Manny's Reviews > New Moon
New Moon (The Twilight Saga, #2)
by
by

Manny's review
bookshelves: children, trash, science-fiction, mentions-twilight, older-men-younger-women
Oct 03, 2009
bookshelves: children, trash, science-fiction, mentions-twilight, older-men-younger-women
As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
Earlier this year, I foolishly lent my copy of Twilight to Cate across the road. She liked it. Then, when she got a place at college last month, we thought we'd give her something as a congratulations-and-going-away present. It was so logical to buy a copy of New Moon.
Cate zipped through it quickly, and dropped off her copy before leaving so that I could read it too. How could I possibly say anything except thank you?
Well... look on the bright side. I've heard so much about this book, and I suppose it is interesting to see what people are talking about. But, Jesus Christ, Bella is eighteen and she's already obsessing about getting old. She keeps hassling Edward to turn her into a vampire so that she can stay young and pretty for ever. There is some chance that this will result in her losing her immortal soul, but hey, seems worth the risk.
I suppose future ages may consider that this says something about early 21st century Western society. You don't exactly have to overexert your mind to come up with interpretations in that direction.
_____________________________________
So here's a thought that occurred to me this morning, which I'm surprised to find hasn't already been discussed to death by hardcore Twilight fans. Bella is a bright girl who gets mostly As and Bs at school, so why hasn't she stopped even for a second to consider the physics of vampires? To start with, where do they get their energy from? They don't really eat, they don't really drink, and they don't even need to breathe. Yet they're incredibly strong and fast. OK, they claim they need blood every now and then. But not, apparently, very often, and how could they possibly get this amount of energy from the occasional liter of blood?
Then they're hard, "like marble". In fact, if they didn't claim to be vampires, would we even think of calling them that? They certainly seem to be a lot more like humanoid robots. And if you just follow up that hypothesis for a moment, several things fall into place. Their blood must surely be full of those little nanobots that are going to be the Next Big Thing. When a vampire bites a human, the nanobots get into the victim's bloodstream and start restructuring him from the inside out, replacing all the soft animal tissue with something far more durable.
That no doubt includes the brain too; they probably scan it and then map the structure onto software, a trick that's been standard in SF for several decades now. No wonder the "vampires" can think so uncannily fast. But if your brain has been scanned, destroyed, and turned into software, are you still the same person? You can see why Edward is warning Bella that she might lose her soul. It's a bit like turning an LP into a CD, a process that several of my classical musician friends describe in exactly those words.
And, going back to where we came in, where is their energy coming from? Those nanobots must have their own power source too. I must admit that I don't know what it is. The fact that "vampires" don't seem to need any kind of material inputs suggests it's not chemical; nuclear seems more likely. Maybe they have some kind of catalyzed cold fusion, or it could be a post-quantum force that we haven't discovered yet. After all, we're way overdue for the coming revolution in physics.
Also, where did the nanobots come from, and why are "vampires" unhappy to be out in open sunlight? I can only see one sensible answer. They can't have been created by humans. "Vampires" have been around a long time, and human technology was primitive when they first appeared. They must be from elsewhere, which in practice means from another solar system. Probably they were originally created thousands of light-years from here, and have been drifting slowly on the cosmic currents for millennia. Well, if their normal habitat is deep interstellar space, no wonder they're scared of sunlight. They wouldn't normally be this close to a star; they're not designed for it at all.
And here's the thing that surprised me most. In fact, the story isn't irrelevant or far-fetched. If people like Ray Kurzweil are right, it's tackling what could soon be a major issue. According to Kurzweil, the Singularity is supposed to arrive this century, and those nanobots will be a reality. Millions of people will have to make exactly the moral choice that Bella has to make in the book. Are you going to stay human, or allow yourself to be transformed into a godlike and near-immortal being, which might however not actually be you any more?
It's interesting that the books are appearing when they are, and present such a compelling emotional case for allowing yourself to be infected by nanobots. If you like conspiracy theories, feel free to speculate some more here.
_____________________________________
I'm doing my best to like this book. I mean, hating it would hardly be a challenge, would it? But every now and then, I get a passage like this one:
_____________________________________
Having now reached the end, I must admit that I enjoyed New Moon more than I'd expected. Of course, there are some problems, starting with the fact that Stephenie Meyer can't write to save her life. But by making it a first-person narrative told by the shy, clumsy Bella, she has found an ingenious way to get around that. Bella's endearing klutziness is just a metaphor for her even more serious problems as a writer. As she keeps telling us, every time she walks across a room she wonders if she'll trip over her feet and end up in hospital; similar remarks apply to her ability to string together an eight word declarative sentence. But she's stylistically consistent, and after a while I found myself accepting her. This just happens to be her voice, even though it's not a very good one.
I also thought that she was a seriously unreliable narrator. Not about factual events; to start off with, she doesn't seem to be imaginative enough to make anything up. When it comes to telling us about her feelings, however, I found it hard to believe her, and presenting everything as a mass of regurgitated romantic clichés is an effective way to show us how poorly she understands herself. We hear over and over again that she loves Edward, and only thinks of Jacob as a friend. But we also hear that Edward feels hard and cold to the touch. I couldn't help thinking of the wonderful scene in Mean Girls where Rachel McAdams's Cool Mom insists on giving Lindsay Lohan a silicone-enhanced hug; I'm sure that Bella often winces in just the same way when Edward hugs her, though she doesn't allow herself to notice it. In contrast, Jacob is warm and alive, and she genuinely likes holding his hand and feeling him put his arm around her. There are several scenes when she nearly kisses him, knowing full well what that will lead to. It's clear that she wants to, and the excuses she makes to herself about him just being an unsatisfactory substitute for Edward are laughably unconvincing.
I found the opposition between Edward and Jacob the heart of the book, and after a while I decided that the author was presenting something interesting and essentially honest. The tricky thing is that she's subverted the vampire symbol. Usually, vampires represent the young girl's simultaneous dread and fascination in the face of sex. But Edward isn't very sexy. We're always being told that he looks like an angel, and indeed there does seem to be an angelic purity about him. I find it much more plausible that he's representing religion, and when you think of him in those terms several other things come into focus. As Richard Dawkins keeps telling us, a religion is a kind of virus, which infected parties want to spread as quickly as possible; well, vampirism is rather like that too. And Bella is very conflicted in her feelings about vampires. She loves the Cullens, "her family", but she is well aware that most vampires are monsters. If you're brought up in a cult-like religion, that's not a bad metaphor. All other religions are evil and wrong; your own religion is the one exception to the rule.
As everyone knows, Stephenie Meyer is a committed Mormon. It doesn't seem far-fetched to claim that Bella's feelings about vampires mirror the author's feelings about her religion, which among other things is very down on premarital sex. And that's where the werewolves come in; they represent the normal sexual feelings that most young Mormon girls are taught to deny. The tension between these two conflicting attractions is what gives New Moon its undeniable force, and I found the story credible at an emotional level. I can readily believe that it's just like that to be a eighteen year old Mormon girl with a healthy sexual appetite, and I feel I understand their plight better after having read this book. Well done, Stephenie!
Earlier this year, I foolishly lent my copy of Twilight to Cate across the road. She liked it. Then, when she got a place at college last month, we thought we'd give her something as a congratulations-and-going-away present. It was so logical to buy a copy of New Moon.
Cate zipped through it quickly, and dropped off her copy before leaving so that I could read it too. How could I possibly say anything except thank you?
Well... look on the bright side. I've heard so much about this book, and I suppose it is interesting to see what people are talking about. But, Jesus Christ, Bella is eighteen and she's already obsessing about getting old. She keeps hassling Edward to turn her into a vampire so that she can stay young and pretty for ever. There is some chance that this will result in her losing her immortal soul, but hey, seems worth the risk.
I suppose future ages may consider that this says something about early 21st century Western society. You don't exactly have to overexert your mind to come up with interpretations in that direction.
_____________________________________
So here's a thought that occurred to me this morning, which I'm surprised to find hasn't already been discussed to death by hardcore Twilight fans. Bella is a bright girl who gets mostly As and Bs at school, so why hasn't she stopped even for a second to consider the physics of vampires? To start with, where do they get their energy from? They don't really eat, they don't really drink, and they don't even need to breathe. Yet they're incredibly strong and fast. OK, they claim they need blood every now and then. But not, apparently, very often, and how could they possibly get this amount of energy from the occasional liter of blood?
Then they're hard, "like marble". In fact, if they didn't claim to be vampires, would we even think of calling them that? They certainly seem to be a lot more like humanoid robots. And if you just follow up that hypothesis for a moment, several things fall into place. Their blood must surely be full of those little nanobots that are going to be the Next Big Thing. When a vampire bites a human, the nanobots get into the victim's bloodstream and start restructuring him from the inside out, replacing all the soft animal tissue with something far more durable.
That no doubt includes the brain too; they probably scan it and then map the structure onto software, a trick that's been standard in SF for several decades now. No wonder the "vampires" can think so uncannily fast. But if your brain has been scanned, destroyed, and turned into software, are you still the same person? You can see why Edward is warning Bella that she might lose her soul. It's a bit like turning an LP into a CD, a process that several of my classical musician friends describe in exactly those words.
And, going back to where we came in, where is their energy coming from? Those nanobots must have their own power source too. I must admit that I don't know what it is. The fact that "vampires" don't seem to need any kind of material inputs suggests it's not chemical; nuclear seems more likely. Maybe they have some kind of catalyzed cold fusion, or it could be a post-quantum force that we haven't discovered yet. After all, we're way overdue for the coming revolution in physics.
Also, where did the nanobots come from, and why are "vampires" unhappy to be out in open sunlight? I can only see one sensible answer. They can't have been created by humans. "Vampires" have been around a long time, and human technology was primitive when they first appeared. They must be from elsewhere, which in practice means from another solar system. Probably they were originally created thousands of light-years from here, and have been drifting slowly on the cosmic currents for millennia. Well, if their normal habitat is deep interstellar space, no wonder they're scared of sunlight. They wouldn't normally be this close to a star; they're not designed for it at all.
And here's the thing that surprised me most. In fact, the story isn't irrelevant or far-fetched. If people like Ray Kurzweil are right, it's tackling what could soon be a major issue. According to Kurzweil, the Singularity is supposed to arrive this century, and those nanobots will be a reality. Millions of people will have to make exactly the moral choice that Bella has to make in the book. Are you going to stay human, or allow yourself to be transformed into a godlike and near-immortal being, which might however not actually be you any more?
It's interesting that the books are appearing when they are, and present such a compelling emotional case for allowing yourself to be infected by nanobots. If you like conspiracy theories, feel free to speculate some more here.
_____________________________________
I'm doing my best to like this book. I mean, hating it would hardly be a challenge, would it? But every now and then, I get a passage like this one:
I'd been broken beyond repair.Aaarrrrgh!!!
But I needed Jacob now, needed him like a drug. I'd used him as a crutch for too long, and I was in deeper than I'd planned to go with anyone again.
_____________________________________
Having now reached the end, I must admit that I enjoyed New Moon more than I'd expected. Of course, there are some problems, starting with the fact that Stephenie Meyer can't write to save her life. But by making it a first-person narrative told by the shy, clumsy Bella, she has found an ingenious way to get around that. Bella's endearing klutziness is just a metaphor for her even more serious problems as a writer. As she keeps telling us, every time she walks across a room she wonders if she'll trip over her feet and end up in hospital; similar remarks apply to her ability to string together an eight word declarative sentence. But she's stylistically consistent, and after a while I found myself accepting her. This just happens to be her voice, even though it's not a very good one.
I also thought that she was a seriously unreliable narrator. Not about factual events; to start off with, she doesn't seem to be imaginative enough to make anything up. When it comes to telling us about her feelings, however, I found it hard to believe her, and presenting everything as a mass of regurgitated romantic clichés is an effective way to show us how poorly she understands herself. We hear over and over again that she loves Edward, and only thinks of Jacob as a friend. But we also hear that Edward feels hard and cold to the touch. I couldn't help thinking of the wonderful scene in Mean Girls where Rachel McAdams's Cool Mom insists on giving Lindsay Lohan a silicone-enhanced hug; I'm sure that Bella often winces in just the same way when Edward hugs her, though she doesn't allow herself to notice it. In contrast, Jacob is warm and alive, and she genuinely likes holding his hand and feeling him put his arm around her. There are several scenes when she nearly kisses him, knowing full well what that will lead to. It's clear that she wants to, and the excuses she makes to herself about him just being an unsatisfactory substitute for Edward are laughably unconvincing.
I found the opposition between Edward and Jacob the heart of the book, and after a while I decided that the author was presenting something interesting and essentially honest. The tricky thing is that she's subverted the vampire symbol. Usually, vampires represent the young girl's simultaneous dread and fascination in the face of sex. But Edward isn't very sexy. We're always being told that he looks like an angel, and indeed there does seem to be an angelic purity about him. I find it much more plausible that he's representing religion, and when you think of him in those terms several other things come into focus. As Richard Dawkins keeps telling us, a religion is a kind of virus, which infected parties want to spread as quickly as possible; well, vampirism is rather like that too. And Bella is very conflicted in her feelings about vampires. She loves the Cullens, "her family", but she is well aware that most vampires are monsters. If you're brought up in a cult-like religion, that's not a bad metaphor. All other religions are evil and wrong; your own religion is the one exception to the rule.
As everyone knows, Stephenie Meyer is a committed Mormon. It doesn't seem far-fetched to claim that Bella's feelings about vampires mirror the author's feelings about her religion, which among other things is very down on premarital sex. And that's where the werewolves come in; they represent the normal sexual feelings that most young Mormon girls are taught to deny. The tension between these two conflicting attractions is what gives New Moon its undeniable force, and I found the story credible at an emotional level. I can readily believe that it's just like that to be a eighteen year old Mormon girl with a healthy sexual appetite, and I feel I understand their plight better after having read this book. Well done, Stephenie!
Sign into Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to see if any of your friends have read
New Moon.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
October 3, 2009
– Shelved
October 3, 2009
– Shelved as:
children
October 3, 2009
– Shelved as:
trash
October 3, 2009
– Shelved as:
science-fiction
Started Reading
October 7, 2009
–
Finished Reading
January 7, 2010
– Shelved as:
mentions-twilight
October 6, 2010
– Shelved as:
older-men-younger-women
Comments Showing 1-50 of 119 (119 new)
message 1:
by
Hazel
(new)
Oct 03, 2009 06:58AM

reply
|
flag

But not today!




Well, I explain the reasons in my draft review. And, as I go on to say, there are some angles to this series that really didn't occur to me at once...



Well, I explain the reasons in my draft review. And, as I go on to say, there are some..."
I know I know, I'm just relaying my initial reaction when I first see this before reading the review. Mouth agape, eyes boggled out. After reading your initial draft, you almost got me curious to read myself. Almost. But not quite!

This is what my Grandma would say about your situation: No good deed goes unpunished.

Because, honestly, Manny, despite your above explanation, I can't help but wonder how else could you actually subject yourself not just to one, but TWO of these books?!?

You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din.



Alfonso, you clearly read enough of my reviews that there's no point lying to you. I'll say it straight out: I'm more interested in sex than in Mormonism. I hope I didn't shock anyone.







I thought New Moon was a lot better than Twilight, so I may well end up agreeing with you about the merits of Breaking Dawn. I'll probably get around to it by and by. I mean, if I've read 18.6 books from the Brigade Mondaine series, what reason do I have to turn my nose up at another piece of trash?






There are very clear messages in these books about abortion, pre-marital sex, resisting temptation and rejecting socially accepted behaviors in favor of a higher moral standard. There are many other more subtle connections. For instance, Bella's attraction to an overprotective, controlling mate. It seems the Mormon religion has very clear roles for men and women that fit nicely into that picture. I could really go on and on. It was the first thing that turned me off about the books. I felt her religious and moral views were being shoved down my throat disguised as a fun little romance.

I see nothing to suggest that Stephenie Meyer is capable of good writing, so one way to look at it is that she made a smart pragmatic choice in structuring the Twilight books as a first-person narrative, with a heroine who could plausibly write that way. But presumably Bella borrows quite a lot from the author, so Meyer is writing the way she would have done when she was 18, or at least trying to, and it works. Sort of.
As I argue further in my review of Eclipse, I think the books are emotionally honest at some level, and that's why they're popular. It's nothing to do with Bella or Edward being nice people. They aren't. But they reflect something that readers recognize from their own experience.




Pavel, polygamy is not practiced by people of our faith, though it once was long ago. There are also some tiny splinter sects that continue to practice it, and in ways that are extremely problematic, rather than just happy families of consenting adults as shown on "Big Love". But mainstream Mormons practice only monogamy. The splinter sects get into the news more often, perhaps, which confuses people.

For example, I see you've just read Kristin Lavransdotter (which, by the way, I also thought was brilliant). It would seem absurd to me not to assume that Undset's religion was relevant to any analysis of it.

"There are very clear messages in these books about abortion, pre-marital sex, resisting temptation and rejecting socially accepted behaviors in favor of a higher moral standard. There are many other more subtle connections. For instance, Bella's attraction to an overprotective, controlling mate. It seems the Mormon religion has very clear roles for men and women that fit nicely into that picture. I could really go on and on."
Does that not sound to you as though it implies that Mormon men are generally overprotective and controlling? That's not at all true in my experience. It seems like a caricature that doesn't fit my group, though it may be what the author's experience is like, or maybe not. I'm not sure. I just don't think it's correct to attribute things like this to the author's faith, and I was hoping to show you a larger picture.
If you want to read an excellent Mormon writer, for instance, try Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Bushman. It's history, not a novel, but I feel much better about using him as a representative of what Mormon writers are like than Meyer. Of course, Orson Scott Card is one who is a novelist but I only recommend his early works like Treason, Songmaster, and Speaker for the Dead. (His recent stuff I can't enjoy because I keep reading them as political polemics.)
People's faith does shine through their work in various ways, I think. I do agree with you there. For instance, because I know Tolkien was Catholic, I feel that I can see how that worldview infused Middle Earth and Arda as a whole. But if you told me he actually was Buddhist, would it make me see the trilogy through new eyes? Probably not much. It stands as itself.
So I guess I'm hoping people won't judge a religion by one writer whom everyone seems to agree is dreadful, and decide her dreadfulness is taught by that religion. Especially because it's my religion and I know it as something wonderful. Does that make sense?

As I said, my take is somewhat different from Gretchen's. I don't think Edward is intended to represent a typical Mormon husband; I think he's the religion itself, and Stephenie Meyer is writing, at least to some extent, about the conflict between her religious feelings and her sexual feelings. I'm not sure that necessarily says anything either positive or negative about your religion, just about the way she experienced it as a teenager.