Twilight
discussion
What are the good things about Twilight?
i read them before the huge CRAZE and i actually liked it, Every girl wants a prince charming to be sweet and protecting of her. I didnt notice the bad writting style maybe because i was to into the story. considering rereading it now lol. I mean yea i did get he was stalkerish and a bit over bearing at some points but like i said i guess i just didnt notice all the negative stuff. Hell i notice it in other things i read so maybe i should reread them its been several years ago since ive read them
I agree with OP's 1 and 2.2 especially, I like that SM didn't aim to please anyone but herself. She wrote what she wanted.
Some of the good things about Twilight(I just copy-pasted some of these from my post in another thread):
It was engaging. I can't really explain why, there are probably a lot of reasons. But I will say that SM is an engaging storyteller. Once I started reading them I couldn't put the books down.
I like that it dealt (in my opinion) fairly well with the parts that had sexual harassment/assault, and showed the importance of consent. Like the part where Jacob kissed Bella shows that body language or one's interpretation of "signs" are not a green light. Consent must be explicit.
Rose's back story shows that one can be sexually assaulted by intimate partners and that consent is not implicitly given if you're with someone.
I especially like that Edward was the one who wasn't open to sexual intimacy in the first few novels (it was refreshing to see a guy depicted that way). He set his boundaries and Bella had to accept that.
At the same time, it doesn't address sexuality as a bad thing. In fact, Bella isn't afraid of her sexuality. She shows that women can be more aggressive when it comes to that, and it's okay.
I liked that it was female driven. Pre-twilight, I haven't read a lot of books that had a female protagonist. It was in Bella POV, so while Edward might have occupied her mind a lot, his character was still secondary to hers.
I totally agree with Diane's post, I enjoyed all those things about Twilight too and more. I myself just simply couldn't put the books down, I dont realy care about all the reasons "why" I liked it, I did and for me that's what's important.
I feel it was simple, transparent and easy to read. It was a typical girl meets boy love story with a few twists that kept me engaged and addicted to the end.
@ Diane
Hmm, you have some really interesting points. I especially like the analysis on the consent, I'd never caught that before. I'd actually thought Edward was extremely bossy and insulting to Bella, and I'd thought he'd set his boundaries only to manipulate her, but now I can see it from a different view.
Personally, the books never sucked me in, but I can see why it can be addictive. The writing isn't really designed to suck you in. For most people, it either hooks you or it doesn't. Meyer doesn't know how to effectively manipulate point of view or narration, but she does have at least some skill with building suspense. For me it was hugely boring and I found Bella annoying, but on the other hand the book can actually be quite entertaining and Bella can be relatable.
I guess it's because Twilight can be classified as escapist fiction. Most escapist fiction you enjoy by shutting down your brain and rolling through it, but now that you bring up a lot of points it actually has more depth than I thought, albeit unintended by SM. I'm not a huge fan of escapist fiction, I prefer slogging through heavy and complex story lines like the Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Narnia or A Song of Ice and Fire. It's really personal preference now that I see what you mean.
Hmm, you have some really interesting points. I especially like the analysis on the consent, I'd never caught that before. I'd actually thought Edward was extremely bossy and insulting to Bella, and I'd thought he'd set his boundaries only to manipulate her, but now I can see it from a different view.
Personally, the books never sucked me in, but I can see why it can be addictive. The writing isn't really designed to suck you in. For most people, it either hooks you or it doesn't. Meyer doesn't know how to effectively manipulate point of view or narration, but she does have at least some skill with building suspense. For me it was hugely boring and I found Bella annoying, but on the other hand the book can actually be quite entertaining and Bella can be relatable.
I guess it's because Twilight can be classified as escapist fiction. Most escapist fiction you enjoy by shutting down your brain and rolling through it, but now that you bring up a lot of points it actually has more depth than I thought, albeit unintended by SM. I'm not a huge fan of escapist fiction, I prefer slogging through heavy and complex story lines like the Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Narnia or A Song of Ice and Fire. It's really personal preference now that I see what you mean.
I appreciated the fact that Bella wanted to keep her baby in Breaking Dawn. Let's see, what else? Oh, Jacob was nice! Jacob sounds like a great boyfriend - caring, supportive, and not overly-protective.Also, I appreciate the Twilight series for showing us what bad writing looks like, so that we aspiring writers may strive to not make the same mistakes. Twilight also gave us the "Reasoning With Vampires" tumblr, which I cannot be thankful enough for.
Yes, definitely. The writing looks like my awful writing in sixth grade, which was so bad I hesitate to call it writing. Thesaurus rape, weird sentence structure, overly complicated sentences, words used in the wrong context, long windy sentences in action, adjectives and adverbs, and hugely repetitive prose. People can totally learn what bad writing looks like and learn to avoid it, though I hope people won't do the opposite and think it's good writing and try to mimic it.
Yes, I do agree that Jacob was a good boyfriend. He was caring and supportive without seeming paranoid and jealous. He is by far more deep and complex as a character than Edward could ever be. Not to say that he is necessarily as complex as he could have been, but he was one of the few characters I actually enjoyed in the series.
Yes, I do agree that Jacob was a good boyfriend. He was caring and supportive without seeming paranoid and jealous. He is by far more deep and complex as a character than Edward could ever be. Not to say that he is necessarily as complex as he could have been, but he was one of the few characters I actually enjoyed in the series.
Jocelyn wrote: "@ DianeHmm, you have some really interesting points. I especially like the analysis on the consent, I'd never caught that before. I'd actually thought Edward was extremely bossy and insulting to ..."
Haha, well yes. Edward IS, at times, bossy and insulting. Like when he left her because he wanted her safe, and he thought it was best without even really talking to her about his concerns or anything.
But when you consider that he's not an ordinary human boyfriend, then you kinda get to see why he is the way he is.
It's largely because he is a vampire that he has these problematic attitudes. When a person is turned into a vampire, his characteristics are not only frozen but heightened.
So Edward's protectiveness and gentlemanly nature was heightened and that's not necessarily a good thing (even though those are laudable characteristics), especially since his partner is a (fragile in comparison) human. He wanted to shield her from all things and make decisions that he thought was best for her. And since he's usually Mr. Right and is probably used to making decisions, partly due to his mind-reading, he just goes on and does what he think is the right thing without consulting others.
Add to that his inexperience to romantic relationships. So Edward was bound to screw up at times.
Though I will say that Edward wanting to wait until marriage to consummate the relationship was, I think, his inner early 1900's boy. In Bella's words "Edward is old-school", lol.
Sorry that was TL;DR, probably veered off topic but I ramble sometimes. xD
I personally dislike twiliht but i can see hy other people like it
before twilight most people well, i know a few only new the classic sense of the vampire, i don;t know about everyone else but i hated the classic vampire, this series introduced a new section for me to read. (not saying i loved the sparkles but its better then sleeping in coffins)
i loved the old vampires sometimes u just dont want change... but she did help i say helped because SM didnt start this trend but she helped make vampires sexy and desireable
I have to admit I saw the movie first and didn't really care for it at first but then I read the book and it explained so much more. I really enjoy a book that goes out of the norm and stretches your beliefs the whole point is to get lost in the story and this book did that for me.
I liked the concept of vampires living among us in a rainy, cloudy area so they could be out in the daytime.I liked that the Native tribe in the area were protectors by shifting more when more vamps were in the area.
I enjoyed the Volturi being a remote, but powerful governing force.
Overall, I thought she had some pretty good ideas, but I was severely disappointed in the execution of the story and felt cheated out of a war.
I think I liked it so much because it's hard for me to find ya novels without overbearingly angsty teenagers in love. And a lot of people would argue that that's basically what Twilight is, but the way Stephanie Meyer told it was what really engaged me. It had twists that kept me interested and all in all I just loved Bella and Edward's love, even if it isn't the most believable thing in the world.
Jeni wrote: "I liked the concept of vampires living among us in a rainy, cloudy area so they could be out in the daytime.I liked that the Native tribe in the area were protectors by shifting more when more va..."
I was also rather disappointed with the anticlimatic ending of Breaking Dawn. I was expecting much more, but I don't think war is Stephanie Meyer's specialty based on Twilight.
Tristen wrote: "I think I liked it so much because it's hard for me to find ya novels without overbearingly angsty teenagers in love. And a lot of people would argue that that's basically what Twilight is, but the..."
True, a lot of people could argue that Twilight is basically teenagers in love and angst. I saw Bella as an extremely whiny idiot with no life except Edward. But to each their own. I guess Meyer's writing style and story appealed to you more than it did to me. :)
True, a lot of people could argue that Twilight is basically teenagers in love and angst. I saw Bella as an extremely whiny idiot with no life except Edward. But to each their own. I guess Meyer's writing style and story appealed to you more than it did to me. :)
Jocelyn wrote: "True, a lot of people could argue that Twilight is basically teenagers in love and angst. I saw Bella as an extremely whiny retard with no life except Edward. But to each their own. I guess Meyer's writing style and story appealed to you more than it did to me. :)"Jocelyn, using the word 'retard' is incredibly offensive outside of its clinical use. If you want to come across as a reasonable person, I would suggest dropping it from your vocabulary. It has the same effect as using the n word in making people look ignorant.
I apologize for that Mickey. Maybe I should have used something lighter like "idiot" or "careless person." I have a really bad habit of exaggerating things and I'm sorry if I offended you. I'll edit that out. :)
I liked all these things:Jacob's character he was the sun in the books.
Bella's inner thoughts cause I think she thinks like many girls and puts herself down so is relatable.
The many rich characters like Charlie, Jacob, all the vampires etc.
The setting.
The quotes and references to books like Wuthering heights and Romeo and Juilet.
The banter between jacob and Edward.
Emmett - I want a brother like him.
The ending.
Not my words but I thought it'd make a good point here:Minisinoo wrote: " I LIKE that the Indians are just people. Being Indian isn't ignored, but not harped on. GOOD. And there's something in how she writes them that does feel like native interaction. She makes a lot of mistakes in details, and may deliberately choose to gloss some things, but yeah. The attitude feels right -- the sense of humor, the joy in life, the love for a good wager, the easy acceptance of others who are 'in' the group, who 'belong' -- those are native.
But most of all, I just like having a book where Indians are a significant part, and they're modern natives. It's not a historical about the lost west or some-such. Meyer doesn't forget they're Indians, but the fact they are really does come secondary to them as individual people, or even to them as werewolves. (g) Bella's best friend isn't The Indian Jacob Black, but Jake Black who happens to be Quileute. So yeah -- nice to see modern natives playing a significant role in a novel that isn't about being Indian. We need more of that. And I think that's the main reason I didn't get disgusted with, could even forgive, some of the other errors. Jacob is Jacob first. Before I'd ever read the books, I'd read a few LJ and other comments about him, none of which referenced the fact he was native. In fact, it was an off-hand comment about who'd they'd cast in that role in the movie -- would he be Native American? -- that first clued me into the fact he wasn't white. Yay!"
After skimming through most of the this thread, I can see some of your guys' points. However, when it came to the relationship between Bella and Edward... I just can't accept your reasoning for it. I felt that it was flawed and it felt a little too forced, I blame SM for this. I have read this book before, and I did enjoy it. I do agree that there were times when they were great together, but most of the time, it felt awkward. That's putting it lightly, because I could touch on more of the negative sides that I've noticed, but I'll refrain from doing so. That's what I think anyway.
You're right, Dorima. I hated Edward and Bella's abusive relationship, it's downright disgusting, contrived, forced, and extremely wooden.
I'll admit I posted this thread because I didn't like the feeling I was getting from hating Twilight all the time. XD I wanted to hear the other side of the story as well, it's always nice for me to be objective.
I'll admit I posted this thread because I didn't like the feeling I was getting from hating Twilight all the time. XD I wanted to hear the other side of the story as well, it's always nice for me to be objective.
Peace wrote: "that would be kind of interesting, 2 hear from is jake and from the rest of the pack, on what there pov type of thing."it did tell Jacobs pov in breaking dawn
ForeverAquarius wrote: "I was just gonna write that Baylor"
So was I.
So was I.
I read the first one and shlugged through the second one, only to not finish it. On one hand, this means I didn't really like them, and couldn't get into them enough to finish the series. On the other hand, it means nothing except that I have a ton of book on my to-read list. I agree with the first post. Bella was kinda annoying to some people but relatable to others (like ... people who are "normal" and people who are way more emotional, which is fine). ... I think people were just annoyed that she was so obsessed with edward because everyone feels like that about everyone who's in love.
There were some parts in the first book that I actually liked, but then they ended and got back into stuff I didn't care for/wasn't even sure it was even a good story (if I'm doubting that, I don't see why I should read more lol)
I just didn't want to be one of those people who tore the books apart without having read them. Now I've tried and just didn't get into it. I think other books are better, but I'm well aware that's my opinion.
I have to say Meyer's story is totally classic. It's kind of romeo and juliet-ish. There's nothing wrong with that. I just don't like love stories, really, so I believe my opinion is skewed in that respect. I don't really think the books are particularly well-written (even in this respect it seems people have all kinds of different opinions on what exactly "well-written" means), and they kind of irk me, but Stephanie Meyer wrote some books and got them published. Not that trash doesn't get published, but that's ..... that's pretty cool that she accomplished something like that when, in comparison, I keep rewriting everything I've ever thought about trying to publish. Also, compare it to 50 shades of gray. .... it's gold now, right?
Bella doesn't cut and run in the face of danger unless she knows that the people that she cares about will be okay. She's also willing to deliberately go into a dangerous situation in an attempt to save them.As an adult woman, I related to Bella's decision to continue with a difficult pregnancy even though there was the possibility that the baby may not be "normal" or that she might not survive it. I also understood her motivations for taking all of the preparations that she did to ensure Renesme's safety in Breaking Dawn. I also relate to the idea of a young woman choosing her own life path even if others around her don't necessarily understand or agree with her choices.
From a fantasy standpoint, I think that Meyer did very a good job of creating the Twilight world. Many don't like what she did with her vampires, but I happen to think that her vampire world was very clear, very simple and very easy to follow. I understand that whether or not she did it well is debatable, but I thought it was also very bold of her to deliberately go against most of the existing vampire lore and create something new and different.
I agree that the books were a very honest look at first love. I also thought that sexuality was handled in a very age appropriate manner and I liked the fact that Twilight shows that it's not just boys who struggle with raging hormones. I liked the fact that Meyer reversed the stereotypical roles and made Bella the one with the raging hormones and Edward the one who decides to wait.
Why I really like this book is that,1. It's an easy read. Helped me relax.
2. Kept me hooked up. I simply couldn't keep the book down.I like the way it feels.
3. I could really relate to the character Bella. And their love. I could see me in her(with the 'balance' part too.).Only if I could have such a soft and silent love!(And I had one one sided.) Simply I could relate to most of the matters and the theme. It really suited my interest.
4.I felt all these, reading only the first book. I hope the rest of them won't be "not like twilight".
And I loved SM's ideas about the 'vampires'. It's my first 'vampire' book. And I'm happy that it was good.
Olivia wrote: "Marilyn wrote: "I read the first one and shlugged through the second one, only to not finish it. On one hand, this means I didn't really like them, and couldn't get into them enough to finish the s..."You mean what would she say about her own work? I would actually love to hear anything from her cuz it might put some of the parts I didn't like into a perspective where I'll at least get it. The only thing I've ever really heard from her is thanking her sister for encouraging her to write the books.... which is nice. It's just I haven't ever heard anything from her about the books themselves.
Oh, I forgot to say in my last post! I wasn't a huge fan of Edward or Bella (whatever ... a lot of times I read books I like and the main character(s) are my least favorite, so that doesn't really mean anything, not even to me), but I did really like the other characters, like Charlie, for one, and basically Edward's whole family. Once I got into the second book that changed drastically.
I'm not sure if it's just because there's been so much hype over the books in the past that I kind of already know what they're about so when I read I'm like "Bella, have you seriously not figured it out yet? HE'S A VAMPIRE/WEREWOLF" lol I'll admit, I think I liked the second book a LOT less because Edward was more interesting to me than Jacob (I haven't seen the movies, but I saw the Bad Lip Syncing of Full Moon on Youtube and Jacob's voice was awful and that's what I kept hearing every time I read his dialogue in the book ... unfortunate lol).
Jocelyn wrote: "I hate Twilight (it's badly written, predictably plotted and contrived, badly paced, antifeminist and has lousy characterization)"Just reverse or ignore everything you just said, and that is why people love this book. You can hate Twilight all you want, but you can't argue with the facts.
From Wikipedia: "As of October 2010, the series has sold over 116 million copies worldwide with translations into at least 38 different languages around the globe. The four Twilight books have consecutively set records as the biggest selling novels of 2008 on the USA Today Best-Selling Books list and have spent over 235 weeks on the New York Times Best Seller list"
That 116 million copy stat was over 3 years ago. And remember, this doesn't count library readers or families that shared a copy or those who read a friend's copy. So it is probably safe to estimate that 50+ million readers have read Twilight.
Must have been hype, right? It couldn't be that the book was just so good it appeals to that many people?
On Amazon, Twilight gets a 4.1 out of 5 stars with 6,284 reviews. But like most books, a percentage of the readers won't like it. 1115 of them rating it 1 or 2 stars. That is 21%. For Stephenie, it means 79% of the readers liked Twilight. That means that be 11.5 million readers out of the 50+ million didn't prefer it. Using GoodRead's stats, it is a 3.51 with almost 2 million reviews, and 15 Million out of the 50+ million didn't prefer it. Most authors don't even have 1 million readers.
So your question (although backhanded) is actually really smart. What made her work earn so many readers?
Well let's look at some statements you made that we need to ignore or reverse to answer this question.
it's badly written
Most of the 50+ million people who have read Twilight enjoyed the writing.
So what do you mean by "badly written"?
Was it engaging? Yes.
Was it captivating? Yes.
Did most readers want to put it down? No.
Did it develop the characters well? Yes.
Did most readers want to read the sequels? Yes.
Perhaps you saw some passive voice in her writing and just decided she is a bad writer because she didn't perfectly show instead of tell?
predictably plotted and contrived
First explain why this is a negative thing. A huge amount of the population like predictable. They know the two lovers will get together and they squeal with delight when they get to watch it happen.
It is the "how" they get together that is not predictable, not whether they get together or not.
Did you predict that Bella would get to fly through the forest at 50+ MPH on Edward's back?
Did you predict that two vampires would show up while they were playing baseball?
badly paced
Maybe you are looking at the wrong pacing. Are you looking at the pacing of action? The pacing of the romance? The pacing of the emotion? The pacing of her reveals?
Not that it matters which pacing you were looking at. Why bring up pacing at all? If most readers don't want to put a book down, then pacing doesn't matter. Maybe Stephenie's pacing doesn't follow the pacing taught by other writers or suggested in books on writing. Pacing is a tool to engage readers. If the readers are already engaged, the writer doesn't need this tool.
How many readers was it that did Stephenie keep engaged? Oh, right. Only 50+ million. It doesn't sound like her pacing pushed readers away.
antifeminist
This statement makes this inaccurate assumption:
Not Feminist == Antifeminist
This assumption is not true.
This book may be "not feminist', but it isn't anywhere close to "antifeminist". Saying that a book that is written by a woman that has a female main character has to be either feminist or antifeminist is very narrow and limiting point of view. I doubt either feminism or anitfeminism ever even crossed Stephenie's mind.
She just wrote great characters, both male and female . . . oh wait . . . let's save that for next.
has lousy characterization
So most of the 50+ million readers love the characters more than any other part of the book. Why do I make this claim? Because you don't get people jumping on Team Edward or Team Jacob and buying their shirts without some passion for the characters.
Bella, Edward, Jake, the rest of the Cullins: there is great history to these characters. Many readers can visualize these characters quite well. What else do you want but the ability to visualize the characters really well?
Again, perhaps you are thinking characterization has to be done exactly like described by some other moderately successful author's "how to" books.
Her characterization is extremely well-done.
I am planning on reading her books again, just to study how she captivates audiences the way she does with her supposedly poor writing.
I hope to someday have people claim my writing is as bad as Stephenie's.
J. Abram Barneck
Fire Light
J. wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "I hate Twilight (it's badly written, predictably plotted and contrived, badly paced, antifeminist and has lousy characterization)"Just reverse or ignore everything you just said, ..."
I have already posted here a couple times, but I keep seeing people post interesting things. I appreciated this post. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but that's life :)
I appreciated your point of view on the issue of "antifeminism" ... I have always thought it was a total nonissue whenever people bring it up. It's basically just a love story. No need to make a statement over everything (er ... but I'm not berating anyone who feels it's antifeminist. I'm just wishing people might be more understanding).
That it must finally end..sometime? That everyone who ever heard of it must someday die and be totally forgotten, and that this entire embarrassing episode in American culture must completely and utterly vanish without a trace?
Feliks wrote: "That it must finally end..sometime? That everyone who ever heard of it must someday die and be totally forgotten, and that this entire embarrassing episode in American culture must completely and u..."
Sadly, that IS probably the best thing about Twilight.
One can only hope.
Sadly, that IS probably the best thing about Twilight.
One can only hope.
I love the Twilight series but Jocelyn, the first line in your review cracked me up.I think the reason I like the book is because who wouldn't want a hot, rich guy that loves you and will continue to love you no matter how old you get, what you look like or what you do.
Isn't that every persons dream? lol.
I wasn't interested at all in the books and a friend kept pressuring me. The first movie had already come out but I had no interest in in vampires/werewolves. To get her off my back, I read Twilight and then finished the rest. I truly liked the books. I am no literary genius so I can't pick out the obvious flaws like you guys can other than some cheesy lines or crazy behavior from Bella, Edward and Jacob.
My favorite book is Eclipse but my favorite movie was New Moon. I know. I am in the minority but it was well done and stayed truer to the book. I think the chemistry of the lead characters was better.
So I have some friends my age that gave me a hard time. They said "Ew,why would a woman your age have the hots for a "17 year old" vampire". To which I had to correc them and say "um, he is 109".
Lisa wrote: "I think the reason I like the book is because who wouldn't want a hot, rich guy that loves you and will continue to love you no matter how old you get, what you look like or what you do.Isn't that every persons dream? lol.
"
From some of the criticisms that I've read about Twilight, I get the impression that if one wants to consider themselves as a "feminist", this actually isn't supposed to be one of your dreams.
I've said this before elsewhere, but I firmly do believe that certain facets of the feminist movement were inherently flawed and as a result, some of the anti-feminist criticisms of Twilight were flawed as well. I'm also inclined to agree with the poster (J.?) who said that "not feminist" doesn't necessarily equate to being "anti-feminist".
What I liked about Twilight:The romance. Yeah, it followed the same trope we've read so many times: bad boy and innocent girl from different backgrounds, overcome all obstacles to fulfill their destiny together. But it was a nice twist. Edward had to fight his very real desire to kill Bella, until his love for her finally grew strong enough that he was able to withstand it easily. It also re-captured the feeling of falling in love for the first time. I had no doubt that Bella would eventually choose Edward, but it was an interesting read following it through.
What I hated about Twilight:
Two words: Breaking Dawn
I liked the fact that SM made her vampires living rock, that didn't change or grow, and the sparkling was what made them need to hide from the sun. Okay, maybe it was a little silly, but it was different and a creative re-imagining of the vampire genre.
But then she pushed a baby into the story. I'm sorry, but SM wrote vampire babies - with vampires or humans - out of her universe the minute she made them living rock that doesn't change. Alice's hair hasn't grown back from her time in the asylum because they have no more cellular growth. This means all male vampires are shooting blanks. They're STERILE.
I know that SM wanted the baby in the story for a long time, and it helped tie up some of her story arcs. But it goes against rules that she established before, so it doesn't make sense within the story. I like a happy ending as much as the next person, but not at the expense of the author contradicting themselves. That meant over 2/3 of Breaking Dawn was based on a HUGE PLOT HOLE. Hard to get back into the story and enjoy it when you keep muttering "this is such bull****" over and over again. The real Twilight Saga ended with Eclipse.
This so called plot hole doesn't exist and has been debunked multiple times.Vampires weren't 100% unchanging.
1.They needed blood.
2. They produced venom. (This alone should be example enough)
3. Vampires weakened over time (newborns are stronger).
4. Eating human blood turned their eyes red while animal blood turned their eyes yellow.
So Vampires weren't completely unchanging and were capable of producing at least one fluid (venom) from the very first book.
So male vampires also produce sperm. Producing is not the same as changing.
Once again, plot hole debunked.
J. wrote: "This so called plot hole doesn't exist and has been debunked multiple times.Vampires weren't 100% unchanging.
1. They needed blood.
2. They produced venom. (This alone should be example enough)
3. Vampires weakened over time (newborns are stronger).
4. Eating human blood turned their eyes red while animal blood turned their eyes yellow. "
Hi J. Well, it hasn't been debunked for me, but I'm willing to listen.
Your four points, while accurate, don't address the critical issue and you don't address growth at all. Yes, they can move and think and produce venom. Yes, they are capable of sexual activity. Those things are allowed or they would just be statues. But the part that SM's rule affects is the part most critical to the making of babies. Here are SM's statements that put the lie to her vampire babies:
"They sparkle because they have turned to substance that is somewhat like diamond. Their bodies have hardened, frozen into a kind of living stone. Each little cell in their skin has become a separate facet that reflects the light. These facets have a prism-like quality - they throw rainbows as they glitter."
"Vampires are frozen in the state at which they are transformed. They do not grow older, taller, or wider, or experience any other physical change, including unconsciousness (vampires never sleep). Their fingernails and hair do not grow."
Why hasn't Alice's hair grown back since it was cut in the asylum? Because they have no cellular growth. Why are they unable to sleep? Because their cells are unable to change state. This, in a nutshell, is the "no growth and change" rule.
J writes: "So male vampires also produce sperm. Producing is not the same as changing."
That is not correct. How do you get from venom production to sperm production? Your point #2 is not example enough. This venom that you've mentioned is a liquid. SPERM IS NOT A LIQUID secreted from a cell. Sperm ARE cells produced in the body, through a process called meiosis. Production of sperm requires both growth and change, and is basic biology. SM could have at least Googled it. Venom production does not equal sperm production or its vampire equivalent.
Since the cells of SM's vampires are not allowed to grow or change due to her rule, they can produce no more sperm. Any sperm that Edward had at the time of his conversion would have been changed to vampire tissue along with the rest of his body. And since they can't change any more, they can't bond with ovum, human or vampire.
So can you explain to me how the "no growth and change" rule still allows the production of sperm cells or other genetic material? To date, SM has not provided one that I know of. Without that explanation, the plot hole still stands. There should be no baby.
Actually I just read this article in the Alien vs. Paranormal Inquirer. It may help you.A couple of the Ann Rice Vampires, funded by Lestat, have infiltrated Area 51. They are working on a study of Stephenie Meyer's sparkly vampires. They want to some day find a way to reverse the process of making a sparkly vampire. Because the sparkly vampires are so strong, Anne Rice's vampires see them, especially the Vulturi, as a threat.
Their studies involve creating sparkly newborns (they had to brainwash one of SM's Vampires to help them) and then dissecting the sparkly vampires with a special laser. The laser itself took years to perfect. Studies have revealed that the reproductive system in sparkly vampires is not completely crystallized and still creates germ cells that can divide into gametes. They feel continued study of why these cells still change and divide, whereas sparkly vampire hair and nail cells do not, is key to finding a an antivenom that will decrystalize the diamond-like cells and return sparkly vampires back into human. Of course, an antivenom that is only partially successful but results in death of the sparkly vampires, would also be considered a success.
In other news, read how the History Channel's next Ancient Aliens will prove that Vampires of all types were actually created by Aliens who have visited throughout history.
J. wrote: "Actually I just read this article in the Alien vs. Paranormal Inquirer. It may help you.A couple of the Ann Rice Vampires, funded by Lestat, have infiltrated Area 51. They are working on a stu..."
Thank you, I love a good parody. I especially liked the part about all vampires being created by aliens. Perhaps this will be a tie-in to The Host? :)
Unfortunately, this doesn't really help our discussion. This is obviously something that was written to poke fun at the Meyer vampire universe. You can't take something that's obviously a parody, and present that as evidence in support of the author, because it's not part of her world. It's an explanation, but it's a joke. You don't consider material from the movie "Vampires Suck" to be part of Twilight canon, do you? Of course not, because it's not something that SM presented, and it's not what she wrote. Heck, even I posted something in the vampires can't have babies" discussion on how the baby could have been done in a more plausible manner. But that doesn't affect the original material, does it? Absolutely not, because I'm not the author.
Do you perhaps have a link to that material? I Googled "Alien vs. Paranormal Inquirer" and scrolled through over 30 pages and never found the reference.
Let me put up here again, that statement that is from SM:
"Vampires are frozen in the state at which they are transformed. They do not grow older, taller, or wider, or experience any other physical change, including unconsciousness (vampires never sleep). Their fingernails and hair do not grow."
The way I see it, this is quite absolute, and these are definitely her words. Nowhere in that statement do I see an exception of any kind, whether in their testicles or not. In all the information I've read presented by Meyer to date, she has not backed off the "no growth and change" rule. Since she still has no growth, even down to the testicles, she still has a plot hole.
Maybe it isn't sperm that Edward was shooting during the honeymoon. Maybe it was the venom? Is there any reason why the vampire venom couldn't have "sperm like qualities"? It can turn someone into a vampire....maybe it can also impregnate when ejaculated into a fertile female.....straws...
I had nothing to help you, no reason to argue, so I thought I would be fun. :-)Mochaspresso does have a good point.
I think the main point is that a possibility exists (if barely) and so it all comes down our own ability to suspend disbelief.
By the way (and in staying on topic), this brings up another good thing about Twilight: The way it grabbed so many people and made them passionate enough to discuss it.
Mochaspresso wrote: "Maybe it isn't sperm that Edward was shooting during the honeymoon. Maybe it was the venom? Is there any reason why the vampire venom couldn't have "sperm like qualities"? It can turn someone in..."I wondered about that too, and there is a passage in The Illustrated Guide that talks about this:
Fluids: Internally, the vampire's system contains many venom-based fluids that resemble, and in some cases perform the same function as, the human fluids that were replaced. Only the saliva-like liquid in the vampire's mouth is venomous. A fluid similar to this venom works as a lubricant between the hard cells of the skin, making movement possible. Another lubricates the vampire's eyes so they can move easily in their sockets. However, vampires do not produce tears, as tears exist to protect the eye from damage by small foreign objects, and those objects would not be able to harm a vampire's eye. Throughout the body, this pattern is repeated, with venom-like fluids performing the functions that are still necessary to the vampire. Most notably absent is the circulatory system.
My understanding of this is, SM equates the bodily functions of her vampires with whatever it was when they were human. Body fluids are replaced with a venom equivalent. Movement, thoughts and senses function as they did before (albeit modified to a superhuman level). So they do have a venom-analogue for semen. The problem is, the function of semen is only a carrier; it doesn't actually do the job of fertilization. (Otherwise a ton of guys with vasectomies are gonna have a LOTTA 'splainin to do! :-)
And while SM says it can happen, she still didn't enable the mechanism that would have allowed the generation of sperm or release of genetic material. We still need those sperm, or even a release of DNA. If she hadn't stopped her vampires from growing, I could have believed in the baby.
J. wrote: "I think the main point is that a possibility exists (if barely) and so it all comes down our own ability to suspend disbelief.That is quite true. I've read sci-fi/fantasy for years, so I thought my suspension-of-disbelief muscles were pretty well developed. And I truly enjoyed the first three books. But when she wrote the properties of her vampires a certain way, then introduced an element that violated that, try as I might I couldn't get back into the story. Believe me, I didn't want the ride to be over, so you can imagine my disappointment.
By the way (and in staying on topic), this brings up another good thing about Twilight: The way it grabbed so many people and made them passionate enough to discuss it."
Agreed. When I read Midnight Sun, I remembered what it was like to be 17 again. Not often do you find magic like that.
I think the redeeming quality comes through when you remember who the author had in mind when she wrote this book/series. Teenage girls. Now I'm not generalising, because I am a teenage girl and I know we're not all like this, but I have had these moments where I've wished for a love like this, a guy who would die for me. An 'epic love' that was meant to be. and I think that's what Twilight owes it success to. So anyone who says teenage girls don't have any power...you've been warned...;)
That's a really good discussion topic. I think the books were entertaining, the themes were horrible, but the plotline of the first three books was okay. (Breaking Dawn's...was kinda not there.)
When I first read Twilight, I was hooked on the books. I read all 4 in a week, and those are pretty thick book and I'm a pretty slow reader. But there's something about the books that make them hard to put down when you first read them (it also sort of blinds you to their flaws). Maybe it's because I got so into the story and what's going on with the characters that I sort of skimp over the flaws but I definitely noticed them the 2nd time I read it. The second time I read Twilight I found myself thinking, "what was I thinking? Edward's a creepy stalker", like the part when she wakes up and Edward is in her room and he says "I like watching you sleep"? I would have been like "Dad! get the shotgun!" I don't care who you are, that's not romantic, that's creepy. But I think the reason so many people love the series is because it has a Romeo/Juliet type of romance, especially in the 2nd book. Edward and Bella are from 2 completely different worlds and naturally they should not be together but they end up falling in love anyway and they both would rather die than to live without each other. It's a story about "true" eternal love that last forever and I think that's what readers really love about it. In a society where divorce rates are up and marriages are going down, people want to believe in that kind of love.
The book covers were probably the thing I liked most about Twilight. They're so awesome!
It's over. That's what is good about it.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Twilight (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
Fire Light (other topics)Twilight (other topics)
The ones I thought of were:
1) This one might be slightly debatable. Bella's melodramatic angst is either relatable or hugely annoying. For me it was hugely annoying, but I can see how people would be able to relate to her.
2) It's a very honest portrayal of first love. Stephenie Meyer doesn't hold anything back when writing her dreams. Sure, it's blatant wish fulfillment and all, but I did appreciate that aspect of Meyer being unafraid to write what she watns to.
What do you guys think?
Oh, and heads up fellow antis: please respect people's opinions. Please don't rant. And please don't say "there isn't anything good" because that defeats the purpose. If you can't find anything just don't answer. Please no name calling or insulting. I personally think Twilight sucks, but it isn't ALL crap.
Twilighters: same thing, please respect people's opinions. Please don't rant about how finally an anti admits there are redeeming qualities to Twilight and branch off into how stupid antis are. You can appreciate it but if you're not careful it might be offensive to some antis. Please, again, no name calling or insulting, I'd like to keep things civil.
Also, Twilighters: I apologize if you find this insulting or belittling. Note that I did not post this because I think Twilight is so bad we need to sift through it to find something good, I posted this because I got disturbed by antis ranting about Twilight without seeing the other side of the argument.
Thanks, I'd love to hear what you guys think.