Teaching Twilight: Should Teachers Use the Book in the Classroom?

When I attended the NCTE National Convention last month, I was very surprised at the number of breakout sessions that revolved around the idea of using Twilight in high school English classes. Most of the session descriptions noted that Twilight’s themes and literary devices could help students understand different aspects of more traditional literature. Additionally, lesson plans and articles, like this one by Jennifer Morrison, laud the series's merits.

Despite my intense dislike for the books, I wouldn’t have a problem mentioning them as a modern example certain literary themes and ideas, and I don’t want to prevent students from talking about them (if only for the hope that the students would look at the damn things critically rather than fawning over the characters).

However, while I can see teachers using Twilight to teach about the Byronic hero (or, in the case of Edward, the abusive, asshole, moronic hero) or literary allusions, I also believe that there are so many issues at hand when using these books. Beyond the horrible model that Bella presents for teenage girls and the other anti-Twilight sentiments I have already shared on this blog, here are a few more problems that could come with teaching this book to high school students:

• Using a Twilight-heavy approach would inevitably alienate some students (not every teenager drinks the Twilight Kool-Aid). Most teenage boys (and some teenage girls) really don’t like the books, and I can’t see them getting too excited about classes completely dedicated to Twilight. While you might get some girls squeeing with delight at the fact that you mentioned Twilight in class, you will also get some kids rolling their eyes in disdain or mentally checking out so they don't have to hear more about this already overhyped book.
  
• It might come off as condescending. We all know adults who try to be cool but end up being patronizing instead. Since I know that I would not be able to use Twilight on a long-term basis in my classroom without some obviously false enthusiasm (and some thinly veiled sarcasm), it is probably best that teachers who loathe this book stay away.
• Just because they like it doesn’t mean that it’s any good. Beyond the bad prose, the ludicrous plots, and the awful, awful characters, I would have a hard time being able to use this book as any sort of model. Yes, teens love the books, and I can even see, to an extent, why they become so addicted to the series. However, history has shown that being popular and addicting does not equal being good.
• Getting past the cult of Twilight could be very hard. Spending some time looking at this book critically could be fascinating, but some students might not be able to get past the blind adoration to acknowledge other people's genuine concerns. It is hard for many people (teenagers and adults alike) to understand and accept different views on an issue they feel passionately about and to not get overly critical or emotional when someone has a differing point of view. A quick look at the many Twilight forums and Amazon reviews shows that some of the fans do not tolerate any sort of criticism against the book, and trying to get a rationale discussion or debate about the book could lead to scary, scary places.
  

Please feel free to weigh in on this debate. Would you use Twilight in an average high school English classroom?

Twilight Haters of the World Unite!

Oh Twilight - like the monster (vampire?) at the end of the movie, the book just won't go away. Here are a few resources for people who (like me) want the book/ movie/ phenomenon that is Twilight to be sucked into a black hole:

• Roger Ebert's review, while not as scathing as I had hoped for, makes some interesting points regarding the nature of Bella and Edward's relationship and the ridiculous amount of pan stick the actors playing the vampires must endure for teenybopper entertainment.
• The Dari Burger, which usually focuses on the enduring crappiness of Sweet Valley High, is now analyzing/ tearing apart the new, shiny (like Edward in the sun) crappiness of Twilight. One of the highlights is an imagined conversation between the blog's author and Stephanie Meyer. While some might argue that Ms. Meyer might not deserve to be hated on this much, her obsession with Edward (which leaves Shonda Rhimes's obsession with McDreamy in the dust) and her tendency to compare her work to that of classic authors (Jane Austen and Shakespeare) make me feel that some of the hate is justified. Quite frankly, I like to think that Jane Austen would HATE Bella with a sincere passion and eviscerate her verbally if given the chance.
  
• The incomparable Mrs. Giggles offers her views on Twilight; unsurprisingly, they aren't very complimentary. To give you a small taste of what she thinks about the book, she calls it pornography for teenage girls...
• The amazing ladies at Smart Bitches, Trashy Books (don't you just love that name?) reviewed Twilight and gave it a solid D+. SB Sarah seems particularly affronted by the decidedly meh character of Bella.

I know that is is very wrong, but all this hating on Twilight warms the cockles of my heart in ways that a sparkly, undead boyfriend could never hope to do.

Twilight (the Movie) - How Can Something This Bad Be This Boring?

As you may have noticed, there is no love lost between me and the Twilight series (you can read all about it here). Consequently, it took me a very long time to watch the movie. I only did so after a lot of coercion by my friends ("We'll make fun of it! And we can make up a drinking game!"). Although I was very hesitant, I agreed that we should make an afternoon of it and drink ourselves silly while watching the supposed acting of Kristen Stewart. Besides, terrible movies can be hysterical in their awfulness (watch Xanadu or Grease 2 and try not to laugh at the absurdity of it all). Given the hype and my hatred of Twilight, how the movie not be fun to mock?

Unfortunately, Twilight the movie took the place of The Skateboard Kid (a movie that involved a magic skateboard and looked like it was shot with a camcorder) as the worst movie I have ever seen. Copious amounts of alcohol and food couldn't make the movie entertaining (even on a kitschy level). With that said, the only way I would ever willingly watch this movie again is if I could watch it with the Rifftrax commentary. I don't know how these three gentlemen managed to watch this film enough to skewer it so thoroughly, but I must admit that they are stronger than I am. So, without further ado, here is the "Best of" the Rifftrax for Twilight.

Best of Rifftrax - Twilight


My favorite lines from the Rifftrax? Too many to count. However, here are some of the absolute gems:

• That look is from the "Guy you alert the flight attendant about" collection.
• (Referring to Bella): Come liven up our discussion with your bubbly personality.
• (Regarding Edward/ Robert Pattinson): He combines the composure of George Costanza with the suaveness of David Schwimmer.
  
• (Also regarding Edward): It's tough to look bad ass posing next to a Volvo.
• (In response to Edward's assertion, "Nobody's going to believe you"): Quoting directly from the abusive guy's handbook there.
• (About Kristen Stewart's stellar acting choices): Seriously, I don't know what emotion you're going for - you always just look nauseous.
  

Reflections on Twilight

As part of a recent research project (that is quickly becoming my dissertation), I read several popular books of young adult literature. One of these books was Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight. For those of you who are not familiar with the story, it is about a girl (Bella) who moves to a small town in Washington and falls in love with a noble vampire. In later adventures, she has another suitor who is a werewolf. If this is hard for you to imagine, picture me trying to describe this book to my professors. By the time I get to the words “noble vampire,” I have completely lost them and they gaze at me with a combination of confusion and disbelief.

The book’s premise, in and of itself, isn’t horrible. It’s not particularly original (it doesn't really tackle anything that Buffy the Vampire Slayer hasn’t already addressed), but it isn’t the worst idea I have ever heard. I suppose a noble vampire is more interesting than, say, a prince or a jewel thief (both seen in Sweet Valley High). Also, the book, which is over 500 pages long, is compulsively readable and has become incredibly popular (the Twilight Saga has spent multiple weeks on the New York Times Bestseller list). A movie version is coming out later this year.

However, unlike the thousands of readers who breathlessly await Stephanie Meyer’s next book and passionately debate the merits of Bella’s two suitors, I just couldn’t get too immersed in the story. While I can understand and even appreciate people's enthusiasm for this book (which a colleague of mine called "Harry Potter for teenage girls"), I find it difficult to become fully immersed in the story.

It isn't that I have anything against teen angst or romance or noble vampires. My main complaint is with Bella. She gives the impression of being intelligent (she likes reading and does very well in school), and she seems nice enough. She isn’t too obsessed with fashion, which is a nice change from the relentless product placement found in the Gossip Girl books. Ms. Meyer goes to great lengths to explain that Bella isn't even unusually pretty (which I find a little hard to believe since every guy she encounters in her high school wants to date her). However, when it comes to Edward (the noble vampire in question), she reverts to being a stereotypical damsel in distress who runs around and requires rescuing on a regular basis. I understand that people in love tend to do crazy things, but Bella’s complete infatuation with Edward makes me more than a little uncomfortable. Even some of the characters in the Gossip Girl series have some outside interests that do not involve dating (I can't believe I just compared Gossip Girl favorably to something).

Unfortunately, from what I’ve seen in the other books in this series, Bella does not get any better. In the second book, Edward, fearing for Bella’s safety, leaves and she becomes depressed. This depression lasts for hundreds of pages, and Bella does incredibly stupid and dangerous things in an attempt to "feel" Edward's presence (it is a long story). While Breaking Dawn, which is coming out in August, is supposedly going to tell readers if Bella ends up with Edward or Jacob, perhaps what she really needs is a hobby (and a therapist).

Library Book Sales and Defensive Shopping

I just got back from the Boston Public Library book sale. Like many things in Boston, this was an interesting and lively experience, even if it does bring out people's aggressive side. For instance, the books are just $2.00 for hardcovers and $1.00 for paperbacks, but apparently the BPL raised their prices, which caused a bit of disgruntled muttering among some of the shoppers. Also, people tend to swarm on some of these shelves like locusts. After avoiding some elbows and ducking in quickly to check out certain shelves, I emerged with five books, which cost me a grand total of $8.00. These include:

• The Year of the Rat by Grace Lin (I read one of her books for a children's lit class, and found it quite charming, so I am looking forward to reading this)
• The Best American Essays of 2003
• Modern Critical Views on Ernest Hemingway
• Modern Critical Views on Maya Angelou
• Twilight

For those of you wondering, I bought Twilight for the sole purpose of giving it away on BookMooch. Although I do not like the book, apparently 400+ people on BookMooch want to mooch it. In fact, two minutes after I listed it, someone has already requested it. While I am glad that someone who wants the book is going to be able to read it, I also feel bad for the 400+ people who will be receiving the email from BookMooch informing them that Twilight has been listed, only for them to get to the site and see that someone has already mooched it. When you are competing with hundreds of people for one book, I can imagine that this disappointment must be a fact of life, but it still has to be a letdown.

Because Hating on "Twilight" Never Gets Old

The Harvard Lampoon, the university's humor magazine (which has had such luminaries as Conan O'Brien on the writing staff), is releasing a parody of Twilight called Nightlight. According to the Entertainment Weekly website

Nightlight follows a “pale and klutzy” girl named Belle Goose, who moves to Switchblade, Oregon, and meets Edwart Mullen, a “super-hot computer nerd with zero interest in girls.” The vampire-obsessed Belle becomes convinced Edwart is one of the undead after witnessing events she considers otherworldly (”Edwart leaves his Tater Tots™ untouched at lunch! Edwart saves her from a flying snowball!”).

If Nightlight is half as hilarious as the synopsis above suggests, it should be awesome. And really, anything that mocks Twilight gets my support.

Also, just in case you were curious, here is the cover in all its glory:

Twilight Overload

As most of your know, I am not a fan of the Twilight series, in which a really passive, boring girl falls in love with a noble vampire. However, I have found that I can't hide from it - since the movie is coming out this week, the book is EVERYWHERE! There is a new movie tie-in edition of the book (complete with the freakishly pale cast on the cover and on the pull-out poster in the back of the book) as well as a soundtrack and ubiquitous magazine features. Even In Style magazine, which is one of my guilty pleasures, had a photo spread with some of the cast members.

The only potential bright spot is the possible backlash that may come from the critics and fans. If anything, I look forward to reading Roger Ebert's review; even if I disagree with his overall review, he always does a good job of showing exactly why he liked or disliked a particular film. Furthermore, I have heard that some people are horrified by the movie trailers, and the thought of millions of angry Twilight fans makes me happy inside (I never claimed to be a particularly nice person).

Breaking Dawn Fall-Out

While I haven't read Breaking Dawn, which is the latest installment in the freakishly popular Twilight series, the book has been an endless source of amusement for me and my friends at the bookstore. In the months leading up to the book's release, we would sometimes get onto the bookstore's official website to read the supposed reviews of Breaking Dawn written by Stephanie Meyer's adoring fans. Most of these reviews were simply shout-outs to characters (i.e. "Edward ROCKS!!!!"), but my friends and I got a kick out of the fact that there were literally hundreds of reviews giving the not-yet-released book five stars.

However, in the week since the book's actual release, something very interesting has happened. Twilight fans read it, but their reaction has been decidedly less enthusiastic. While the majority of reviewers have given the book the maximum number of stars allowed at Amazon.com (according to the current statistics), a surprising and significant amount of readers have cried "Foul" at Meyer's book. Even though Entertainment Weekly put reader disappointment into some perspective by noting that, given the fan base's intense investment in the characters, it would be nearly impossible to satisfy everyone, the magazine's review of Breaking Dawn gave it a solid "D."

On a semi-related note, the latest issue of EW also printed Meyer's response to people who see Bella as a bad role-model for teenage girls. (Spoiler alert - if you haven't read Breaking Dawn and want to know nothing about it, then don't read any further.) Meyer's told EW that "If you want to be a mom more than anything, you should get to." I agree with Meyer's basic sentiment, but I think that she's missing the main problem that people have with Bella. Bella's issue is not that she wants to be a mother. Instead, it is the fact that she is a damsel-in-distress, cookie-cutter heroine who is passive, needy, and more than a little desperate that I (and perhaps other people) balk at. Furthermore, as my sister (who has kept up with the books but has only read Twilight) noted, Bella's desire for a child isn't really evident (or perhaps even existent) in the earlier books.

Finally, Bella seems to have absolutely no understanding of the consequences of her desire to become a vampire. While Edward and his family understand that living forever has more than its share of problems, this does not seem to register with Bella at all. In fact, when compared to a character facing a similar decision (such as Winnie in Tuck Everlasting), Bella's lack of understanding is truly amazing, particularly when you consider the fact that, in the book, Winnie is younger than Bella. Frankly, this only shows that Stephanie Meyer is a little clueless about how insane Bella truly is. Perhaps Meyer got too caught up in the supposed perfection that is Edward to get around to little things like character development and nuance.

Cover Art Crossovers: Twilight Edition

To go along with my earlier review/ rant about Twilight, I thought it would be interesting to note a rather incongruous cover crossover it has with another book. Twlight's cover is actually quite striking. The black background makes a great contrast with the red apple and pale arms and hands. According to Stephanie Meyer's website, the apple is supposed to symbolize choice, and she cites Biblical and mythological references to help support her argument. Personally, my first thought when seeing the cover was the fairy tale Snow White, but as Meyer's notes, apples are a versatile fruit and carry with them a lot of connections and connotations.

Interestingly enough, as I was browsing at my local Barnes & Nobles, I noticed the cover in the Christianity section. My first instinct was to take the book and reshelve it (my old habits as a bookseller have not completely gone away), but then I took a closer look at the cover and the author. It was a book by C. S. Lewis, theologian and author of the Chronicles of Narnia series. Although the covers do have their differences, they are similar enough to fool someone at first glance. This got me to thinking about how confused people would be if they picked up Lewis's book thinking they were going to be reading about a teenager and her noble, undead boyfriend.

Summer Reading, 2009 Edition

I can't believe that it is almost August, particularly since I don't feel like I have accomplished anything since summer started (other than the usual routine of classes and work). However, I have been able to do a lot of reading (scholarly and otherwise). Here are some of the best and worst books I have read for fun since the end of spring semester:

Beowulf on the Beach by Jack Murnighan - I read this book on the plane back from Nashville, and I found it enjoyable, even if it was a little uneven in places. Murnighan brings up some interesting points about the great books of western civilization, such as the parallelism found in the Bible. Furthermore, I like the argument that there are some passages in great books that need to be skipped. I remember getting into an argument with another English teacher who couldn't believe that my school didn't require students to read all of Walden. Looking back, I wish I had this book to use as my rebuttal.

Where the Girls Are by Susan J. Douglas - Okay, it is a bit of a stretch calling this "leisure reading" since I was planning on using this as part of my dissertation. While I didn't find anything that useful for my proposal or dissertation, Douglas's discussion and analysis of the portrayal of femininity in the media during the 1960s and 1970s was thought-provoking. Even when I didn't agree with her points, I had to acknowledge that she makes some convincing arguments.

The Year of Living Biblically by A.J. Jacobs - This is my favorite book (so far) this summer. While I enjoyed Jacobs's first book, The Know-It-All, my very complicated relationship with religion made me reluctant to read The Year of Living Biblically, in which Jacobs chronicles the year he spent trying to follow all of the rules prescribed by the Bible. Luckily, Jacobs undertakes this seemingly overwhelming and somewhat provocative task with candor and humor. His honesty and open-minded approach to the experiment make this book accessible, informative, and entertaining, even for a skeptical person like me.

Rod Serling and The Twilight Zone by Douglas Brode and Carol Serling - The Twilight Zone (the original series, not the later incarnations) is a show that I almost always find entertaining and disturbing. This book looks at how Serling's views, foibles, and ideas helped shape and propel the various themes found in the show. Overall, the book was a good read, but it sometimes feels a little too reverent in its discussion of Serling, comparing his work with that of Frank Capra, William Shakespeare, and Edward R. Murrow. Although these comparisons are often justifiable, I got the impression that the authors were trying too hard to show Serling's genius and his considerable influence on television and American culture. In the end, perhaps letting Serling's work stand on its own would have allowed me to gain a better appreciation of it.

How to Read Like a Writer by Francine Prose - I really wanted to like this book, and I tried to read it numerous times. However, this is it. I officially give up. While Prose makes some valid points, I just couldn't connect with the book. There are so many other books about reading that I find more interesting and just as (if not more) informative that I can't justify spending anymore time trying to read How to Read Like a Writer.

Happy Birthday!

Today is my blog's first birthday! In the past year, the country has elected a new president, and I've crawled a little closer to my dissertation. Thank you for reading, and I will do my best to continue to bring you my (ahem) unique view on books, pop culture, and the world around us.

Going over my stats and the number of visits I have had to the blog, it might be interesting to note that the most popular pages on this blog (according to StatCounter.com) are:

• My first entry on "The World is a Beautiful Place"
• "Twilight Haters of the World Unite!"
• My second entry (done on 9/11/2008) on "The World is a Beautiful Place"

Thanks for a great year, and please stay tuned for more!

Deal Breakers: Books

Earlier this week, the New York Times Sunday Book Review published an article about books that were deal breakers when it comes to relationships. I must admit that I had never considered a book to be a deal breaker before.

The article is interesting, but the true entertainment comes from reading responses in the accompanying blog. As I write this, the NYT blog has 300+ responses ranging from anything by Mitch Albom (who wrote Tuesdays with Morrie) to Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code to James Joyce’s Ulysses. A number of people also cited not reading as a deal breaker while others complained that judging people by what they read (or don’t read) is snobbery.

If anything, this idea is very thought provoking. Like music, which can be very personal, books are not simply objects in and of themselves. Instead, this article suggests that the books we read are a reflection of our ideas and values. While this may be true to a certain extent, it is a little scary to think that we are all judged by these books. As several posts pointed out, some very intelligent people read light books for fun or to get a break from more serious fare. Whenever I ride the subway, I am intrigued by the books people read. While I see people who study their law torts and read diligently from their copies of War and Peace, I can’t help but admire those who have no qualms with publicly reading a book with a really embarrassing title and cover (often found on self-help books and romance novels).

For me, I suppose that the real deal breaker might be not reading at all, if for no other reason then we would probably run out of things to talk about after the first few dates. Granted, I might be a little freaked out if a guy I was dating said that he loved Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight series or read only manga. However, at least that would give us a lot to argue about.

"Navy Barbie" by Lyn Lifshin

March, as my local bookstore display likes reminding me, is Women's History month. I initially toyed with doing weekly blogs about this, but I never got around to it. In an odd and ironic coincidence, this month also marks Barbie's 50th anniversary.

While Barbie has been the subject of many a debate, for better or worse, she is an indelible part of American culture. She has an entire empire (dolls, toys, videos, etc). Unsurprisingly, there have also been numerous parodies, books, and poems about her in popular culture. One of my favorite poems is Lyn Lifshin's "Navy Barbie" from the book Cold Comfort.

The poem brings up some very interesting ideas regarding Barbie's image and the issues surrounding it. Besides addressing the concept that, behind the big breasts and the glamorous wardrobe, Barbie is more than just a pretty face, it also forces the question of the accoutraments that make Barbie who she is. When I was younger, I was a huge fan of Barbie and all of her accessories (car, clothes, shoes, Dream House, etc.). However, Lifshin notes that these things are certainly not as great as they may seem: the clothes are uncomfortable, and when it all comes down to it, Barbie dresses up not for her enjoyment but for the enjoyment of others.

For all of the problems and questions that Barbie brings up, I still prefer her to the Bratz dolls and to Bella from Twilight. At least Barbie eventually pursued hobbies and careers beyond mooning over the undead and cooking dinner. Happy 50th Barbie - may the Botox be with you!

Book Review: "Showgirls, Teen Wolves, and Astro Zombies: A Film Critic's Year-Long Quest to Find the Worst Movie Ever Made"

While there are many good movies I have a sincere appreciation for, part of me loves watching a truly awful movie. And I don't mean just Twilight awful (even given my hatred of the books, I thought that the movie was boring and the Twi-hards deserved better); I mean Grease 2 awful or Xanadu awful. Consequently, when I came across Michael Adams's Showgirls, Teen Wolves, and Astro Zombies: A Film Critic's Year-Long Quest to find the Worst Movie Ever Made, I was immediately intrigued.

Adams, an Australian film critic, decided to spend an entire year and an absurd amount of money watching bad films. From the titular Showgirls to the works of the infamous Ed Wood to even lesser-known works, Adams undertook the daunting (and somewhat scary) task of watching at least one bad film a day for a year. His book outlines his experience trying to watch these movies while also working as the reviews editor for Empire magazine, becoming a movie critic on an Australian television show, and raising a toddler with his extremely patient wife.

The book has a lot of strengths. Besides the inherent humor of reading a critic's reactions to horrible films (I love Roger Ebert's I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie for the same reason), Adams is very careful not to be too rancorous to the movies he includes. In fact, he takes his job very seriously; in addition to documenting the different films he watched during the year, he also interviewed numerous people (including David Sedaris) to get their recommendations for bad films. Furthermore, he also interviewed some of the directors of the bad films he watched in order to get their side of the story. The resulting book is not so much an unadulterated pummeling of bad movies as it is a sort of celebration of B (and C, D, and F) grade flicks. While Adams doesn't hold back when it comes to the most reprehensible movies, he also is willing to try and see the sincere effort put forth by some of the filmmakers and actors.

There are a few flaws in the book. Its premise, of doing something novel or unusual for a year and then writing about it, is not a new one. Also, I would have liked more of Adams's insight into some of the movies; given that he watched over 300 bad movies in one year, he doesn't get the chance to go very deep into discussing the different works. However, when a book is as engaging and well-written as Adams's is, it is easy to overlook the somewhat formulaic and gimmicky premise and just get lost in the cornucopia of of bad movies.

My Love-Hate Relationship with Rent

There are a lot of things I hate to love (Starbucks coffee, Center Stage, and Lucky magazine come to mind) and that I love to hate (Twilight, Sweet Valley High, Legally Blonde the Musical, feta cheese... the list is long). However, one thing that goes both ways is Rent, Jonathan Larson's magnum opus rock opera based off of La Boheme. While there is a great deal that I like about the musical, there is also a lot that bothers me whenever I take the time to really think about it. Here is my take on Rent:

What Works

• A lot of the music is good and some of the songs are fantastic. "What You Own," "Seasons of Love," and "Finale B" are perhaps three of the most successful numbers, and they not only encapsulate what is going on in the play but they also work on their own. Even though "Seasons of Love" can get be very saccharine and was overplayed there for a while, its main lyrics are particularly strong.
• The carefree spirit of the play (which isn't quite apparent in the movie version) is infectious and makes a great contrast with the carefully staged shows that have become common on Broadway. It is the anti-Disney and the anti-Andrew Lloyd Webber show (and I mean that in the best way possible).
• In regards to being a show that supposedly "defines a generation" and speaks for the angst of a particular generation, it is far, far superior to Spring Awakening. While both musicals are period pieces, Rent just feels more genuine when compared to SA's formal, 19th-century dialogue and raunchy rock numbers. Also, while Larson had a great respect for Broadway (and was an admirer of Stephen Sondheim), the creators of SA seemed more than a little holier-than-thou in regards to their view of musical theatre.
  
• The show's policy to sell $20 premium tickets the day of the show was a great way to introduce theatre to a new generation and to let the people who the show was about get a front-row seat to it.

What Doesn't Work (At Least for Me)

• Yes, a lot of the music is good. However, since it is a rock opera and mostly sung-through, some of the songs are less than successful. Also, the show tends to have one volume (loud). When I saw it on Broadway, I was seated under a speaker and couldn't hear for the rest of the night.
• There are holes in the plot that you could drive a truck through. Although this is part of the show's appeal (Larson died before seeing his show open and become a cultural phenomenon), I can't help but wonder why no one connected to the show realized that some characters, such as Benny, just seem to disappear and reappear at will.
  
• This show has one of the most dislikable cast of characters ever assembled on stage. While the original cast of actors was (and still is) very talented, the characters are so incredibly unsympathetic that I have always had a hard time connecting with them. Maureen is self-absorbed and unfaithful, Tom decides that hot wiring an ATM is better attempting to teach his students, Mimi doesn't really seem to have any sort of revelation that her behavior is dangerous (and is rather predatory to boot), and Roger is a pill beyond comparison (read Mrs. Giggles's awesome review of the film version to get an idea of why I hate Roger). Even though Angel is sympathetic, he is made into such a martyr figure that he is more of a symbol than a true character.
  
• Overall, the show seems hypocritical. Though these characters espouse the idea of acceptance, they really don't seem all that accepting. While they lionize people like them (who squat in buildings, leech electricity and whine about how poor they are while not putting forth any real effort to find and hold a job), they are awfully judgmental towards people who attempt to act responsibly. Benny, who is the play's supposed villain because he has sold out and turned his back on the bohemian lifestyle, doesn't anger me nearly as much as the other characters. While he sometimes is a jerk, he also pays for Angel's funeral, thus proving that having a real job that makes real money can come in handy in some situations. Of course, the other characters don't thank him for his gesture and make a rather disparaging remark about how nice it must be to have money.
  
• The show's main idea, that it is acceptable and even admirable to be completely irresponsible as long as you are doing it in the name of "art" and are not selling out by (gasp!) getting a job doing something you don't like, angers me to no end. I appreciate art and the struggles that people have to endure in order to create art. However, I don't see it as an excuse for not being responsible and contributing to society in a positive way. I know sound like an old fogey, but even as a teenager (the show came out when I was in high school), I never understood why these characters couldn't get jobs and do their art in their off hours, like most people do (incidentally, Jonathan Larson worked at a diner before he got the funding that would allow him to concentrate on writing).
  
• Although not nearly as bad as the atrocity that is the film version of A Chorus Line, the movie version of Rent is a veritable cornucopia of bad decisions. From allowing Chris Columbus (who directed the first two Home Alone movies and Adventures in Babysitting) to be at the helm to the fact that the film version came about 10 years too late for the original Broadway cast (most of whom were in the film) to be believable as starving artists, a lot of mistakes were made. However, the one that annoys me the most is Columbus's decision to change his original ending (which only proves how wrong he was for this particular film).
  

I know that my pro/con list is rather imbalanced. As you can tell, I have major issues with some of the underlying themes. Nevertheless, I can appreciate it for what it is and I can even forgive it for bringing the rock opera back to the Broadway stage. However, I still refuse to accept the fact that Roger is all that and a stack of pancakes - trust me Mimi, "Your Eyes" is NOT worth coming back from the dead for. "One Song Glory," Roger's song about his desire to write a great song, is ironically the superior song. However, given Roger's self-absorption, perhaps none of us should be surprised that his best song is about himself. Shut up Roger!

Who is Your Literary Dream Date?

I was wasting time between meetings yesterday at the bookstore, and one of my former co-workers C. and I started talking about the topic we both love to hate: Twilight. More specifically, we started debating what it was that teenage girls found so appealing about it. From my conversations with teenage girls, it seems like they are primarily interested in Jacob and Edward, with Bella being a peripheral character at best.

There is something about the dark, alpha (or asshole) hero that appeals to teenage girls (and to some women). Perhaps it is a form of rebellion, perhaps it is the extreme passion, perhaps it is the idea that the love of a good woman can change the hero's brooding ways. However, when C. and I tried to come up with some viable alternatives to Edward and Jacob, we found ourselves stymied.

Of course, if you want the dark, brooding, romantic hero, then Mr. Rochester and Heathcliff are the obvious choices. However, there does seem to be a dearth of rationale, angst-less literary heroes that we (or at least I) find romantically appealing. For instance, while I might enjoy being friends with Nick from The Great Gatsby or Laurie from Little Women, I also know that I would find Nick too introverted and Laurie too immature to forge a true connection with them.

After pondering this question for fall too long yesterday, the only fictional character I have come up with (so far) is Gilbert Blythe from the Anne of Green Gables series. Besides the cuteness factor (because of the movie, Jonathan Crombie is, in my mind, the definitive Gilbert), he's smart, driven, and a bit mischievous. He's also the anti-Byronic hero in that he doesn't brood and he goes out of his way to try to get Anne's acceptance.

Do you have a literary character that you think might be your ideal match? If so, please leave a comment!

Literary Guilty Pleasures

NPR's All Things Considered has an ongoing series that features authors' confessions about their own literary guilty pleasures. These potentially embarrassing reads include the risque Peyton Place and the taboo (and so bad it's good) Flowers in the Attic. Additionally, some male authors admit to liking books that are considered feminine reads, such as Twilight and the Rosemary Rogers' bodice-ripper Sweet Savage Love. If I didn't love Jack Murnighan before, I love him for admitting his affection for this book.

That said, I have a number of guilty pleasure books hidden away in the confines of my bookshelves. While I wouldn't be caught dead with some of these books in public, they are some of my closet favorites. Besides some romance novels (I'm a picky romance reader, and tend to be stuck on ones from my younger days), I also love children's books. My absolute favorites may be Beverly Cleary's Ramona series. Yes, I know that these books are for children, but I probably read the entire Ramona series (or at least the books that I have) once a year. Cleary perfectly portrays the misadventures of Ramona Quimby, a girl who tends to be too imaginative for her own good. I particularly love Cleary's portrayal of a child's feelings of being misunderstood and helpless. However, it never gets too dark; in a world of depressing children's stories, Ramona is a happy (but not too happy) respite.

Do you have any books that you secretly love (even though you would rather die a thousand deaths before reading them in public)? Please feel free to list some of your guilty pleasures in the comments section!