Sunday, October 9, 2011

Explaining Smeyer's Creatures, or I’ve Thought Too Hard

     Stephanie Meyer was not actually the first person to present stone vampires, though she did create their most infamously unvampiric incarnation (stupid sparkles).  I come firmly from the camp that thinks Smeyer is a horrible writer whose work is so bad it isn’t even funny to read, just painful- which I would go into detail about, but then we’d be here for years.  What I pose to you though is a simple (ish) question: Since Smeyer’s creatures are clearly not vampires, what are they?

     I’d like to answer that question by calling the Cullens and all their ilk “Adonises.”

     The story of Adonis is varied in its details, but the parts of his story that are always there are that one, he was so beautiful that Aphrodite chose him as her favorite.  Two, that Adonis was killed by a wild boar and died in Aphrodite’s arms, and last, that Aphrodite gave him new and recurring life as an annually blooming plant.  The most common image that comes to mind when you talk about Adonis, however, are the many Adonis statues the Greeks left behind.

     By these guidelines, I believe we can class Smeyer’s “vampires” as Adonis creatures.  They must die and be reborn, though at only one point in their life lines- but we’ve always taken a few liberties with the namesake when dealing with and classifying mystical creatures.  I believe the stone-like state of their bodies has roots in a beginning as a living statue in the early genesis of the Adonis.  Then finally, the tie that binds it all together, how ridiculously beautiful most of Smeyer’s creatures are.

     Now, to explain why the Adonis creatures feed on blood is a simple fix.  Since the Adonis roots are in cursed statuary by my speculation I’ll continue in that line by supposing that when one becomes an Adonis you begin a process of turning to stone, and when an Adonis is starved enough, it reverts to a statue forever.  Therefore, blood is the final magical ingredient in the process that keeps an Adonis in its semi-fleshy, functioning and sentient form.

     I understand heartily if people believe that my theory is too underdeveloped to hold much water, too boring to take much interest in, or over thought because, “Really, who cares about trying to explain Smeyer?”  Honestly, it’s not that I passionately care about making sense of schlock novels.  This theory was suddenly developed in the span of a day.  I wanted to put the theory out there though, on the off chance of giving a few people who are really sick of having no better name for the abominations Smeyer has created a new way to refer to them that might not leave such a sour taste in their mouths.

*The nickname Smeyer is used in this essay as it is funny, and this essay is not, but seriously, I’m just being speculative here, not very serious.


Post a Comment