This post was inspired by a discussion over at All About Romance a few months ago.
Can we just never talk about the message the book is giving to children ever again? Please. Pretty please. Or, you know what? Hey, let's at least have like a two month moratorium on this discussion every year. We'll call it "Let's NOT Think About the Children Month". It'll be great. We can discuss books without talking about how they affect readers. No, the word is "effect" because apparently there's this belief still circulating around that somehow art will cause you to do things. For instance, if you watch "The Last Temptation of Christ" one too many times you will become an atheist. Or if you read about romance novel alpha, bad boys somehow you will then go out and find yourself an abusive relationship. Can we just please admit that this is just not true? That art does not cause things? Except boredom on occasion.
Or maybe that it's the opposite parallel. Maybe girls read books with bad boys in them because that's who they are attracted to already. Ever thought of that? And I've said this before but "bad boy" is a loose and ambiguous term. I have a love for literary bad boys at the very least and yet, I find myself in stark disagreement with certain people about who they refer to as a "bad boy." Not only does the term change definition from person to person but one can also be attracted to some bad boys but not all bad boys. Just because I fancied Lestat doesn't mean I'm going to date Ted Bundy. This whole conversation and line of thinking is so chock full of bad reasoning that I can barely keep from running around and smacking people upside the head. Do you know what is a stronger factor in determining whether or not a young girl ends up in an abusive relationship or destructive sexual patterns? Shockingly (and Freudianly?) it is her relationship with her father, especially during her teen years when she feels like crap all the time and the other teens around her are basically no different from a pack of feral dogs.
Don't you think that perhaps Bella's attraction to the paternalistic, controlling Edward in Twilight was more a product of the distant and cold relationship she had with her father? He never talked to her. He barely checked in with her on how she was doing or why she would make the sudden decision not live with her mother and stepfather (I heard somewhere that Stephanie Meyer's early version had her running to Forks because her stepdad had made an inappropriate pass at her)? Oh no, it could never be the dysfunctional family relationship. No, no. Bella's questionable attraction to Edward is clearly a direct result of her love of Wuthering Heights.
It just doesn't scan. Moreover, plenty of people fall in love with the wrong people, especially when they are young. Rarely does it happen that one meets a life partner in the hormone addled days of their youth. It happens, but not often. Why? Because when you are a teenager you are technically a sociopath. And everyone knows sociopaths have difficulty make good life choices.
