Edward is Edythe and Bella is Beau: Discuss
On Tuesday, in honor of the 10th anniversary of Twilight, author Stephenie Meyer released a version of the book with 400 pages of new content. Twilight Reimagined: Life and Death tells the story of Edythe and Beau. Yes, you read that right. Bella is now a boy, Edward and Jacob (Julie) are girls.
Talking about the new book on Good Morning America, Ms. Meyer said she did so in response to readers who felt Bella was simply a “damsel in distress.”
“It’s always bothered me a little bit because anyone surrounded by superheroes is going to be … in distress. We don’t have the powers,” Meyer said. “I thought, ‘What if we switched it around a bit and see how a boy does,’ and, you know, it’s about the same.”
“The further you get in, the more it changes because the personalities get a little bit different, but it starts out very similar and really, it really is the same story because it’s just a love story and it doesn’t matter who’s the boy and who’s the girl, it still works out,” she said.
The idea that it doesn’t matter who’s the boy and who’s the girl in a love story is antithetical to traditional romance. At least I think it is. When I imagine swapping the genders in most of my reading, I’m flummoxed. I can’t imagine Dain as dainty and Jessica as a rake. In fact, I’m not sure I can think of a romance where the gender of the leads doesn’t matter. (I don’t read fantasy or sci fi which may lend itself more to this.)
Maybe I don’t understand what Meyer has done. And given that I’m unlikely to read the novel, I’m not going to learn. I’m curious, but not that curious.
What do you think? Could Bella’s voice be believably male? Would it be interesting if it was? Have you read any romances lately that you could switch the genders of the lovers and it wouldn’t matter? Would you want to read this one?
Dabney Grinnan
I had serious issues with the Twilight series. I was either bored or crossing my eyes as I read them. I stuck with it because my adult daughter and I decided we were going to power through them, no matter what. (It’s a self-torture routine we do sometimes on popular books.) Bella did not have “”power”” in this series other than her “”attractiveness”” to others. I ended up hating the way the author portrayed relationships and women. What is up with forcing the whole “”marriage”” thing? (LDS) The harshest thing for me to handle about this serious and the movies was/is how YOUNG the readers of these books were/are! I work in an elementary school and 3rd grade girls were/are reading these books! Ugh! Way, way too young to read that last book especially. I have no interest in going near that series again. Patricia Briggs’ heroine, Mercy is an admirable, powerful super heroine.
Thank- you so much for reading and reporting. I actually quite liked twilight but have no real interest in reading another version at the moment (unless it was the rest of Midnight Sun) so am really grateful someone else has. So looking for spoilers how did she change the ending?
I’d have to re-read to get the details — I just skimmed it — but the gist is that Edythe doesn’t save Beau at the ballet studio, and he becomes a vampire at that time.
I bought the gender-bend version and read about a third of it before I started skimming. I think it had a lot of potential in one area…and is a missed opportunity in another.
First, my difficulties: Beau has all of Bella’s characteristics. He’s shy, clumsy, bookish, intelligent, caretaking, socially awkward, insecure. The only real difference between him and Bella is that Meyer made Beau tall.* With Bella, I was willing to buy into all these traits, and they did not bother me at all. (Probably because I was also once a shy, clumsy, bookish, intelligent, socially awkward, and insecure 17-year-old girl.) But these traits made Beau seem somewhat unmasculine. Not effeminate. Just not particularly masculine.
I’ll sidetrack: Years ago I read a few books in a paranormal romance series by Jacquelyn Frank. The 3rd book was the kiss of death for me, largely because I found the male character to be SO mush-mouthed and flowery and sensitive that it was off-putting. He lacked authenticity for me as a MALE character. And this is part of the same problem I had with Beau. He lacked authenticity for me as a MALE character, especially as a 17-year-old male character.
Because I could not envision Beau as a male character, my brain kept confusing him with Bella. And not just BOOK Bella, but also MOVIE Bella. I kept thinking that if he had been written just a bit different — more uniquely BEAU instead of just a gender-swap version of Bella — I could have fixed him in my mind as his own person. But I couldn’t, so he just became a very tall, short-haired version of Bella.
The same was true for me with Edythe (the Edward character). (Incidentally, I kept picturing Edythe in my mind as Alice from the first movie.)
*Why not keep Beau short, just as Bella was short? Why did Meyer feel that it was important for their personality traits to be interchangeable — in the hopes of proving themselves to be genderless — and yet she fell back on PHYSICAL trait generalities?
Another difficulty for me: Not only did Meyer swap Bella and Edward’s genders, but she swapped the genders for ALL the characters (except Charlie and Renee). All the Cullens and Hales were swapped out: Rosalie is now Royal; Alice is now Archie; etc. Now Dr. Cullen is a woman, and her husband is a stay-at-home dad type. All of Bella’s friends have been genderswapped: Lauren is now Logan (I think); Mike is now McKayla; Eric is now Erica; etc. Even the TEACHERS and school employees, like the nurse and secretary, have been swapped. Why? Why was that necessary? What was the value-add there? And again, I don’t think it was very successful and the abundance of new names just muddied the waters.
I THINK there is some interesting social-psychology at play in this reworked version, but I was too distracted by my difficulties to really dig deep and get there.
(Incidentally, Meyer completely reworked the ending of the story, eliminating the events of books 2-4.)
I have not read Meyer’s books nor am I interested and so I don’t really know how female characters are portrayed from first-hand experience. However, my very cool and wise little 12-year old niece does not like them at all and told me the girls in the book are silly. I need to ask her more about this clearly! She does like The Hunger Games though.
Okay, look. The #1 reason these books were popular was because many young (and older) women wanted to imagine themselves as the damsel being rescued by two superheroes. There’s a reason the books kept referencing “The Lion and the Lamb”.
Women wanted to fantasise about being the nobody who inexplicably had seven-thousand men worshipping and protecting her.
Give the power to the female character, and the rescue fantasy is gone.
I will NOT read this book, however I’ve read enough articles about it to know that when she switched the genders she kept much of the original book, but added extra physical description for the female characters, and removed the Bella angst from her now male character.
Stepehnie Meyer keeps claiming she’s a feminist. But feminists don’t write a book series full of slut shaming and blonde “jokes”. I used to follow a Twilight forum, and after Breaking Dawn came out, the most popular thread there was the “tell your best blonde jokes” thread. Disgusting behaviour from all women involved.
I got a good laugh from some of the Goodreads reviews: ‘Imagine the fanfiction E.L. James will make from this one!’.
Other than that, it’s time for Meyer’s misogynistic brand of female empowerment to disappear.
*Stephenie*
As a fan of the Twilight series I will pass on reading this re-imagined version. I liked that bella was a damsel in distress. Kickass heroines are easy to find in fiction. They bore me with their supernatural strength. Seeing a heroine grow into her own is interesting reading to me
I kind of want to read this just to see what she does with it. But… I don’t want to buy a whole new edition of the book ($12.99 for the Kindle edition) just to get the bonus content and to find out.
Still, I’m putting it on my wish list and monitoring the price. :)
I need to read Rose Lerner! Cecilia Grant did this in her novel _A Gentleman Undone_ and it worked terrifically. The heroine is world-weary and sexually experiencing and is tasked with teaching the hero secrets of succeeding in a gambling den, as well as bedroom techniques. The heroine is also a brilliant mathematician. Grant is an author that deliberately plays with gender constructs and reader expectations and is one of the reasons why I love her writing.
I read the Cecilia Grant novel as well and it definitely shared some similarities with this one in that the well born heroines both had problems with their families and ended up working in brothels for a while. I enjoyed the Lerner book much more however. I don’t know if was just the general tone of the Grant book or the hero I don’t remember much about now, but the Lerner book seemed more unique. I cared more about the characters in “”A Lily Without Thorns””. I have never read a book before with a hero that simply doesn’t care about all the pride filled stuff all the usual heroes do yet still seems perfectly “”manly””. He has his own priorities in life and the shallow opinions of others simply don’t phase him. He is a guy who actually works for a living and by that I don’t mean he waltzes around “”overseeing”” some business he never works at. He physically does tailoring and takes great pride in his work. I think you would really enjoy the book -he’s a very kind and charming hero and the “”prickly”” heroine is sympathetic and a self made success. I thought it was charming.
Sounds wonderful. I’ve heard good things about Rose Lerner from a few sources and she does sound like an author I would appreciate. Thanks!
I could not agree with this more. When a successful woman in any field receives as much flack as these two have, I immediately become suspicious. I am no fan of James as I couldn’t get past the first two pages of her book but that’s just my taste. Who am I to complain when a female author achieves such success? Obviously there are a lot of people out there enjoying her work. I am sure most authors would love to have those sales figures.
I read twilight in my teens, I really liked it back then but it’s a book that doesn’t stand the test of time, While conceptually the gender swap is an interesting idea, I wish Meyer experimented with gender roles in a different book, “”reimagining”” a story seems like a cop out to me.
I haven’t read Twilight, so I wouldn’t want to read this one and I don’t know if Bella’s voice is believably male.
But I think that this is a very interesting experiment. What changes did the author feel compelled to make when she changed the sex of the characters? What part of the development of the character depended on the gender assumptions that our society makes?
It’s fascinating, and something I’ve asked myself in many romance novels. ‘If this were told the other way around, would I accept it so easily?’ Wouldn’t Dain shooting Jessica be seen as gender violence?
I think that switching the sex of the lovers wouldn’t matter in books of spies, or some paranormal books, or those with a lot of adventure. Joanna Bourne’s books or The Iron Seas series, wouldn’t be so different if the hero were female and the heroine a boy.
I agree with the comment about Bourne’s books, particularly one like “”Black Hawk”” where the hero and heroine are both talented and ruthless spies.
If Dain simply shot Jessica without any other adjustments to the plot, the act would most definitely be an act of male violence against women.
But, the shooting only really works for me in the context of Jessica trying to appropriate a masculine form of violence to fit into Dain’s violent world and play on his terms. She accepts the challenge and earns his respect for her act against him. It’s a decisive and powerful act that he understands all too clearly. What is more stereotypical in LoS is that Jessica is represented as a nurturer who takes care of her brothers and then later takes care of her husband and in her marriage finds ways to domesticate him. His domestication by the end of the novel seems to me a validation of nurturing succeeding over the public world of male violence that permeates the first half of the novel.
I don’t think changing genders “”wouldn’t matter””. I think it matters very much, but in a way that could be very revealing of our biases about constructed masculinity and femininity. It positions characters and traits and voices as human rather than “”man”” or “”woman””.
I read the original Twilight novels and so I’m a little curious about this. I’m kind of done with that world, but I might read it anyway just because I adore the idea of changing who the superhero is in this story, which can be a little creeptastically stalkery in places. Not a big fan of mpreg storylines though so not sure how she’d handle the last book? And imagine if E.L. James flipped 50 Shades! I’d fix other things about 50 to be sure, but a powerful female CEO and a naive young hero? Could be interesting.
Furthermore, I think seeing a female rake in the LoS context would be super interesting. Would it come off as slut-shaming? And I’d love to see the shooting scene when it’s Dain shooting Jessica. Like, how would that feel when it’s played out in reverse? Though what I’m more curious about is books where the heroine is a clear caretaker type. Well, like My Dark Prince might be an example. Would that book have worked better if the heroine were the powerful, tortured one and the hero the gently understanding character? I have no idea if it would work, but how intriguing!
I guess what I’m saying is that I think any challenge to the idea of social constructions of masculinity and femininity is bound to be an interesting experiment at worst and at best, opens up the genre to people who don’t necessarily fit into its stereotypes.
Me too. I wonder if this new Twilight will inspire other authors to that. It’s done all the time in fan fiction, but not so much by the authors themselves.
I recently read “”A Lily Among Thorns”” by Rose Lerner and it really switched up the stereotypical roles. The heroine was jaded, cynical with lots of sexual experience and connections to the “”underworld.”” The hero is sweet, a bit naive and far less experienced in every way than the heroine. He come to her seeking help and connections to recover a lost family heirloom. His family is very protective of him who see him as emotionally delicate for a number of reasons. The heroine holds most of the power and money in the relationship as well. It’s a great read and quite different from most of the other romances out there. I think the role reversal with Twilight could work very well unless you are a reader who only wants a romance with “”traditional”” gender roles and for the male to have more physical and economic power.
I thought the first book in the series was understandably successful. I read them with my daughter who was nine when Twilight came out. For me, they became less interesting over time. It’s hard to believe Ms. Meyer needs any more money. She’s worth over 175 million dollars.
LOL, well J.K. Rowling certainly doesn’t need more money but it isn’t stopping her from expanding on the “”wizarding”” world despite her success under the Galbraith alias.
I get that. I just doubt her reasons for writing this were financial. We are always ready to look for the worst in the successful.
I absolutely agree. And even if they don’t “”need”” the money why shouldn’t either of them enjoy more monetary rewards for building on worlds they created? We would never tell a male author/entrepreneur/whatever he has made “”enough”” money. No one ever tells Stan Lee to stop capitalizing on the Marvel characters. Joss Whedon is still making Buffy comic books and has done Firefly ones (based on a series that lasted part of a season). As long as the market sustains it keep doing it if it makes you happy and makes you money.
I have read the Twilight series, I must admit that I laughed through much of it and my humble cynical opinion is that Stephanie needs the money and has nothing else to offer in the literary world.
I’d be interested to read it, but not at the expense of buying a new copy of Twilight. I read the books, because my daughter and her friends were at that age (early teens) when they were released, and she wanted to talk about the series.
I didn’t love them (too old) but I always found some of the criticism silly – for example that the series would teach young girls to accept abusive behaviours as expressions of love. The way I read the series, Bella has the power in the relationship, because she achieves her aims. And I would wonder if people didn’t read Bella as powerful, partly because of her gender.
I’d like to see if my impressions stayed the same, ten years on, and with the genders swapped.
It always irked me how much flack Stephenie Meyers got over Twilight. I am by no means a “”huge fan”” of the series. A friend gave me the series as a birthday present and I found them an enjoyable read but nothing I would go back and re-read extensively. I don’t know why that series and author provoked the rage and derision that it did, particularly from women. Bella is the one who gets her way, as you say, throughout the whole series. Edward even admits he underestimated her and she manages to astonish everyone. I can think of a hundred other books off the top of my head that present a far worse role model than Bella and a far worse hero than Edward.
My daughter liked the books until the last one. She, like many, was on Team Jacob and found the resolution of the Jacob story icky. I think Meyer and James both take heat that male writers wouldn’t get from their peers.
I have not read the _Twilight_ books, but I do think that gender constructs are very embedded in our culture. I’m not a believer that gender is “”natural,”” and so instead I look to how culture conditions us into gendered patterns of behavior. Gender and sex are not interchangeable terms.
I tend to be skeptical of extremes on both sides of the spectrum, which means that hyper-masculine representations of men in romances novels are a turn off for me, as are hyper-feminine representations of women. Jessica from _Lord of Scoundrels_, since she is mentioned in the blog, seems to me a highly independent and competent woman and not easily stigmatized as especially “”feminine.”” I can imagine her easily as a “”player”” in all ways that make her equal to men, and I think she proves that many times in the novel. Does her success in the novel emasculate Dain? He’s a softer and more caring person from her influence and his rakish behavior at the start of the novel has been radically reformed by the end of it, but “”dainty”” is a strange word to apply to anyone, I think.
It was unclear to me whether Ms. Meyer was swapping sex, gender, or both. GMA used the term “”gender.”” I’d be interested to know what those who read the book think.