So, these books don't depict a "healthy" romantic relationship. Well, in the words of the junior high girls standing in front of me in line at McDonald's yesterday: yeah. duh.
I know that. Everyone knows that. But let me ask you something: what book worth reading does? Seriously. A healthy romantic relationship--let's make it any relationship--has no place in literature. Is it me, or is that not the point? I mean, I don't want to get all literary (not when we're talking about Twilight), but isn't the point of literature to depict something broken, or on the verge of breaking? There's no use of a healthy romance in story form. That's what self help books are for. Relationships in fiction are supposed to be extreme, fractured, disordered. That's what makes them interesting. That's what makes them the cathartic experience literature is intended to be. It's their imperfection that makes them useful.
Healthy relationships = good to live, boring to read.
Literary history is full of such diseased romances. Allow me to list a few:
Um, like every single Shakespearean play out there
Jane Eyre (come on, I love it as much as anybody, but Mr. Rochester as a father figure never fails to freak me out)
Wuthering Heights. I feel like a chump for even bothering to mention it.
Jane Austin's canon of evasive, competitive male/female relationships
Pretty much anything by Jonathon Lethem, Chuck Palahniuk, Flannery O'Conner, or Kurt Vonnegut.
You know as well as I do that the list could go on and on.
So, allow me to give some unsolicited advice: don't be a buzzkill. There's no use in pointing out the inherent problems in love stories. Those too young to notice don't care, and those old enough don't care either.