ManicDDaily

Maybe it’s the stress of the bad news (that horrible moment when the balloon landed and the first responders realized that the six-year old boy was not in it), or relief at the good news (the wonderful moment when it was discovered that the little boy wasn’t ever in the balloon, that he had been hiding in a box in the garage)—

Or maybe it’s the fact that the Dow’s close above 10,000 and Goldman Sachs’ good earnings report have been called by some at Fox, the “Bush” recovery, and  by others as  no recovery at all (apparently Goldman would have done better if it had simply invested in an index fund and the economy is certainly not out of the woods yet)—

Whatever—it’s all made me decide to write about Twilight again, the phenomenally successful series of books by Stephanie Meyer – 70 million sold and counting.

Specifically, I want to write about the amorality of Twilight, and to wonder what this amorality, or really, the audience’s acceptance of this amorality, may mean.

First, for those who don’t know the series, the Twilight saga, written by Mormon Meyer (a graduate of Brigham Young University), has typically been considered to be an anachronistically moralistic series of books.  This characterization has resulted primarily from the fact (spoiler alert) that the sexual consummation of the passionate love affair between vampire Edward Cullen and human Bella Swan (even full frontal nudity) is pointedly delayed until marriage.   Then (double spoiler alert), once they do get married, Bella nearly instantly becomes extremely pregnant.   (It was a good thing they waited!)

Edward is repeatedly characterized in the last three books, New Moon, Eclipse and Breaking Dawn¸ as a “perversely moral vampire” with very old-fashioned ideas.  His “family” is also characterized as amazingly moral because, by and large, they feed only on the blood of wild animals.  And, although they do seem to take particular pleasure in certain endangered carnivores, they try to avoid having an unduly negative impact on the environment.  (At least it’s not Aunt Susie.)

A closer look at the books (which I must confess I’ve taken, repeatedly) shows the vampires’ morality to be very one-sided, i.e. it’s all about sex and very little about money.   (Yes, the vampires, who are rich due to prophesy of stock market trends, do give their old clothes to the werewolves, but even they admit that they only wear things once.)

Not only are the vampires amoral, they are also incredibly solipsistic:  they (Edward in particular) only care about their own (Bella.)

In scene after scene, mayhem occurs just offstage.  In New Moon (the movie about to come out),  a large tourist group is fodder for the “Voluturi”, the vampire leaders.  Edward hurries Bella away so she won’t be upset by the sounds of the mass slaughter, but makes no effort to save even one tourist.  (Okay, they’re tourists….)

Similarly, when vampire mayhem stalks Seattle (of all places) in Eclipse, Edward’s main concern seems to be the negative attention the slaughter may bring.  In a hypothetical plane crash in that book, he talks, hypothetically, of reaching out to save only Bella from certain death.  (Doesn’t he have two hands?)

In the fourth book, Edward and Bella even stand passively (if uncomfortably) by as their vampire guests roam the countryside feeding on humans (granted, the guests go out of State.)

I know, I know.  There’s only so much a person…errr. ..vampire… can do.  Maybe Edward is right to focus his energies.  But what’s amazing to me is is the shift this represents from the classic romantic hero.

When did Superman even abandon a kitten up a tree to save only Lois Lane?  In nearly  every opera you can think of (Aida, Il Travatore, the Magic Flute), the hero must part from his love for the sake of Truth, Duty to  family, society, or gypsy clan, and some really heart-wrenching singing.   Romeo (yes, a hothead) forsakes Juliet to avenge Mercutio.    Even Harry Potter (who is a classic, if modern hero) leaves Ginny to save Hogwarts.

Edward’s solipsism is especially misplaced since he is supposed to be a World War I kind of guy.  It’s hard to imagine another generation so bound by duty.

So what does Edward’s amorality, and more importantly, fan inattention to it, say about modern culture?  (And please don’t get me wrong, I still love both him and his portrayer, Robert Pattinson.)

Certainly, we live in a country with a lot of fellow feeling.  I think about all the wonderful first responders who chased down the balloon today in which the little six-year old was, thankfully, not lodged;  I think of all the millions of Americans who undoubtedly hoped and prayed for that little boy’s safety.

But then I also think of the health care debate, the intense furor over the “public option”.

And, forgive me, but I also think of the outrage over Obama’s comments to “Joe the Plumber”; the casual ‘spreading wealth around’ remark that drew so much ire and concern, and that were raised with such anger (and comparisons to Stalinism) by my taxi driver in Florida.  (See earlier post re incredulity in Florida.)

Goldman Sachs’ outsized bonuses also somehow come to mind.

Hmmm…..