Twilight (The Twilight Saga, #1) Twilight discussion


384 views
The old question of "if you didn't like it, why did you keep reading it?"

Comments Showing 1-50 of 112 (112 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1 3

message 1: by [deleted user] (last edited Dec 25, 2012 08:16PM) (new)

Well, since that question gets asked a lot, I'd like to give my own answer.

Answer: Three reasons.

1) because it's my habit to give books a chance, to give the author the benefit of doubt before deciding to put it down. Some authors just suck at beginning their books, but once they have the ball rolling it's totally great. Also, I sometimes think to myself: if I were the author watching this person read, I sure would be disappointed if s/he just put it down after a few pages.

2) because I just have a simple compulsion to read on. Reading is more than a hobby to me; it's a part of my life. It becomes one of those "just do it no matter what" type of thing. You don't sit back and analyze why you do this or that, you just do it. That's what it feels like to me.

3) because really, readers who dislike books are often caught between two questions. If they put the book down too early, they're criticized for "not waiting until it gets better" or "you can't judge the book until you read it." If they finish it, then "why did you keep reading if you hate it so much?" In the end, it's worthless and we make our own choices about what to do.

I do in fact think this question is a pretty stupid one, but I'm not saying that everyone else should think so too--only that I think people have their own personal reasons for making choices about whether they want to continue or not, and criticizing that is nothing more than a pretentious ad hominem attack.

What do you think? If you're one of those people who puts it down early, what are your reasons? If you're one of those people like me who have a natural compulsion to read on no matter what, what are your reasons?


Bencho Totally agree with you. For me I can not say if a certain book is good or bad until I've read it from cover to cover


message 3: by M.R. (new) - rated it 1 star

M.R. Graham There have been some books I've put down and just couldn't bring myself to open again. Twilight wasn't one of those. Terrible though the writing is, flat though the characters are, motionless though the plot may be, it does actually make for very smooth, easy reading. I certainly wasn't champing at the bit to pick it up again, but I didn't dread the thought, either.
Also, the tension kept building and building, first with James, then with Victoria, then with the Volturi and Bella's brush-with-death pregnancy and the sworn enmity between the vampires and the wolf-shifter-things. Every chapter made it seem as though something would finally start happening, maybe on the next page. Then nothing happened.
So yes, I read it hoping it would get better. Besides which, I refuse to criticise anything unless I am familiar enough with the material to do so thoughtfully.


Sarah My reason to keep on is because what you don't read is just as important as what you do.


Cassie I get asked this question all the time about Harry Potter and Jane Eyre whenever I briefly mention not liking them. Honestly, I don't know why anyone bothers asking. Even if it turns out you didn't finish the books because you didn't like them, these same people will probably turn around and say "Well you didn't even give it a chance!" or "You can't properly judge the book if you didn't read the whole thing."
With some people, you have to either like the book, or you have no right to speak.


message 6: by [deleted user] (last edited Dec 25, 2012 08:20PM) (new)

these same people will probably turn around and say "Well you didn't even give it a chance!" or "You can't properly judge the book if you didn't read the whole thing."

Exactly.

And yes, why do people even ask it? It's not as though we can go back in time and un-read the book or something.


message 7: by [deleted user] (new)

M.R.wrote: "Every chapter made it seem as though something would finally start happening, maybe on the next page."

Yep, same here. I was tapping my foot in anticipation, waiting for the (apparently nonexistent) tension to actually build up to something, and it felt a bit like Meyer dragged it out.

Besides which, I refuse to criticise anything unless I am familiar enough with the material to do so thoughtfully.

Yeah. I don't think my opinion is a legitimate one until I've read the entire thing. If I really can't finish it, then I only judge what little I HAVE read (FSoG is one example of this).


Fatima Souane sometimes you get so bored that you'll read anything. not that i hate twilight


Siobhan There have only been two books I have not ever finished, and I read a LOT. It may have taken me over a month to read 50, I may have had to go back to Percy Jackson months after being put off by how it starts, but there is really little that stops me reading to the end (before you ask, it was Great Expectations at school, we were watching the video alongside and my viewing got past the bit I was reading and I hated that book. Also the post-birthday world by Lionel Shriver but I love her so I will be going back to it) - I either want to know I was right about the predictability of a book or else I'm hoping at the last second my mind will be blown.

Neither happened with twilight. I was so indignant with the mechanics at the end that it's given me a strong opinion. Oh, and I read it on remission for a blood problem, I'd had a two week crash course in blood and a month later read that. Meyer couldn't be bothered to research very much at all.


Carina I totally agree with a lot of previous posters. If I start a book I will finish it even if it takes me years (hello re-reads of War and Peace and Bleak House... and first read of Anna Karenina *sigh*).

I can only recall one book that I started but didn't finish - called Dreamworld (and had the worlds most psychedlic cover), I jus could not get past the writing style - but I still own it and every now and then I will pick it back up and have another go.

The other thing, and this applies more to Twilight, is that when I first read the series I would probably have rated it at 3-4 stars, it was as the books went on (and yeah kinda blaming Breaking Dawn) that my opinion got lower and lower. Once I saw the major issue in the last book it made me think back over the others - hence my low ratings. TBH I am planning to re-read the entire "saga" in 2013 purely because so many of the fans say "you just don't understand" so I am kind of hoping re-reading them after the exposure on here will allow me to "understand" - after all my rating cannot get any lower!


message 11: by Olivia (new)

Olivia Carina wrote: "I totally agree with a lot of previous posters. If I start a book I will finish it even if it takes me years (hello re-reads of War and Peace and Bleak House... and first read of Anna Karenina *sig..."

yea maybe


Texann There are very few books I haven't finished and most of them I don't remember I always try to make it through. The one exception to this is now FSoG I can't even begin to say how horrible and I gave up and refuse to give it anymore of a chance. I read 5-6 books at a time (just check my currently reading list). So if one is getting a little tiresome I pick-up one of the others and then come back. (Some is just because I'm reading them on different mediums and don't always have either the book, my kindle, or my computer with me so I have to read which ever one is near.) I didn't have a problem making it through the first and last books of twilight, but I did have trouble getting through the middle ones (I do believe I discovered the sookie stackhouse books then). I found twilight enjoyable if not astounding.


Mochaspresso I can understand the compulsion to keep reading.

What I don't understand is the compulsion to keep bashing.


message 14: by Olivia (new)

Olivia Mocha Spresso wrote: "I can understand the compulsion to keep reading.

What I don't understand is the compulsion to keep bashing."


good q there though..


Carina Mocha Spresso wrote: "I can understand the compulsion to keep reading.

What I don't understand is the compulsion to keep bashing."


The thing is what you might consider 'bashing' others consider a valid discussion point. When I have participated in discussions I wouldn't say that people going "I dislike x,y and z and didn't understand why a, b and c were included" is bashing - to me that is a discussion (especially if you include your reasoning behind it). To me bashing is when you say something like "this is the worst thing to ever be written in the entire history of the world etc etc etc".

Now there are people on here that do the latter but some fans seem to take mere points of discussion as bashing. Now from what people have written it seems that a lot of the discussion points have already been discussed before and they are just tired of it - the issue is this is a still popular book and people may just be reading it - or may just be discovering this site and wanting to discuss it. Any fans are going to have the issue of new people joining in discussions who might have the same queries or questions as previous posters. I appreciate that you enjoy the series (and believe me one of my favourite books is pretty much loathed on this site due to the time it was written and the ending so I do understand when people take a negative view of something you enjoy) but enjoying a book or a series comes hand in hand with people not enjoying a book but who still enjoy civilised discussions about it.


message 16: by Olivia (new)

Olivia Carina wrote: "Mocha Spresso wrote: "I can understand the compulsion to keep reading.

What I don't understand is the compulsion to keep bashing."

The thing is what you might consider 'bashing' others consider..."


good point there.


Mochaspresso Carina wrote: "Mocha Spresso wrote: "I can understand the compulsion to keep reading.

What I don't understand is the compulsion to keep bashing."

The thing is what you might consider 'bashing' others consider..."


I don't think that I confuse valid discussion and bashing. I do understand the distinction between the two. My question is directed specifically at "bashing".

I can understand the desire to read and discuss popular literature. What I don't understand is what drives the need to visit the forum of a book that you clearly don't like and BASH it over and over and over gain. There are people who do this.

I don't consider referring to someone who likes the books as a "twitard" a prime example of a "civil discussion" and that is basically what so many discussions of Twilight seem to devolve into.


Carina Mocha Spresso wrote: I don't think that I confuse valid discussion and bashing. I do understand the distinction between the two. My question is directed specifically at "bashing".

I can understand the desire to read and discuss popular literature. What I don't understand is what drives the need to visit the forum of a book that you clearly don't like and BASH it over and over and over gain. There are people who do this.

I don't consider referring to someone who likes the books as a "twitard" a prime example of a "civil discussion" and that is basically what so many discussions of Twilight seem to devolve into. "


You will note that I do agree with you that there are some people who do 'bash' a book. My point was that there are some who do not seem to see a different between a discussion and 'bashing'. But what can be said for those who come to the forums for the purpose of riling the fans can be said for the fans who rile the critics. To me the term 'hater' is as bad as 'twitard'.

Still, we are meandering away from Jocelyns point into somewhat dangerous territory so perhaps we can agree to drop this conversation.


Mochaspresso Carina wrote: Still, we are meandering away from Jocelyns point into somewhat dangerous territory so perhaps we can agree to drop this conversation

..."


Sure, I can do that. To get back to the original point, I'm in the process of sticking out with a book that I don't like (Wuthering Heights). It's taking months to read because I have to take breaks from it from time to time. I'm sticking it out because I first read it for school when I was much younger and I wanted to see if my impression of it would change now that I am older. (I am finding that it hasn't but I still want to see it through to the very end to be sure.) You can really talk about a book that you haven't read or read it so long ago that you don't truly remember correctly.


Carina Mocha Spresso wrote: "I'm in the process of sticking out with a book that I don't like (Wuthering Heights). It's taking months to read because I have to take breaks from it from time to time. I'm sticking it out because I first read it for school when I was much younger and I wanted to see if my impression of it would change now that I am older. (I am finding that it hasn't but I still want to see it through to the very end to be sure.) You can really talk about a book that you haven't read or read it so long ago that you don't truly remember correctly. "

I managed to read about 5 pages of that book and decided that it wasn't for me at that moment. I plan to try again in 2013 (and if need be every year until I read it!). I do think though that if you can persevere through something you do gain something from the experience. I may have to try re-reading Lord of the Flies as I was forced to read it in school and loathed it (if negative ratings were possible that would definitely get a negative rating!)


message 21: by Olivia (new)

Olivia Carina wrote: "Mocha Spresso wrote: "I'm in the process of sticking out with a book that I don't like (Wuthering Heights). It's taking months to read because I have to take breaks from it from time to time. I'm s..."

ok


message 22: by Olivia (new)

Olivia i wonder how what the diff between 2 diff authors from 2 diff books though..


Siobhan Mocha Spresso wrote: "Carina wrote: Still, we are meandering away from Jocelyns point into somewhat dangerous territory so perhaps we can agree to drop this conversation

..."

Sure, I can do that. To get back to the ..."


I hated Wuthering heights. The brontes have nothing on Austen for me.


Mochaspresso Carina wrote: "Mocha Spresso wrote: "I'm in the process of sticking out with a book that I don't like (Wuthering Heights). It's taking months to read because I have to take breaks from it from time to time. I'm s..."

I liked Lord of the Flies...but I think my impression of it may be affected by the fact that I saw the movies first (the version with Balthazar Getty being the best, imo) and then decided to read the book. While I did enjoy the book, I think Lord of the Flies is one of the few examples where the movie is actually better.


message 25: by [deleted user] (new)

Mocha Spresso wrote: "I can understand the compulsion to keep reading.

What I don't understand is the compulsion to keep bashing."


Unfortunately I've seen people be perfectly respectful about their opinions but still get asked this question, over and over and over.


Siobhan Mocha Spresso wrote: "Carina wrote: "Mocha Spresso wrote: "I'm in the process of sticking out with a book that I don't like (Wuthering Heights). It's taking months to read because I have to take breaks from it from time..."

See, I loved that book. It's one of the few books the class as a whole responded to really well as well (and I went to an all girls school. You wouldn't think 30 girls could be quite so bloodthirsty, right?)


Vanessa Well i think that you definetly cant judge a book by its cover and i try to stick to that:)


message 28: by Gerd (new) - rated it 4 stars

Gerd Jocelyn wrote: "What do you think? If you're one of those people who puts it down early, what are your reasons?"

Life is too long to have to remember books I don't like, especially when there in spite of life's length so many books will go unread that I would have enjoyed reading. :)


message 29: by [deleted user] (new)

Gerd wrote: "Life is too long to have to remember books I don't like, especially when there in spite of life's length so many books will go unread that I would have enjoyed reading. :)"

Lol. I'd say reading bad books help me separate them, so in the long run I'll actually be spending more time on books I like than the ones I don't.


message 30: by Nuran (last edited Dec 26, 2012 05:27PM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Nuran Vanessa wrote: "Well i think that you definetly cant judge a book by its cover and i try to stick to that:)"

Heh, I like that! Very good reason!

Jocelyn wrote: "Lol. I'd say reading bad books help me separate them, so in the long run I'll actually be spending more time on books I like than the ones I don't. "

Reading bad books help, I agree with that! It at least help make good books look even better. I like giving authors chances, but if I read a bad book (sometimes it takes 2 or 4 if you're dumb like me to buy sets of books) to its fullest, I know never to give that author another chance.

Plus, back to the OP, another reason to keep reading, is sometimes, an enjoyable book might have a bad start, it has happened with a few books I end up liking by the end.


Wash your hands. I had to, we drew straws over who was going to do the review and I lost.


message 32: by [deleted user] (new)

Learnin wrote: "I had to, we drew straws over who was going to do the review and I lost."

LOL!!


Wash your hands. Mocha Spresso wrote: "I can understand the compulsion to keep reading.

What I don't understand is the compulsion to keep bashing."


Honestly, this is a book aimed at teenage girls with a dangerous anti-feminist message by any definition. It's like this is the anti-buffy and it gets my heckles up. (I didn't actually go looking for a thread like this it was just first when I was clicking around on discussions)

Anyway, because this is a somewhat negative post I shall leave you with a recommendation for a phenomenal book aimed at YA girls that *does* have a strong likeable heroine :) http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11...


message 34: by Izzy (new) - rated it 3 stars

Izzy Jocelyn wrote: "Well, since that question gets asked a lot, I'd like to give my own answer.

Answer: Three reasons.

1) because it's my habit to give books a chance, to give the author the benefit of doubt before ..."


I agree with what everything has been said. Here's another reason:

If I (or someone else) paid money for it then darn it, I'm going to get my money's worth! I can't get a refund on a book just because I dislike it so I might as well soldier through and read the rest of it.
Over the years, I've received a lot of books for Christmas, my birthday or just as a gift. It's like with most presents, though. If you receive jewellery that you don't like, you wear it a couple of times in front of the person who gave it to you and then you get rid of it.

With the books, you finish reading them just in case your friend asks you if you've read them yet. It's far more polite to say, "I finished reading it but it wasn't quite to my taste." to, "No, I couldn't finish reading it because it was so bad."


message 35: by Naiya (new) - rated it 1 star

Naiya As I've gotten older, my tolerance for mediocre books has gone way down. Used to be, once I picked up a book, I'd power through no matter what - I was committed. I kinda felt I owed the author the chance since he or she put all that effort into writing a book, and well, I ain't no quitter, anyway.

Now, I've come to the position that I don't owe the writer anything - they've made their career choice, and if I like their writing, I'll support it with reading and blogging and buying. If not, no skin of their nose, nor mine.

If an engineer builds me a rickety bridge over the lake, I don't owe him a crossing. I'll just take the one right beside it that looks more like my thing.


message 36: by [deleted user] (new)

I loved this series at first but I think it had to do with all the hype. I went back and reread them and thought about them and just found that there were a lot of things I did not like or truly agree with. In my personal opinion it wasn't good and it didn't deserve the hype. But that's just me.


message 37: by Mochaspresso (last edited Dec 27, 2012 06:52PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Mochaspresso Bella is the anti-buffy? If so, I'm inclined to think that is probably a good thing because I never thought Buffy the Vampire Slayer was exactly the iconic feminist poster girl that people wanted to make her out to be. She wasn't really that much of a role model for young girls either. (FWIW, I liked the original movie but was never a fan of the TV show or the spinoff for Angel. I don't know anything about the comics or any other marketing tools the franchise spawned.)

Buffy was pretty blonde girl who was groomed and styled to show off her pretty blondeness to the fullest. She was a barbie-doll. She could kick ass but she was also a complete mess when it came to her romantic relationships with men (TV Buffy). Btw, speaking of dysfunctional relationships......does anyone remember Buffy's relationship with Spike?


message 38: by Nuran (last edited Dec 27, 2012 05:05PM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Nuran Mocha Spresso wrote: "Bella is the anti-buffy? If so, I'm inclined to think that is probably a good thing because I never thought Buffy the Vampire Slayer was exactly the iconic feminist poster girl that people wanted ..."

I liked Buffy because she was strong and was still allowed to be femmine. She was funny and witty. She may have seen Giles as a father figure but she always made the last decision. She has a mess with relationship because they are not her priorities, she killed Angel to save the world. She tries very hard not to fall in love, she has lustful feelings but she never confused lust and infatuation with love. It takes a lot more then good looks to make her fall in love. She never needed a man to give her meaning.

Buffy suffered depression after her trip to heaven, but she didn't stay locked in her room for months moping. She got on with life.

As for Spike, it was a mistake, she was messed up with depression, plenty of girls went out with a bad boy that wasn't good for them. Buffy didn't let a bad relationship destroy her, she realised it was a mistake and then rectified it. She never let herself suffer the illusion that the bad, no good boy was her soulmate and they were meant for one another. She did use him, but she saw that and admitted it, and once she admitted it, she made a clean break. Bella never admitted that she used Jacob to make herself feel better and she didn't do much to dispell Jacob thinking that he still had a chance.

Of course, Spike getting his soul back changed things. She gave him another chance. Spike got his soul back for her, but Buffy kept things realistic, knowing he might still pose a threat and didn't take it as some great declaration of love. Bella would have ripped her clothes off and thrown herself at him.

Buffy wasn't a strong character just because she had supernatural strength, she was strong because of her personality.


Kati I finish 99% of all books I read, good or bad. I can't help it. I have to know what happens. I kept reading most of the bad books because there was at least one aspect I found interesting. This kept me motivated to finish. Sometimes the bad outweighed the good parts and I didn't finish. For example, The Vampire Huntress Legend Minion (Vampire Huntress Legend, #1) by L.A. Banks series is an interesting concept which kept me interested through 2.5 books. I overlooked the bad writing and annoying characters for 2 books. The 3rd one just got worse so I stopped. On the other hand, if I had stopped reading Dead Witch Walking because I didn't enjoy it much, I would have missed out on an otherwise excellent series. These books just get better.

So I keep reading because all books have the potential to get better.

I would agree that Bella is an anti-buffy, not meant in a negative way. I feel like buffy was a turning point for fictional ladies. Kick ass, independent protagonist who wants a great love but doesn't need one. It's not her goal in life.


Wash your hands. Mocha Spresso wrote: " She was a barbie-doll. (Actually worse, because there is at least a black Barbie.)"

Nuran made a much better reply than I could have done. However, both my inner and outer nerd wishes to tell you that there was the slayer Kendra Young, potential slayers Caridad and Rona, and the original slayer, who were all black.


message 41: by Mochaspresso (last edited Dec 27, 2012 06:17PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Mochaspresso Learnin wrote: "


Mocha Spresso wrote: " She was a barbie-doll. (Actually worse, because there is at least a black Barbie.)"

Nuran made a much better reply than I could have done. However, both my inner and outer n..."


How many seasons/episodes did they appear in compared to how many seasons/episodes the show lasted? I don't think they were featured in that many...grahted, I'm not exactly a fan of the show. I can't say that I watched it faithfully. However, I think I will edit the comments about race out of my original post because while I did think it, it truly wasn't my biggest issue that I had with the show in regards to the feminist tag that it had been given. It was mainly the deliberate pretty girl baby-doll appearance that the girls had. For all this talk of empowerment, I never felt that they represented "real girls" or "real feminism". It was all fake cliched stereotypical feminism. Love isn't important.....at least not until the friend falls for another woman and decides to come out.

I know that I'm not articulating any of this well. I really need to take time to think through this more rather than freewriting my thoughts on it....but I think my real issue with the show was that it had a very deliberate agenda that I didn't buy into.

FWIW, my favorite "badass" right now is Michonne from the Walking Dead.


Nuran Mocha Spresso wrote: "Learnin wrote: "


Mocha Spresso wrote: " She was a barbie-doll. (Actually worse, because there is at least a black Barbie.)"

Nuran made a much better reply than I could have done. However, both ..."


And how many black, heroic characters were there in twilight compared to the rest of the characters. You make it like it's a big deal for Buffy to have so few, but twilight is the same.


message 43: by Olivia (new)

Olivia Nuran wrote: "Mocha Spresso wrote: "Learnin wrote: "


Mocha Spresso wrote: " She was a barbie-doll. (Actually worse, because there is at least a black Barbie.)"

Nuran made a much better reply than I could hav..."

i wonder how buffy would be same or diff from the rest of characters in twi?


message 44: by Olivia (new)

Olivia how does it work between 2 diff stories?


Mochaspresso Nuran wrote: "Mocha Spresso wrote: "Bella is the anti-buffy? If so, I'm inclined to think that is probably a good thing because I never thought Buffy the Vampire Slayer was exactly the iconic feminist poster gi..."

Your reasons for liking it are fine. I won't knock them. I'm just finding it hard to understand why you are so willing to rationalize Buffy's shortcomings while criticizing Bella for the same exact character flaws.


Nuran Peace wrote: "i wonder how buffy would be same or diff from the rest of characters in twi? "

I'm not too clear on what you are asking. Are you asking about how Buffy would react to twilight characters?

If that is it, Buffy would have been wary and cautious. Cullens may have felt threatened by her, worried she might slay a family member. Probably would have been a big fight or came to an uneasy alliance, similar to the alliance between Cullen and the wolves.

Simply, Buffy would have the same attitude as the wolves to vampires. She wouldn't trust them initially.


message 47: by Gerd (new) - rated it 4 stars

Gerd Nuran wrote: "She tries very hard not to fall in love, she has lustful feelings but she never confused lust and infatuation with love."

Would have to kindly disagree, I think in her realtionship with Spike, which was all about lust and no further emotional connection whatsoever, she did make the mistake of fooling herself for sometime into believing that the short lived comfort from her "back from the dead" situation she found in these encounters was something akin to love (given Spike more so).


Nuran Gerd wrote: “Nuran wrote: “She tries very hard not to fall in love, she has lustful feelings but she never confused lust and infatuation with love.”

Would have to kindly disagree, I think in her realtionship w...”


I have to kindly disagree with that too. She tried very hard to stay away from Spike at first, she didn’t want to get involve with him. And yes, Buffy did care about him, they were each others allies, had each other’s back on the field, when she needed his help to save and protect her sister, when he needed her help when he had the chip implanted, so it isn’t hard to grow attachment from that. The attachment came first then the lust. It’s a case of attachment turning into lust, not lust turning into/ being confused with attachement.

She might have cared for spike and used him for sex to try and feel, but she never got confused about whther she loved him or not.

Mocha Spresso wrote: “Nuran wrote: “Mocha Spresso wrote: “Bella is the anti-buffy? If so, I’m inclined to think that is probably a good thing because I never thought Buffy the Vampire Slayer was exactly the iconic femi...”

Buffy messes up, if she doesn’t she’d be a Mary Sue character. She tries to learn and correct her messes. Bella just keeps making mess, after mess, after mess.


message 49: by [deleted user] (new)

Learnin wrote: "Mocha Spresso wrote: "I can understand the compulsion to keep reading.

What I don't understand is the compulsion to keep bashing."

Honestly, this is a book aimed at teenage girls with a dangero..."

Yeah...until Simon came along.


Mochaspresso I think I could make a case for Buffy being a female Gary Stu, but I don't think it really is necessary because I happen to think the Mary Sue criticisms of Bella have some validity to them. I think most characters in fiction tend to be Mary Sues or Gary Stus in some way and that doesn't always have to be a bad thing.


« previous 1 3
back to top