Twilight (The Twilight Saga, #1) Twilight discussion


112 views
Answer to the question: "if you hate it so much, why do you waste so much time on it?"

Comments Showing 1-39 of 39 (39 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by [deleted user] (last edited Dec 27, 2012 08:06AM) (new)

I know you're thinking "but I'm talking about the people who constantly bash Twilight again and again" but the truth is that I've seen this question asked to perfectly respectful people too.

Like my other discussion thread of "The old question of "if you didn't like it, why did you keep reading it?" I'd like to provide my own answer for this question.

Why do we spend so much time on books we dislike? The thing is that sometimes people can't distinguish between two things: actually reading the book, and discussing the book. There is a clear distinction between the two that gets blurred a lot.

True, reading the book was absolute torture. Discussing the book is not. Which is why it doesn't make sense to me when people act like it's "weird" or "crazy" or something for people to go on discussion threads of books they don't like. It makes perfect sense to me. Discussion is interesting. It generates disagreement, debate, and most of all entertainment. Disliking the book is totally irrelevant and does not factor in, at all, to whether the discussion is interesting or not. It doesn't make sense to me that someone would think we're purposely trying to bore ourselves to death by going onto forums of books we don't like, or "wasting" our time. (And to add to that--thinking critically about books is NEVER EVER EVER a waste of time. It never was, never is and never will be as long as literature lasts.)

Just because we don't like it, doesn't mean we're being abnormally weird and crazy for discussing it. I think it's wrong for people to question why someone is exercising their perfect right not only to have an opinion, but to share that opinion. Because again: they have a right to have an opinion, whether it's negative or positive, and they have a right to share it. Questioning that right, or suggesting that it doesn't make sense for them to share their opinion, is ridiculous IMO. And yes, I can understand this if it's directed at an Internet troll, but once again, I've seen it happen to people who are respectful with their opinion as well.

What do you think? If you're one of those people who make a choice to go on forums of books you dislike, what are your own personal reasons?


Jeni When I comment on something, even to say I disliked it, I'm not trying to insinuate that everyone should think as I do. I try to be thoughtful, descriptive, and logical in my discussion about why I don't care for a story or its execution.

Additionally, even though there are many folks who dislike the Twilight series (for example), there are just as many rabid fans who, even when logical and pleasant, disregard opinions to the contrary. In fact, it seems that I see many fans being more confrontational than those who dislike a story.

I can dislike something that you like. It doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong. It doesn't mean you're right and I'm wrong. I means I didn't like it and you did. End of story.

Conversations that are constructive and well-thought-out debates are fascinating to me. I have taken second looks at stories that initially I didn't care for just because someone presented a respectful, insightful perspective about them.

If people are discussing something respectfully, it can be a great exchange of ideas.


message 3: by Nichola (last edited Dec 26, 2012 11:43AM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Nichola If I disliked a book, I will go onto the forums to discuss what I disliked about it and to hear other people's opinions on the matter. In the past this has helped me to see things in a different light and the book has not been so intolerable. There are also books where you loved some parts but didn't so much like other parts. I thought half the fun of a book was discussing it afterwards.

I honestly don't think disliking a book and voicing that opinion is what people get frustrated with, i think it's when they ask a question and people respond with an answer to a completely different question or they rake over old coals again and again. I onced asked what people would like to see if Meyer ever did write a sequel to her book The Host and admit I got a little frustrated when some people wrote back at length to tell me why they didn't want a sequel. Firtstly, it wasn't quite the answer to the question I asked which left me feeling frustrated because the subject had been taken off topic and secondly the subject of wanting a sequel or not was thoroughly covered in another thread. Granted, I didn't throw a fit about it I responded to the people going off topic and asked them the question again pointing out the difference and most people obliged in answering the original question.

I have responded to questions on several books before now, explaining why I didn't like something and some people got pretty angry about it, other times, as long as you're respectful in your discussion they seem to take it well.

Funnily, I believe I follow Jeni's reviews and, on a lot of things we have disagreed, other things we have agreed. We have even discussed books before now and I think it was a book we disagreed on which prompted me to follow her because I liked her ability to separate a discussion from an argument and I liked her ability to accept that we don't all like the same things and a disagreement doesn't have to equate to a personal attack from either side. It makes for way more interesting discussions on goodreads. (Sorry if you're the wrong Jeni, I'm terrible with names)

In short, it's a public forum and nobody can stop you from posting on any thread, but, basic good manners can go a long way with a lot of people when either receiving a reply to a question or responding to a question. For people who are supposed to be well read I'm amazed at how angry SOME GR members get and also their inability to discuss rather than argue.


Jeni It IS me!! Whee! :) I find I learn more from discussion. When people begin to argue, the discussion has ended and I'm often sorry to see it dissolve into name-calling and judgment.

The fun part (for me) of talking over stories is seeing viewpoints of other people who have different life experiences than I. Being in my mid-cough-forties has no bearing on what my life experience may be. Kids often have more rich and variant lives these days than I ever will.

Too often, my own dislike for a characterization is just because I don't like people who behave in that manner. Seeing other people's viewpoints makes me stop and re-think the story and the characters within.


message 5: by [deleted user] (new)

Jeni wrote: "The fun part (for me) of talking over stories is seeing viewpoints of other people who have different life experiences than I."

Yep! I agree!


Nichola Jeni wrote: "It IS me!! Whee! :) I find I learn more from discussion. When people begin to argue, the discussion has ended and I'm often sorry to see it dissolve into name-calling and judgment.

The fun part ..."


And this is why I follow Jeni's reviews :)


Siobhan I agree with you Nichola, sometimes the poorest books have the biggest discussion points for me. Because then you can look into themes or canon in relation to a book and almost trace the author's path to their story. Like, Meyer did research Forks, and the Quiluetes (it's been a while since I read, that is the correct spelling, isn't it? Apologies if not) and it's interesting for me since I know very little of Indigenous Americans to learn something about a group other than Cherokee.

Also, a perfectly written book doesn't call for debate on grammar, syntax, cultural differences. I have learned so much just from discussions that may validate writing that before I would have dismissed as poor.

Also, everyone has very different tastes. I love House of Night and the Fallen series, but both books are bashed heavily on these forums (I join in with the HoN ones, because there are things that do bug me in the series), but likewise I've never enjoyed a Stephen King novel and rarely meet anyone who feels the same.

I think sometimes, people take the criticism personally. That because you're not a fan you obviously don't understand that fan and therefore you couldn't be friends. Or maybe they identify with the character you can't stand for one reason but take it personally when you specify your reasoning (like, the people who love Bella because she is committed to her boyfriend, who then dislike when someone says Bella is immature, or a cheater. That must mean you think they, also, are cheaters by proxy).

And I like what you said too, Jeni. Life experience is a big part of what you take from novels, or even what you put into them, and it's the reader's story that matters as much as the writer's one.


message 8: by Jeni (last edited Dec 26, 2012 12:49PM) (new) - rated it 2 stars

Jeni Since this question is linked to a Twilight book, I'll use it as an example. I didn't hate the story. So many different choices that could have been made by SM would have made me love the story. The top three things that would have made me love it: Third person narrative; a different relationship balance between Bella and Edward; following through on threats--the Volturi wimped out. All my opinions. (Throw in better editing, healthier relationships, and good motivations for love, and I'd be a huge fangurl!) Discussing these options is interesting to me, as a reader and as a writer.

It's interesting you mention Stephen King, Siobhan, because he is one of my favorite writers! To be fair, I don't like all his books, but I love his writing style. It syncs with my brain pretty well and leaves me feeling content in a story well-told. Granted, his mind is a scary place, sometimes, but mine must be, as well. I really like his works.

To like something others don't merely justifies the millions of books and authors being published, in my opinion. There should be something for everyone out there!

An intelligent conversation that is respectful and logical leaves me feeling happy and enlightened. I like that very much.


Mochaspresso I doubt that anyone has a problem with open discussions and the sharing of opposing ideas. I certainly don't. I just don't understand the more trollish behaviors.

(btw, I am not trying to insinuate that you are one of the trolls. This was really just a general comment to the question that you posed.)

I don't typically frequent the forums of the books that I don't like. The only time I would consider doing so is if I thought there was something that I possibly missed that a fan might help me to see more clearly. An example might be reading the Wuthering Heights forums to find out why some see Heathcliff as a romantic hero. (I didn't agree with any of the reasonings provided....but I was interested in hearing those povs.)

What would make me a troll is if I repeatedly went back to that forum to constantly convince WH fans that the Bronte sisters were horrible writers (I don't really think that, I just didn't like their books) and that Heathcliff devolved into a disgusting wretch and that WH had no redeemable characters in it at all (this, I really do believe) and is unworthy of the classic title that has been bestowed up it (It's worthy, I just didn't like it). Then go on to rant about how all "Wuthering Heightards" are morons. (I don't think they are morons. They just have warped tastes :P)

I fully realize that this goes both ways....but I do honestly think that it is often Twilight critics who tend to display the worst and most offensive behaviors in the Twilight forums.


Siobhan I have a feeling I know who you're talking about with regards to trolling.

IDK though, for me, Twilight has given me a lot of things to think about to ask about, to discuss. Why not go to the people who understand those reasons better than me? Besides, I always wonder if I'm a little unfair to the books, it's hard to be subjective when you've read the books not long after life hands you experiences that counteract the canon. I guess I wonder more what I would think if my circumstances had been different.

I'm glad you said what you did about the Bronte's though. They're so dreary and have no redeeming characteristics in any of their characters. At least, Rochester comes close to something redeeming with the crazy ex-wife, but even then his resentment cancels it out.

As for Stephen King ... it's not even the content, the grpahic descriptions that put me off. When I was 14 I read this book called 'Forbidden love' (some crazy stuff in that) and he wrote the first story. In which someone had their intestines spilling out but they were chasing someone down the street intent on killing them. That was implausible to me. Or 'The Game', where the man is rotting on the floor and his wife is dying of dehydration ... after a few hours of being trapped in the room. The time frame did it for me, even in searing heat, that's not possible. I do like the Shining though, so silver lining ;)


message 11: by [deleted user] (last edited Dec 26, 2012 01:39PM) (new)

Mocha Spresso wrote: "I doubt that anyone has a problem with open discussions and the sharing of opposing ideas.

Uh. Well I've met a lot of people who DO seem to have a problem with it, and the only thing they seem to want is for everyone to come to the forum only to gush about the book. I won't make specific references because that would be rude and immature...(not talking about you, of course!) but there are actually a LOT of people I've stumbled upon who seem to feel threatened by opposing ideas, or are really tired of it and feel that people should stop it.

Then go on to rant about how all "Wuthering Heightards" are morons. (I don't think they are morons. They just have warped tastes :P)

Haha! Yeah. I mean, I respect everyone's opinion but it's really hard not to be a bit "er...why the fuck do you like that shit?" (That's just what I think in my head; I would never address that to anyone.)

I fully realize that this goes both ways....but I do honestly think that it is often Twilight critics who tend to display the worst and most offensive behaviors in the Twilight forums.

Yeah. I guess. Still, this doesn't just happen with Twilight (which, unlike many other books, has just a large group of "dislikers" as "fans") but also with other books. For example, there's a book called The Wise Man's Fear by Patrick Rothfuss that is hugely popular and does not have a large group of "dislikers." One of my GR friends (wait, two actually) wrote negative reviews on it, and they were overrun with trolls personally attacking them, calling them idiots and the like. AND, of course, the usual question, "if you hated it so much, why do you spend so much time hating it?" So as you can see, this doesn't only happen with Twilight...it happens with books in general, which was the point I was making in the OP. A lot of the time this question seems to insinuate that people should shut up and not share their opinion on a book if it's a negative one.


Nichola Just to add a point which i think I forgot, there have been times where I hated the beginning of the book, See The Host, yet it turned out to be one of my favourite books. On the flip side of the coin, I have persevered because I didn't think any book could be that horrific, see The Historian and Life of Pi, I got to the end and shook my head at how bad the book was to me, yet others seem to love it and the attraction to the discussion is literally intrigue into what people saw in the book.


Siobhan The Host felt a lot like Twilight for me, just a different supernatural being and a better explanation for the attitude Wanda/Bella has towards life. It's harder to dispute alien canon, which makes it easier to digest. It flowed better with that.

I loved Life of Pi. It felt slow moving at first, my concentration wandered with all the statistics at the beginning but I knew they'd have a place in the story. The whole thing for me was beautifully written, it stuck in my mind and has made me rethink the way I approach faith (but it hasn't changed the way I approach faith).


Nichola See what I mean, life of Pi meant something to you and I love to hear those opinions. It was years ago that I read it but it left such an impression that it's currently on my over rated drivel shelf.

As for Wanda, the explanation for her attitude was much better but at least the attitude of wanda was consistant whereas Bella, in my opinion is a walking contradiction passing off infatuation as love (which is one of my pet hates.)


Siobhan And where Wanda changed, she could cite the influence of Melanie, which made so much sense for the strength of character in Melanie. If Melanie wasn't there, I wouldn't have enjoyed that book half as much.

I like the idea of an overrated drivel shelf. I have a few strong contenders for one of those.


message 16: by Gerd (new) - rated it 4 stars

Gerd Siobhan wrote: "Like, Meyer did research Forks, and the Quiluetes (it's been a while since I read, that is the correct spelling, isn't it? Apologies if not) and it's interesting for me since I know very little of Indigenous Americans to learn something about a group other than Cherokee."

Funny you mention that, I remember a discussion in which one girl/woman (sorry don't know her age) accused Meyer of being a racist white (oh, the irony) B* for misrepresenting Quileute Folklore (Religion?).

Not to derail this thread, it's just something that amused me back then. Unfortunately, other than the criticisms of the (felt) lack of feminism in twilight or the icky issue of imprinting I never really understood where she came from, or why she seemed to take this as some kind of personal insult... but then again, you could discuss things like Religion and Cultural Identity all night long with me I probably wouldn't get your point. Mea culpa, no doubt.

But yeah, it's often more productive to hear opinions contrary to your own, and it certainly makes for more interesting discussions - long as people keep it civil.


Nuran Why do I keep reading a book I dislike?

• I like to make make a proper judgement on the book. I don't make review until it is finished, just in case it has any redeeming qualities.

• I like to have discussion on the books I read, whether good or bad, which would be hard to do if you only read a few pages

• I liken a bad book to a car crash, sometimes you want to look but at the same time you don't

• Curiousity

• Had to read books I didn't like at school and read them properly if I wanted good grades, learnt to power through them, a habit I haven't lost

• It's almost a compulsion to finish anything I started, whether that be games, book or my other hobby, painting. I just don't like giving up.

• If I paid for the book, then I feel lIke I have to make the most out of it

I know some people wonder why people keep revisiting a thread of a book they hate, but for me it is because it is the most active. I visit other threads but the activity is so slow I'll just end up talking to myself if I keep visiting. Twilight has some of the most passionate fans and good debaters against so discussions are interesting and can last a while. Though, there is a difference between the passionate fans who can argue their side really well (taking passage/quotes, building a proper defense using the book) and those that are crazy and obnoxious who'll resort to attacking people directly (calling names/ implying people who dislike the book are not entitled to an opinion, etc). Though, there dislikers who resort to bashing people directly and naming calling too.


Jordan I love Twilight, but I still don't get this question. I mean, there are books I don't like but I keep reading because I am hoping they will get better. People who say this need to put themselves in the haters shoes, and think "Would I keep going?"


Siobhan Nuran wrote: "Why do I keep reading a book I dislike?

• I like to make make a proper judgement on the book. I don't make review until it is finished, just in case it has any redeeming qualities.

• I like to h..."


Like Churchill said 'Never, ever, ever give up.' Damn straight.


message 20: by [deleted user] (last edited Dec 26, 2012 04:45PM) (new)

Jordan wrote: "I love Twilight, but I still don't get this question. I mean, there are books I don't like but I keep reading because I am hoping they will get better. People who say this need to put themselves in..."

That's the thing, though. When people *do* put "themselves in the hater's shoes" they can't comprehend why people would keep going. Still, at annoys me horribly when people act as though continuing with a book you don't like makes you crazy or weird.

The truth for a lot of people is that discussion (this is pertaining to the OP) is interesting, regardless of our opinions on the book. I hate, hate, hate it when people ask "why waste your time? Why are you wasting all your energy and brainpower on something you dislike?" Thinking critically about literature is never, ever, ever a waste of time and it really gets on my nerves when people on a site devoted to book lovers act like it is. But I agree...people SHOULD ask themselves why someone might keep going, even if it doesn't quite agree with the choices they make.


Jordan Jocelyn wrote: "Jordan wrote: "I love Twilight, but I still don't get this question. I mean, there are books I don't like but I keep reading because I am hoping they will get better. People who say this need to pu..."

True, and no matter what your reading, you never waste your time. And yeah, I guess some people don't get it, but when I put myself in your position, I get why you continue. I hate giving up on stories! When I do it just nags me and I end up going back to it anyway.


message 22: by Nyaore (last edited Dec 26, 2012 06:24PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Nyaore Personally, I've learned far more about the craft of writing while discussing books that I hated - as opposed tobooks that I liked and/or felt were well written. For better or worse, discussions surrounding Twilight have given me a new appreciation for the work good authors put into their stories - and show just how much good research can make or break a novel. Don't get me wrong, I think Twilight is poorly written and I dislike all but a handful of characters. However it's in discussing WHY it's poorly written, and even what it did right, that I've been able to grow as a critic, a reader, and as a writer. (Though my inner fanfic junkie weeps over this development, because I'm now horrendously picky about the quality of what I read. With a few rather blatant exceptions for guilty pleasures.)
That's why I keep on coming back to discuss this series, even though some might believe that I should have long since moved on. The discussions held between sensible fans and detractors are worth more than their weight in gold to me, because I almost always learn something new.


message 23: by [deleted user] (new)

Nyaore wrote: "Personally, I've learned far more about the craft of writing while discussing books that I hated - as opposed tobooks that I liked and/or felt were well written. For better or worse, discussions su..."

Lol! I can totally relate. I feel like I"ve grown as a reader by discussing what I considered to be badly-written books, and I think it's always a good thing to improve.


message 24: by Nyaore (last edited Dec 26, 2012 07:53PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Nyaore Jocelyn wrote: "Lol! I can totally relate. I feel like I"ve grown as a reader by discussing what I considered to be badly-written books, and I think it's always a good thing to improve. "

Agreed! The only downside is that now I have less tolerance for sub-par writing. I can't tell you how many times I've remembered reading what I thought was a good story when I was younger, only to go back and just wonder what sort of hallucinogenic drug I must have been on to think that way.
Sometimes I wish I wasn't so picky now. My older inner reader is like 'LET ME LOVE THESE BAD BOOKS IN PEACE! KTHNXBAI!' and my new inner reader is like 'PFFT, YEAH NO - GO BACK TO YOUR CORNER'. Rather annoying. xD


message 25: by [deleted user] (new)

Nyaore wrote: "Agreed! The only downside is that now I have less tolerance for sub-par writing. I can't tell you how many times I've remembered reading what I thought was a good story when I was younger, only to go back and just wonder what sort of hallucinogenic drug I must have been on to think that way. xD
Sometimes I wish I wasn't so picky now. My older inner reader is like 'LET ME LOVE THESE BAD BOOKS IN PEACE! KTHNXBAI!' and my new inner reader is like 'PFFT, YEAH NO'. Rather annoying. :P"


I KNOW! I'm just thinking to myself, "If I weren't so picky I would be LOVING this..." but the other part of me is like, "don't be an idiot--thinking critically about books is AMAZING!" Still, it's not like I "regret" having become a "better" reader or anything.


message 26: by Olivia (new)

Olivia Jocelyn wrote: "Nyaore wrote: "Agreed! The only downside is that now I have less tolerance for sub-par writing. I can't tell you how many times I've remembered reading what I thought was a good story when I was yo..."

humm


message 27: by Olivia (new)

Olivia :)


Carina I agree with all previous posters! Actually being on these threads and hearing some fan opinions has made me want to re-read this series. I don't expect my opinion to magically change (I have yet to see a convincing argument that imprinting isn't gross) but I think re-reading it and recalling what certain people have said on here might temper the opinion which I reform.

I also totally agree that the Twilight threads are the most active on the site - they are always at the top of my feed so it is natural that I post on them a bit more than on other book threads. That, and the issue that on the other popular ones (HP in particular) the threads which are active tend to be word games and the like - which is fun but not really conducive to discussions!


message 29: by [deleted user] (new)

Yeah, I find Twilight threads to be more interesting than virtually any other book thread. I feel like I've learned a lot by participating in them. It's fantastic.


Nyaore Jocelyn wrote: "Nyaore wrote: "Agreed! The only downside is that now I have less tolerance for sub-par writing. I can't tell you how many times I've remembered reading what I thought was a good story when I was yo..."

Nor I. I'd much rather be a "better" reader than slog through series without giving any thought to what I just read. It's just somewhat frustrating sometimes when I really want to like something, but my mind refuses to see past the flaws is all.


Siobhan As much as I love we'll written books, I still think there's a time and place for some sub-par books. When I've read a book that has blown my mind, I either want to give my brain a rest, or continue to test it. I like to have the options ;)


message 32: by Olivia (new)

Olivia Siobhan wrote: "As much as I love we'll written books, I still think there's a time and place for some sub-par books. When I've read a book that has blown my mind, I either want to give my brain a rest, or continu..."

good point.


message 33: by Olivia (new)

Olivia i wonder if anyone stil like to read them or not?


message 34: by Jeni (new) - rated it 2 stars

Jeni Here's a non-gross opinion on imprinting:

If you hatch a baby chick from an egg, it will imprint on you as its mother and follow you around. You will care for it and nurture it and feed it and name it and it will be your squishy.

Not gross. Kinda cute in a fuzzy yellow chick way. You will not want to have relations with that chicken, nor will you be grooming it for future matrimony.

Okay, it's over the top, admittedly, but it's a true representation of imprinting. And fuzzy yellow chicks!


Nichola Jeni wrote: "Here's a non-gross opinion on imprinting:

If you hatch a baby chick from an egg, it will imprint on you as its mother and follow you around. You will care for it and nurture it and feed it and na..."


lol, I'm guessing you have pets :) I tried to explain this once before, I hope you have better luck.


message 36: by Jeni (new) - rated it 2 stars

Jeni Guilty on the pets. One dog, one cat, and four budgies.

Three of my budgies have imprinted on the big bad Bert. Two of them are female and one male. So far, he's not been indecent in his intentions.

For Bert, it's more like "The millet here is mine. You may have some after I have my fill. Human! Do not take away millet until all have been satisfied!" The other budgies love the fact that Bert lets them have some but no nests have been made, yet.

:)


message 37: by Gerd (new) - rated it 4 stars

Gerd Jeni wrote: "If you hatch a baby chick from an egg, it will imprint on you as its mother and follow you around."

Ah, yeah, but the hitch is that
a.) the chick imprints on us and not vice versa as in twilight
b.) we talk a cross species occurence there, which technically in the Meyer verse is not the case. :)

Also, if the chick would imprint on, say, another (male) chicken and that male would raise it like a daughter chicken and then later want to make egg's with it... wouldn't that become gross as well?


message 38: by Jeni (last edited Dec 29, 2012 07:41AM) (new) - rated it 2 stars

Jeni Good points, Gerd. Woody Allen and his step-daughter/lover would disagree, but yes, I can agree it's kinda squicky. :D

The problem is that imprinting works the same way, no matter who imprints. In Meyer's universe, she takes pains to explain that imprinting is not sexual. Jacob is not imprinting on a baby because he is attracted sexually. He is connecting to a soul that he wants to protect. There is no guarantee there will ever be a romance. It's not even a consideration in the imprinting process. It's a desire to protect that person and ensure their happiness.

Also, technically, when dealing with supernatural beings, I (personally) feel like it's the same as cross-species imprinting. You hear about tigers adopting baby piglets or baby hippos and baby llamas being best friends and nobody seems to think it's disgusting. It's the same process, though.

The reason there are so many issues with the imprinting aspect in her books, in my humble opinion, is that she doesn't go to great lengths to explain how imprinting truly works. She gives one example and that example is of two adults who are romantically accepting of one another. This is the only parallel we are given so the assumption is going to be made that this is romantic on Jacob's part.

My issue with the whole imprinting thing, as presented by SM, is that it feels like she heard about something that occurs in nature, Googled it, then threw it into the story without much thought on structure or outcome.

With a tiny bit of forethought, all this would be cleared up easily if she had given some other examples of imprinting that didn't involve love and romance. If she truly wanted Jacob to imprint on Renesmee for romantic reasons, she could have waited until she was grown and eliminated all the questions, or explained in-depth that romance can sometimes grow out of that connection.

Sorry for the ramble, but I'll leave one more imprinting example to consider: when my children were placed into my arms after they were born, I was filled with the overwhelming desire to protect them, love them unconditionally, and provide every happiness to them. You could say I imprinted on them, too.


Nichola Jeni wrote: "Guilty on the pets. One dog, one cat, and four budgies.

Three of my budgies have imprinted on the big bad Bert. Two of them are female and one male. So far, he's not been indecent in his inten..."


10 parrots (rescues), 3 guinea pigs (1 rescued), 2 dogs (rescued) and a chemeleon. No partridges yet though :p

I could almost weep from joy that it not just me thinking that Meyer either didn't fully understand imprinting or, my other theory is that the label was the closest thing she could find to describe the phenomenon that she created for her book.


back to top