Last week is notable for the premiere of the movie version of Stephenie Meyer's bestseller 'Twilight' as my giggling classmates are apt to remind me, rather annoyingly I must add. It's no news how every female is raving about Twilight, unless of course one lives hermetically in a cave where he is utterly devoid of human contact. Everyday at school I get that. We even hear raves that Twilight is the next best thing since Harry Potter, which I admit isn't really that far off, or even the Lord of the Rings, which is nothing short of blasphemous as no one and I mean NO ONE can compare to the genius of Tolkien. So much buzz has left me scratching my head, what is it with this Twilight?
Thus I set out to analyze what we shall call the Twilight Phenomenon. As our theoretical background we use postmodern literal-critical theory to read between the lines, so to speak, and deconstruct the meaning behind the novel's, and indirectly the movie's, themes. Also, I'm told that postmodern critiques are undertaken without actually reading the work, so I needn't embarrass myself with procuring a copy after all the scorn I heaped on it. At least that's what postmodern theory's detractors say. Anyhow it works for me.
Let us first examine the plot of the book. Girl meets boy, boy is initially repulsed by girl but lo, girl finds out boy is vampire and is only repulsed at girl because boy doesn't want to drink girl's blood even if it smells so good. Nonetheless, they fall in love but some pesky antagonist wants to harm girl and boy save the day and then they go to the prom. Notice how it was not difficult to summarize the plot in two sentences. Notice further that by stripping off the vampire aspects of the plot, we are left with nothing but the old We-can't-be-together Forbidden Love theme. Understandably, Twilight's appeal would not come from its plot. True, it's a classic and timeless story but it needs something more to stand out from the countless others who utilize the same theme in order to reach the stage where normally non-fanatic teenage girls camp outside bookstores to await its release.
Having discounted it's plot, we proceed now to another aspect of the story which, I hypothesize, is perhaps the single most important, if not the only, factor in Twilight's cult following: Edward Cullen. Who here hasn't heard the sighs of disappointment that this Cullen person is only fictional? Look at how he is described. Meyer, rather straightforwardly, likens him to the Greek Adonis with his angular facial features, bronze hair and muscular body. He's also immortal, with super-strength and speed and a seductive voice and scent, typical vampire. Bram Stoker would have said the same with Dracula. Most importantly, he's, how do you say it, romantic. So he's like a vampiric pretty-boy superman minus the bloodlust who's romantic and, i almost forgot, has a car and plays music. Bingo. Everything is clear to me now.
Taking into account the above, we now come to the conclusion that this Edward character is why people, and I emphasize the young female segment of the population, read Twilight and mob theaters for the screen adaptation. Starting from that point, we can now view this work as a romantic idealization of the male persona. Meyer holds up this paranormal creature as the ideal male whom all specimens of this species should strive to emulate. She taps into the subconscious desires of girls and from those she constructs the man of their dreams. Reading the feminine propaganda machine Cosmopolitan, for instance, is like listening to a verbose plea for hot, sensitive, madly in love men to spring out of holes in the ground. The categorical answer to this plea is this abstinent bloodsucker. Thus the cries from legions of Cullen fans for someone like him to come walking down the street one day.
In the view of postmodern theory therefore, flesh and blood males are indirectly shown in this work as this inferior 'other' who should be more like this fictional but superior 'Edward Cullen'. Unfortunately, speaking in behalf of my gender compatriots, real-life males are not like that. We are beer-drinking, burping, belching, scratching, snoring, never stop to ask for direction guys. We can be insensitive, competitive, arrogant, aggressive, ambitious, egotistical and impulsive. We have trouble expressing ourselves, are threatened by our own kind and have many issues. And our ideal of manhood is more like Arnold Schwarzenegger or FPJ. Cullen here actually looks pretty effeminate from the male point of view. To make the long short, this idealization of the male in Twilight is nothing but a hegemonic imposition of a cultural image on what we males are not but what females think we ought to be. We are thus being indirectly forced to become something we are not, and perhaps never can be, for the pleasure of those of the opposite sex. But putting it with the pleasure for the opposite sex thing and all, I think it wouldn't hurt to try and become this Edward guy. If the returns are good, why not?
The extended sem break has finally come to an end and it's back to school for me and my fellow Carolinians. That means back to cramming for exams, penning essays, dragging yourself to class, and most importantly, to the old school uniform securely tucked away in some remote corner of my closet. Of course it will be next week before non-nursing students are required to wear the uniform but I was reminded a few days ago that it doesn't mean I could pretty much wear whatever I want.
Like many private schools, USC both has a Uniform Policy and a Dress Code. While a Uniform tells students what should be worn, a Dress Code lists down the prohibited items of clothing. Tattered pants is one such item and there I was one day trudging my way to the entrance lobby when I was suddenly stopped by the security guard for wearing of the forbidden jeans. I admit I have been quite a critic of the Uniform Policy and the Dress Code for as long as I set foot in the University, in fact I have the honor of helping organize the Student Coalition Against Repressive and Anti-Student Policies (SCRAP) and drafting its position paper against the Uniform, but I've been equally faithful in observing it, going so far as to ALWAYS wear pants whenever I go out in case I have to drop by school. So I was taken aback when the guard pulled me over especially when I'm very sure that tattered pants are not exactly my thing. Okay, my pants were a little ripped along the left pocket but that wasn't exactly tattered and neither was it inappropriate, a little embarassing maybe.
This brings into mind the thorny question of students' freedom of expression which the Uniform Policy and the Dress Code are limiting. As the US Supreme Court puts it in the landmark decision of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." This ruling, however, was against public schools and private schools are quick to raise the defense that students "freely and willingly decide to circumscribe " their personal rights "within the framework of the rules and regualtions of the institution" when they enroll. Nonetheless, if the State limits its omnipotence to protect individual freedoms, how much more private institutions?
To nobody's surprise, well at least not to me, the two year drama that was the US Election concludes with the election of the first African-American President of the United States. As if that's not historical enough, Obama's win overturned the more than two decades-long Republican dominance dating from Ronald Reagan's 1980 victory. The GOP triad of strong national defense, family values and neoliberal economic policies had failed them only once before during the brief Clinton Interregnum, whose Third Way politics didn't really depart much from his predecessors. The Obama presidency, coming in the wake of financial crisis and economic recession, is reminiscent the Franklin D. Roosevelt Administration whose New Deal put an end to the free-wheeling capitalism that brought on the Great Depression.
What is ironic and at the same time remarkable about Obama's election is that he didn't really play the race card. He won not because of his "black-ness" but because he presented an image of change that went beyond race. Obama's support came not only from African-Americans, whose turnout was unchanged from previous elections, but from Jews, whites, and even the Hispanics won over from the Democrats by Bush. His personal story and charismatic idealism, not the color of his skin, was actually enough to win him the vote and trounce two political heavyweights from both parties. Not bad for someone who was a nobody four years ago.
Meanwhile, McCain played the graceful loser, conceding to Obama and promising his support, like Clinton before him. in hindsight, his campaign was ramshackle at the outset lacking the money, efficiency and celebrity endorsements that Obama wasn't in short supply of. Factor in two hated wars and a financial meltdown everyone blames on the Republicans and you just can't imagine why the heck Obama would lose.
The ISIS fiasco seems to have spread to Friendster with a new account having, um, a suggestive name serving as an outlet for an exasperated students' frustration at the enrollment process. Here are some of the pictures posted at the account:
Seeing as it's been up for only a week at most but attracted 87 friends and 125 comments as of November 3, 2:38 PM shows something that this is not something isolated.
The embattled Admin may already be feeling the heat but thankfully their prompt response should minimize the fallout.