November 20, 2009
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Vampire Love |
| by Matthew Lickona |
| 11/25/08 |
|
It's hard to write about Twilight without writing about the hysteria. But I'll leave the Googling to you, dear readers, and keep to what I actually saw: girls lined up, a couple hundred deep, at around 9:15 last Thursday night -- for the midnight show on Friday. Lots of Twilight T-shirts, a few reading "Team Edward." Another read "Fang Banger," and adorned the top of a girl whose neck bore a couple of ersatz bite wounds. Nothing too over-the-top, but still -- why?
Presumably, because they had read and adored the book upon which the film is based, along with its three sequels. And why did they adore the books? Because they were on Team Edward.
But before we get to Edward, let's pause a moment over the object of his affection: Bella Swan, played by Kristen Stewart. Twilight director Catherine Hardwicke told New York Magazine, "We first had Kristen, because I fell madly in love with her in Into the Wild. I thought she was amazing and so expressive of that longing and that desire." Amen, Ms. Hardwicke. Stewart's turn as a trailer-park beauty who falls hard for rambling pilgrim Chris McCandless was so affecting as to be unnerving. She looked at him with such pure hunger: hunger for love, for affection, for welcome attention, for what he was and what he could offer her. He was this beautiful thing come into her life, and she responded by offering herself in the best, most complete way she knew: lying down and taking her clothes off. When McCandless declined (after a moment of understandable hesitation), she wasn't so much hurt and humiliated as she was baffled and sad: Isn't this what men want?
Well, yes, it is -- unless your man is a pilgrim who understands that the human connection brought on by sex will compromise his freedom. Or, as in the case of Twilight, unless your man is a vampire. In that case, he doesn't want to have sex with you; he wants to suck your blood until you die. But the character of the desire is the same: overwhelming in its ferocity, all-consuming. He wants it more than anything in the world, because, don't you know, you're special. You're the one that he loves. And the real wonder of it is this: That's the same reason he doesn't take what he wants.
Why be on Team Edward? Because of the way that he loves you -- er, I mean, the way he loves Bella. For Edward, Bella is special: He can read every mind he encounters, but he can't read hers. Her secret does not lie open to him, because she has not revealed herself. (Hello, mystical sexual metaphors!) He's got superpowers, so he not only makes her feel protected, he really protects her -- from a runaway van, from dirty-minded guys, and best of all -- with nothing more to aid him than the strength of his love -- from his own desire.
According to the literature, modern sex is complicated. Sometimes it's just rubbing together and feeling good; sometimes it's deeply meaningful; sometimes it's all sorts of things. In such a world, having your hero moan, "I want you so badly; I still don't know if I can control myself" is downright strange. Dude, what's your damage? But when you make your lover a vampire, when you make the desire for sex into a desire to kill -- well now. Suddenly, unchecked lust is dangerous again, and the old rules apply once more. When Edward comes to meet Bella's Dad (the town's chief of police), the man is actually cleaning a shotgun. Hilarious -- but here are these hundreds of girls, lining up to see a guy who loves a girl so much that he won't have his way with her. These are the girls who laughed when Mom asked Bella, "Are you being safe?" Well, no -- I'm dating a vampire. But then again, yes -- I'm being so safe that I'm avoiding the near occasion of . . . bite.
Of course, love isn't safe, especially when you love someone supernatural. But part of the fun of Twilight is the way the story takes that supernatural aspect and sinks it into the everyday. Or maybe it would be more accurate to say that once you're in love, everything everyday takes on a supernatural aspect. Climbing a tree, playing baseball, listening to music -- it's all so much more than ordinary. Love itself becomes supernatural -- which it kind of is, if you believe the Gospels. The sort of thing that allows a person to transcend nature and, say, lay down her life for another.
Which brings us back to Bella. Early on, Edward identifies himself as "the world's most dangerous predator." That makes Bella the prey; she even goes so far as to refer to herself as a stupid lamb -- stupid for loving a lion. Despite this, the film doesn't cotton to the notion that, in the sexual arena, the man is the aggressor, the woman the helpless victim, with no appetite of her own. When Edward goes in for the first kiss, he tells Bella not to move. Translation: Be the passive recipient of my passion. It doesn't work, and later, Bella's own desire provides the film's true climax.
It's not all sex and self-denial. Some of the rest of it is good, some less so. The bad guys felt a little like afterthoughts, and the big final battle was jumbled-bordering-on-incoherent. Bella's thawing relationship with her father was well-played -- she comes to live with him at the film's opening, while her mother travels with her new husband, a ballplayer. But the dynamic with Mom, while clearly significant, is underdeveloped to the point of being distracting when it does appear.
The high school stuff was better. It felt real and childish -- a long way from the glossy bitch-wit of Mean Girls or Heathers: awkward conversations, made more awkward by interruptions from oblivious classmates, busy being the stars of their own shows. The fumbling with nascent sexuality. ("I like this one," says a girl about her dress, "it makes my boobs look good." But then a guy compliments them, and she's embarrassed.) The awful irrelevance of learning about cell mitosis in the face of true love. Most of all, the way that the teenage mind can say, "It doesn't matter; I trust you," when your beloved tells you that he's killed people.
Matthew Lickona is a staff writer for the San Diego Reader and the author of the 2005 memoir Swimming with Scapulars: True Confessions of a Young Catholic. He lives in La Mesa, California, with his wife and children. Readers have left 26 comments. The confirmation class I teach had a good discussion about Twilight in light of the encyclical Deus Caritas Est. Pope: "Yet eros and agape—ascending love and descending love—can never be completely separated. ... Even if eros is at first mainly covetous and ascending, a fascination for the great promise of happiness, in drawing near to the other, it is less and less concerned with itself, increasingly seeks the happiness of the other, is concerned more and more with the beloved, bestows itself and wants to 'be there for' the other. The element of agape thus enters into this love, for otherwise eros is impoverished and even loses its own nature. On the other hand, man cannot live by oblative, descending love alone. He cannot always give, he must also receive. Anyone who wishes to give love must also receive love as a gift." Edward: "I feel very protective of you." Bella [spolier -- going to rescue 'mom']: "Surely it was a good way to die, in the place of someone else, someone I loved." Written by Jesse Matthew, "Bitch-wit." You've coined a culture! I battle the urge to let my daughters see such films (not Twilight but Mean Girls et al) because when I was growing up, watching John Hughes films, the "bitch-wit" couldn't have more clearly marked the territory of vice than had Darth Vader stepped into their midst... Nowadays, because it's more salient - and therefore fills the till at the multiplex, the foul has become fair and all that. Good to see that someone (two someones: Twilight's author and now director) is interested in portraying virtue in an imaginative light. Making it stick and making it sting. Once it's explained (as you've done so well), who's not struck with that "Why didn't I think of that?" sense of what virtue is - not because - but despite modern culture... Way to go! As films go, it sounds like one you really sank your teeth into... JOB Written by job I agree that "bitch-wit" defines the predominate genre of movie watched by my twenty-year old daughter and her friends. "Twilight" is clearly something different, especially for the Vampire genre, which I have enjoyed for many years, going so far as to read nineteenth-century gothic novels like "The Castle of Rudolpho." Likona's review makes me want to see a movie I otherwise would have ignored -- it takes quite a bit of will-power for a vampire not to bite. Written by Deal Hudson I find it disturbing that "a vampire with a willpower not to bite" is seen as depicting virtue. Yes, there is virtue in restraining yourself, and learning to channel your needs in a non-harmful manner (feeding on animals), but why must virtue be seen as "not doing something", instead of "doing"? There is a long tradition of villains being more interested tha heroes in fiction, even getting the best lines - and that is because villains are seen as "doing" or carrying the plot along, while heroes tend to react, and not do as much. Which is why I like the books of Tanya Huff. For her the heroes have the best lines, and are pro-active, while evil is seen as dull and petty. She even has a vampire, who while feeding on humans, is careful not to harm them, causing minimal disruption to their lives. He is a hero not only for that, but for taking a protective role towards all sorts of menace that pop-up. In her latest story about the character, he and a wizard friend (and occasional snack) track down and rescue a kidnapped child, and the story climaxes with the line "the sound of innocence preserved and hearts mending. He wished he could bottle it. It would make the perfect present for Vicky..." Written by Adriana ... I must now point out the wisdom of my surrender. Sure, giving the thumbs-up to an uber-marketed story about death-linked sex targeted at our twelve-year-old girls seems like a bad thing, but no no no, it's really quite good, see? Let these books and movies teach my children; I'm busy watching the game on the hi-def plasma TV. I mean, these stories are popular and even the sixth-grade teachers recommend them, so what could go wrong? And I'll honestly wonder in ten years how my children and likely grandchildren got so wrapped up in glorifying evil. How was I supposed to know? Written by Bruce Roeder How exactly does a story about self-denial for the sake of love glorify evil? And I don't get TV reception, so no game on the telly. Which telly is neither hi-def nor plasma. And we homeschool, so no sixth-grade teacher recommendations. But thanks for reading! Written by Lickona Sorry, Self denial for the sake of love? I thought the story was about a girl who subordinates her role as a child of God to that of a lover and defender of a vampire. In the end, doesn't he end up biting her, thus killing her? I haven't read the book myself, so my bad. I assumed vampires, witches, dragons, and so forth are symbols of evil. Please accept my white flag. Written by Bruce Roeder Yes, self-denial for the sake of love. As I wrote in the review: "You're the one that he loves. And the real wonder of it is this: That's the same reason he doesn't take what he wants." I get what you're saying about vampires being symbols of evil. But they also work as symbols of insatiable desire, and if you want to make a story about how desire can be dangerous, the vampire model serves pretty well, I think. There is no discussion of God. I don't think it's necessary to read her falling in love as a subordination of her identity as a child of God. As for this: "In the end, doesn't he end up biting her, thus killing her?" I repeat what I wrote in the review: "He not only makes her feel protected, he really protects her -- from a runaway van, from dirty-minded guys, and best of all -- with nothing more to aid him than the strength of his love -- from his own desire." Written by Lickona I think a danger of the movie that is not pointed out here is the notion that a bad boy can be tamed by a good girl. Girls' nurturing tendencies make them very susceptible to this romantic fallacy. It usually ends in great heartbreak. Written by Catherine Baron Edward is not a "bad boy." In some ways he is more virtuous than the heroine. For one thing, he worries that he is not good for Bella and hesitates to pursue their relationship. For another, he takes traditional sexual morality for granted. It's an interesting series of books. Not all of the elements are as wholesome as the ones I've mentioned, but there's food for thought there. I think that Matthew Lickona puts his finger on something important with this: "Suddenly, unchecked lust is dangerous again, and the old rules apply once more." There is nothing more romantic than the "old rules." Written by Jeannine Another [T-shirt] read "Fang Banger," and adorned the top of a girl whose neck bore a couple of ersatz bite wounds. Nothing too over-the-top, but still -- why? — Matthew Lickona"Nothing too over-the-top"? That's exactly what this is - it's a play on "gang-banger", although the girl who wore the T-shirt probably didn't know this or what it means. One of the hallmarks of the "culture" we live in is the cheap double entendre - you find them in almost all children's movies, in TV commercials, etc etc. They are insulting, annoying and make me want to scream. They are unbiquitous to the point that we, as adults, don't even hear them for what they are anymore. Hate to rain on everybody's parade here, but this book series and movie are downright creepy and under the surface, evil. They are not for "young adults", who are actually still children. That I haven't read the books or seen the movie doesn't put me at a disadvantage, rather it gives me an objectivity that others may lack. Engagingly told stories, whether in books, movies or on TV, are smoothly entertaining and fill us with the good feelings one gets from entertainment itself, rendering the inherent messages second to the enjoyment. Comedy is especially useful in removing natural inhibitions. Lots of cultural damage has been accomplished this way in the past 40 years. Saying this movie is better than "Mean Girls" is not saying anything - that's called relativism. According to the literature, modern sex is complicated. Sometimes it's just rubbing together and feeling good; sometimes it's deeply meaningful; sometimes it's all sorts of things. In such a world, having your hero moan, "I want you so badly; I still don't know if I can control myself" is downright strange. Dude, what's your damage? — Matthew LickonaSorry, Matthew, but a good Catholic homeschooling father could choose a better way to express himself. I grant you this is an interesting topic so I don't question your choice of subject. I think more profound conclusions could be have been drawn and perhaps related to the faith in some way.  Written by meg ... on the "gang-banger" thing - this meant something different back in the day. Boy, I'm getting old. Still not used to the new trend of taking a phrase that used to mean something bad and neutalizing it as slang. Cheap double entendres are still ubiquitous and irritating! Written by meg This whole thing seems rather contrived...creating a story where the lover and beloved are insatiably drawn to each other but are unable to become intimate for fear of death is (I argue) a mechanism for exciting lust, not love. Are the depths of love really explored? I believe the shallows of lust are displayed for us. There may be threads of virtue in this story, but before I would praise the whole because of the parts, I'd honestly compare it to movies about true love. Sex is nearly inevitable for those without the grace of the sacraments, so why should a movie produced in a society set against the sacraments be so unique? I would recommend Cyrano de Bergerac before any other story about the conflicted lover...a life of self-denial for the sake of his true love's happiness and innocence is depicted in the landscape of nobility and honor, not the terrain of indulgence and murder. Written by shane "this book series and movie are downright creepy and under the surface, evil. They are not for "young adults", who are actually still children." 1) I dislike the claim that "young adults" are children. For hundreds of years, Christendom worked perfectly well with just "children" and "adults." Young adults were not young for long. Assuming that young adults are children doesn't give them credit for whatever consciences they may have formed. I've known plenty of adults and senior citizens with malformed consciences and weak wills. Ergo, adulthood does not indicate maturity. 2) "Creepy" and "evil" might describe a lot of literature. Hugo's "Notre-Dame de Paris" is pretty creepy to me, especially those heretical alchemical themes. Maybe it's "evil" under the surface, but I don't have any kind of metaphysical radar that senses "evil" or its absence. Rather than regarding literature as "good" or "evil," I regard it as analogous to prescription medicine. It might have a helpful effect on an audience, it might accomplish nothing noteworthy, it might be positively harmful. The question, then, is whether the movie can be reasonably predicted to be helpful, ineffective, or harmful. Written by SCS I put "young adult" in quotations for a reason - this is a category you will find in any bookstore or library, peddled to the teenage set; the label is an unintentional warning to parents that the book contains inappropriate material. There was no such thing as "teenagers" in Christendom, they are a construct of our flawed popular culture, which perpetuates this construct and profits from it by packaging rebellion and disenfranchisement in the form of "entertainment". And you're comparing this "entertainment" to actual literature, that which helps to build a culture, and you surprise me, because that is precisely what it isn't. You are correct when you say that "adulthood does not indicate maturity", but why is it that real maturity is often delayed for so long? One answer could be that we are so preoccupied with daily entertainment - to an almost obsessive degree (this movie being an obvious example) - entertainment which has replaced real culture and anything truly transcendent in our lives, that we fail to grow in any meaningful way as a result. That's another long discussion. But in an environment such as this, the recognition of evil is all the more important. Perhaps we have different concerns. I'm with Shane, I see lust, not love. Lust sold to teenage girls is not evil? We are Catholics, no? Written by meg Another [T-shirt] read "Fang Banger," and adorned the top of a girl whose neck bore a couple of ersatz bite wounds. Nothing too over-the-top, but still -- why? — meg"Nothing too over-the-top"? That's exactly what this is - it's a play on "gang-banger", although the girl who wore the T-shirt probably didn't know this or what it means. One of the hallmarks of the "culture" we live in is the cheap double entendre - you find them in almost all children's movies, in TV commercials, etc etc. They are insulting, annoying and make me want to scream. They are unbiquitous to the point that we, as adults, don't even hear them for what they are anymore. Hate to rain on everybody's parade here, but this book series and movie are downright creepy and under the surface, evil. They are not for "young adults", who are actually still children. That I haven't read the books or seen the movie doesn't put me at a disadvantage, rather it gives me an objectivity that others may lack. Engagingly told stories, whether in books, movies or on TV, are smoothly entertaining and fill us with the good feelings one gets from entertainment itself, rendering the inherent messages second to the enjoyment. Comedy is especially useful in removing natural inhibitions. Lots of cultural damage has been accomplished this way in the past 40 years. Saying this movie is better than "Mean Girls" is not saying anything - that's called relativism. According to the literature, modern sex is complicated. Sometimes it's just rubbing together and feeling good; sometimes it's deeply meaningful; sometimes it's all sorts of things. In such a world, having your hero moan, "I want you so badly; I still don't know if I can control myself" is downright strange. Dude, what's your damage? — Matthew LickonaSorry, Matthew, but a good Catholic homeschooling father could choose a better way to express himself. I grant you this is an interesting topic so I don't question your choice of subject. I think more profound conclusions could be have been drawn and perhaps related to the faith in some way. I'd like to debunk this particular commentor, who like so many Catholics and Christians does not even bother to read books before they pontificate about them and then they call themselves 'objective.' The fact that fans would create a shirt with double entendre does not speak to the nature of the book/movie but to the understanding of the fan. I doubt very much that Stephanie Meyer agreed to marketing that particular t-shirt. The Twilight series is a very moral and ethical series of books (despite the subject matter of vampires) Meyer's 'hero' vampires do not feed on humans and the reason that they are made vampires to begin with is because they are on the verge of death. It is a well developed series that, if you bothered to read it, actually has a lot of good things to say about faithfulness, marriage, and being pro-life. I would recommend this series to any young adult girl with no compunction. I hope you will decide to exercise your ability to read before you condemn a book of which you have no familiarity. Written by Marisa This whole thing seems rather contrived...creating a story where the lover and beloved are insatiably drawn to each other but are unable to become intimate for fear of death is (I argue) a mechanism for exciting lust, not love. Are the depths of love really explored? I believe the shallows of lust are displayed for us. There may be threads of virtue in this story, but before I would praise the whole because of the parts, I'd honestly compare it to movies about true love. Sex is nearly inevitable for those without the grace of the sacraments, so why should a movie produced in a society set against the sacraments be so unique? I would recommend Cyrano de Bergerac before any other story about the conflicted lover...a life of self-denial for the sake of his true love's happiness and innocence is depicted in the landscape of nobility and honor, not the terrain of indulgence and murder. — shaneAgain I'll have to point you in the direction of the book series! Edward and Bella wait until marriage (in the fourth book) to consummate their relationship. Edward insists that they be married before they do so. And so...this series portrays a young couple who saves sex for marriage (even though one of them is a vampire - a moral vampire - see my other post). READ THE BOOKS! Written by Marisa You're right, I was pontificating - not the first time I've been accused of that! Allow me to continue. :) A couple of things... First of all, I'm sure you're not saying that everyone has to read or see every movie or book out there before they can form an opinion, or are you? There is enough buzz about this book series/film for one to gain a basic understanding. FYI, from the tidbits I've read, the author is a Mormon who wrote these books not for teenage girls, but for an adult audience, and that she was pressed (presumably by her publisher) to include steamier scenes, I guess to make them sell better. Also, this piece is not a defense of the books, but is more about the movie, and the hysteria it's caused, and why, and that's what I was basically addressing. It's likely that the books are superior in quality to the movie, that's usually the case, and if you love them, go ahead and defend them (maybe without the sarcasm next time). But don't lose sight of the fact that this is pop culture you are defending, and that we shouldn't have to depend on pop culture to reinforce our morality; that's the function of REAL culture, starting with the Catholic faith. You haven't addressed the more interesting aspects of the film itself, like why are teenage girls lining up in scores, wearing T-shirts, etc for this movie? Is it because they are so desperately hungry for something truly meaningful and transcendent in their lives that they must depend on Hollywood movies (which in large part are the enemies of Catholicism) to provide this weak example of decent morality? And, most importantly, do we want our children taking cues on how to live morally from modern entertainment in any form? It seems to me that that would be a slippery slope indeed. Written by meg I apologize for the sarcasm, I get worked up when people express strong opinions about things before they understand them. I don't think that a person has to read every book or see every movie to form an opinion, but I think that, whenever possible, books and movies that may be considered controversial should be read or viewed before a person, especially a thinking Catholic person, forms an opinion about them. There are some things that are morally objectionable and should not be viewed or read but this series and movie are not one of those things; therefore, a desire for a person to have actually read the books or seen the movie before they say that they are 'under the surface, evil' seems to be a reasonable request. This is the reason why non-Christian people don't take us seriously! They feel we form opinions without really knowing what we are talking about. Now if you had read the books or seen the movie and then wanted to address the points that you thought were morally harmful, then my respect would increase a hundredfold. Why were these girls wearing shirts with gross double entendre to the movie? I don't know, I didn't design the shirt but I know the message of the shirt does not fall in line with the spirit of the series. I haven't read anywhere that publishers encouraged Meyer to make anything more steamy and, in fact, even the parts in the fourth book where the characters are married and sex is referenced, Meyer does not go into detail about the encounters. Nothing in the books is terribly 'steamy,' they are primarily relationship driven. I don't think Hollywood's messages should be listened to, for the most part, but I think that this is one example of a movie/book series where these teeenage girls who may not have positive influences in their lives will see an example of a teenage relationship in which the boy does not pressure the girl into a physical relationship. Edward is the one insisting that they stay chaste until marriage even though there are a couple of opportunities for unchaste behavior. How often do teenage boys in actuality insist that a relationship be chaste? If that is what girls learn from this movie/book series, that they deserve to have a boyfriend who respects them and wants to marry them before they have sex, then I think that's a pretty positive message. Written by Marisa Apology accepted - I would probably be frustrated, too, if it were something I really liked and thought had value. I have a feeling I may be a good bit older than you, so thank you for respecting your elders! ;) Here’s the problem – most controversial material IS morally objectionable, so urging “thinking Catholic” people to read or view these materials before forming an opinion is not a good idea. Many years ago there was a Catholic Legion of Decency, now considered ludicrous by many “thinking” people, but there was actually a great idea behind it. The Bishops would inform the laity as to which movies, books, etc. were objectionable, based on sound Catholic thinking, and the laity would listen. They were not encouraged to view the movies or read the books before forming an opinion; they were spared the exposure to the offending material. The result was that Catholics formed a large, influential demographic that Hollywood had to respect, if only from a bottom-line standpoint. Compare the movies of the 40’s depicting Catholicism with the movies of today. If Catholics were still united in their thinking, had a resource like this, and used it, think of how different Hollywood might be. I would love such a resource. We don’t watch a lot of TV, but my children are voracious readers, and I can’t possible read everything they want to read. Because I’ve been led in the wrong direction many times by people who I thought shared my outlook, I’ve learned to rely on my instincts and they have served me pretty well. I try to be very discerning for my kids and myself. Modern entertainment is loaded with material that has deconstructed illicit themes and rebuilt them with super-attractive, engaging characters and lots of humor and “edge”, and I think many, many viewers/readers, Catholic or not, go along for the ride, proud to be a part of cutting edge entertainment. I think tinkering with established cultural symbols can be very dangerous. Vampires are established traditionally as evil characters who kill in a seductive way, not as symbols of virtue. Dashing as they are, historically, they have been portrayed only in horror settings, and read/viewed by people who like such things for their portrayal of evil and gore, and the resolution thereof. They were in the same category as their brethren in arms, werewolves, witches and warlocks. In recent years, they have received the makeover treatment a la Ann Rice (now a Catholic convert!) and others, and they are now seen as sympathetic, with an edge. But, Marisa, can you blame me for still finding them “creepy and evil”? (“under the surface” referred to the fact that this vampire had received his makeover) I would never read a book about vampires, nor would I let my children read one. I’m sorry this offends you, but it’s not personal. Making evil characters sympathetic does not enhance the prevailing culture – it’s actually pretty destructive. But that’s another long topic that I don’t have time for today. So we can agree to disagree. You have given me much food for thought. And your last paragraph got to me. I do believe you are right - this movie/book series will be helpful to some of the girls who view it; it’s an oasis of morality for young girls who must grow up in the cultural desert of American culture. Written by meg Should end.....cultural desert of American entertainment. Written by meg Well, I have to say I am severly (sp?) biased against these stupid books. I live in Port Angeles and, thankfully, have never eaten at Bella Italia, and I loved the old Lincoln theater before it became a prop. Now I am swamped by lame tourists who want to see where "Bella and Edward had their first date". Hi....it's fiction. There was no first date. Second, and this refers to adult, married women 25+ years of age or older (which I would like to of as grown-ups, but am no longer so sure). What do you do with books that make you reject your husband because, as one friend said, "it'll never be good again.....my husband can't ________" (fill in the blank with ever freaky vampy thing they do) There is a certain industry that (most) women object to because it replaces them...this is apparently doing the same thing. I have yet to see anyone talk about this as anything other than a "teen" book, but I also now that IS replaceing men to a certain degree. As for movies that portray a picture of chastity til marriage, even my 12 year old boy prefers Jane Austin movies to this stuff. No, I have never read the books or seen the movie. Not when excerpts have been posted all over town..... Like I said, I'm a bit biased to start with. ![[smiley=happy]](http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/components/com_jreactions/custom/templates/blog/smileys/smiley_happy.gif) Written by Danielle Here are some excerpts from a book review found on a Christian website: ....First of all, consider what the 'vampire' myth really is--nothing less than an obscene parody of the precious gift of God--which is eternal life through the Son of God, Jesus Christ, and by the gift of His blood, offered to God for us. To God, blood is sacred, those who drink it are an utter abomination to Him, because of what blood represents. We obtain eternal life by accepting in faith our share of the offering of the blood of Jesus, termed precious by God, ... As of a lamb without blemish and without spot (I Peter 1:19). — Pastor Bill RandlesIn the pagan myth, 'vampires' are those who obtain 'immortality' by sucking other's blood. The 'immortality' they gain, is literally a damned existence. They live in the night, they cannot endure light, they feed on the blood of innocence. Far from just a harmless thrill, Vampirism is the basis for all sorts of pagan spiritualities. Blood drinking and blood sacrifice is an everyday reality among animists all over the world. The vampire fable is nothing less than an all out assault on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Consider this, a young person can go to a theater on a Saturday evening and vicariously fall in love with a vampire, and his 'coven'(family), and then go to church on Sunday morning and partake of the Lord's supper. That same person on Saturday evening could conceivably root for a girl to forfeit her own mortal soul, to be the lover of a vampire, and the next morning go to church and eat the bread and drink the cup of eternal life! Can one eat at both the Lord's table and the table of demons? Did you know that this book series was 'given' to a Mormon woman in a dream, and that she was visited in a subsequent dream by the vampire figure?... ...Ah but Pastor it is only a movie! Lighten up! But this is more than a movie--it is a pagan myth which is a perversion of the only Gospel that can save us. The movie presents vampires as being attractive, in fact so attractive that the young lady in the story is willing to become a vampire to be with her lover. In order to be with her vampire lover, she submits to being an eternally damned soul! This movie skillfully plays on the emotions in such a way that the viewer pulls for the mortal young woman to be with her "lover," a 110-year-old vampire in the form of an attractive and well-mannered teen. What the popularity of this film, even among evangelical youth, says about the state of the church is that we have forgotten what we once knew very well. That is, you can't fill your mind with all of this paganism without injuring your relationship with God. We used to know that it is very possible to "lose your soul," to so jade ourselves by constant, undiscerning exposure to worldliness, that we render ourselves unable to pray, to hear the Word, or to live for God. We once knew that to voluntarily expose ourselves to blasphemy and sexual sin--not to mention something as blatantly spiritual as Vampirism--was something to be shunned, avoided, that it was soul deadening, and injurious to our Christian walk. Where is the sense of the sacred? The idea of the sacred is that there are some things in life that are 'other,' they are above us, they are not to be 'profaned,' for they are above us. For example, marriage is sacred, so is sexuality, as well as life itself. The purity of children is to be held sacred, that is why there is a special warning to any who would cause them to stumble... Written by meg Witches, Warlocks, and Pagans are not "symbols of evil". Ancient religions, focusing on balance and unity with nature, are not "evil." Everyone who has posted seems incredibly nice, and i thought this error seemed out of place. Written by Eliza I stumbled onto this blog looking for Catholic resources to help illuminate my banning of this book from my home. My 10 year old daughter is caught between her mother's (my ex-wife) promotion of the book/movie and my prohibition of it. I can appreciate the themes of self-denial, chastity, etc., that apparently are woven throughout the book. But isn't it just like Satan, the ultimate liar and deceiver, to ride a seemingly "good and moral" horse through the unsuspecting, even welcoming, gates of our children's hearts and minds and into their souls?! Moreover, in this case the horse itself is inherently malignant; it's a vampire! Merriam-Webster defines a vampire as "the reanimated body of a dead person believed to come from the grave at night and suck the blood of persons asleep." Is there anything good and moral about that, let alone holy? I appreciate good literature and moral tales, but query whether I want a demon teaching morality to my children. Isn't that akin to letting the fox guard the hen house? Is it more likely that a 10 year old girl will finish that book and be intrigued by stories of abstinence and self-restraint or by stories of vampires? We parents know the answer to that question, as do advertising agencies and movie producers. As I told my daughter last night, this is poison covered with peanut butter. It tastes delicious but what lies beneath is deadly. Written by Jeff |
|
 |
