This books offers a critical reading of the Twilight series, and in so doing sheds some light on the meaning and artistry buried in the surface story, but quite often it also reads like the academic blithering of a narcissistic intellectual.
Granger offers an interesting lens through which we can tease out hidden meaning from Twilight. He suggests we critique it using iconological criticism, something he associates with how medieval texts are interpreted, which were primarily religious. He chooses this method because he repeatedly asserts, via Mircia Eliade, that reading serves a spiritual or mythic purpose in a largely secular world; it takes us out of ourselves and into something broader or larger. And this text in particular, he argues, is really a morality play about our relationship with the divine. In a nutshell, Edward is the God-man, and Bella is willing to risk everything to enter into a divine relationship with him. I'm not sure I agree that we have to go that deep into Twilight, but he seems to be having fun dredging the depths of literary criticism to apply esoteric tools to this text.
Iconological criticism, according to Granger, is a way of looking at a text in four layers: surface (our perception of the story; plot), moral (our opinion about the story), allegory (the stories within the story), and anagological meaning (the symbolic or sublime meaning that we grasp subconsciously and that works on a spiritual level).
He also refers to something called literary alchemy, which I found very hard to get my brain around and for which he doesn't offer much to do that. Indeed, a common complaint about Granger is that some of these interpretive tools don't seem to have any foundation outside of Granger's own work. In general, the first half of the book lays out his method more than it attempts to explain the text.
The second half of the book is about how Meyer's Mormonism influences her story. This is an interesting section and plenty of it is "aha, okay, I could see that" but there's also a lot of information here that seems to be reaching for meaning. As with any criticism, the meaning we pull from a text via criticism may not map to the author's intention.
On a purely mechanical level, he has trouble matching his chapter titles to his chapter content. For example, in an early chapter titled "Why We Love Bella" he lays out his critical filter, giving us a lesson in iconological criticism instead of telling us why we love Bella. At another introductory point, when trying to argue that Twilight is in fact "good literature", he takes a few shots at the established literary canon, making some indirect comments about how really good literature often suffers from poor plot construction and is often just an egotistical tromp by the author. Well, no. My favorite author is Paul Bowles with Steinbeck coming in a close second, and one of my favorite books is Hemingway's The Sun also Rises, all of which, according to this Granger argument about what constitutes "good literature", would probably be defined as intellectual masturbation. However, I thoroughly enjoy all these texts on a surface/plot level and feel they are finely crafted works. I also love the Twilight series despite recognizing that they are not great literature. They are great stories but they are not the same thing as The Sun Also Rises, Grapes of Wrath, or The Sheltering Sky. I am a word person, working in instructional and technical editing and writing for several years and I expect words to transform and carry a story. They set the tone and tell so much by which ones are chosen and how they are used together. They are an immensely important writer's tool. Unfortunately, Meyer's Twilight lexicon doesn't resonant with forethought, it seems less chosen than whatever first came to mind; it's not crafted or poetic. Nonetheless, I think she constructs a good story, and that's what sucks us in here without the structure of a consistent voice or tone via carefully chosen language.
I'm happy an academic like Granger has taken on the Twilight books, because obviously there is something to them. This isn't a Harlequin romance. Serious readers with sophisticated taste are getting sucked into them. This is what Granger calls the "blush factor". We are devouring these books, but we don't admit it or are embarrassed by it. Additionally, because this ended up appealing to a female YA audience these books have been relegated to the realm of crap writing. As a previously female tween myself, I find it offensive that we dismiss adolescent girls from the cultural voice. So I read Granger's book to see what is going on beneath the surface; it does seem that we are identifying with something subconsciously in these books for them to have such ubiquitous, mass appeal. Nonetheless, Granger's interpretation is one of many we can apply. He chooses to use a religious lens to dissect this text because he sees the story as a spiritual one, a quest story for union with the divine. We could also interpret it primarily as a love story, or a teaching on male/female roles, etc. Granger dismisses other interpretations as limiting because they force us to see the text through our own unique biases and prejudices. Nonetheless, the stories are rife with gender roles and even racial stereotypes. I fail to see how a reading through those filters would disqualify an interpretation.
Overall, I enjoyed Granger's book and felt it had some interesting and unique ideas about the series. However, I couldn't escape the feeling that Granger likes to wax academic for his own enjoyment. I think his book could've been stripped of a large part of its hefty jargon so readers could concentrate on what he's saying, rather than how he's saying it.