A Plea Regarding Twilight Hating

So most of you will remember that about two years ago I penned a relatively lengthy parody of Stephanie Meyers' Twilight. The time during which I wrote this spoof was an interesting one for the Twilight series. Breaking Dawn had just been released, and the first trailers for the Twilight movie were trickling into theaters and the internet. More interesting, however, was that I think this time represented a sort of intermediary period for the Twilight books. A transition from one era to another (if you can call the space of a few months an "era"). I remember a time, before my Twilight spoof, I think it was in 2007, that the Twilight books were not just popular amongst a devoted few but were universally adored by all girls. I cannot think of a single girl I know who didn't read the Twilight books and who wasn't a fan of them. I think interestingly it's not that girls were unaware of Twilight's shortcomings, but rather that they were aware of them and chose to ignore them. I remember during this time being specifically asked by at least three different girls to not read the Twilight series, because they knew that if I did, I wouldn't be able to help but point out the numerous inconsistencies and general ridiculousness contained therein. So I stayed away from Twilight until I think around when Breaking Dawn came out--which I think was the turning point for most girls from loving Twilight to indifference towards it--before I finally read the book.

Well, as you probably know, I found it very amusing and sappy and so I wrote a parody of it, which was relatively popular on Facebook. Shortly after my spoof though, the release date of the Twilight movie grew closer, and then Twilight really hit national attention. That's when it moved from being a girls-only property to being the subject of widespread derision. Once the movie came out, Twilight joined the ranks of those properties that are beloved by a small section of devotees but that are ridiculed and despised by the rest of the world (who feel very smug, cool, and rebellious in their hatred). Other such properties include, for instance, the Jonas Brothers, High School Musical, Hannah Montana, etc.

Now the thing you have to understand before I continue is that all of these properties do indeed suck. The Jonas Brothers are not mediocre musicians who are unjustly reviled, they are actually horrible musicians. But what I've grown so, so tired of is the endless, ubiquitous hatred of these properties, Twilight included. I think people imagine that they're being very counter-cultural and cool every time they proclaim their hatred for Twilight, but quite the opposite, I think they're just leeching off the "coolness" of putting down an easy target. And yeah, like I said before, Twilight does suck. I wrote a whole spoof revolving around its terribleness. But the Twilight books have been out for years, and the first movie came out in 2008. All the good jokes to be made about Twilight were made, and any other jokes about it at this point come across to me as only slightly more pathetic than the Twilight books and movies themselves. In fact, the only source that's really still generating amusing material from the Twilight series are the actual Twilight movies, which is why frankly, I have no complaints about them. They're hilarious films, and I've seen every one on its opening weekend.

And I can hear you now already saying, "Yeah, but I'm just so tired of Twilight being everywhere, it's like you can't escape it and I just hate that." Yeah, well a huge part of that is your own damn fault. If you and every single stupid media outlet--from The Soup to SNL to virtually every website on the internet--would just stop talking about how bad Twilight is, it wouldn't be so ubiquitous anymore. Because frankly, the main reason Twilight gets thrust into my life isn't from the actual series itself but from people mocking it either on Facebook or television or the internet. And yeah, Twilight sucks, but stop leeching off the hatred for it in an attempt to be cool. There are no more jokes to be had from Twilight, save from the movies themselves. At this point, I would rather watch a Twilight movie than a Twilight parody, because the former is bound to be a lot more entertaining and amusing than the latter, albeit unintentionally.

If people really hated Twilight as much as they purport to, I think that rather than dredging it up for a beating at every opportunity, they would just keep their mouths shut about it. But people aren't doing that and I think it's because they're really just hopping on the Twihate bandwagon. It's not that you can't or shouldn't ever diss it, I'm just sick of Twilight-hating as this incessant, ever-present sport. Hating Twilight is not cool and it's not counter-cultural, even though, yes, again, it does suck. I'm not saying you should like Twilight, and indeed you shouldn't because it's pretty awful. Just keep it down, mock it in moderation, and please don't think you're being cool for mocking it because everyone knows it's bad. To be cool in disliking something, amongst other things you have to actually be going against the status quo, which hating Twilight isn't. For God's sake, we still have two more years of Twilight movies down the road, so let's all just try to get through this unscathed.

On the Difficulties of Post-Series Sequels

So I was bored at work today (as usual) and spent a little while typing up what I view to be the potential problems an author faces when trying to write a sequel to their epic fantasy series. The types of series I'm talking about here are specifically those with one conflict that runs throughout the series and which is seemingly concluded in the series' final book (typically the defeat of a major villain). Such series would include the Harry Potter books, Percy Jackson and the Olympians, the Bartimaeus Trilogy, and even Avatar: The Last Airbender, as I suppose these problems are applicable to movies and tv shows too.

Anyway, this is what I wrote earlier today, without much editing (too lazy):

The difficulty with sequels to some grand fantasy saga like Harry Potter or The Lord of the Rings is that the sweep of the entire series has been the journey of the main characters to destroy this evil villain and restore balance to the world. A sequel is still a story in its own right and must therefore have a conflict. Conflict necessitates a villain. The problem here is that in order for a sequel to be successful, it must have conflict. And in order for there to be conflict, there must be a villain. And no matter who that villain is, the upsurgence of a new villain essentially undermines everything that was achieved in the main series. When the thrust of your plotline has been the defeat of darkness and the restoration of balance, if some new ultimate evil villain emerges not but a few years after the defeat of the old one, then all of the actions taken by the protagonists in the original series seem futile. What was the point of all the trouble they went to if Evil Villain 2 is just going to show up a few years later? On top of this problem is the fact that a new evil villain retroactively undermines the old one. If we've spent the whole series hearing about how Voldemort or Sauron or whoever is the biggest badass around, what are we to think when some new threat turns up so soon after the defeat of the old one? "Oh, guess the first guy wasn't THE ultimate evil villain after all..."

A seeming way to rectify this problem is by writing a sequel in which, yes, there is a villain, but he's not nearly so evil as the villain fought in the main series so the evilness of the original series' ultimate villain isn't undermined. This approach, too, is problematic because a lesser villain deflates the sense of conflict in the sequel that was so critical to the main series. Epic fantasy sagas hinge on that battle of good and evil built up from book one and ending in the vanquishing of the villain in the final book. That series-spanning conflict is so necessary to the series, that a sequel, without the villain hanging over the protagonist, just won't feel like part of the same series. It will render the sequel as only an unnecessary addendum, and a lame one at that.

Another flawed resolution to the sequel problem is to dredge up the villain from the original series in an "He only seemed to be dead!" twist. Unfortunately though, like the creation of a new ultimate villain, the resurrection of the old villain still undermines everything that came before. If we've already read the final battle, with its requisite drama and self-sacrificing and ultimate defeat of the bad guy, bringing the bad guy back around for a second fight can only feel tired and self-defeating. He's already been fought and beaten before, in what was supposed to be the last battle. How lame does that battle become if it was only apparently the second-to-last Last Battle?

There is also of course the thuddingly stupid "Aw heck who needs a villain? Let's just hang out with our pals as they journey around!" approach. A novel that takes this approach quickly reveals to us that we really only enjoyed the company of the characters when they were in the midst of conflict and mystery. Although we enjoy their quibbling and joking in peace time, what we really want is drama. We want to see these characters fight, sacrifice, and struggle. When they're not in trouble, they get a little boring. Without any villain, a sequel just feels hopelessly lifeless.

Really, the only successful way to do a sequel to something like Harry Potter is to set the sequel so far in the future from the original series that it can have its own big bad guy without undermining the plight of the characters from the original series. Unfortunately, two problems arise from this solution. The first is that part of the charm of the original series was from the characters the reader came to know and enjoy the company of, and these characters won't be around in the sequel. A sequel without those original characters has the arduous task before it of creating new characters who will be constantly weighed against and judged by the old characters, and for some readers, will just never feel the same. Potentially, a character from the original series could cameo as a much older person in the new series, but I've always disliked this approach too. For me, reading about a character who always existed in my mind as a child suddenly playing the part of "the wise old man" to this new generation of protagonists always feels strangely wrong and depressing to me. The second problem that arises from setting the sequel in the future is that many series, Harry Potter being a prime example, are set in the present. Setting the sequel in the future might thus actually entail the author's having to write about the future future. As in the sequel would have to be set potentially decades after the time in which the book was being written, like 2020 or something. A fantasy novel would thus be turned into a science fiction novel. (Actually come to think of it, Harry Potter might have a neat little trick to potentially sidestep this problem, if ever J.K. Rowling wrote a sequel series: Harry Potter is technically set in the 90s. If Rowling waited long enough, she might be able to have put enough distance between the original Harry series and the new one that would allow for the creation of a new ultimate villain.)

In conclusion, when a series sets out with a limited structure in mind and centers its conflict around the defeat of one major villain, any follow-up sequel to this series risks either undermining everything that came before it or just paling in comparison.