Mark Driscoll on Twilight and the “paranormal romance” genre in general:
Y’know, ol’ Mark knows an awful lot about how Satan operates. Just sayin’.
What irritates me most about this clip is that I could really agree with Driscoll’s opposition to Twilight and some of the other works. I’m sick of vampires, zombies and werewolves right now, so that’s a start. But Driscoll could very reasonably talk about the creepy sexism in Twilight and I’d be right there with him. I would probably agree with his opposition to the Mormon themes in the works, or at least nod along with him.
He could have a reasonable discussion about this, but instead he jumps straight to Satan, demons, witchcraft and so forth. I guess that’s easier that literary criticism.
The embedding didn’t work correct.
Huh. That’s odd.
Anyway, I think it should be working now.
Yep I see it. Thanks for fixing it.
Well, at least I have some good ideas for reading – if they are old-school, rather than the glittery, androgynous rubbish that’s so prevalent today. And he agrees with me that Twilight is one of the worst things ever.
Best part? The last four seconds, where the video ends with him saying (OK, cut off in mid-stream – but wouldn’t God have prevented that?): “…so the whole concept of eternal life has nothing to do with Jesus…”
I always find it odd that many evangelical Christians seem to be anti-entertainment. Harry Potter has witchcraft, banned. Spiderman, radioactive spider, no mention of how great God is. Banned!!! Twilight, vampired. Banned!!! I just find the idea of banning a work of entertainment based on the characters and broad themes to be strange and idiotic. Some of the works these people hate have great moral stories and present a clear battle between good and evil where the good guys must overcome an obstacle to beat the evil power. Many of these stories present characters who are morally more superior than many of the characters in the bible. Maybe they should start reading other books than the bible and actually criticize these books for the content beyond just the words and see what moral story is told here. But then many of these children would leave the church because reading these books might show them how evil their church really is.
I heard about a complaint against Walgreen’s drugstore before Easter in which a mom perceived the tv ad as revealing that the Easter Bunny was not real, and her child had been watching… i.e. it’s no business of Walgreen’s to spill the beans. In a comment thread about it, others came up with Jesus being the real reason for Easter, some parents protested the Easter Bunny story at all — when kids find out the Easter Bunny is not real, they might apply the same logic to Jesus! But Jesus is real!
I think sometimes or many times, Christians do not like most fantasy fiction because it resembles their religion too much. They do not like to read fiction where they might actually conclude that it’s just a story, that their favorite book is just a story too.
“Many of these stories present characters who are morally more superior than many of the characters in the bible.”
But… but Dumbledore was gay!!
I agree with you, it is rather odd that they seem to target entertainment and appear incapable of understanding that just because Harry Potter has ‘witches’ in it doesn’t mean that the book is secretly trying to lure children into genuine witchcraft Sometimes a story is just a story, the background a vehicle for exercising literary motifs and creating another morality play that, in Potter at least, is pretty standard. Its entire message can be boiled down, ironically, to the phrase “no greater love can a man have than that he lay down his life for his friends”. But it has witches, oh noes!
So do lots of stories but it seems to be specific ones that are concentrated on – the popular ones, of course. The ones that have captured the public’s collective imagination to the point that the stories are mainstream and widely known. Obviously targeting what is popular makes sense as it is the thing most people are likely to know about already, but I think a lot of the foot stamping and doomsaying about things like Harry Potter and Twilight is really just a way to draw attention to themselves. It’s riding the coattails of a popular movement in order to try to inject their general message into the public’s consciousness.
Unfortunately, I think it will likely only backfire. Clueless parents might ban their children from reading Twilight, but their children will know that it’s a crock and their parents haven’t even read what they are supposed to be afraid of (and by now the children will probably have read at least the first book or two anyway, since religions tend to be a little behind in realising what’s popular). So if they know it’s not nearly as dangerous or subversive as the parents are telling them, they are not going to trust their parents’ judgement in the future, driving a wedge between the two generations.
It happened to me when I was young. My Catholic parents had saw a movie and heard a few sermons telling them Dungeons and Dragons was dangerous and would lead to conjuring demons and possible possession. They were very uncomfortable with the idea of me playing roleplaying games but I knew it was just dice and tables – a recreational form of maths, really. And after that, I wondered why I should believe them if they warned me about the spiritual dangers of anything, since they probably didn’t even know what they were talking about and were relying on the authority of some detached old men who didn’t know what they were talking about either.
Though thankfully my parents also actively encouraged me to read Harry Potter and thought people who were against it were crazy. Such is life.
Couldn’t have put it better. Yet D&D is dangerous as I have experienced it. A normal rational man can all of a sudden become highly superstitious as to the outcome on dice and have “rituals” to try and get higher roles.
ROFL.
“I need my prerolled 20-sider.”
“Prerolled?”
“Yeah, I rolled all the ones out of ‘em.”
And ironically I don’t see a lot of complaining about the Golden Compass series, even though it is… far more ‘dangerous’, religiously speaking, than Harry Potter.
There was quite a bit of fundie pissout when the movie came out but since it didn’t become such a huge commercial monster as Harry Potter or Twilight it died away.
His Dark Materials mostly skewered the Roman Catholic Church. This was OK or not as bad for non-Catholic fundamentalists.
What I don’t get about that is why they intentionally set themselves up to lose, and hard. To a tween, the church is *never* going to be as cool as Harry Potter or (shudder) Twilight. Period. Lining themselves up against a media machine that can chew them up and spit them out without breaking a sweat just strikes me as tactically stupid.
[ Love the blog, first time posting here as far as I remember ]
* * *
Why is this a surprise, though?
To me, it makes total sense that he would say what he says and believe as he does.
Note while he complains about. It’s a competing fiction that he mocks and at the same time gives serious credit to as if it could enter reality as he considers his own mythic sense is part of reality.
This is exactly what Christianity and other theisms are.
They are embodied mythologies.
They are psyches with shared muses. Jesus, God, saints, demons, angels, the Holy Spirit, witches or even Harry Potter.
This is a common idea with many writers and creative people, yet it is not universal. Elizabeth Gilbert gave an excellent talk at TED on her discovery of her muse, her jinn, her genius, her inspiration –
http://www.ted.com/talks/elizabeth_gilbert_on_genius.html — and sees it as a true revelation of something that she did not know she did and now can partner up with. To that, in both puzzlement and admiration for her insight, I say crudely “Well, duh!”. :-P
If a fiction writer talks to their characters, rarely does the writer mistake that conversation for an event with an actual independent entity. This is the case even though the writer can and should let them express themselves as individuals.
Not so with people who talk with gods or are pestered with the voices of demons. They don’t realize that they are in a waking dream, a lucid dream, that they themselves have control over or can at the same time enter into as a fantasy with themselves as an empowered actor.
They don’t assert themselves in the landscape of their own minds, but are forced around by their muses.
This, also, falls in line with an authoritarian religious structure. If you have been taught to be subservient to a muse that watches you, knows your thoughts, and controls the universe, what kind of push back do you think you have? A writer can dismiss their muses, or politely but firmly request a later meeting. Not so here. There is no implicit acknowledgment as with the writer that you are the source of your own internal universe. Instead, there is a bending of knees. There are mental, dietary, sexual, monetary, and even work and deprivation sacrifices to the muses in order to keep them in the control slot as opposed to being advisors that well up from our own complex and multi-layered brains.
Comments?
Thank you Hermes.
You present some interesting ideas here. The concept of a personal muse that is also shared with other like-minded folks is quite intriguing.
A few implications come to mind.
It’s not difficult to see how easily “fellowship” can turn into “conflict” when the ‘shared muse’ (Jesus, Allah, etc. ) seems to be sending contradictory messages or ideas to his followers.
The ability to think critically is also significantly impaired by the muse’s ability to read one’s every thought. In my own de-conversion from Christianity, the recurring worry that I was hurting Jesus by my disloyal thinking was very difficult to deal with. Eventually, I realized that if Jesus were really there listening in, he could not fault me for pursuing ‘Truth’; especially if he was ultimately the embodiment of that anyways. That set me free to finally think for myself & cast off the last vestiges of my delusion. I guess you could say that the muse died that day… Also, If other Christians are like I was, it’s not difficult to understand how loathe they are to think these forbidden thoughts or entertain the enemy’s ideas. The muse is a built-in mind censor protecting the person from stray thoughts that could unravel the whole fantasy.
I’ll have to watch that TED talk.
Thanks.
-evan
Evan, thanks for the reply. It encourages me to flesh out a few more points.
Disclaimer: While the conclusions are my own, and the conclusions do reach beyond what I can prove, the disparate situations, examples, and facts — the details — are verifiable and aren’t speculations. What they mean — that speculation — may be entirely incorrect though I currently think that the conclusions are probably close to the truth even if not complete or precise.
With that in mind, here are some details and some thoughts about them.
* * *
A shared muse — that acts ‘independently’ of the person it’s in — can drive many group activities.
* Repetitive group activities set the ground for group experiences and thoughts.
* Isolation intensifies like experiences in the group.
* Early life experiences and teachings are more readily accepted ******then later experiences.
A few references on that:
1. The Jesus Camp documentary is interesting and covers a form of brainwashing. The same tactics would not be as effective on adults, though smart people can talk themselves into a great deal of nonsense as well — with or without brainwashing techniques imposed on them from outside.
2. The “invisible apple” analogy by Stephen Molyneux of Fredomain Radio. While I have some serious reservations, his analogy is very powerful and shows an example of how the imaginatinon is abused; http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=4269.msg89642#msg89642
3. Orwell’s 1984. Repetition. Repetition. Repetition. Keep in mind that countries with state controlled media constantly lie to their citizens. The citizens aren’t dumb; they know they are being lied to. That the media can’t be trusted. Yet, here’s the stunning thing: Fed on a diet of lies and half-truths, they tend to have opinions — and what they consider to be knowledge — in line with those lies and half-truths. [Recent research report, I didn't take notes so I don't have a link.]
* The imagination is not exercised actively; other ‘gods’ are denied, and some groups have only one book, and books supportive or derivative of that book, while shunning or banning other contradictory media as well.
* The muses themselves: The fact that your own thoughts can ‘have a mind of their own’ is not raised even though this is common knowledge among fiction writers and likely many other groups.
Note on the above point: As Elizabeth Gilbert points out, there are some writers that are actually annoyed with their muses, argue, and talk back to them. My biggest surprise is that she didn’t know about this before, and has written many books: Of course you argue with your muses, your characters, but you also listen. That doesn’t mean that they aren’t you. The mind is a complex structure. As receintly talked about on a RadioLabs program on Words, what people think of as them is really the internal chatter, ‘the story you tell about yourself’. RadioLab Words (audio): http://blogs.wnyc.org/radiolab/2010/08/09/words
* Because of common training and social pressure, the muse — as an uncontrolled extra personality — gives a revelation, and the revelation is confirmed by others with the same revelation as they have similar muses.
* * *
An aside: You could almost say the above is an example of meme evolution in action — though I’m doubtful of the actual existence of memes. Still, the word has some utiility in this instance.
More: Ray Bradbury at 90 years of age
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF3uZf4G3Lo
Key part is when he discusses Fahrenheit 451 at 13:10+.
“All my characters write the book. I don’t write the book”
Who is he talking to? His muses.
Reminds me of how Michelangelo would see the statue inside the block of marble before he had even begone to chisel.
Exactly. Both artists had a clear understanding of how their imaginations worked, and Michelangelo may have used that to demonstrate his skill in anatomy;
http://www.livescience.com/culture/michelangelo-hidden-brain-sistine-chapel-100720.html
http://www.physorg.com/news196441618.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127990450 [ audio ]
It would be fitting if his depictions were actually a message to others that he knew or suspected where the idea of God wells up from. After all, Adam seems to be wistful, dreamy, and relaxed not charged with excitement at being in the presence of the creator of the universe — him included.
A couple notes, not directly related to what I wrote above.
Apples and Genesis — that’s actually unbiblical as the fruit described is not apple-like but it is culturally assumed so it enters the mythology at the level of fact. A two second Google search shows the fruit-as-apple is an error, but nevermind. It’s in the psyche. It’s part of the myth. It’s an apple. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2682/was-the-forbidden-fruit-in-the-garden-of-eden-an-apple
Related to that, I used to argue with people who basically quoted words that could easily come from Dantae’s Divine Comedy, parts of the Inferno. When I pointed out to them that they were referencing the wrong book, they became stunned and often silent.
Yeah, the apple thing has always bothered me too. There is a very barebones story in Genesis, and an incredibly detailed “Genesis” story in christian tradition which assumes many details that are either not in the actual text of the Genesis account or directly contradict it.
I remember trying to find the part in Genesis where Satan took over the body of the snake, a story I have heard many times from the pulpit. It isn’t in there. There is no mention of Satan.
I made a typo;
Note while he complains about. ==> should be ==> Note what he complains about.
Great post — BUT — how can you be sick of zombies? :o
Zombies are officially nothing to worry about.
Like the way he had to define voracious for his listeners.
Just the typical claptrap of the evangelicals–condemn anything that might distract from their own beliefs. What’s really annoying about this is that he continually calls on the “demonic” nature of these books, but fails to mention the similar themes present in the Bible. But, then, these are only “fiction” as opposed to the “truth” of the Bible.
He also complain about the imagery & yet instantly connects the “apple” imagery with Genesis, completely overlooking the fact that the apple (just like angels with wings) is a creation of medieval artists (lest we forget that in the Bible angels do not have wings & are always men). Funny that they never mention that & quickly accept any imagery that supports their agenda.
It’s a curiosity, but not one that is unexpected. I would be shocked if they acted otherwise. See my longer comment for details on what I mean.
Let’s go book burning!!! Although the Twilight series may deserve it but only because it is so bad. I guess the Bible would fall into this category- people hearing voices, the dead speak to their ancestors and on and on.
I’m at a bit of a loss as to why there is so much backlash against the Twillight series. Come on – these are books written to hold the interest of 12 year old girls. Yeah – they aren’t great literature – but I’m don’t think they are suppose to be. They certainly aren’t harmful, and personally I favor things that keep tweens interested in reading. (My now 15 year old daughter loved these books 3 years ago, and it was a natural gateway to much better reading material.) The series certainly isn’t any worse than the crap that held my attention as a tennager. Hell I read every Piers Anthony book I could get my hands on – hardly Shakespeare.
As for the video, it’s the usual fundie crap. So often, their message boils down to “if it’s new, it’s bad, and makes jesus weep.”
“They certainly aren’t harmful, and personally I favor things that keep tweens interested in reading.”
I think a case can be made for them being harmful. Not in the sense that they’ll lead children astray and lose them their souls, but they do foster what most people would consider very backward gender roles and a perverted sense of how men should treat women. Sexism is rife, highlighting the female lead’s (and by extension the intended reader) complete ineptitude and putting her at the mercy of big, strong men, all the while implying that a) this is ideal and b) if they hit you, kill you or rape you, it’s probably your own fault.
Yes, that’s an actual message of the first book.
Still, I certainly wouldn’t ban it or burn it, and I doubt most people who hate the books have even read enough of them to know they’re like this. They just see something popular (whatever side of the religion/reason line they are on) and hate it because it makes them cooler somehow. Meh. I agree that if it encourages further reading, that’s a good start. It’d just be a help if readers could be told that its portrayals of male/female relationships are heavily skewed by the author’s own beliefs.
“I think a case can be made for them being harmful. Not in the sense that they’ll lead children astray and lose them their souls, but they do foster what most people would consider very backward gender roles and a perverted sense of how men should treat women. Sexism is rife, highlighting the female lead’s (and by extension the intended reader) complete ineptitude and putting her at the mercy of big, strong men, all the while implying that a) this is ideal and b) if they hit you, kill you or rape you, it’s probably your own fault.”
I just don’t understand the perpsective that reading, seeing, hearing things that are bad somehow influences people to take on those bad things as part of their own lives. Critical thinking is a key part of any reading – including for teens. Somehow I think watching gender roles bewteen her mother and me has a greater influence on how she perceives such things than the bahavior of a fictional glittering vampire.
Think about it another way. When someone reads the Bible, they are not looking for an experience that involves critical thinking. They are looking for group consensus, with the authority — God/Jesus/… — being the authority that they gain that consensus from.
If someone’s primary source is treated that way, they are primed to take in other sources just as uncritically, and as authorities.
As such, why wouldn’t Harry Potter or Mormonized vampire books be treated the same way?
“As such, why wouldn’t Harry Potter or Mormonized vampire books be treated the same way?”
Because treating books that wasy is sheer stupidity. I know there are a lot of stupid people out there, but we really shouldn’t decide the viability of books based on their lack of critical thinking.
Bill, chill. That’s not my position. Basically, we agree. I do not think that their method is a positive one. It actually is weak on many levels.
What I was saying is that by encouraging credulity, not critical thinking, when addressing the Bible and sectarian dogmatic claims, they are opening themselves up to having their followers believe anything. [ That should sound familiar! ]
Additionally, they encourage talking to and listening to their deities and spirits as if those things were real, independent entities. This primes the follower to treat other imaginary entities as independent entities that are out of the believers’ control, but that may influence the believer. [ Holy Sybil, Batman! ]
So, in comes a Harry Potter story, or some book that has a vampire. It has many of the same mythical elements, but the bad guys are now good, and normal (Muggles, …) are bad or just not as special. Their Bible god is not given preferential treatment if it is mentioned at all.
This is seen as a threat. A story about Harry Potter could slip in to the same slot as another story — the Bible. Beyond asserting that the Bible is better, there’s no reason to pick one book over the other. How could you actually judge without some kind of critical thinking?
When credulity is promoted over critical thinking, it is much easier to see any other story as equal or at a minimum threatening.
(Ironically, Driscoll actually makes a mistake calling the fruit from Eden an apple — an addition that slipped right into the same slot as one of the elements of his Bible story he’s trying to protect.)
The loon treats those other things and other voices as if they could be coming from demons, when they are actually part of the imagination.
I cover some of this in my first message (8:07 am) that nobody commented on — probably because it’s a bit cluttered! (Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.)
In addition to that, you might want to take a look at the following link. It’s very illustrative of the issues I’m actually talking about and how people can abandon critical thinking or section it off from being used to extricate specific nonsense like dogmatic supernatural beliefs;
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=4269.msg89642#msg89642
The main part to look at starts with the sentence “For a crash course on how to skin that diseased onion…”.
My message wasn’t intended as a criticism of you. More of John’s statements that these books are harmful.
I didn’t say they were harmful, I said a case could be made for that position.
Not a very good case.
While it may give you a little buzz to squeal about how much smarter you are than the morons who take things at face value and absorb cultural memes that surround them into their psyche and end up with contorted and perverted views of themselves and the world around them, what you think is a good case is irrelevant. It’s reality that people absorb these stories and react to them, and I can see where people get their dislike of the Twilight series. For many, it’s just crap because it’s popular, but there are more constructive charges laid against it and while you may dismiss them, that doesn’t mean they aren’t there.
Sorry, Bill, there is quite a good case to be made that the Twilight books are seriously misogynistic. Bella and Edwards relationship is the classic co-dependent abusive relationship, and it’s treated as if that were romantic.
To say that this is harmless when delivered to thirteen year old girls just figuring out sexual dynamics is, frankly, naive. It’s not he first book of this kind, nor will it be the last. It’s probably nowhere near the worst. But the fact remains that it tells young impressionable girls that a boy telling you he can barely stop himself from killing you is romantic.
Ty, you make a good point. So the Twilight books really are evil. Looks like the bible-thumpers were correct. For entirely the wrong reasons, though.
“To say that this is harmless when delivered to thirteen year old girls just figuring out sexual dynamics is, frankly, naive. It’s not he first book of this kind, nor will it be the last. It’s probably nowhere near the worst. But the fact remains that it tells young impressionable girls that a boy telling you he can barely stop himself from killing you is romantic.”
My point is not that the books aren’t misogynistic – but rather that is not a reason to disallow a 13 year old from reading them. When my daughter was 12 she read and loved the books. Initially for the fairy tale romance aspect that every girl seems to love. Now as a 15 year old she hates them, largely because of the chauvenism, but also because she now just doesn’t like the sugary sweet aspect of them.
My point is that exposing her to those unhealthy ideas through reading about them is part of the process by which she rejects them. Obviously there is much more that goes in to that rejection – including discussions with her parents and seeing a healthy male female relationship – but having exposure to the idea in a book is a key component.
I just don’t get this concept that merely exposing someone to a negative idea – particularly in a book – will somehow cause that person to adopt that idea.
“I just don’t get this concept that merely exposing someone to a negative idea – particularly in a book – will somehow cause that person to adopt that idea.”
I’m certainly no book burner. And I’d fight vigorously against the idea that any person or group should get to decide what ideas other people are exposed to.
That doesn’t mean I’m unwilling to point at ideas I think are actively damaging and speak loudly on the topic.
I think there’s also quite a bit of difference, when you’re a kid, between being exposed to a baleful idea while having someone on hand to lend perspective/point out the weaknesses of the idea, and being exposed when there is no guidance around whatsoever.
This even happens to adults; for example, the chances of coming to wild, crazy conclusions while reading Nietzsche depends entirely on whether you have access to a resource/person who knows what the hell Nietzsche is talking about.
I love how his method of ‘preaching’ is going through book titles and making fun of them. Real original. Those people aren’t attending church every Sunday, they get to listen to a comedian instead!
My Mom is the same way about movies. She will only watch movies that she deems not satanic. So no Van Helsing, but the first few Harry Potter movies are innocent enough. Yay for biased opinion!
What I also want to know, is why if Satan is so old, intelligent, devious, ect, why are all the books and movies he writes so awful? In Twilight he still seems to find sex icky.
“Dead people don’t talk to you!” Yeah…. unless they died 2000 years ago.
“A spell is where a witch casts a spell on you!”
OOOHHH! Now I totally get it. He makes so much sense. Does he even understand what he’s talking about?
I’m not sure where they get this idea that when people think they are talking to the dead it is actually demons pretending to be the dead people. I can only remember one seer in the Bible who conjured up the dead, the Witch of Endor in 1st Samuel, chapter 28:3–25. The text would indicate that she called up the real deal and not some pretending demon.
The further I get away from my old Christian faith the more I see how cult-like it can be. These other opposing ideas are demonic! Could you imagine if atheists starting telling other atheists to not reading something because it had a different or (gasp!) contradictory viewpoint?
Demons are the answer to anything when you haven’t the slightest clue what is going on in real life.
I don’t understand why you said that.
You must be demonized.
This Satan dude have been busy recently with twilight, avatar and the rest.
But Driscoll could very reasonably talk about the creepy sexism in Twilight and I’d be right there with him. But this is one thing a true christian™ will agree with a mormon, a muslim, a jew and any other fundie in the world, god loves sexism, the creepier the better.
“Dead people don’t talk to you!”
Unless they are named Jesus, and you consume his flesh/blood in some rituals. I’m not even makeing this up.
Seconded.
This guy has no fucking clue what reality even is anymore.
Hello, earth to Driscoll, the rest of us learned when we were five years old: VAMPIRES AREN’T REAL.
Bonus points for the people who actually grew up: neither are magic spells, werewolfs, Harry Potter, Dungeons and Dragons, Twilight, demons, necromancers… etc.
Learn to tell reality from make believe. What is he, ten?
“Demons pretend to be dead people!” Sure am glad he cleared that one up for me. All this time I thought I was seeing MY ACTUAL GRAMPA! Seriously though – he’s boring. He lost me at hello. Quit after the first minute. The people that listen to him have stones for brains. At least his daughter reads. Maybe she will read her way out someday.
Demons are the ones who talk to John Edwards? I always thought it was a con he was pulling.
So, keeping tweenies away from garbage, right? The bible had better be on that list. I mean, zombies and eating zombies and sacrificing children and genocides and an evil overlord pulling all the strings. Oh, and Satan could potentially be in there as well.
I found his little jab at Mormonism, the whole would you trust an angle called Moron comment particularly annoying. Turns out the word moron wasn’t used until the early 20th century and only became an insult in the 1920′s. Note I have no particular sympathy for Mr Smiths self serving revelations … Though the prospect of rising to the level where you get to create your own universe (apparently a possibility in Mormon theology) is more attractive then spending eternity groveling at gods feet.
Ah… I saw this guy preach at my university.
It makes me shudder every time I listen to that man speak. Maybe it hits home for me a little harder being a Seattle resident and knowing several people who believe and idolize this man. He really does have a cult following and it is entirely disturbing.
As for, “But Driscoll could very reasonably talk about the creepy sexism in Twilight and I’d be right there with him,” that would assume that he were anti-sexism. Go look up the sermons he has on the woman’s place in church, marriage and society. It’s truly frightening and despicable and has turned several of my childhood friends into mouses of women.
Yuck.
I’m no fan of Twilight either, but to see someone eschew an entire genre based solely on cover art and titles? Not the height of intellectual honesty. But hey, I couldn’t expect anything more from this man. :\
This creepy, disgusting, sex-crazed POS has a teenage daughter? I cringe for her.