What's so bad about being a Twilight Fanatic?

[Lindis]

Hey, have you guys seen "Vampires Suck" ? One of my besties and I love Twilight, and we went to the theatre to see it. It's hilarious!!!!! I even own it! Some of it is a little over the top but the rest is pretty dang funny. I love it when Charlie and Billy are kickin' the crap out of each other! : ) he he he

[Lindis]

I will admit, the sparkling thing is a little corney. I understand it and I get it. But I see why others hate it! : )

[delane]

Trollworth wrote:

As for sparkling being original, fair enough. For being a good idea? Its like saying "Hey lets make Batman wear pink instead of black.""

Good God I nearly snorted Dr. Pepper out of my nose!
Now THAT would be an impressive looking cod-piece!

[Aya]

I absolulet HATED twlight. It was completley stupid.

[Jewel]

Lindis wrote: "I am starting this chat because I am wondering why people are so upset about the "Twilight Rage" I happen to be a "Twilighter" I love the books, I love the story, I wish I could be a Cullen! And I'..."

When I like a series-and I do like the Twilight series-the opinions of others don't sway me in the least. I'm somewhat of a rebel from time to time, which also means I'm one of the least politically correct people you will find. Some people might find Stephanie Meyer's book simplistic in writing, but I've enjoyed her writing style very much. I like many writing styles, from literary to fluff. There are many talented writers out there and we like what we like. I'm sure some people don't care for my stories, but there are many who do. One of the problems we as authors face is believing our writing is the only way to write, and until we overcome that belief, we will never truly be able to allow ourselves to just simply enjoy a story-no picking it apart or searching for reasons a particular book is so popular, but just go with it. I'm pretty proud of Stephanie for what she has accomplished and I will probably always be a die-hard fan because I truly enjoy her writing. For me, Twilight is a great series:-)

[Wynter]

Vampires suck is cool.
Eric jumps out and punches beka against a wall.

[Caroline C.]

Atarah wrote: "OMG I am a major Twilight fan, Harry Potter fan and Percy Jackson fan at that lol. I love them all and I see nothing wrong with enjoying them. I feel terrible when people bash the books. So what if..."

i totally agree i act not to care but on the inside im screaming at them "well i like it and if you have a problem with it,too bad!"

[Gloria]

I hate vampires suck im not just saying that
because i love twilight, i love vampires
but the movie was absolutely boring, it wasnt
even that funny, i even think those epic movies are better or scary movie.

[Mickey]

Lindis wrote: "Thanks Mickey for trying to defend Twilight. But one thing I've learned from this feed is that the people that don't like Twilight are just as passionate as thoes of us that do."

I've also come to the conclusion that it is useless to try to convert others to your point of view on this site. Most people are too entrenched in their opinions to really listen to "the other side", which is fine. When I respond to another post, my purpose is not to persuade that particular person of anything. Most of the time, I'm drawn into the discussion when I notice some Twi-haters starting to circle a younger or more hapless Twihard. (I have a really low tolerance for bullying behavior.) Beyond that, it's simply contributing to the discussion.

[Torie]

So holier than thou!

[Mickey]

Trollworth wrote: "For being a good idea? Its like saying "Hey lets make Batman wear pink instead of black.""

The sparkling has gotten a lot of attention for such a minor detail (there was actually a thread a while back, something like 'Vampires don't sparkle!'), and it's interesting to think about why that would be.

Looking at the way that people discuss it, it is almost like the sparkling itself is in some way inherently ridiculous to them. There's no explanation from them about it. My guess is that sparkling is closely associated with girls, and if there's one group people seem to hate around here, it's girls. They're like the Jews in 19th century Europe. If you go to the thread 'Vampires don't sparkle', this is a common post: I hate the Twilight books! Vampires don't sparkle! [Some other YA vampire books] are soooooo much better! The vampires in there aren't wussy sparkling idiots! They're bad-*ss! This idea of sparkling being considered weaker always surprised me, seeing as how to burn and disintegrate in the sun is much more of a vunerability than sparkling.

I think the idea of not being able to stand sunlight came from the same impulse that has them cringe at crucifixes and burn from holy water: the idea that vampires are damned and beyond the reach of any saving grace. Meyer's vampires are treated more sympathetically. When Edward and Bella have a conversation about why he doesn't want to "turn" her, he says(I'm paraphrasing here, by the way) "How many people in this room have a shot at Heaven?". Bella insists on saying, "Two". I, for one, inwardly cheered when I read that, because I really do feel that Edward is not "beyond the pale".

The statement by Trollworth about comparing sparkling to having Batman wear pink instead of black is something that I can agree with, but I think we're going to differ wildly on the conclusions we draw from it. I gather that he chose the color pink because it is closely associated with girls and femininity. The underlying theme is that you are taking something strong and making it weak and contemptible. It reminds me that a common insult I heard when I was growing up was to call a boy a girl, as if it were insulting or somehow a demotion. What bothered me most was that there were always girls who giggled at that. I remember once I actually asked them, "Why are you laughing at that? Like there's something wrong with being a girl?" They didn't know.

[Torie]

LOL. Wow. Think you took it too far in your analogizing of girls to Jews in 19th century Europe. Come on. Let's not get dramatic here.

I don't think Trollworth was suggesting Batman wear pink "because it is closely associated with girls and femininity," but rather to draw upon the idea that Batman changing his costume to an absurd color MAY be an original idea, but it's not necessarily the smartest move. If he were to say a base color like green, blue, or red, it wouldn't have struck the point home as much as him saying the bright pastel color of pink. I think you're digging too far to try to find sexist undertones.

There's also absolutely nothing wrong with being a girl and I'm incredibly proud of it, but as you and I well know, men have the overwhelming need to assert their machismo. Boys tease one another for being a girl because it's not only in a form, castrating them, but also losing their "all-important" masculinity.

You addressed the idea that " not being able to stand sunlight came from the same impulse that has them cringe at crucifixes and burn from holy water: the idea that vampires are damned and beyond the reach of any saving grace." While it's interesting that Meyer makes them sparkle to show that they can, in essence, redeem themselves, they really don't have much to rise above. Take the Buffy-verse, for instance. In the world of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, all vampires burn in the sun and shudder at the mere sight of a cross. BUT, not all vampires in her world are bad. Some struggle to overcome their faults, their weakness, and yes, their hunger, which makes their characters all the more likeable and their redemption much more satisfying.

And I already addressed my reasons for disliking the idea of sparkling. The idea, at least to me, is absurd. And I found the idea of sparkling weaker because it takes away their fallibility and therefore makes them practically invulnerable Mary-Sue and Gary-Sue characters.

[The FountainPenDiva, Old school geek chick and lover of teddy bears]

@Mickey: As a woman myself, you are so out of left field to say that my dislike of Twilight is because I hate my own gender. In fact, it's because I LOVE being a woman and know the greatness that women are capable of is one of the big reasons why the books come under fire from me.

Twilight represents everything about a heroine that I thought we'd gotten away from. She's regressive, not progressive, as are a lot of the underlying ideas that Meyer has interspersed into the entire narrative. Bella can't even wipe her own butt without Edward's assistance. He tells her who her friends can be or where she can go. That's not love, sweetie. It's abusive control. When Edward leaves her in his misguided desire to save her from himself, she goes off the deep end, to the point of attempting suicide. She uses people then tosses them aside once they've outlived their usefulness (or when Edward comes prancing around again). She has no goals once Edward becomes her entire life save to become a vampire like him. This is a character whom in the first book makes it clear that she doesn't want to be a wife or mother who after Edward wants nothing but. I'm sorry, but given there are stronger and more active heroines in YA (Hermione Granger instantly comes to mind), why should a book that in my view is a paen to female victimization get a free pass? It not only cherishes female passivity rather than female empowerment, but reinforces it.

By the way, I do agree with you on pink and how we equal that to negative views of femininity. The sparkly vampire aspect I think has less to do with appealing to girls and more to do with Meyer's attempt to make the vampires into angelic (good) beings. Besides, isn't it kind of sexist to assume that ALL girls like sparkly things? I certainly didn't as a girl.

[Mickey]

@Torie, why is pink "an absurd color"? Just pink, he never said anything about it being bright or pastel.

[Torie]

Mickey wrote: "@Torie, why is pink "an absurd color"? Just pink, he never said anything about it being bright or pastel."

No, I'M saying it's bright and pastel, which is a sharper contrast to the usual black Batman wears, as opposed to red, green, and blue. It's an absurd color for Batman to wear because he's supposed to be a stealthy, dark character, that slinks around at night. I don't think I need to elaborate on why pink is an absurd choice.

[Gerd]

Ever tried to sneak up on somebody while being dressed in pink? They simply must get the wrong idea about that. :D

But seriously, Bat-Man is a creature of the night, doesn't make sense for him to wear any bright colours. (Not that he didn't do that anyways for some time.)

But aren't we getting far off topic here?
Or are we maintaining the view that sparkling vampires is what is bad about being a rabid twilight fan?

[The FountainPenDiva, Old school geek chick and lover of teddy bears]

In making her vampires sparkle, they seem a lot less frightening than the standard vampire that we're more familiar with. Meyer was aiming her books towards a readership whom more than likely hadn't read or weren't interested in Anne Rice. Granted, the concept is novel, and like I said before, my guess is that Meyer equates sparkling with some form of angelic manifestation, hence the Cullens aren't evil and therefore sympathetic.

[Mickey]

Vixenne wrote: "@Mickey: As a woman myself, you are so out of left field to say that my dislike of Twilight is because I hate my own gender."

I never said your dislike of Twilight was because you hate your own gender. When did I say that?

I am saying that many of the arguments put forth have a strong anti-girl basis. I've said this in numerous posts and I think it's true.

Vixenne wrote: " In fact, it's because I LOVE being a woman and know the greatness that women are capable of is one of the big reasons why the books come under fire from me. "

I'm not a big fan of feminism. One of the things that I dislike most about it is that they challenged the idea of the "ideal woman" from the past, and, instead of dismantling her and giving us choices, have erected a new standard. Now we are supposed to be independent and goal-orientated. It's as much a constriction as what we had before. "Greatness", as you call it, should not depend on fitting into the new stereotype.

Vixenne wrote: "Besides, isn't it kind of sexist to assume that ALL girls like sparkly things? I certainly didn't as a girl. "

Nor did I. But are you saying that sparkles are not associated in the public mind with girls? If I remember correctly, some of your other posts definately further the idea that young girls love sparkles.

Vixenne, I thought we had agreed that nothing of any substance could be gained from our having a discussion. I'd like to maintain that agreement.

[Trollworth McTrollin]

Mickey wrote: "@Torie, why is pink "an absurd color"? Just pink, he never said anything about it being bright or pastel."

You are reading way to deep into this. If I created a character called "The Dark Knight" and made him pink then it would be a bit odd. I chose pink because it would be the strangest colour to associate with Batman. Robin wears red, Nightwing wears blue.

Vampires are creatures of the night. Why the hell would they sparkle? When I write a novel I'll be sure to do it about neon-green ghosts or maybe Werepoodles? They transform when bathed in sunlight! YEAH!

[Gerd]

Trollworth wrote: "Vampires are creatures of the night. Why the hell would they sparkle? ..."

But you realize that one hasn't much to do with the other. There's no rule stating that they can't do both, be sparkling creatures of the night ... only, it does make for a silly picture.

[The FountainPenDiva, Old school geek chick and lover of teddy bears]

Mickey wrote: "I never said your dislike of Twilight was because you hate your own gender. When did I say that?

I am saying that many of the arguments put forth have a strong anti-girl basis. I've said this in numerous posts and I think it's true..."

Your implication is that most of the arguments against Twilight are based in an anti-girl bias. From everything I've read--mostly from other WOMEN I might add--the biggest problem a lot of people--myself included--have with the series is what it says about women and how they should be: weak, helpless, no goals, shallow, and dependent upon a man for happiness. If you consider criticism of that kind of regressive mindset "anti-girl", then I guess I'm "anti-girl" (as I sit here rooting for the USA women's soocer team). And having re-read my posts, I don't remember linking sparkling with girls, though I might have been ruminating that perhaps Meyer believed this was the case.

What makes me scratch my head in wonder is how a non-character like Bella Swann should somehow be thought of as a positive role model? This is a character who would be right at home in some Victorian paen to womanly virtues.

I do feel that Twilight has become a part of what I see as perhaps more of a larger "anti-romance" bias, which sadly has existed long before Twilight and continues this very day. We both know romance as a genre never receives the thoughtful and criticial acclaim it's due because it's not considered "real" literature. Because it tends to be more emotional rather than intellectual (though I could argue against that), and that emotional stories are the sole domain of women (so someone should tell Nicholas Sparks to knock it off, LOL). Yes, I could get on board with that.

You and I obviously have differing ideas on feminism, but unlike you I don't dislike it. As a PROUD FEMINIST I have my issues with the movement, but I'm just not ready or willing to throw the whole thing under the bus, because I understand where we came from and how hard it still is to get where we finally need to be. I just realize that like any positive social movement, it evolves. And one woman's notion of feminism may not be someone else's, but I know there's room at the table for all of it. Maybe if people weren't getting their ideas about feminism from questionable sources, the disconnect wouldn't bother me so much.

[Trollworth McTrollin]

Gerd wrote: "Trollworth wrote: "Vampires are creatures of the night. Why the hell would they sparkle? ..."

But you realize that one hasn't much to do with the other. There's no rule stating that they can't do ..."

Don't fix something that isn't broken. I'm all for introducing new ideas into an old concept. There have been many interpretations of vampires. However this is by far the worst. Mickey says its a minor detail. Its not. Changing the colour of someones costume (back to the Batman example) is minor in nature but massive on the grand scale of the character.

Lets not lose track here. The vampiric part of the story is just a cosmetic. If you took out all the supernatural elements from the book it wouldn't change the story much, sure you'd have to tweak some backstory. Bella doesn't need a vampire to become a tool and Edward doesn't need to be one to be an asshole.

[The FountainPenDiva, Old school geek chick and lover of teddy bears]

Trollworth wrote: "The vampiric part of the story is just a cosmetic. If you took out all the supernatural elements from the book it wouldn't change the story much, sure you'd have to tweak some backstory. Bella doesn't need a vampire to become a tool and Edward doesn't need to be one to be an asshole..."

LOL. Too true. Except there would be no backstory to tweak because Bella's such a nonentity.

[Trollworth McTrollin]

Vixenne wrote: "Trollworth wrote: "The vampiric part of the story is just a cosmetic. If you took out all the supernatural elements from the book it wouldn't change the story much, sure you'd have to tweak some ba..."

POW RIGHT IN THE KISSER!

[Mickey]

Trollworth wrote: " I chose pink because it would be the strangest colour to associate with Batman. "

Why is pink the strangest? Why not white, which is brighter? Or yellow, which would reflect the light more?

[The FountainPenDiva, Old school geek chick and lover of teddy bears]

Well, if we're in a Batman frame of mind, shouldn't it be

KAPOW!

[Gerd]

Trollworth wrote: "Don't fix something that isn't broken. I'm all for introducing new ideas into an old concept. There have been many interpretations of vampires. However this is by far the worst..."

Tee-hee, true enough.


Vixenne wrote: "Your implication is that most of the arguments against Twilight are based in an anti-girl bias. From everything I've read--mostly from other WOMEN I might add--the biggest problem a lot of people--myself included--have with the series is what it says about women and how they should be: weak, helpless, no goals, shallow, and dependent upon a man for happiness...."

You sure do read a lot into "twilight" that isn't there. Nowhere it states that Bella is an ideal, it's not saying anything about how women should be.


Vixenne wrote: "I do feel that Twilight has become a part of what I see as perhaps more of a larger "anti-romance" bias, which sadly has existed long before Twilight and continues this very day. We both know romance as a genre never receives the thoughtful and criticial acclaim it's due because it's not considered "real" literature. Because it tends to be more emotional rather than intellectual (though I could argue against that), and that emotional stories are the sole domain of women (so someone should tell Nicholas Sparks to knock it off, LOL). Yes, I could get on board with that...."

Wait, did you just critizise "twilight" for the same stuff we should give more praise to "Romance" as a genre? Because most of those novels are as anti-feminist as you can get.

[Trollworth McTrollin]

Mickey wrote: "Trollworth wrote: " I chose pink because it would be the strangest colour to associate with Batman. "

Why is pink the strangest? Why not white, which is brighter? Or yellow, which would reflect ..."

Giving Bruce Waynes psyche what do you think he would most likely not wear. Pink or yellow? I can drop a text to Mr. Bale if you need me to answer that.

[Trollworth McTrollin]

On another note. Why is there a paedophile in a YA book marketed to young girls?

[Mickey]

C'mon, Trollworth! You're skirting the issue. Be brave and say, in a site full of women, that you chose the color pink, because it's a 'girl' color.

[Trollworth McTrollin]

Mickey wrote: "C'mon, Trollworth! You're skirting the issue. Be brave and say, in a site full of women, that you chose the color pink, because it's a 'girl' color."

Now, now Mickey. You're trying to make me out as a sexist yet you claim this is a "site full of women". Come now, you're smarter than that?

[The FountainPenDiva, Old school geek chick and lover of teddy bears]

Gerd wrote: "Wait, did you just critizise "twilight" for the same stuff we should give more praise to "Romance" as a genre? Because most of those novels are as anti-feminist as you can get...

Back in the day, that's true about romance. These days thankfully, the genre has progressed a great deal, especially when we're talking about characters, which is why Twilight is so problemmatic for me. The women in most of today's romance books are doers. They're more alpha female and more equal to the hero. Bella seems a throwback to the less enlightened days of female helplessness and total masculine power. I'm surprised there wasn't a rape as love scene in the books (though Breaking Dawn definitely makes me wonder about that).

There's nothing wrong with emotional reads, but for me Twilight just wasn't one of those. There's just too much fail for the books to have had any resonance on that factor. I had no emotional investment in caring whether or not Bella and Edward got their HEA because I didn't care about them. Bella was empty-headed, selfish and weak. Edward was a controlling stalker. Sorry, but there's just NOTHING romantic about that kind of dynamic.

I will defend romance. I cannot in all good conscience defend Twilight.

[Mickey]

I didn't say 'filled' (meaning that's all there is), I said 'full' (meaning a whole bunch).

[Gerd]

Vixenne wrote: "Back in the day, that's true about romance. These days thankfully, the genre has progressed a great deal, especially when we're talking about characters, which is why Twilight is so problemmatic for me..."


Fair enough.
But I see a lot of works as more troublesome when it comes to depicting female characters and characteristics, but that might be because a lot of my other reading stuff was written in or around the 70's.

[Trollworth McTrollin]

Mickey wrote: "I didn't say 'filled' (meaning that's all there is), I said 'full' (meaning a whole bunch)."

Dont you mean half-full then? If you have a full cup of cola, the whole contents of the cup is cola.

I know whats up. I'll put it in troll terms "u mad". You're annoyed that the troll is making sense. You're trying to put me on blast in front of everyone hoping to rally them against me? Regardless of their opinion on me, their opinions on Twilight will still stand.

[The FountainPenDiva, Old school geek chick and lover of teddy bears]

Gerd wrote: "Fair enough. But I see a lot of works as more troublesome when it comes to depicting female characters and characteristics, but that might be because a lot of my other reading stuff was written in or around the 70's..."

LOL. My first romance book was Rosemary Rodgers and even then I wondered how something so demeaning towards both sexes could have been so popular. There was nothing remotely romantic about the hero raping the heroine then her falling madly in love with him. Even at my tender age, I knew hurting someone was wrong. That's why I gave up on romance until the 1990's with the rise of e-books and smaller publishers. And you're right about other books being questionable when it comes to female characterization (quite a few YA books sadly fall into that category, most of which are carbon copies of Twilight).

[Mickey]

@Trollworth: I don't know 'troll terms'. I think everyone knows why pink was chosen and everyone is still being nice to you. I really don't think they're going to blast you or that we are all going to come together (have you been visiting these sites long?)to expel the leper in our midst. There are deep, deep divisions here.

And I'm not annoyed at all.

[Trollworth McTrollin]

Mickey wrote: "@Trollworth: I don't know 'troll terms'. I think everyone knows why pink was chosen and everyone is still being nice to you. I really don't think they're going to blast you or that we are all going..."

You seem to think I chose pink for sexist reasons and I've explained why it was chosen. Twice. Yet you still crack on. I'm then led to believe you were trying to rally some support in repeatedly bringing it up.

My other comments seems to have been dodged. Is it a grey area in the Twilight community? Edward, 100 years old... Bella... 17... Jacob wanting Bella's daughter? Thats messed up.

[Mickey]

I'm not trying to rally support from others by bringing up the 'pink' thing. There aren't any "teams" at the moment, as far as I can tell, everyone is sort of fixated on their own thing. I'm bringing up the 'pink' thing because it fit with my argument about a lot of the criticism of Twilight being anti-girl. Trust me, there are plenty of other examples. I wasn't aware you answered me twice. I don't think you've really answered at all, and it's fine if you don't want to. The matter is being dropped.

[The FountainPenDiva, Old school geek chick and lover of teddy bears]

Trollworth wrote: "My other comments seems to have been dodged. Is it a grey area in the Twilight community? Edward, 100 years old... Bella... 17... Jacob wanting Bella's daughter? Thats messed up..."

My guess is the age difference represents his "maturity" in comparison to Bella's immaturity. All through the narrative Edward supposedly comes off as the more "adult" in the relationship. That he thinks about the consequences of his actions, whereas Bella is more childlike and only sees the here and now. If anyone wants to discuss sexism, maybe they should think about what Meyer is in essence saying about women. The interesting thing is a 17 year-old from one-hundred years ago would be a lot different from a 17 year-old from a more modern one. Certainly they wouldn't have the patience to deal with someone who lacked the prerequisite life skills, much less awareness of self. Then again, most teenagers don't, LOL. That's not a value judgment, it's just called life. That's what living and experiencing life is for.

I'm of the belief that Meyer only gave Jacob the- thing-that-should-not-be-named because that she wanted everyone to have a disney-esque ending, even if it made no sense or just came off weird. It's like Jacob gets a Bella substitute. Worse for me is the idea of a female child being given no choice as to whom they wish to spend the rest of their lives with. The whole imprinting thing as Meyer wrote it is like arranged marriage on steroids.

[Trollworth McTrollin]

This goes back to the lack of depth in her characters. Edward doesn't come off as a man of 100 years. 100 years of life experience would have some affect on you (unless being a stalker is what he gained from it). A great example of depth is Anne Rice's Interview with a Vampire. The little girl who becomes a vampire is stuck in her child body but with the mind and desires of a young adult. Now that is an incredible concept in comparison to the 100 year old vampire that gets a high school crush. Seriously?

As for Jacob, he likes the kiddies :o

[The FountainPenDiva, Old school geek chick and lover of teddy bears]

One of the big problems here Troll, is that most twi-TARDS (not Twihards) appear to have never read other vampire books prior to Twilight, so they can't compare and contrast how the vampire character has been shaped over the centuries. I'm not saying that what Meyer did overall was bad in making her vampires more user-friendly. She was just following the trend that adult paranormals had already laid out. And let's face it, the brooding gothic hero has a well-established pedigree--think Mr. Rochester or Heathcliff--but at least in the case of those two males, there's an underlying reason for their actions. With Edward, I just got the feeling he was a control freak.

Read Rice's Vampire Chronicles to understand just what a character who is damn-near immortal supposed to feel and read like. Even though Lestat becomes a rock star in Queen of the Damned, he equates the adulation and the lassez-faire attitude that surrounds him (and celebrities in general) to his days as a member of the French nobility. Lestat, Louis, Claudia--there's a true sense of otherness to them that Edward simply lacks. Even though Louis and Lestat become part of the modern age, one wonders which era really shaped them. Take away Lestat's fangs and he's still a compelling anti-hero. Take away Edward's fangs and what is there?

I feel bad for Jacob. He'll go down in history as YA's first pedophile, LOL.

[Elesa]

I don't think there's anything wrong with being a twilight fanatic! I'm an adult and my sisters and I are all huge fanatics. I'm guessing its all the media attention that the books and the movie generated that's starting to cause some unfriendly backlash on all the twilight supporters. I don't think there's anything wrong with the books/movies or the supporters. Wait to hang in there and support twilight :)

[The FountainPenDiva, Old school geek chick and lover of teddy bears]

The media is certainly a part of it, true, but that's its job--to hype and sell stuff. But understand that most of us who do not like Twilight don't necessarily blame the media for having discovered on our own how bad a writer Meyer really is. Bella is a shallow heroine, that Edward nearly crosses the line from brooding hero to controlling stalker, and that the entire canon makes no sense. And let's not talk about plot holes so large that you could drive an eighteen-wheeler through them, LOL.

Fans of the series are one thing. It's when the inmates start running the show and making crazy statements or basing their entire lives upon a fictional universe that people face-palm.

[Shelby Hallenbeck]

Geez, looking at the size of these posts, people are passionate about this book whether they love it or hate it.

To me, Twilight just lacked substance. It felt like a cheesy throwaway romance disguised by the shiny "vampire" bow to get it into the mainstream. If that element were gone (as little as it truly means to the book) the book would just have the same audience as all the other romance books- a few of the less mature teens and a lot of moms.
Except because it is so mainstream now, my mom is just allowed to run around singing her praises and putting Edward posters up in my sister's room so that SHE can look at them.

Ah well.
Seacrest out.

[The FountainPenDiva, Old school geek chick and lover of teddy bears]

Please don't slam romance as a whole just because Twilight is a horrible example (and frankly isn't a romance as much as it is really bad fan fiction). There's some great romances out in the book world, and they shouldn't be tarnished by the infernal sparklepire, LOL.

I make it a point to not trash an entire genre simply because there are individual books that don't work for me. Even though I'm a huge fantasy geek, there are some books that attempt (badly) to be Tolkien clones.

[Shelby Hallenbeck]

I don't necessarily mean to say romance as a whole when I categorize Twilight; I really should be more specific, sorry. When I refer to Twilight as a cheesy throwaway romance, I'm speaking more in terms of a teenage version of those novels you find in drugstores for $3 featuring a shirtless dude with long, flowing hair holding a woman in his arms on the cover.

[The FountainPenDiva, Old school geek chick and lover of teddy bears]

Got it and it's all good. Those clench covers were really popular in the 70's and 80's, LOL. They made Fabio a household name. Ironically, those were also the books that helped catapult romance into the publishing juggernaut that it is today. Thankfully the genre has grown up since then, in both style and content. I agree with you that Twilight is a definite throwback. I'm surprised there wasn't a sparkly guy with fangs holding a slender beauty in his arms on the cover, LOL.

To be fair, authors seldom have any input as to what the cover art looks like and quite a few authors who wrote in that time period absolutely HATED the original covers for their books.

[Carmon]

I have no problem with people liking the book, but i don't need to here about it. Also obsessing over anything is kinda creepy.

My main problem with this is that since the popularity of Twilight the market has been flooded with cr*p. Twilight is badly written, has dull, lifeless characters (no pun intended) and a weak plot and now all these people love it and are demanding more stuff like it. How many people on this thread have said "twilight got me interested in reading" and "twilight got me into the UB/PR genre"? Answer; too many. These people are demanding more poorly written cr*p and the publishers are being far less picky with what they choose to publish.

Before i could go to the fantasy/scifi section of the bookstore and find a whole bunch of new, great books. Now 9 out of 10 aren't worth the paper they're printed on. The cliques are getting ridiculous and everything is being overused.

Real fans of this genre are missing out and it's really sad, i love vampires, PROPER vampires, not these sparking veggie, emo vamps but now every time i even mention Vampires people connect it with twilight.

And on top of all that there's the fact that there a FAR better Authors out there who deserve the fame and who can actually contribute something good to the genre.

It's because of all of this that I don't like twilight and I also dislike people who promote it like it's the best thing since sliced bread.

[Gloria]

i love twilight, i dont get why people hate it so
badly, without twilight being released we
never would've had more vampires and werewolves books out now to read. Twilight was like such a huge phenomenon it bought books to life. If twilight didnt hit screens or came out as books, we still would've been watching repeatedly episodes of....Buffy!