TWILIGHT HATERS discussion

56 views
Randomness > who likes twilight and who hates it

Comments Showing 1-23 of 23 (23 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Luna (new)

Luna | 871 comments well everyone here either likes or hates it, mostly hate but-


I HATE TWILIGHT SO MUCH!
TWILIGHT IS ABOUT A GIRL WITH NO LIF WHO MARRIES A "VAMPIRE" FOR SEX


message 2: by I*rule*all (new)

I*rule*all  (iruleall) | 776 comments Amen to that!


message 3: by [deleted user] (new)

i... hate... twilight...
*goes back to reading the vampire chronicles*


message 4: by Aaric (new)

Aaric | 260 comments Saved By Grace wrote: "I hate it. I'm not going to explain why, because that'd be repeating myself for the 100th time ...
no matter how tempting, I shall not! I think ..."


Ditto


message 5: by [deleted user] (new)

There are plenty of more bloody, vampire books. *Grins*


message 6: by [deleted user] (last edited Aug 19, 2009 06:10PM) (new)

HATE IT.
BELLA HAS NO LIFE, PATHETIC, AND NEEDS A LIFE!!!! AND SHE HAS B.O., SHE STINKS REALLY BAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!


message 7: by Ain020596 (new)

Ain020596 ♫☻Becca☻♫ wrote: "HATE IT.
BELLA HAS NO LIFE, PATHETIC, AND NEEDS A LIFE!!!! AND SHE HAS B.O., SHE STINKS REALLY BAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..."


Hahaahahahahah!!!!!!! Agree!!!


message 8: by [deleted user] (new)

*Burns the book*


message 9: by Monique (new)

Monique | 98 comments Icefire wrote: "*Burns the book*"

Lets burn all the copies in the world...could make on hell of a bonfire!


message 10: by Monique (new)

Monique | 98 comments I absolutely loathe this book!


message 11: by Sarah (new)

Sarah (sbschultz) This book is the worst pile of tripe currently being marketed to young girls.


message 12: by Monique (new)

Monique | 98 comments At least in the Sookie Stackhouse series Sookie has some balls...


message 13: by Laura (new)

Laura | 170 comments I HATE THIS 'BOOK'!


message 14: by Zelda (new)

Zelda of Unapologetic Reviews (zelda_of_arel) | 66 comments Rose wrote: "Monique wrote: "At least in the Sookie Stackhouse series Sookie has some balls..."

I know, right?
She knows that being around vampires is dangerous and doesn't follow them because they're "teh hot..."


Plus Eric is really hot, but a real vampire. Dangerous, old, eats blood and has his own agenda. He is enamored of Sookie, but he goes after her.


message 15: by Lope (new)

Lope | 80 comments first,same as twilight,i like watched sookie stackhouse series at HBO.but then that series become so complicated and boring.so,like twilight (again),i automaticly become vampire-haters until now.but the truth is,i never hate old vampire concept


message 16: by Fangirl Musings (last edited Sep 21, 2010 09:02AM) (new)

Fangirl Musings (fangirlmusings) I've posted this old blog post of mine on other threads before, but this does a good job of adequately describing my sentiment about vampires in general and Twilight.



So, typically, when it comes to my blog, I’m not one for sharing. Too private of a person, really. As such, most of my posts are quotes, lyrics, one liners, that sort of thing. This post, though, is the exception to that typical rule.

Everyone, and I mean -everyone-, who knows me realizes from jump that I’m a die-hard fan of the multi-faceted, insanely talented author Sherrilyn Kenyon. Now, on the same token, those who know me also understand that I’m an avid hater of the badly written tripe known as the Twilight *choke* “saga,” written by the laughable Stephanie Meyer.

Now, there are literally countless reasons as to why I hate Meyer’s books, and equally endless reasons as to why I love Kenyon’s books. However, pushing all that aside, I thought I’d concentrate on one of the biggest concepts that vary greatly between the Dark-Hunter and Twilight series. Vampires.

That’s right. Lil’ ol’ vamps.

What a fascinating literary creature. What an insanely historical, interesting fictional concept.

Vampires.

Some of the biggest vampire names that come to mind are Nosferatu, Dracula, Lestat (hell, even Louis!), Angel, the list is quite large, truly. Vampires are creatures that have been popularized in movies, books, and television off and on for decades. They are dark, dangerous, mysterious, compelling and deadly monsters who are considered evil at worst and anti-heroes at best. Fundamentally, they are dark protagonists and terrifying antagonists.

They are not run-through-the-field-barefoot weaklings, despite the fact they are being painted in that very light in the twenty first century.

Thus.

We have Stephanie Meyer’s vampires.

The lead? Edward Cullen.

A vampire who sparkles in the sunlight, who apparently lacks fangs, who’s been a goody-two-shoed vamp his whole undead life. And who, for all intents and purposes, is more a recreated version of Romeo than a deadly creature of the night. Lotta talk, little action.

Then we have Sherrilyn Kenyon’s Daimons.

The lead? Strykerius

Born 9548 BC, Stryker is an ancient Greek demigod who leads an army of vampiric men and women who feed off human souls to artificially elongate their lives and starve off a curse placed on their race countless centuries ago.
Kenyon’s Daimons are brutal killers who view humanity as nothing but cattle. They spawn from an ancient race which was created by the god Apollo. Known as Apollites, they were later cursed by Apollo after his mistress and son were murdered by the very race he created. In retribution for the death of his family, Apollo hexed his race in reflection of what had been done to his loved ones. His mistress died at twenty seven, shredded and savagely ripped to pieces, drained of her blood in the dark of the night.
So. Their curse? To be banished from Apollo’s domain of the sun. To take on animalistic characteristics of fangs, heightened abilities and senses. To only gain sustenance from the blood of other Apollites. And, worst of all, to wither and die painfully on their twenty seventh birthday.

And to avoid that fate, they turn Daimon in order to survive, killing humans so they can capture their souls and avoid the curse. Since souls begin to die immediately after leaving the original body, Daimons require a constant influx of new souls in order to live. Without such, they surrender to their curse and die.
-

Now. Shockingly enough, my explanation for Kenyon’s vampires was as cut and dry as possible. It was brief and merely the bare boned basics. And even still, it required roughly four paragraphs of explanation. Which, alas, brings me to my point.

Stephanie Meyer has absolutely no basis of reality or explanation for her vampires. (Yes, yes, I realize that she claims her tales are based on science rather than myth, which is almost as laughable as a vampire without fangs. Proof that just explanation is shite? Visit this link http://fuckyeahtwilightsucks.tumblr.c...).

So now that the science of Meyer’s vampires is completely shredded and proven false, let me continue.

Do not mistake me, please. My extreme irritation for Meyer’s vampire creations stems from a lot of issues, but, even still, I’m not against originality. After all, Kenyon’s take on vampires is completely original. However, there is an actual basis of reality for the paranormal aspects in Kenyon’s world, where as such is pathetically lacking in Meyer’s. The Dark-Hunter world is heavily laced with mythology. This is a very unique concept, truly. And yet, it makes basic, logical sense. As Sherri says, if you look at vampires chronologically, the oldest tales of it go back to ancient Greece. And, on further analysis, Apollo is the god of the sun, curses, and plagues, where as his sister, Artemis (who plays a key role in the series) is the goddess of the moon.

Total creativity and originally, undoubtedly. And yet, still, Kenyon understands the primary appeal of vampires, and more importantly, the key elements of vampire lore. Fangs. Predatory natures. Killers. Corruption. Power. Things you just don’t monkey with when it comes to this type of supernatural entertainment. Most, most especially when you’re trying to deliver your novel on the back of the paranormal genre and character title of "vampire." If you want to write a character-driven, regurgitated story about forbidden love and a love triangle, fine. Paint it on the backdrop of a high school setting and young love, as Meyer did, just like everyone else. But don’t incorporate vampirism if you’re going to slaughter the lore from prologue to epilogue.

Meyer has taken the entire concept of vampirism and eliminated the primary elemental facets. It’s perfectly acceptable to be original, but not so much that the basics of a mythical creature becomes lost in “oh, Eddie be purdy!” And that, to me, is one of the most irritating issues I have with the Twilight series. Always have, always will.


message 17: by Zelda (new)

Zelda of Unapologetic Reviews (zelda_of_arel) | 66 comments Lope wrote: "first,same as twilight,i like watched sookie stackhouse series at HBO.but then that series become so complicated and boring.so,like twilight (again),i automaticly become vampire-haters until now.bu..."

True Blood is getting a bit confusing, though not if you've read the books. That helps a lot, though you do have to distinguish the two. On the one hand the books are written completely from Sookie's point of view, first person and all. Faeries don't come into the picture until book 4 and then we meet her relative, Claudine gradually. The books do have a much more gradual build-up and the series had it so far as well, but I think this season they just wanted to put too much stuff in. Crystal and the whole werepanthers don't appear in book 3 and the side characters get a much smaller role because of the first person. So I think they should not have wanted to squish so much into 12 episodes, or they should make normal, 24 episode seasons. I wouldn't mind. But if Eric doesn't become the center of attention next season, I'm going to be mad. He runs around a lot naked and semi-clad, so I prefer they keep it that way.


message 18: by Lope (new)

Lope | 80 comments @Zelda:wow,obviously you read sookie stackhouse's stories (maybe all of them).on the other hand,until now i never read that books,so the movies become too complicated and a little bit boring for me.even though i admit i enjoy watch eric,he is so handsome :-D


message 19: by Zelda (new)

Zelda of Unapologetic Reviews (zelda_of_arel) | 66 comments Lope wrote: "@Zelda:wow,obviously you read sookie stackhouse's stories (maybe all of them).on the other hand,until now i never read that books,so the movies become too complicated and a little bit boring for me..."

Eric is a god who came to show us mortals true perfection. I actually have his as a theme for my Firefox. Anyway,the books are good, I read all of them in 2 weeks, you should read them. Not too serious, or anything, but good fun. Great to read in the evenings after a tiring day. They are full of action, sex, hot men, supernaturals, gore,... what you want in vampire fiction. As unlike Twilight as it can get.


message 20: by Lope (new)

Lope | 80 comments really?hmm..you really make me interested with that books,now i really wanna read them :-). but i am not sure they are available in my language (english is not my first language)


message 21: by Zelda (new)

Zelda of Unapologetic Reviews (zelda_of_arel) | 66 comments Lope wrote: "really?hmm..you really make me interested with that books,now i really wanna read them :-). but i am not sure they are available in my language (english is not my first language)"

They are not written in complicated language, so it's a great opportunity to practice! That's how I became so proficient at English myself. I read a lot. Would you guess that it's not my native tongue?


message 22: by Lope (new)

Lope | 80 comments wow..is english not your first language too?i never guess that..


message 23: by Zelda (new)

Zelda of Unapologetic Reviews (zelda_of_arel) | 66 comments Lope wrote: "wow..is english not your first language too?i never guess that.."

Exactly! By the time I was 17, thanks to watching TV in English and reading in English, I was so good at it that I put many of my elders to shame. My English teacher was constantly embarassed, because she sometimes didn't know the words I was using.


back to top