MemeWatch: The Twilight Backlash

Ah yes, the backlash. The movement-ized rejection of something that has already achieved great cultural popularity. The backlash as a phenomenon predates the internet... I'm sure there were plenty of people who thought that "Gone With the Wind" wasn't, y'know, that great, but the instantaneous, interactive nature of it has allowed backlashes to gain a much higher level of notoriety. If a huge cultural phenomenon isn't quite up to snuff these days, a backlash is all but inevitable. (the wikipedia article on "backlash" can be found here)

The new film "Twilight" had a better first day on Friday than either "Quantum of Solace" or the most recent Indiana Jones film. It's less than all but one of the Harry Potter movies, and not even close to what "The Dark Knight" did earlier this year, but it's still far and away the most successful opening for a movie directed by a woman (Catherine Hardwicke). For those who have been either living under a rock or in a completely teenage girl-free evironment, "Twilight" is the first in an incredibly popular series of books by Stephenie Meyer that center around the passionate-but-chaste romance of a high school everygirl, Bella Swan, and a particularly hunky vampire, Edward Cullen, mostly set in a small town in Washington state. The thing about "Twilight" that has struck me the most is that the backlash was in full swing before the "frontlash" was even really up to speed. This backlash has the most lash I've ever seen. Okay, I'll stop that now.

I'll be honest here. I haven't read any of the Twilight books, and I almost certainly won't see the movie until it shows up the discount theater, if at all. I know more than one person whose opinion I trust who absolutely loves them. But the critical consensus seems to be one of understanding-at-best (There seem to be two types of reviews, ones that talk about how it might appeal to teen girls and ignore the actual quality and those that are critical of the actual quality), and the internet... well, the internet does not seem to be willing to tolerate it.

A big part of this, I think, is that the Twilight fandom (my favorite term I've seen so far is "Twi-hards") is almost entirely female. It consists of teen girls, from tweens to college age, along with a decent sampling of their moms, the sort who like romance novels. I like to fancy myself a bit of a geek anthropologist, so to speak. I enjoy the inner workings of various fandoms, even for works I myself am not that into. And this is perhaps the most monolithic major geek fandom I've ever seen. Even "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "Xena: Warrior Princess", probably the two most female skewing of the major geek fandoms I've previously looked at, had fairly large male bases, as well. This shows it's not just the female protagonist that's at issue, it's the content. "Xena" was an action show at heart, and "Buffy" was at such a high level of quality that it attracted connoisseurs of all types... plus there was karate and stuff. "Twilight" is a romance, through and through.

Also at issue is how good it really is. Twilight is often compared to the Harry Potter novels, another fandom based on a YA book series that seems to have at least slightly more girls than guys. But general consensus seems to be that the Twilight series isn't even in the same league ("USA Today" was roundly mocked for making the suggestion this week). I've never been afraid to criticize JK Rowling's prose, and "Deathly Hollows" drags way too much for what it is, but Rowling does have an intuitive grasp of how to build excitement and when things are happening in the Potter novels, there's nothing like it. As the backlashers are quick to point out, Meyer's prose has at least as many issues, her content has a strong potential to be laughable, and the plot of "Twilight" doesn't really get going until at least 300 pages into the book (It apparently takes over 200 for Bella just to realize that Edward is a vampire). The Harry Potter books and films have, for the most part, manages to avoid a full-fledged backlash despite their gargatuan popularity because most people who read them are hooked.

Let's take a look at other recent phenomena:
-"Star Wars" eventually created its own backlash with the terrible "prequel" movies. I had a friend who at one point was a hardcore Star Wars guy, but mostly dropped it circa "Attack of the Clones" when he "found out that Jar-Jar Binks created the Empire." Many universes grow richer with continued exploration... Star Wars, not so much. The Spider-Man film series probably also fits this model, as it was riding high after the first two films and nearly completely destroyed its own fandom with the failure of the climactic third film.
-"Star Trek" did get richer with continued exploration, but eventually seemed to run its course. The times, it seemed, had passed the mostly-utopian future it depicted by. Plus there was a lot of mismanagement by Paramount... "Enterprise" would sputter on for a few more strange seasons, but the "Trek" franchise as we knew it seemed to end when "Nemesis" opened opposite a Harry Potter film and tanked. People didn't hate "Trek", they just weren't huge fans. But now the new trailer for the JJ Abrams "Star Trek" film has gotten startling buzz, and it's like the franchise never went away.
-"Lord of the Rings" has its detractors, but the books, and especially the films are so seminal and high-quality that there doesn't seem to have been much of a backlash, at least not within the fandom community.
-"Buffy" and "Battlestar Galactica" are probably representative a group of works that were never quite popular enough to create a backlash, but attracted a strong, loyal following due to their high quality. Both have large numbers of online fans who insist that they should be considered for the best TV series of all time... period, and are very influential within the current "geek" community. But they remain relatively lesser known in the world-at-large, and that seems to have helped.
-"Firefly"'s hardcore fans created their own backlash, not the work itself. It would probably be in the above group, except for the fact that an early cancellation created a strong evangelical streak in the fandom. This got them "Serenity", as well as several comic book miniseries, but it also resulted in everyone else on the internet getting really annoyed.
-"The Dark Knight" is probably the biggest geek phenomenon of this year so far, even more so than "Twilight". At first it appeared it might be among that elite that is so good it's just impossible to hate. But as people thought about it more, and it became even more widely seen, it began to be criticized for its relentless gloom. It's a great movie, but the staying power is in question. It recently showed up at our local discount theater, and I haven't gone to see it again yet, and I'm not sure I will until it shows up on DVD.
-"Pirates of the Caribbean" was totally unexpected, and was driven, yes, by young women. Guys liked pirates in the same way they like ninjas and zombies and all those things, but it was hard for them to participate in a fandom where the main debate was immediately whether Depp or Bloom was cuter. Then the second two movies had interesting bits but were overlong and all over the place, and the fandom did not appear to withstand the backlash. Comparable might be "Transformers", which came out of nowhere with a movie (by Michael Bay!) that was really hard not to like. And, Megan Fox and all, it seems to be more male-skewing. But it has the strong potential to have that luster taken off by subsequent sequels, we'll see.

These, of course, are only some of the geek-related examples recently ("Doctor Who" may have so far miraculously managed to be the most backlash-free of all). There have of course been many other kinds of backlashes, but this is where I like to think my "area of expertise" lies. ;) So "Twilight" has the disadvantage of being a female-oriented fandom based on material that already seems to be showing cracks. io9 has been nice enough to round-up some of the most blatant and hilarious examples of recent online "Twilight"-bashing here. Whatever side you're on, this should be good for a laugh. It certainly cracked me up.

Is Voter Fraud "Undermining the Fabric of our Democracy?"

In the last debate, Sen. John McCain's answer appears to have been yes. Republicans are up in arms over what they say is the potential for widespread "voter fraud," most evidenced by the activities of ACORN. The ACORN acronym has been thrown around in this election nearly as much as the name of Bill Ayers, but I doubt most Americans have taken the time to really find out what's going on. In truth, voter fraud is extremely rare in this country these days. What ACORN committed was voter registration fraud, which sounds the same but is extremely different in degree.

When Republicans say "voter fraud," they seem to be referring to some of the old-style techniques commonly thought to have been employed by the old political machines. Tammany Hall, the rulers of 1800s New York, used to take drunks off the street, dress them up nicely, and take them around from polling place to polling place, gradually changing their appearance as they went. This was before photo ID. You'll also often hear that President Kennedy beat Richard Nixon in 1960 because the Daley machine in Chicago counted votes from dead people. This is probably false, though it seems to have permanently entered American political lore (when Republicans accuse Obama of being a "Chicago politician," people are supposed to remember this). The key in both of these scenarios is that they involve people actually voting when they aren't supposed to.

ACORN stands for the American Community Organizations for Reform Now (Yes, Rudy, community organizers). It was founded in 1970 and since then has been an advocate and lobbying group for poor Americans. One of its many objectives is to register as many of the poor as possible to vote. In this particular election, what has come to light is that ACORN tried to accomplish two things at once by paying low-income individuals to register other low-income individuals. Unfortunately, in order to meet their quotas, some of these workers seem to have simply made up names and filled out the forms for those imaginary people. Some of these were extremely obvious frauds, such as "Batman" or "Tony Romo".

Now, this is of course illegal. ACORN immediately admitted that they had no good way of filtering out all of the fakes, since they're not the government, but also refused to simply throw out all the applications. So some fakes probably slipped through the cracks and actually ended up registered. But here's the thing: for this fraud to even start having an effect on the election, the fake people have to actually show up and vote. They have to show ID. Now, you can certainly fake an ID (just ask any 19-year-old college student), but for such a fraud to be widespread and organized, as the Republicans seem to suggest, there would have to be legions of people with valid fake IDs in the same identities that were registered. Since the fake names were blatantly made up by independent workers, this is not going to happen. A conspiracy in this manner would just not be practical.

In other words, in order for Batman being registered to really be a problem, Batman would have to actually show up and try to vote. One incident that happened in Illinois has gotten a lot of play in the media, where registration info was mailed to a dead pet goldfish. Illinois Republicans immediately claimed fraud. Not only would the fish have to actually appear and vote for this to be an issue, it wasn't registered in the first place... it was only sent information on how to register.

So really, Republican claims of fraud in this instance are just that... a fraud. They are an attempt to a) link Barack Obama to something that sounds like corruption, in the absence of actual corruption to link him to, and b) lay the groundwork for a possible challenge to the electoral results if necessary. Now, at the moment Obama seems to have a big lead in the polls, but if that tightens by election day, and I have little doubt that it will, we may see a long, drawn-out fight that Republicans have been preparing for some time now.

Bits: Wildflower Decapitation Edition

Awesome.

-A video from a random episode of the old Batman series has been making the rounds of the YouTubes because it appears to offer commentary on the 2008 election... 40 years in advance. There are several parallels that can be seen in this clip alone, which features Batman and the Penguin engaging in a debate prior to an election for Mayor of Gotham City. Of course, this campaign has become such a caricature of itself that it's no wonder it reminds people of a campy 60s TV series.



-Unsettlingly, anecdotal evidence increasingly suggests that early voting sites across the country are being targeted by angry protestors, specifically anti-Obama protestors. This article describes an incident in North Carolina, and features video. So... you're protesting voting? Why not protest Obama by going into the early voting place and voting against him? And I especially like the comment that "Sundays are for church, not for voting"... by the person who's spending her Sunday protesting instead of in church.



-All over the news today... the discovery on the Arizona/Utah border (within Vermillion Cliffs National Monument) of what is being termed a "Dinosaur Dance Floor." How did it get this name? To quote Newswise.com:

“Get out there and try stepping in their footsteps, and you feel like you are
playing the game ‘Dance Dance Revolution’ that teenagers dance on,” says
Marjorie Chan, professor and chair of geology and geophysics at the University
of Utah. “This kind of reminded me of that – a dinosaur dance floor – because
there are so many tracks and a variety of different tracks.”

The find apparently includes thousands of dinosaur tracks in a very small area, in some places a dozen per square yard. There are least four different species represented. The scientists are theorizing that the tracks were formed at an oasis in what that time was a huge area of sand dunes, larger than today's Sahara. I have to throw in one more quote here:

Seiler envisions the dinosaurs were “happy to be at this place, having wandered
up and down many a sand dune, exhausted from the heat and the blowing sand,
relieved and happy to come to a place where there was water.”

Ah, yes, poetical scientists.



-Rather interesting news from Switzerland today, a nation always on the cutting edge when it comes to government. A new law bans the humiliation of plants. Recently, the Swiss Parliament asked a special committee of philosophers, lawyers, geneticists, and theologians to determine the meaning of dignity as it pertains to plants. They have issued their report, which says that it is morally wrong to participate in "the decapitation of wildflowers at the roadside without rational reason", and it appears that parliament is acting on those guidelines. However, one wonders what the actual extent and/or enforceability of such a law would be. More here.



-Free TV On the Internet: Check out this past week's new Family Guy episode, "The Road to Germany". It's already infamous because it has Nazis wearing McCain/Palin buttons, which seems like an unlikely thing to have fixated upon in an episode that revolves around a port-a-potty time machine (which I suppose makes as much sense as a phone box) and a baby dressing up as Hitler.

Updates: As the Bailout Turns

-The Senate voted for a version of the bailout today, 74 to 25. Both Barack Obama and John McCain voted in favor of the bill. The current version is very similar to the one the House rejected earlier this week, except for "sweeteners" (and yes, that's apparently the official term) that were added, especially tax cuts. Said cuts are apparently intended to lure Republicans. If I was a Republican, I would feel insulted by that. "They'll vote for anything with tax cuts, it doesn't matter how much they hate the rest of it." And of course, that makes it even less likely that we actually have the $700 Billion dollars to use for this.

-Scientists now say the AIDS virus jumped to people as early as 1884, much earlier than previously thought. I'm not sure what the implications of that are, but it's interesting stuff.

-Sarah Silverman, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Jonah Hill are among an all-star cast that doesn't want you to vote. That reverse psychology won't work on me! http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1832128

-The Baseball playoffs are underway here in the States. Early victories for the Phillies, Dodgers, and Red Sox.

-Comic books too... booky for you? Ever thought "this is great, but I wish it was more computerized?" Comic book stories animated through machinima, now on the intertubes. http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=DF54DE54A3BAA597

-Real life blind people have apparently decided that the upcoming film "Blindness" is offensive in its depiction of blind people. Shocking!

Bits: Space Herpes Edition

-CleanTechnica has posted an article about a "Magnetic Air Car" that purports to be the world's first fuelless car, and hopes to be available by 2010. Apparently, it uses magnets to send compressed air through an enclosed space. "The resulting airflow is then converted to torque." I think there must be more to this than I'm understanding, since I was unaware of air's magnetic properties.

-Sorry Howard Stern, Stephen Colbert is the new "King of All Media." He will be making a guest appearance in the upcoming "Amazing Spider-Man #573." Apparently, in the Marvel Universe, Colbert is a presidential candidate. Can I go live there? The issue's out October 15.

-CNN has managed to come up with what may be the lamest story ever to believably have the headline "Man Punches Shark After 'Death Scream.'"

-Free TV on the Internet: This past week's "Saturday Night Live," with the now-famous Palin/Couric sketch, along with a debate parody and some decent work from Anna Faris, of all people

-The other candidate for "Headline of the Day"... From io9.com: "Space Herpes Is Final Cylon on Battlestar Galactica"