflicts on Bella as quickly as possible) but still, people are talking about this! FINALLY! (Related: La Isla Indescrita)

There But For The Grace Of God Go Die

Via Bryan, here's Grantland's photo essay about the men currently camping out at the tent city that was erected by fans in advance of tonight's Breaking Dawn premiere. SHUT IT ALL DOWN AND KILL IT WITH FIRE. Also, how much do you hate the fact that Twilight Tent City is a thing? OCCUPY FORKS LOL RIGHT? Shut up, everyone.

Also: The Hunger Games trailer came out today! It look fine! Lenny Kravitz looks scruffier than I'd have thought? Peeta looks goofier than I'd have thought? The Reaping looks more holocaust-y than I'd have thought? But otherwise, hey!

NO CHURCH IN THE WILD: An Advice Column

This week marked the launch of NO CHURCH IN THE WILD: The Video Series, starring yours truly and directed by Internet Celebrity Jory Caron. Episode one is here, and episode 2 (which is a rehash of an early column--that will happen sometimes!) is here.


I'm writing my college apps, and I have absolutely no idea what to say, how to write them, or where to even start. Any words of advice for the biggest case of writers block in the history of the world?

Well, lets put things in perspective here. The biggest case of writer's block in the world happened to Truman Capote, and the runner-up is probably Shane Carruth. You are at best in third place. But I agree, this is serious. I mean, your college application essay is a very important document. A person that your prospective college pays nine dollars an hour is probably going to look at it for 30-45 seconds! SO MUCH PRESSURE!

See what I did there? Relax. I am of the opinion that college application essays are not nearly as important as your teachers would like you to believe. It's just an easy way of getting you to pay attention when they blather on about five paragraph structure. "No, this is important! You won't get into college without it!" You know, I thought about answering this question in the form of a five-paragraph essay, but it's not even worth the effort for the joke!

Now that you're relaxed: what should you write about? I'm not going to give you the bullshit answer, "write about what you care about," because we all know that is easier said than done. Instead: what do you think you CAN write about? Think about a conversation you've had recently. Any subjects you discussed where you felt like you said some witty, insightful shit? Or maybe some subject where you just felt like you had more to say but the conversation moved on to whether or not 2 Broke Girls was still good or something? Start with that.

Worry more about writing well (or at least not writing BADLY) than what your essay is about. Everybody gets their college essays so brutally finessed by teachers and friends these days that a college with its proverbial head on its shoulders probably only uses them to make sure you're not a total idiot. Can you coherently form a few sentences? You'll be fine.

College essays are the red herring of the College Application Process. No more, I say! Let's tear back the curtain. What's really important is whether or not your parents are rich. Your parents are rich, right?

I have a friend at my school who can be really emotionally draining. She constantly texts or facebooks me about the most mundane aspects of her day, usually to complain. I love her to death and she is one of my few friends here, so I don't want to lose her, but I don't really know how to handle this situation. What should I do? 

The Age of Connectivity has had a weird effect on some people huh? It's like they had this pressure valve nobody knew about before, and now that they're sharing every thought in their head they can't plug it back up or they'll explode. I guess they used to be the sort of people who called our parents all the time and trapped them in long conversations, so in a way maybe you should be grateful that you only have to READ your friend's neuroses.

Anyway, to get away from this you just have to do the standard drawdown. It's working for Obama in Iraq, and it will work for you. Slow your replies gradually, over the course of a few weeks, until you are only responding once or twice a day. If you do it slowly enough, your friend will almost subliminally follow suit. With any luck, she will have democratically elected a new, stable mental government by 2012. You'll be greeted as a liberator!

A friend was torn between two guys. She eventually let one down gently and dated the other guy for a week. Guy #2 broke it off and she realized how much she cared about Guy #1, and when she asked him out he told her no. When's the appropriate time to say "You were kind of dumb to think he'd wait around for you to change your mind"?

I dig how you've structured this question like a joke: a friend was torn between a rabbi and a Native American. But I guess your question is: when do you get to gloat at your friend? Probably never. Be a good friend and act like both guys were assholes. How dare they have emotions and desires, etc? Fuck those pricks. She's better than them. See?

Got problems? Get at me here. Use the anonymous option. Be advised that the questions are POURING in right now, so I might not get to you for a while. Previously: "But how do you move from 'talkative classmates' to 'fuckative ass-mates'?"

COUNTDOWN TO BREAKING DAWN: La Isla Indescrita

OHHHHHHHH M G, Breaking Dawn pt. 1 is nearly upon us. Can you feel the crushing weight of it bearing down on you? I can. So I thought for the next few days we'd reminisce fondly about the very worst moments of that horrible, horrible book that I enjoyed reading so very much. Today: the honeymoon (shudder).


1. The 109 Year Old Virgin

There's a scene in The 40 Year Old Virgin in which Steve Carell's character, a virgin (natch), attempts to regale his co-workers with a story of sexual conquest. As they press him for details, his story begins to unravel, and when he claims a woman's breast felt like "a bag of sand" the truth becomes clear. That scene, minus the resolution, is not unlike Breaking Dawn chapter 5.

Bella wakes up the morning after having sex with Edward, and somewhat inexplicably seems to be processing what happened the night before for the first time. We, the readers, get a double line-break indicating sex and then pick up when the sun rises, and Bella is right there along with us. (The date rapey, anti-feminist battered-woman-psyche details accumulate very quickly in this chapter, so put that card aside for a minute.) So we hear that she's "perfect" and "happy" and then we get the feeling that despite Bella's protesting to the contrary, the sex was pretty lousy. I mean, she expresses surprise and satisfaction that they "fit like corresponding pieces, made to match up." First of all: we're stealing lyrics from The Postal Service now? Second of all: YES, that is how penises and vaginas work! If you are deriving satisfaction from that, you must not be deriving much from elsewhere.

(I'm weirdly reminded of that Friends episode where they all struggle to compliment Joey's lousy detective show. "I liked the lighting!" "I liked that your penis seemed to fit in me!")

In earlier books, discussions about sex are usually written so vaguely as to fly over younger readers' heads. The most explicit we get is a scene in Eclipse in which Bella tells her father she's a virgin. It's notable that the only frank discussion of sex is not one between romantic partners, and also that it's a discussion about NOT having sex. And really when you start to get into Grand Theories Of Twilight (I have several) you get to the idea that it's the rarest of birds: a romance novel about abstinence. What's crazy is that even here, with our main characters lying naked in bed together, Meyer seems afraid to state what happened. We get weird euphemisms like "all that transpired last night." And when we finally hear "make love" it comes in the context of Edward saying he won't do it again until Bella's a vampire. Again: Only when sex is a negative do we hear the word "sex."

"Fear of a name only increases fear of the thing itself."-Hermione Granger

2. Trigger Warning

After several pages of goofy, protest-too-much talk about the night before, Bella opens her eyes (which apparently have been closed this whole time) and sees that the bed is covered in feathers (kinky) and she is covered in bruises (not so kinky all of a sudden!).

I get that there is a certain subset of people who find sex bruises attractive, and the rest of us at least see them as indicative of something sexy, but this is an altogether different order. We never get a full picture, but we get the sense that Bella is badly battered from her night before. As if the image of that were not troubling enough, it gets worse when Edward recoils in shame and horror and Bella begs him back to her side. No, Edward is not physically abusive in the literal sense, but the patterns of abusive husband and battered wife are mimicked here and elsewhere* to a disturbing extent.

(*Bella sees the scars Sam Uley gave Emily and in nearly the same breath praises the great love she sees between them. Jacob later explains that the assault is what drove them closer together, that Sam felt so bad that soon Emily was the one comforting him. HOW SWEET.)

Especially when you look ahead to the rest of the book and see that the whole thing with the bruises never leads anywhere. Bella and Edward's time on Isle Esme is a weird plateau in the novel, the first (and least egregious) of several times in which Meyer seems unsure of where to go next with her finale. Bella's sex injuries are the culmination of Edward's fears, yes, but other than that they're a plot device to present Bella with a fake obstacle for the next thirty pages or so while we spin our wheels: Edward won't fuck her. So she has to use all of her feminine wiles to trick him into sex again. Later, she gets pregnant, and THAT drives the rest of the novel. The issue of the bruising during sex ends, because human Bella is soon in no shape to do anything other than house her demon-spawn. (Dramatically speaking, wouldn't it have been better for Edward to fear sex for several books, then have it be no big deal? Bella emerges covered in feathers but otherwise fine? Then we have him momentarily assured before BOOM: a baby? Much cleaner, much better.) Like other really offensive stuff in Breaking Dawn, the bruises are just window-dressing, separate from and having no real bearing on the main plot. So WHY DO IT? WHY!?

3. Pivot, pivot, pivot!

For better or worse (its worse) the bruises happen. And what they do to Edward is strange. He's filled with guilt and self-loathing, but then assures Bella that it was the best night of his life. It was? Why? Meyer is trying to do two things at once: set up this temporary problem between Edward and Bella but also avoid ruining Bella's Special Night. I mean, our male romantic lead can't be TOTALLY disgusted by sex, so he's only half-disgusted.

It also sort of feels like Meyer is trying to cling to the old order of business from the previous three books. Twilight is abstinence porn, so how can you go on with it after the characters have actual sex? Meyer eventually lands on her solution: make it into an anti-abortion parable. But here, on the post-fuck plateau, she at least toys with the idea of keeping Edward's tortured century-old prude act going.

As always with these books, the authors motives and thoughts are right there on the page. We watch her pivot Twilight into a new kind of book, but it's an awkward transition. And the pages after the sex happens are the result of that.

4. The Beginning Of The End

I will never understand why Twilight fans find the "feathers" scene sexy. Maybe it's because its the first book they ever read in which characters had sex? For me it's an atonal, disturbing mess. But of course, the film version will rectify a lot of the book's wrongs. For one thing, Kristen Stewart's Bella appears to have none or very few post-coital bruises. I still can't decide if this is a good thing or not. The films don't fetishize domineering, abusive men like the books do, and the symbolism of like, the Cullens' abstinence from human blood being a stand-in for regular abstinence is less obvious. But they also provide retrospective cover for the books. When the less-evil movies come out, the books that inspired them become more innocuous by association. And that whitewashing makes me uncomfortable. The TV show The Honeymooners had a sarcastic title; the husband and wife fought all the time. When I originally wrote about chapter 5, I named my post "The Honeymooners" as a nod to that old show and to evoke the same bitter sentiment. When Entertainment Weekly wrote about the shooting of these scenes, they named their article, unironically, "The Honeymooners":

In a lot of ways, the mainstream coverage of Twilight dwells on the sparkles and ignores the razor-sharp teeth, so to speak.

NO CHURCH IN THE WILD, A Directory

Starting next week or late this week, I'm going to be releasing a few video installments of NO CHURCH IN THE WILD. We'll see how that goes, but either way this advice column will continue. I hope y'all have dug the first few weeks of it.

#1: Infidelity magnets, lousy roommates, long distance relationships

#2: Driving, genderqueer whateverness, wild teen years, unattainable lesbian musicians

#3: Freshman year, coffee etiquette/technological alienation, lingering exes, college apps

#4: [Guest: Kira] College/creative tension, deciding to marry, alcohol vs. parents

#5: "Dating" vs. dating, religious boyfriends/culture warring 

#6: Wandering eyes, perpetual romantic failure machines, drinking 

#7: Rank-ordering girlfriends, crazy girls, initiating a relationship

#8: [Guest: DS3M] Depression, long distance relationships 2, academics vs. sex

#9: The friend zone, unemployment/living fringe

#10: Downshifting commitment levels, repeated cuckolding, sexual draught

#11: Film class hotties, paying it backward, academics vs. sex 2
#12: College essays, Facebook oversharing, Julie Taylor triangles

NO CHURCH IN THE WILD, THE YOUTUBE SERIES

BLOGGING THE HUNGER GAMES, pt. 24: Fox Confessor Brings The Flood

Previous entries can be found in the directory.


Chapter 24 

Katniss explains to Peeta the way Foxface had been grabbing supplies from the careers—and that she'd been doing the same to them until Peeta “outfoxed” her. Yes, she really uses that word. Fall back, Katniss. They figure that Cato knows where they are now, but probably won't make a direct attack. So they settle down and cook, deciding to hang onto the poison berries in case they can pull the same trick again later. For a couple of murderers, these two are still pretty committed to killing as passive-aggressively as possible.

Katniss tells us that Peeta is a “whiz with fires,” getting a blaze going out of “damp wood.” Is that supposed to represent the way he's awakened Katniss's sexuality? Is she the damp wood? After dinner Katniss wants to climb a tree to sleep, but Peeta wants to go back to the cave. Just so we're clear on the symbolism here:

Katniss: tree/penis preference
Peeta: cave/vagina preference

Also, I mean, every new couple has that fight, it's understandable. Cave or tree? I've been there. Katniss decides to let Peeta win this round, and they hike back to the vagina. Peeta sleeps through the night and then Katniss does until mid-afternoon. So, like, what happens on TV at this point? Highlight reels from earlier in the games? (In fact, as our heroes trek onward, Katniss starts referencing past events. So, maybe!)

Our heroes decide to go face Cato and get it over with, but they want to wash up first. You know the feeling: you're gearing up for a big fight so you want to be fresh and clean. But when they get to the stream for some sexy washing up times, that streambed is dusty and dry. Bummer, man. That's like pouring a bowl of cereal and then realizing you're out of milk. Or like, starting to have sex and then realizing you don't have a condom. (“Just the dip?”-Peeta) They hike to another spring and find that one dry as well and conclude that the Gamemakers are drawing them to the lake for a showdown. Katniss is like, “bitches, we were on that already.” She feels like it was always going to come down to her and Cato, that the other dead kids were just a distraction, which sounds sort of like Suzanne Collins is feeling down on herself. Hey, Suzanne! Don't worry, this book was kind of fun!

They pass the scene of the Tracker Jacker incident and Katniss starts flashing back, in case we forgot Glimmer's pus-filled, exploding body. Katniss kicks the nest and it dissolves into dust, re-emphasizing how little we know about what was real during that whole thing (this is a time when Collins's terminal vagueness problem isn't a problem at all. Shit's very David Lynchesque). They reach the clearing and walk around the metal cornucopia where they started, making sure motherfucker isn't hiding underneath like Hussein or Gaddafi. Hey, have you noticed the way the government seems to be leaking more and more embarrassing details about dead tyrants and terrorists these days? I mean, Saddam happened and him hiding out in that hole with the crazy beard and getting his mouth examined was kind of weird, but dude ended up with his dignity more or less intact. Then Osama happened, and they were like “we found Bin Laden's stash of jerk socks.” And now with Gaddafi, it's even worse! I mean, I know these guys were bad news but can't we just kill them and leave it that?

Once again, Collins does that thing where a scene that will end up being five or six minutes in the movie happens on a single page. Katniss and Peeta sit by the lake and she sings Rue's song. The Mockingjays pick it up and start overlapping the melody, and it's beautiful and probably kinda Brian Wilson-y, but then the melody becomes discordant and crazy as Cato crashes through the trees. Katniss shoots him and her arrow bounces off his chest. He charges at them, ready to kill, but then Katniss realizes he is unarmed. And then he runs right past her. Hey Cato! The fight is that way! But it turns out he's being chased by some kind of monster. That summary of the action right there is about as long as the actual action in the book. More and more I'm feeling like that Stephen King's description of this as a “jarring, speed-rap of a novel” was less a compliment and more a criticism.

Sunday Links

Character Voice
Kristen Stewart Fucks Like A Champion
No Church In The Wild
So You Think You Can Dance?
Nora Helmer Is The 99%
Blogging Breaking Dawn: Waiting For The Damn Fight To Start Already
Planned Parenthood Offers Vampire Sex Advice

Character Voice

So on Thursday night I saw Chuck Palahniuk speak at the Portsmouth Music Hall. It was pretty cool--I'd never really been to such a formal "author event" before. And I haven't really followed Palahniuk since I read Rant: An Oral Biography Of Buster Casey, after which the rest of his work seemed to severely pale in comparison, but he read a new short story ("Romance") which was enjoyable. It's basically a premise from Arrested Development extended to a logical conclusion (and is available in the August Playboy, in case you want to see Bree Olson naked while you take in some literature).

But anyway, one moment that struck me in particular came when Palahniuk was discussing his craft. He said, essentially, that the secret to developing a character (the question was about how he could write in the voice of a young girl for his new book, Damned) is establishing the stock phrases and words that character would use. Now, if you've read more than one Palahniuk book you know that this is a trick he probably overuses (Choke, in particular, employs repetitive cadence to an annoying extent) but it's still a pretty important idea, especially for those of us (me, Aaron Sorkin, other people) who have trouble writing ANY character who doesn't talk exactly like we do.

(My mind went immediately to Breaking Dawn, which feels bizarrely off-base compared to the previous three books. Bella seems inconsistent not only in actions but in voice (before she becomes a vampire, I mean). Kristen Stewart's major accomplishment in the role was bringing some measure of consistency to it, which I imagine will remain true for BD1.)

November is the month that we're all supposed to stop shaving and write a novel (they go well together!) so if you're thinking about doing the latter, it's maybe something to keep in mind.

Kristen Stewart Fucks Like A Champion

There's a lot of Twilight news out there right now, but I am going to do my best to bring you the very best stuff. And this one is VERY IMPORTANT. Maybe the most important thing we have ever covered. Take it away, Richard Lawson!

Speaking of unsettling sex things, Summit apparently had to reshoot the big climactic (heh) sex scene in the upcoming Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 1 because star Kristen Stewart was, uh, thrusting too much. Director Bill Condon says that there are certain MPAA rules about thrusting and that Stewart broke them. Thrusting rules! Man, the MPAA is America's most useful deliberative body, isn't it? Just always doing the stuff that matters.

YESSSS. Excellent work, K. Stew. How many thrusts do you think is the maximum for PG-13? Or is it more like, level of vigor? Either way, I think we can add her to the list of celebrities that are almost certainly good at sex, along with Ryan Gosling and Lykke Li. Happy Friday, gang.

NO CHURCH IN THE WILD: An Advice Column

There's this girl in my film class. We've quickly become friends and she is pretty cool. I'm actually starting to have a thing for her. The friend who introduced me to her thinks she might be interested in me. Thing is, she's 21, three years older than I am, and I'm not sure if I believe him. How would I know if she really does have a thing for me and how should I go about becoming more than friends?

Look for body language cues! If when she talks to you, she orients her legs toward you, that means she wants to show you her vagina. If you cross your arms and she unconsciously imitates the gesture, it means she wants you to bite her nipples. Body language doesn't lie! This stuff is 100% scientifically proven (see Shakira's article in the March 2006 edition of the American Science Journal).

An older woman! That's the way to be, my friend. She'll buy you booze and instruct you in the ways of boozy sex. She'll teach you more mature pop-culture references, like what the show Friends was about and who Michael Rapaport is. You'll be the envy of your friends and maybe also your dad.

But how do you move from "talkative classmates" to "fuckative ass-mates"? I think the film angle is a good one to take. Girls in film class like to go to the movies! Except the ones who are just doing it for an easy English credit, but I sense that your lady is not one of those bitches. Is there an art-house place near you? Pick a critically successful movie with non-threatening male leads. Like, Michael Shannon is a phenomenal actor, but he's weird-looking enough that you're safe. And I hear great things about Take Shelter. Also there's Weekend, which is about gay dudes! No threat there! Invite her to the movies and then take her to a cafe or something afterwards to discuss. NOW: it is important that you don't use any class-terminology to discuss the movie, no matter how smart you want to sound. Don't let me hear you talk about fucking chiaroscuro, okay? Keep a lid on that shit. Talk about the movie like a person. And at the end of the night, say "we should do this again sometime." And then flash an easy grin. Chances are she'll yank her underwear off right there, but if not: lather, rinse, repeat.

So. There's this boy. We started hanging out a month and a half ago. A few weeks after we started hanging out he got my number from one of his friends and started texting me. It was kind of weird, since he had a girlfriend at the time. He's attractive, funny, and smart. What more can a girl ask for, right? Him to be single. Then he was. Less than 8 hours later he kissed me. Since then we've been on a date. He dated his ex for over a year, should I be concerned he "moved on" so quickly?

We're dealing with a classic opportunist here. You know the type. They come across a nice field and they play ball until a greener or skinnier or shaved field comes along, and then they move. I would proceed, since it seems like you like him, with the expectation that this thing is not a long-haul relationship. Maybe you can get some karmic justice for his jilted ex by Paying It Backward (which is like Paying It Forward only negative): date him and keep an eye out for someone better! Of course, Paying It in any direction is risky: your next beau could have the same doubts about you. Also, I mean, look what happened to Haley Joel Osment!

I'm a tallish girl with a nice face (a bit on the chubby side but oh well), and pretty big boobs (C or D cup I don't really know); I'm a senior in HS and taking all AP classes... and all the guys I've ever met are like the guys from Twilight- absolutely sexually defunct. Many times I've worn shirts where my boobs are practically falling out and yet they talk politely to me and their eyes NEVER stray down. Like, what the hell? WHAT DO I DO. HOW DO I GET ASKED OUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO ANYMORE!?

The academic fast track has a curious way of desexualizing the youth of America. In high school I exclusively dated dumb girls for that very reason. But you're some kind of mutation: the AP student who isn't obsessively focused on her career. Bravo! You must not be Asian. JUST KIDDING, I know there are Asian girls with big boobs out there. What, did you think I was referring to the academic stereotypes about Asians? NOW WHO IS RACIST? Still me, right? ANYWAY.

You have to break out of these non-sexy circles. Are you involved in any after school groups? I did student government, and our meetings were crippled by sexual tension. We did less than the 112th Congress!

Of course, budget cuts have ended most after-school programs, and if your school is still springing for AP classes you guys are probably particularly hard-up. But no matter how much education budgets get slashed there will still be ONE reliable place to get fingerbanged after school: DETENTION. The next time one of those nerds won't give you the up and the down, slap him! Make sure your teacher sees. That afternoon you will meet a brand new group of boys, many of whom you've probably never seen before. At my school they were the ones who got shuffled off to the Agricultural Department after Freshman year. We studied the quadratic equation, they fixed cars (I am not even kidding. New Hampshire!) and like, plowed the football fields or something. And they also FUCKED. How do I know? Most of the girls were pregnant (it's hard to work on a chassis in the third trimester, I pity those girls). So obviously bring your own condoms to detention. They will not have any.

Failing that, the good thing about AP classes is that you'll be finished with your workload a month before graduation. When that weight lifts off of their shoulders, your male classmates will see you with new eyes. And when that happens you might want to invest in a few turtlenecks. Those nerdstares BURN!

NEED ADVICE? Get at me on Tumblr. Use the "anonymous" option, please. Previously: "Why are you doing all this DEEMING, man? Ease up on the deeming."