Twilight
discussion
What are the good things about Twilight?
Julia wrote: "It's over. That's what is good about it."
lol
lol
Twilight is good for:Fending off real vampires
Those times when you need to whack someone in the head with a book and have no dictionaries on hand
Boosting your morale if you're another mediocre writer.
Twilight just bothers me... Especially in its characterization. All her female characters are so weak.
I enjoyed the first 3 books. It took me back in time to when I first fell in love. To me, it was more of a love story, rather than vampires & wolves. I thought the 4th book kinda started to steer off in a different direction. It seemed like Stephanie Meyers just needed material to finish the book off.
*caution, spoiler* I personally think that if Bella died, instead of becoming a vampire, that would have made a better story!!
It just became a little too predictable.
Otherwise, I enjoyed this easy read. It helped me relax and temporarily forget about my surroundings.
*caution, spoiler* I personally think that if Bella died, instead of becoming a vampire, that would have made a better story!!
It just became a little too predictable.
Otherwise, I enjoyed this easy read. It helped me relax and temporarily forget about my surroundings.
I appreciate that this thread begins with the idea of trying to understand why people loved Twilight. Despite not liking it yourself, it shows a willingness to at least try to understand someone else's point of view and I thank you for that. What I don't understand is haters. I've read books that afterwards I wished I could scrub out of my brain and still shudder inside when I come across even the title. But I give it the rating I think it deserves, maybe write a review if I can put my reaction into words, and then move on. If I see a thread praising that book's merits, I just pass over it, I don't feel the need to denigrate another person's reaction to a book. How does it hurt me if another person liked a book that I didn't connect with? Something about the experience of reading that book made them happy, so why should I go out of my way to tell them they were wrong to find happiness in a book that didn't reach me?
discussion of a books merits or demerits with another person, even of a differing opinion, can be stimulating, enlightening, even fun. But once civil discussion is over, why do some people feel the need to persist until they've sucked the joy out of the other person's memories of a beloved story? In what way does it make the world better to convince someone that by liking something another hates that they are stupid, untutored in discerning truly good writing, shallow to like an imperfect romantic character--or a boy wizard or a small character with furry feet (there are haters for all of these), etc.--and generally unworthy to live in this world if they persist in enjoying such trash? Before the person was happy, afterward they are not. Happy now, haters?
As I said, this thread attempts to open a different kind of dialogue and I do appreciate that. But I wish everyone could have a live-and-let-live attitude about things others love once both sides have been civily discussed. I wish you joy in whatever books you like, I hope you wish me joy in mine.
Julia wrote: "Jenny wrote: "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 relat..."
Not too much. But a little.
One thing I think is nice about the whole Twilight Saga is how human the characters all are. I know that's highly ironic, but everyone has their tragic flaws. They also have their strengths. Even the "super heroes" in these books aren't super heroes. Also, I find these books incredibly soothing. I like reading them over and over, as well as listening to them on audiobook. They are easy to read and the characters are easy to love.
Bridget wrote: "One thing I think is nice about the whole Twilight Saga is how human the characters all are. I know that's highly ironic, but everyone has their tragic flaws. They also have their strengths. Even t..."I do totally agree.
I like the fact it got a lot of people to give books a chance after they saw the movie.
I also like the soundtracks to the first 3 movies.
For the books themselves I like the fact that Jacob had a sense of humor.
I also like the soundtracks to the first 3 movies.
For the books themselves I like the fact that Jacob had a sense of humor.
It bothers me when people complain about the bad writing in Twilight, usually while holding their nose as if something stinks. They were never meant to be great literature. They were meant to tell a compelling story, a very personal story, and in that I believe they succeeded beyond any expectations. When I read something I want to be entertained. If the book accomplishes that then it is a successful book in my opinion. If I find myself getting bored, or struggling to finish it, then the book has failed me.
As for Twilight, all of the books entertained me and told a great story. Was the grammar and writing the same quality as Dickens or Hemingway? Probably not. So what? The books entertained me and millions of other people. What is so wrong about that?
I will say that I think the writing got better as the story went along. In my opinion, Breaking Dawn was by far the best book in the series, at least in terms of writing style.
If you don't like Twilight, great, this is a free country and nobody is going to force you to read it. But that doesn't mean you need to belittle the books, or the people who do enjoy them. Life is too short. Just go on and read something that interests you more. Leave Twilight to those who enjoy it.
The selkie wife and written in the stars by lissa bryan, her fan fiction website has more than one story that just simply blew me away! She uses character names from the twilight books
Mike wrote: "When I read something I want to be entertained. If the book accomplishes that then it is a successful book in my opinion. If I find myself getting bored, or struggling to finish it, then the book has failed me.I will say that I think the writing got better as the story went along. In my opinion, Breaking Dawn was by far the best book in the series, at least in terms of writing style."
Well, I was with you for a moment there. You see I did enjoy the first three books of Twilight. As you say, they entertained me and kept me immersed in the story effortlessly. But then we came to Breaking Dawn. BD threw me out of the story for the reasons I've stated above. I have specific examples from the book that say the writing is worse, not better. For a book that had only entertaining me as a goal, it failed miserably. I think the disappointment was so great because I enjoyed the first three that much.
I'm not trying to belittle people who enjoyed Twilight because I'm one of them. But I think it's fair for me to state why I hate BD when other folks are stating how much they liked it.
The best thing about it?This serie got a lot of people reading, like I never saw it before.And after that a lot of people,started to read more.Whether is bad written,or melodramatic books,we got to give the credits for it.
Rel8tivity wrote: "I'm not trying to belittle people who enjoyed Twilight because I'm one of them. But I think it's fair for me to state why I hate BD when other folks are stating how much they liked it."Of course it's fair for you to have a preference. I just happen to disagree with you. BD was my favorite book. It was the culmination of everything that had come before. I loved the wedding and honeymoon. I loved the drama around the pregnancy. I loved Jacob coming into his own. I loved vampire Bella. I loved Renesme. I loved all the other vampires coming to their aid. I even loved the final confrontation with the Volturi.
To me that is what is important. I don't care to analyze to death vampire sperm. I don't care how it works, or if it should work. I accepted that it did for the sake of the story.
My least favorite book is New Moon. Not because of the quality of the writing, but because I did not like to see Bella broken like that. I have always been team Edward, so I hated that he was missing from most of the book.
Again, my point is that I can overlook less than stellar writing if I have great storytelling. And in my opinion, Stephanie Meyer is a great storyteller, even if she may not be a great writer.
It's got a lot of action and it and it's not boring. It's an adventure and that's what I like
Mike wrote: "Of course it's fair for you to have a preference. I just happen to disagree with you. BD was my favorite book. It was the culmination of everything that had come before. I loved the wedding and honeymoon. I loved the drama around the pregnancy. I loved Jacob coming into his own. I loved vampire Bella. I loved Renesme. I loved all the other vampires coming to their aid. I even loved the final confrontation with the Volturi.To me that is what is important. I don't care to analyze to death vampire sperm. I don't care how it works, or if it should work. I accepted that it did for the sake of the story. "
And I think it's fine that people disagree with me. Everybody experiences art in a different way, so you're bound to like/dislike something different from the next person.
But for me, the story has to make sense. Even in a fantasy story, the story mustn't contradict itself. I didn't sit there and analyze vampire sperm to death. After reading SM's characterization of her vampire's physiology, I just realized it couldn't work as she had described it. That, to me, is a failure of storytelling, because I expect a published author to make the pieces fit together. It's their world, after all, and I shouldn't have to ignore error after error in order to enjoy a story.
Part of the fun of reading sci-fi or fantasy, is learning about what makes the world different. In this case, the vampires flew in the face of traditional vampire lore, as well as the werewolves. But it all still worked so it was cool. Then the author introduced something that didn't work with what she established before. What am I supposed to do with that? And since so much of the book is built around something that shouldn't be there, how am I supposed to enjoy the rest of the story? I was left with the feeling that, instead of letting the story grow organically and becoming what it was supposed to be (as I felt with the first three books), SM was pulling strings like mad in order to force an ending that wasn't intended. In a good story, you don't even notice the hand of the author; the story just flows. Here, I could feel it right and left.
If you enjoyed BD, I think you should count yourself lucky. I got kicked out of the story less than 100 pages in. What does that say about the story teller?
The one good thing I appreciate about Twilight is that someone else likes it; therefore it is a good thing. Note that there is a very distinct difference between a book being good, and a book being a good thing.
Rel8tivity wrote: "Mike wrote: "Of course it's fair for you to have a preference. I just happen to disagree with you. BD was my favorite book. It was the culmination of everything that had come before. I loved the we..."If a mistake was made regarding vampires' ability to procreate, it occurred when SM wrote the description that led people to believe they were all stone and all bodily fluids replaced with venom and that they were unaltered and unalterable in every way. Don't forget that SM actually wrote what became Breaking Dawn before Twilight even made it to the shelves. New Moon and Eclipse were written to fill in the gap between the two stories she already had. The concept of the incubus was always intended and, therefore, capability to impregnate.
I do think SM failed when she tried to backtrack and provide "plausible" scientific explanation for how and why they were able to procreate. She should have just left it alone. It didn't necessarily have to be explained. There are plenty of sci-fi books out there that never attempt to explain the sci-fi elements of the story. I've read books that involved time travel where the author did not attempt to explain how it was happening because that wasn't the focal point of the story.
Perhaps she did error when she tried to explain it, but remember the vampires themselves had no idea it was possible for them to procreate in this way. Maybe they believed they *were* stone-like and unchanging? It took an unprecedented couple like Edward and Bella to prove that wrong in at least this one specific way.Hell, then again maybe she just didn't think she would ever need to justify it scientifically to people some day. She simply wanted Bella to get pregnant by Edward? Screw being scientifically accurate about how and why.
I understand when you say it took you out of the story, and that's too bad, but it didn't seem to bother millions of other readers. So, for them, it was great storytelling. There will always be someone unable to suspend reality enough to accept any fantasy story element. You can never please everyone and really shouldn't even try. SM pleased the vast majority of her readers. That is all anyone should be able to expect from an author.
Mike wrote: "Perhaps she did error when she tried to explain it, but remember the vampires themselves had no idea it was possible for them to procreate in this way..."Wait!
I remember quite distinctly it being said in another discussion that there have been more "Reneesmees", so the possibility to procreate must have been a known in the twilightverse?
It was a fast-read, for me. I managed to finish the whole series in just 6 days (that was fast for me before because Twilight is the first series I had read).If you are a teenager who is hopelessly romantic (as I was when I read the book), you'd surely fall in love with the book, too. Who wouldn't? Meeting a very handsome creature that will love you forever, with a very nice family and lots of money? That's like a dream come true.
I also loved the idea of making a vampire sparkle. I mean, I think it's kinda funny, but at least it's unique. It's not the typical vampire, so it's kind of refreshing to read.
:D
Gerd wrote: "Wait!I remember quite distinctly it being said in another discussion that there have been more "Reneesmees", so the possibility to procreate must have been a known in the twilightverse?..."
It is true that there were others like her, but they were unknown to most of the vampire universe. They had been created by a rogue vampire in the jungles of Brazil. Nobody else knew it was possible for a human/vampire hybrid to exist. At least not until the big final confrontation at the end of Breaking Dawn. Now that everyone knows, I have wondered what they would do with that knowledge? I have little doubt that Aro will try to create his own hybrids now that he knows it is possible.
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 just had to say how much I loved your post. I agree with just about everything you wrote. I could not have said it better. Thanks.
Jeanie wrote: "If a mistake was made regarding vampires' ability to procreate, it occurred when SM wrote the description that led people to believe they were all stone and all bodily fluids replaced with venom and that they were unaltered and unalterable in every way. Don't forget that SM actually wrote what became Breaking Dawn before Twilight even made it to the shelves. New Moon and Eclipse were written to fill in the gap between the two stories she already had. The concept of the incubus was always intended and, therefore, capability to impregnate. "That's exactly what I thought. If SM had not made her vampires essentially inert, it would have been perfectly plausible to me for them to have babies. Other vampire stories have vampire/human half-breeds, and it's fine. I think dhamphirs is the term for them. All it would have taken was to allow their hair to grow and maybe their fingernails. And while she may have had incubi in mind, she didn't incorporate it well enough to make it plausible.
I had heard that timeline as well, and it made me think about the circumstances under which BD was written. Think back to before BD was released. Eclipse was released on August 7, 2007. The Host was released on May 6, 2008. The Twilight movie completed filming May 2, 2008 and SM was spending time on location. She was purported to have spent time editing BD while on set. BD was released on August 2, 2008.
Okay, pure speculation here. So after Eclipse was released, instead of working on BD, SM wrote The Host. I guess she figured she had most of BD already written in Forever Dawn, and it just needed some editing. And she had this awesome story that she JUST HAD to work on right now. With all the press junkets, release parties, time on the Twilight set, I'd estimate she had, what, maybe three free months to work on BD? SM was a really busy girl at this time. Judging from the greater number of errors in BD compared to the other three books, as well as the greater number of outtakes culled from the first three, I'm willing to bet that SM didn't work too closely with an editor. So even if she was aware of the baby plot hole, she didn't have a lot of time to do anything about it. To eliminate the plot hole, she would have had to re-write BD to eliminate the baby, and judging from her comments on how Renesmee HAD to exist, that wasn't likely. So she punts, throws what she has to the publisher. Publisher doesn't care because with her previous success, it's going to sell regardless of how it ends or the quality of writing.
I haven't read The Host yet (I'll get to it) but I'm willing to bet it's written better than BD, and more similar to the style of the first three books, because she gave her quality writing time to it, instead of BD.
Mike wrote: "Perhaps she did error when she tried to explain it, but remember the vampires themselves had no idea it was possible for them to procreate in this way. Maybe they believed they *were* stone-like a..."I agree that SM did error when she tried to explain it, but I don't see as how the way the characters were written have anything to do with the validity of her argument. They're still the author's creatures, and if she has an imperfect understanding of how she put her world together, they're just going to reflect that.
And it's not simply a matter of trying to justify something scientifically. It's a matter of keeping consistent with the world you created. Even if it was a magical world. What if JK Rowling had required a human sacrifice as part of the formula to destroy a horcrux? Pretty horrific, but if it's part of the story it is what it is. Then if one of the later horcruxes is destroyed without the requisite sacrifice, you'd say, "Hey! It's not supposed to happen that way!" The principle is the same. Whether it's scientific or magical, fantasy or sci-fi, it needs to hold together on a logical basis from beginning to end. That's also the job of the story teller.
If it were something subjective, like Team Edward vs. Team Jacob or whether Bella is a strong female character or not, I would agree with you. That's not something you can please everybody with, so don't bother. Look, I've read the Xanth series, where Piers Anthony has everything procreating with anything and I was fine with it. I accept that Mister Spock has a Vulcan father and a human mother. But this isn't simply a case of a fantasy element that I couldn't accept. This issue is a straight logical inconsistency, based on the author's descriptions.
And sure, millions of people read the book. But I don't see how popularity of the series equates to quality of the last book. Everybody who read and loved the first three books was going to read BD. Heck, I did, didn't I? I think a more telling metric is the negative reviews garnered by BD in comparison to the first three. Twilight got 12% 1-star reviews, NM 6%, and Eclipse 5%. BD got 18% 1-star reviews - a big jump from Eclipse. A lot of those 1-star reviews reference the baby, so I'm not the only one who felt this way.
Olivia wrote: "that is quite true there. the best that SM ever wrote beside the twilight books, is the Host which it was bit better theb twi. "That's rather a sad statement, if the situation is true. For Breaking Dawn, the ending of her masterpiece, to be published in this condition, plot holes and all, due to poor time management and misplaced priorities. She really should have saved The Host until after she finished all her Twilight stuff.
I really only liked the first book a lot when I was a tween. I liked the fact that it had mystery based on allure rather than disgust. You know what I mean? Rather than wanting to find out what happened to the dead girl or what was in the creepy man's basement the mystery in Twilight was, "Who is the guy I like? What's he all about?" I loved the gloomy setting of Forks. I also liked that the theme of Twilight (book, not series) was curbing your appetite. It's all about Edward trying to control his blood lust so he can be with Bella. It was also one of the first accessible modern vampire novels for young girls. Whether or not you'd heard of True Blood was pretty debatable but Twilight was in the backpack of every girl, you couldn't escape it. You had to read it. Idk it was such a weird craze. part of me wants to reread it and see what actually attracted me to the novel as a kid.
This series, although not impressive writing or a developed and astonishing story by any means has done something that I think many can be forever grateful for.1. It either introduced or RE-introduced people to reading. With its addictive and easy to read writing and plot it became the perfect way to lure so many (especially young and impressionable girls into reading. I myself don't believe I would have discovered my love for reading again if it weren't for this series. I was 13, it was all the craze, it was easy to read, Bella was simple and relatable, there was alluring love interest to swoon over, what more could a young girl want? And then what, then I was enthralled into stories and discovering more of them. And here I am 6 years later, still reading obsessively.
2. It opened up a whole new world for YA literature. Of course it were there before but just think even Harry Potter was classified Children's (and still is), first 2 books aside it is predominantly YA based. I think the Twilight franchise really gave YA the platform that it needed, then came things like The Hunger Games and Divergent and we were off. Although I think YA is still looked down upon. no matter the skills of the author, there is a predigest that is held against YA. I find it is often hard for YA novels to get the respect they deserve because of this. I also think this may partly because of the overwhelming hate that is held against Twilight and therefor often the whole YA genre
Ryder wrote: "It either introduced or RE-introduced people to reading."I couldn't agree more. I was in my late 40s when I first read Twilight. I had read a lot of science fiction and fantasy when I was younger, but had fallen out of the habit. I didn't seem to have the attention span for reading anymore. But I picked up Twilight out of curiosity. I was wondering what all the fuss was about. I could not put it down. I didn't stop until I'd read every book, including The Short Second Life of Bree Tanner.
It reignited the reading passion in me, and I haven't looked back since. I've gone on to read many many other things since then, and I credit Twilight for restoring that reading passion.
It's not great literature, nobody every claimed that, but it is good storytelling. It has great relatable characters, and an easy reading style. It keeps your interest until the very end. It is certainly not boring. Reading needs to be more fun! If nothing else, Twilight was fun!
Mike wrote: "I couldn't agree more. I was in my late 40s when I first read Twilight. I had read a lot of science fiction and fantasy when..."For me I'd have to say it re-introduced me to writing. I thoroughly enjoyed the first three books, and the draft of Midnight Sun promised to be far better than Twilight from Bella's point of view. But I hated Breaking Dawn so much I took a stab at re-writing it. So I ought to thank SMeyer. If I didn't hate her story telling in BD, I never would have caught the writing bug.
Did anyone read the anniversary edition rewrite? What were your thoughts on it? I tried, but was unable to finish. I didn't like it at all. The idea of a gender reversal/swap sounds intriguing in theory but I felt like the execution of it left a lot to be desired. Gender swapping has to affect or alter the characters to some degree. SM seems to think that it wouldn't, but I disagree. For example, a teenaged boy is not going to notice and have inner monologue on another boy's "graceful lope". (SM's gender swapping re-write of the first time Bella sees Alice in the school cafeteria.)
Perhaps it says more about me and how I think, but I don't think you can just rewrite the exact same story by having the characters switch genders without changing anything else and have the story still be able to stand and be plausible. I get what she was trying to do and it would have been powerful had she done it right. I just think more thought and effort needs to be put into it. She missed a huge opportunity.
I just picked up a copy the other day but I haven't read it yet. It does sound intriguing, but I do wish she had finished Midnight Sun instead.
Mochaspresso wrote: "Did anyone read the anniversary edition rewrite? What were your thoughts on it? I tried, but was unable to finish. I didn't like it at all. The idea of a gender reversal/swap sounds intriguing in..."
I agree. I read it, but also didn't like it. It takes more than changing the names and a few gender specific actions to make a believable boy or girl character. Regardless of the point she was trying to make, that still should have been the primary concern - writing a good story that flowed well.
Maybe it's because gender stereotypes are too tightly ingrained in me. But some of the mannerisms came across completely wrong when voiced or acted by the opposite gender. Take Emmett, who became Eleanor. She kept all of Emmett's alpha male mannerisms: spoiling for a fight, eager to kill Joss/James, hovering protectively over her skinny boyfriend Royal (gag! I hate that name). And because the character was female it just didn't work for me.
Complete agreement on Beau commenting on Archie's "graceful lope." What boy thinks that way?
Also not sure what purpose swapping every single minor character served. Who cares if Mrs. Cope was a man or a woman? What difference did that make to the story? Even the book store owner in Port Angeles got swapped. What point did that prove?
Rel8tivity wrote: "Also not sure what purpose swapping every single minor character served."Honestly, I think she was just having fun with the whole idea of gender swapping. It seems more like Twilight fanfiction to me than anything else. Can the original author write her own fanfiction? I suppose she can if she wants to.
Mike wrote: "Honestly, I think she was just having fun with the whole idea of gender swapping. It seems more like Twilight fanfiction to me than anything else. Can the original author write her own fanfiction? I suppose she can if she wants to"That's what I thought. Said the same thing in my review of Life & Death.
Can she write fanfic of her own stuff? Sure she can. Who's going to tell her no? :-)
In a way, Midnight Sun was also fanfic: taking the same story but telling it from a different point of view. But what made that effort so much better was she told it in Edward's unique voice. Bringing his thoughts to the story we knew already made it a far richer experience.
By leaving the story (mostly) in what we already identify as Bella's thoughts, but then casting it as coming from a boy, we're left with trying to reconcile the two images. For some things I think absolutely a boy would not think or behave that way. And for some (like me) it just didn't work.
Life and Death would not have captured my imagination the way Twilight did, but I must say I liked Beau way better than Bella. While some of Bella's thoughts didn' belong in a boy's head, some of her behavior made more sense as a guy. And I have to say that the scene where Beau first sees Edyth in the meadow where she sparkles... much improved in the L&D version. L&D is stand alone... it's ending is very different than Twilight. I really enjoyed the audiobook version of L&D for what it was--a free extended gender-swap story. I do wish Meyer hadn't felt the need to swap absolutely everyone... some of it just felt wrong. I do find it interesting that she didn't switch Charlie and Renee.
Jeanie wrote: "I do find it interesting that she didn't switch Charlie and Renee...."She actually explains why in the introduction of Life and Death:
"The biggest exception is Charlie and Renée, who have stayed Charlie and Renée. Here’s the reason for that: Beau was born in 1987. It was a rare thing for a father to get primary custody of a child in those days—even more so when the child was just a baby. Most likely, the mother would have had to be proven unfit in some way. I have a really hard time believing that any judge at that time (or even now) would give a child to a transient, unemployed father over a mother with a steady job and strong ties to her community. Of course, these days if Charlie had fought for Bella, he probably could have taken her from Renée. Thus, the more unlikely scenario is the one that plays out in Twilight. Only the fact that a few decades ago a mother’s rights were considered more important than a father’s rights, as well as the fact that Charlie’s not the vindictive type, made it possible for Renée to raise Bella—and, in this case, now Beau.
I like Twilight because and this will sound a bit stupid but when I read it I was afraid of vampires and didn't know whether Id like it. I liked it because the vampires were good and they protected humans in a way not many do. I found Edward annoying because his head seemed to be stuck in the olden days and he wouldn't change bella because of his stupid beliefs about loosing your soul. The main attraction for me was Jasper Hale, the mysterious and quiet vampire you don't learn much about who used to be evil-ish and then turned good. Since reading Twilight I've started to collect vampire series and I love vampires now! So Twilight helped me overcome that irrational fear.
I relate to Bella in the way I am quiet and don't fit in with many people. I have a few close friends and then the rest are just friends and I don't tell them stuff. Some things I never tell people. Like Bella I don't have a single dress I enjoy wearing and I don't do makeup. On the rare occasion I do have it put on it is by one of my friends.
The thing I liked best about Twilight (just the books) is the family aspect. In the beginning, it's just Bella and a mother who had always required her to be the nurturer and caregiver, and a father who she rarely saw before moving in with him, and who didn't spend a lot of time with her after her arrival.She met the Cullens though, and it's no wonder that she was so drawn to them; she found a mother figure who wanted to nurture HER for a change and a father figure who had serious talks with her and spent time with his family, and sisters to fight with and shop with and all that, and brothers to protect her and get under her skin and embarrass her, and they all loved her. And later, with Jacob, she was torn, because, with him, she could have kids and keep her parents in her life and have the pack.
She didn't have just Edward or Jacob to choose from, she had families to choose as well. And say what you want about the too-convenient ending, there's something to be said for her commitment to family and friends paying off; she got it (almost) all in the end. I love that.
I never liked reading or watching romances, and I was honestly surprised at myself when I loved Twilight. I couldn't put down the series. I read other romances after that just to check whether my taste might have changed, but no, I still don't like romances, but yet I enjoyed twilight!!It isn't because of Edward Cullen, no, I never fantasized about him, and I found Edward crazy girls irritating. I had come to like all the characters in the book equally, as I progressed through the series and I could watch different layers in every character. The major reason why I liked twilight was because of the DIALOGUES, clean and simple! And probably, the old fashioned innocence in the midst of dystopian genres.
Coming to what I liked about characters, I liked their flaws. Take Bella for example. She is criticized for being Edward crazy, but honestly, all the characters, are unrealistically crazy about each other, so are Edward and Jacob about Bella.
I liked the way Bella always stood up to her beliefs and decisions, like her belief about Edward being supernatural when she first discovered it, her choice to remain friends with Jacob even when Edward didn't want her to. I liked the way she took responsibility of mentoring her childish mother or cooking for her father. Bella is not perfect, but she is caring and always accepts responsibility for her mistakes. I liked the way she put the first interests of the people she loved first, and was willing to make sacrifices for her family in several instances of the story. I liked her in new moon the way she forced herself to block past memories, and go back to school for her parent's sake, after receiving the hardest blow of her life. Though she messed up by entertaining "fantasies" about Edward, I liked her strong decision in chapter 17 of New moon when she realizes the consequences of what she did, and the feelings Jacob had for her She decides to tell Jacob the truth about hearing Edward's voice so he REALIZES the extent to which she was broken and take his help to move on. If she actually got to do it, it would have been a brave thing to do.
I like other characters too, they all mess up despite having their best interests at heart, but later make up for it the way they can. The characters are so much more humane. I liked the complexity of the relationship between Edward and Jacob, Bella and Jacob, charlie and Bella, etc.. and I especially loved the DIALOGUES, DIALOGUES between them!!
I like the way this thread is talking objectively about Twilight, not the typical everybody has to bully and hate Justin Bieber style!! Everyone need not love/hate twilight and we need to respect each other's views, just the way we don't criticize someone for liking blue or black. I know a lot of girls who claim that they don't like twiight while they do, just because they are scared of prejudice. While twilight and everything else we criticize online, does have flaws, it is important to criticize constructively and not troll, because if choose to be rude just because we are scared of being in the minority, we are no better than online trolls. And nobody, twilight haters or lovers, Justin Bieber haters or lovers, 1D haters or lovers, and Justin Bieber, Stephenie Meyer and other people, deserve that kind of treatment.
So sadly, I didn't bother reading thru everyone's comments. I'm on my lunch break and have a limited amount of time. I do have fond memories of this book. I enjoyed this book like I enjoy most romance novels - that is to say, its over the top when it comes to relationships and reality. The part that disturbs me, and I've seen many people say this/parrot this is that Bella is anti-feminist and she whines a lot. Both counts I say, how many anti-feminists do you know that aren't girly, don't like girly things, and don't want to get married? And name one person Bella whines to out loud.
Heidi wrote: "So sadly, I didn't bother reading thru everyone's comments. I'm on my lunch break and have a limited amount of time. I do have fond memories of this book. I enjoyed this book like I enjoy most roma..."Her whining was never an issue for me because she's a teenaged girl. If there wasn't whining I'd be worried. And when she does whine out loud it's usually justified because she said she didn't want to go to prom; she said she didn't want a party; she said she didn't want any money spent on her and yet she is continually ignored. That's usually where the Cullen's tended to piss me off because they rarely actually listen to her requests and unfortunately Bella never does anything to reprimand them for it so it continually happens.
Where she really started to irk me was her complete and utter dependence on Edward and briefly Jacob. Her life didn't exist without Edward which I found not only troublesome, but should have some actual consequences because the issue is not that she has this flaw, it's that it's never addressed except briefly by Charlie and it's kind of a throwaway piece of dialogue that gets disregarded by the end because she doesn't spend more time with her other friends (I know she spent time with Angela but that was just once and then it's never brought up again).
But here's the the thing she technically not anti-feminist; she just goes against everything that woman have fought for by letting the man in her life decide everything for her. That of course is her choice, but when everything in you believes that woman should be independent and not have to need a man, but just want him; Bella comes off as someone who is against that. (Which I'm well aware she's not) She just anti-independent woman which is not the equivalent of anti-feminist, but still doesn't sit well with many people myself included.
Saying what you want and do not want does not constitute as whining. I never saw Bella as dependent at all either. Obsessed? Absolutely. When I was in HS I was obsessed about one boy or another. I view Bella akin to Lois Lane. By that I mean, Bella is surrounded by mutants/super heros. And the people around her can do amazing things. All she's got is her brain.
Heidi wrote: "Saying what you want and do not want does not constitute as whining."You're absolutely right, but I wasn't talking about when she stated what she did and did not want out loud; I was talking about the subsequent whines that came after her requests were ignored like when she was whining about having a new car or alice throwing her a party or when she has a literal fit in the car when she realizes Edward's taking her to prom. That's whining, but justified because it was established way before that she wouldn't enjoy these things and yet here she is being ignored.
I never saw Bella as dependent at all either.
Let's start with New Moon when she literally can't function without Edward or his hallucination; and when she couldn't have either the only way for her to function even a little was to be around Jacob. When all three of those things aren't around she has nothing to preoccupy her mind because she's built her entire lifeand even future around these people. That's dependence; the state of relying or being controlled by someone or something elses. She relies on them to essentially exist because there's nothing else in her small littleworld that matters.
Then move on to Eclipse where she literally has Edward make most of her decisions. She let's him keep her away from Jacob by dismantling her car, having his sister kidnap her, making her go to Florida before she wants to and she complies to this not out of compromise, but defeat because to her the only thing worse than his behavior is him leaving her. And she never reprimands him making him think it's okay to keep doing. She has to sneak away when he's not around for him to pull in the reigns a little bit, but even then he treats her like a child escorting her. That's letting someone control you're life. And it's dependence because she wouldn't know what to do if he left.
The only time I see any of that independence that she claims to have is at the begining of Twilight when there is no Edwardand at the end of Breaking Dawn and even that's kind of iffy because I'm pretty sure if Edward left she'd still have the same mental break down she had in New Moon.
Lois Lane may have needed protecting from time to time, but she never gave the impression that her entire world would cease to exist without Superman; where Bella can barely go a day without seeing Edward without making it seem like her world was ending.
On topic of the originally question, I would say the good things about Twilight would be the minor characters. They're given more character development, interesting backgrounds and personality than her main three. Her minor characters could carry the book better than Bella, only disadvantage being they couldn't be a self-inserts. Like Leah her story, although tragic, is one that could carry the book because she has a strong and definitive personality to back it up. Plus I would much rather hear about how she overcomes most of her anger (I know she had a lot, but I imagine it took a lot of self-control not to rip the second half of Emily's face imprint or not) than Bella's battle with being human which is something she never quite accepts.
KarmaSc0rpi0n wrote: "On topic of the originally question, I would say the good things about Twilight would be the minor characters. They're given more character development, interesting backgrounds and personality than..."I loved Bella and Edward, but I have to admit my favorite character in the whole series is Alice. I really wish we had learned more about her, and her life. I would love to read an entire series just about Alice and Jasper.
KarmaSc0rpi0n wrote: "Let's start with New Moon when she literally can't function without Edward or his hallucination; and when she couldn't have either the only way for her to function even a little was to be around Jacob. ..."I agree that Bella was dependent, too dependent on Edward and Jacob, but it never bothered me. They were supernatural creatures. She was surrounded by beings far more powerful than herself. She was still a very young girl, a virgin even, and this all had to be overwhelming to her. I don't blame her for becoming dependent on them.
Although, I was not a fan of the way she practically crumbled when Edward left her in New Moon. I just wanted to slap her and tell her to get over it. But I still kind of understood it. She was young, and she felt like Edward was her whole life, and now he was gone. But more than he was gone. Also gone were her friends, the Cullens, especially Alice. Gone was her dream of becoming a vampire like them. She was practically suicidal with grief.
Bella was a strong character, but she was not perfect. But again, that's okay to me. Nobody is perfect. I liked that she had her faults. It made her more "human" to me.
Mike wrote: "KarmaSc0rpi0n wrote: "Let's start with New Moon when she literally can't function without Edward or his hallucination; and when she couldn't have either the only way for her to function even a litt..."For me it wasn't really an issue that she had these traits, it's that there were no actual consequences for them instead it's seen as this ultimate sign of love instead of what it actually is, obsession. Realistically speaking this behavior should have lead somewhere really unhealthy, not happily ever after. Flaws are perfectly fine in a character, but her flaws are romanticized and never never taken for what they are by anyone in the book and if they do it's from a character that's supposed to be disliked diminishing the message severely because you're supposed to view them as jaded. Bella being codependent is a good plot point, but only if realistic consequences come of it.
KarmaSc0rpi0n wrote: "For me it wasn't really an issue that she had these traits, it's that there were no actual consequences for them instead it's seen as this ultimate sign of love instead of what it actually is, obsession."But there were consequences. She practically lost her mind for months, and then she almost killed herself jumping off that cliff. Not to mention that she nearly died giving birth to Renesmee. What kind of consequences do you think there should have been? Sure it all had a happy ending, but that's what we expect in our fantasies. Did you want her to end up insane and destroyed because of her obsessions?
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Twilight (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
Fire Light (other topics)Twilight (other topics)
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 chara..."
I don't think you'd want a boyfriend as possessive and stalkerish as him...