Twilight
discussion
What's so bad about being a Twilight Fanatic?
Lindis wrote: "Sharon wrote: "I think it's just all gone a little too far. Twilight is everywhere. Every place I turn every time I log on to read about or write about a book Twilight is there. It's ok to like or ..."Oh I'm sorry .... There is a PLOT! Let's see here: Girl who has NO SUBSTANCE, hopes, dreams or even a personality falls in love with 100yr old dead man who not only sparkles in the sun but oh yeah, wants to kill her. They get married she has a child with the dead guy and never goes to college or becomes anything more than an immortal sparkly animated corps mom .... PLOT?
I think the allure of Twilight is in its fiction. No one falls obsessively in love like that. And if they did, in real life we would have them committed. What purpose was Romeo & Juliet? Warring factions fall in love, and then die? But it is a classic. Is it Academy Award material, no, but then I do not think it was meant to be.
P.S. I do not believe for a minute the S Meyer is in the same ball park as our beloved William Shakespeare.
Hi guys! well i am not a twilight fan but I do like it...I read the series just five months ago..Before I read the books I can't relate to my friends who like edward in the twilght movie. Butn when I finished reading, I finally understand why they love him. S Meyer portrayed him as the "man of your dream" type in the book. He's such a darling. And any girl could realte to Bella..there are millions of average girls who dream of meeting their Edwards. ^____________^
Cheryl aka Pashion wrote: "I think the allure of Twilight is in its fiction. No one falls obsessively in love like that. And if they did, in real life we would have them committed. What purpose was Romeo & Juliet? Warring fa..."I don't think that S.Meyer was comparing her story to Romeo and Juliet. Romeo and Juliet play into it because Edward feels like he can relate to the charachter of Romeo. He knows what it feels like to not want to live, if your true love, your soul mate will not be living with you. That's all. He was jealous of Romeo, for being able to have an "easy out", suicide. Not a very plesant thought. But in Edward's mind, he did not want to live, if Bella died.
P.S. Yes, I believe that people DO fall in love obsessively! I wouldn't have anyone committed for it. I believe in love.
What I find uncomfortable is when teenagers begin to think that the actors from the "Twilight" movie series will be their future spouses. What would ever possess you to conceive such a thing!
Sun wrote: "Okay, so I read everyone' opinion about Twilight and the haters and the teeny boppers and the existence of the locations in the book.When I first heard of the hype surrounding the Twilight series..."
From a girl's point of view, "Twilight" is the way of life; from a critic's perspective, "Twilight" and "The Host" deal with the similar idea.
Female character: I want to partake in sexual intercourse with you!
Male character: No.
Female character: Please?
Male character: No, er - fine.
Female character: Yeah! Let's rip of the bed-sheets and smell each-others' denim/cotton.
Cheryl aka Pashion wrote: "P.S. I do not believe for a minute the S Meyer is in the same ball park as our beloved William Shakespeare."And I don't think she does, either. She was a fan of the classics, and wove them into her stories. If it means a new generation is curious about Shakespeare and Austen, then I think it is a very good thing!
Amina wrote: "What I find uncomfortable is when teenagers begin to think that the actors from the "Twilight" movie series will be their future spouses. What would ever possess you to conceive such a thing!"
Young people have been obsessing about actors/musicians/celebrities for years and years. The Twilight stars are nothing new. Just the most recent teenage heart throbs.
Amina wrote: "Sun wrote: "Okay, so I read everyone' opinion about Twilight and the haters and the teeny boppers and the existence of the locations in the book.When I first heard of the hype surrounding the Twi..."
Bella isn't the best role model. She quickly falls for Edward totally without any thought. She is physically weak and selfish, though the book tries to say otherwise. The way she acts with Jacob and Edward is all about her.
If we were talking about humans then their extreme feelings would have been a problem for me but that's why I think it works as vampires and werewolves.
Personally from the books I do not get lets have sex!
I totally agree with you helen. Twilight had an ok plot, but there were some totally major faults. For example, Bella is such a weak character. Her life is completely and utterly wrapped around Edward. As if she doesn't have a mind of her own. I realize that she loved him, but that's obsession. Another thing that really bugged me was how Stephanie Meyer displayed vampires. She was one of the first to do it that way, so it's kinda her fault that most of the vampires in the newer vampire books are just like hers. First of all, vampires are badass they do not sparkle in the sun, they do not fall in love, they are most certainty not kind and compassionate. Vampires have always been described as blood thirsty cruel monsters. Not animal hunters that fall in love and have kids. Another thing, vampires DO NOT SPARKLE! They burn in the sun, they die! They don't look like they just ploughed through a mountain of glitter! Then one thing that I really didn't like, but wasn't a fault, it's just my taste. At the end of book four, you expect some epic battle, but noooooooo Renesme has to charm the Volturi with her pathetic mind communication. That was altogether very disappointing. END RANTI feel that this could've been a great story, but it had some really major faults. Maybe it just wasn't targeted towards people like me, but I was nearly 13 when I first read Twilight, and I hated it. It wasn't till later that I had an entire summer in front of me and nothing to read that I actually ended up reading the Twilight Saga.
Helen wrote: "Amina wrote: "Sun wrote: "Okay, so I read everyone' opinion about Twilight and the haters and the teeny boppers and the existence of the locations in the book.When I first heard of the hype surro..."
Bella persistently asks Edward if they could "try" throughout the series, and in each instance he dismisses her question until, of course, "Breaking Dawn".
Amina wrote: "Bella persistently asks Edward if they could "try" throughout the series, and in each instance he dismisses her question until, of course, "Breaking Dawn""No, actually, she only started asking in the middle of Eclipse. And he agreed to try after they were married, in the very same conversation.
The comments about Bella being a bad role model/weak, etc. Um, she fell in love with a vampire who, as a predator, had all the supernatural vampire lure, that a hormonal teenage girl isn't really prepared for.She almost didn't have a choice.
And yeah, it was obsession, because, again, he's a vampire. She kind of couldn't help it. If you notice, in the book, most other girls are pretty obsessed with him too.
I don't think she was meant to be a role model. Just an average girl.
Teenage girls falling for guys that are bad for them is pretty average....unfortunately.
Also, about how they're not "real" vampires because "real" vampires don't sparkle, fall in love, etc.
Um, they're VAMPIRES. They're fictional. Who said that the very first person to write a vampire story had the lock on how they had to be?
I personally like that they're not the norm. It actually makes more sense to me that -well not necessarily that they sparkle - but that they don't burn in the sun. What kind of crappy invincible being is destroyed by a little sunlight or a splinter to the heart? Shouldn't their bodies be like rock, like in Twilight, if they're supposed to be so big and bad?
And why, if they're dead and invincible, should they have to "sleep" in coffins? I mean, do their bodies need sleep? Will they pass out from exhaustion if they don't get their 8 hours?
But that's just what I think...
Kristen wrote: "Amina wrote: "Bella persistently asks Edward if they could "try" throughout the series, and in each instance he dismisses her question until, of course, "Breaking Dawn""No, actually, she only sta..."
Yes, it was more prominent in Eclipse, but the reader can see where her thought process will lead her.
Ah, I can see where I was wrong. Thank-you.
Amina wrote: "Yes, it was more prominent in Eclipse, but the reader can see where her thought process will lead her. "lol, like most teenagers...
Everyone has 'bad' thoughts, but what matters is the actions. As a whole, the message in Twilight is more abstinence than anything else.
Pal wrote: "@Kristen: I understand what you're saying, but Vampires through all of the old stories have SOMETHING in common to each other. Yes, we know they're fictional, but they were what those stories made ..."Well, the Twilight vampires have things in common too. But I like that it's different b/c it makes it seem more realistic.
I mean, people always screw up information. Especially over such a long time. Like playing a game of Telephone.
That's how she ascribes the sparkle thing. They stayed out of the sun b/c people couldn't see them sparkle and people thought the sun killed them. And they never saw them in the day time, so they must have been sleeping. And they're dead, so that's where the coffins come in. Etc.
Because if vampires are predators, how many people would actually live to tell the truth about them? Probably not many. Or at least not many that wouldn't lie.
Idk, makes more sense to me that way...but I've never been big on horror. So maybe that's why I like my more tame version of vamps. lol
But I get what you mean, about calling it something else. I can see why that would be annoying.
Pal wrote: "I have only read Twilight, but -- correct me if I'm wrong -- I think when Bella has a conversation with Edward in the car when they're driving back from somewhere, she is thinking about asking him ..."Not exactly. Oh boy, it's been a while....lol...I remember what it was, but the exact conversation is sort of fuzzy right now.
Basically, she's asking everything about vampires. And she gets on his family. Edward mentions that Emmett and Rosalie will probably have another wedding in the future and she asks if the marriage was the same as it is for humans.
It was really more a curiosity thing, like one day, if things progressed with him, if that was something they'd potentially do.
To which Edward promptly tells her no b/c he has no intention of turning her into a vampire and he thinks it would kill her as a human.
But she wasn't propositioning him. She was just curious.
Kristen- The problem with your arguments about vampires is that you take as a given that they're all supposed to be invincible. (Well, I'm going to let the 'first person to write a vampire story' comment and the linked apparent ignorance of folklore in general slide.)Oh, wait, I can't let it slide. Keep in mind that I'm no folklorist, but I do have a fair understanding of this. And if I remember right, vampires were intended as metaphors for sex- stories about vampires, therefore, would be allegories about the dangers of sex, especially for women. Since extramarital sex would have been taboo at the time many of these stories came about, it was also metaphorically and literally shrouded in darkness. And because it wasn't a lasting thing- like, say, marriage- it dissolved in sunlight to demonstrate its impermanence. Meaning: don't have sex at random, ladies, because it won't last and will just leave you damaged/sucked dry. Making sex sparkle is an interesting approach, but inconsistent with the original mythology and contradicted by the fact that Edward withholds sex from Bella.
As for being hard as rock, see above about impermanence.
Sleeping on coffins just makes them creepy. Arguably, though, it was more about the fact that they couldn't be out and about in daylight. Why the coffins? Because, oh, maybe they look like CORPSES? So where better to hide? Plus, no one wants to open a coffin, so inadvertent exposure to sunlight = not an issue.
Going back to the 'They're fictional' point and answering it straight out:
Can we all agree that the Bible is the first 'angel story', or contains it? And can we all agree that it established the concept of those beings and outlined their mythos/general characteristics? The same is true of the old vampire tales and the 'modern vampire'. It doesn't matter if they're fictional. Like writing fanfic, the parameters are established and if you're mucking about with someone else's creation, you need to get it right. Meyer didn't. As Pal said, this wouldn't have been a problem if she hadn't called them vampires- I let go of my grouses about her 'werewolves' when they were revealed to just be 'shapeshifters'. The problem is that she made her own thing with a passing resemblance to the vampires which have been figures in folklore for centuries, slapped the same name on them, and tried to claim they were the same thing. They're not.
Edit: The internet has changed that game of telephone to a few Google searches and clicks. No excuses.
I was frustrated with the back cover blurb as well. Not that the internet hadn't spoiled it for me long before, because I was late to the party, but really? Way to remove ALL HINT of tension, folks. Well done.It would have been so awesome with action and bullets and blood and car chases. Yes indeedy.
Anila wrote: "Kristen- The problem with your arguments about vampires is that you take as a given that they're all supposed to be invincible. (Well, I'm going to let the 'first person to write a vampire story'..."Well, that's getting in a little deep, don't ya think? I mean, it's a story. She wasn't trying to create some great vampire craze, that just sort of happened. She wasn't even going to publish it.
I understand how it can be frustrating for someone who's so knowledgeable about vampire folklore, but I personally could care less how "accurate" it is. As I said, I like that it's different.
Basically when you boil it down, the first mention of vampires -symbolic or not- were fiction. Pure fiction.
Times have changed. So have the stories.
And I'm not sure how you can compare the Bible with vampires, honestly. Vampires are undoubtedly fiction. The Bible is not. There's a difference in changing something that never actually existed (uncontested), from something that did - even if you personally don't believe that it did.
But that still doesn't really mean anything, because people have distorted angels in stories as well.
I don't wanna get into a big long debate about this. Been there, done that. Quite frankly, it's exhausting. I just think you're looking at it too severely. Fiction is subject to change with the author, that's the beauty of writing it.
...they were allegory. Allegory is different from pure fiction. Is Animal Farm pure fiction? No. It's about Communist Russia and it is an allegory.I'm not going to argue whether or not the Bible is undoubtedly fiction, but if you look at it from a mythological standpoint, it is the source of a certain type of mythology. So are vampire folktales. In this frameset they are completely comparable. To put it another way, they're sources of archetypes.
Yes, people have distorted angel stories, but that's not the point. That's a whole different argument/set of arguments. I'd say they're out of line on that as well- maybe more so, because angels are significant in three major world religions and to treat them carelessly is likely to offend someone.
I understand that you personally are not concerned with accuracy, and that's your decision. However, Meyer's vampires aren't true vampires and the problem is that they are touted as such.
And there's no such thing as looking at a book too severely. I enjoyed Twilight the first times I read it. Now I can look back and see the flaws and my opinions have changed. What you see as 'looking at it too severely' is just thinking critically to me.
Lindis wrote: "Also, I get tired of hearing, "The movie ruined the book." Did you know? That they didn't expect for Twilight to be a success? They didn't pland on going on with the other books. They had a very lo..."I loved the second movie! lol
The first one was a little creepy... with Edward standing like a rock behind Bella all creeper-like all the time...
But the second one was funny. Though, Edward still managed to be creepy even though he wasn't around...
but I thought the ending was well portrayed too!
((sorry, I probably just interrupted a conversation..))
Pal wrote: "@Kriten: I read books not just for enjoyment, but to get the deeper messages behind them. If books are not analyzed, it feels like you have only looked at the surface. Well, actually, all stories a..."True, everyone's different.
I personally never cared for reading before a few years ago and then I read Twilight (before the movie) because I kept hearing about it, and wound up reading everything in sight. So I sort of love it for that reason - it got me into reading, which I love now.
But, yeah, I just read for the escape. I suck at things like poetry, where you have to find the deeper meaning. lol
I'm more a math person where what's there is what it is, there's no other answer.
I'm no good at poetry! And every year some teacher of mine insists that I write a poem... UGH! Worst failures of my life. Except basketball games... *shivers at the horror*
Anila wrote: "because angels are significant in three major world religions and to treat them carelessly is likely to offend someone. ..."that was my point about saying that the Bible is not uncontested as to being fiction or non.
There's no sane person insinuating that vampires are real. So there's no problem really with contorting the preconceived image of what constitutes "vampire".
But, yes, as to the rest, as was already said, we're all different.
I personally don't really care about the deeper meaning, generally - not in everything. But usually when I'm reading fiction, it's as an escape and unless it's just so incredibly thought provoking like a few are, it just feels like work to dissect every detail.
Twilight, while I love the story isn't one of those deep theological or philosophical books.
But back on the topic, I think it's sort of unfair to discount the story as being sub par simply because you disagree with the liberties taken with the author's version of vampires.
Not saying you personally are doing that, just saying, in general.
Hylian Princess wrote: "I'm no good at poetry! And every year some teacher of mine insists that I write a poem... UGH! Worst failures of my life. Except basketball games... *shivers at the horror*"lol
The liberties Meyer took probably influenced its popularity. Vampires have been the same cookie cutter characters until Twilight. Whether people liked what she did or not, it still drew special attention to her books because it was different.
Hylian Princess wrote: "The liberties Meyer took probably influenced its popularit..."True. And if you never change anything, you can't have that many original stories. I mean it's already "everything is just like Twilight", but imagine how much more that would be true, if no one ever changed the mythology and it all had to be the same.
Kristen wrote: "Hylian Princess wrote: "The liberties Meyer took probably influenced its popularit..."
True. And if you never change anything, you can't have that many original stories. I mean it's already "ever..."
That is so true!!! I agree totally!
True. And if you never change anything, you can't have that many original stories. I mean it's already "ever..."
That is so true!!! I agree totally!
Kristen wrote: "Hylian Princess wrote: "The liberties Meyer took probably influenced its popularit..."True. And if you never change anything, you can't have that many original stories. I mean it's already "ever..."
Oh, I disagree. It would be more difficult, true, but that's not a bad thing- and we'd get more original, thought-provoking works out of it. Meyer could have taken the vampire themes, called them something else, and been fine- and then it might have been hailed as a new twist on vampires. The problem is in large part that she used the same name. (Well, one of the problems; but I'll stick to that one for the time being.)
There's no sane person insinuating that vampires are real.
Just like everyone who believes in ghosts or alien abductions is completely crazy? Um, no. There are plenty of people who perhaps aren't as educated as you and I who do believe in those old folk tales.
As for Hylian Princess's comment in regards to vampires being cookie-cutter characters... really? Is Anne Rice's Lestat the same as Bram Stoker's Dracula? What about the bloodsucking fiends of the Sookie Stackhouse books, or Christoper Pike's Last Vampire series, or even the Vampire Diaries? To insinuate that all vampires were the same before Twilight is to display a lack of knowledge about the subgenre. VD is over ten years older than Twilight. And Dracula? Don't get me started.
Kristen wrote: "The comments about Bella being a bad role model/weak, etc. Um, she fell in love with a vampire who, as a predator, had all the supernatural vampire lure, that a hormonal teenage girl isn't really p..."I wasn't trying to paint Bella as a role model. Like you say she is an average teenager and I did enjoy the Twilight saga in fact I loved it and just hope that Stephanie Meyer finishes Midnight Sun as I'd love to read it from his point of view.
Anila wrote: "Oh, I disagree. It would be more difficult, true, but that's not a bad thing- and we'd get more original, thought-provoking works out of it. ..."Whenever you have less room for variety, you're going to have fewer options.
I love whenever I see a new take on something like this. If I were to pick up a book that's exactly like another (mythology-wise), I get bored. Sort of the been there done that, idea.
But, you're right, that stringent requirement would result in more books of...substance and less fluff, I guess.
But again, a book, for me, doesn't have to be some great literary work. I just like a nice story.
"Just like everyone who believes in ghosts or alien abductions is completely crazy? Um, no. There are plenty of people who perhaps aren't as educated..."
Ok, sure, I'll give you that. I'll rephrase. It's not exactly blasphemous for us to twist the concept of vampires like it is for angels.
"As for Hylian Princess's comment in regards to vampires being cookie-cutter characters... really? ..."
Yes,you're right, I don't have great knowledge on the whole vampire subgenre because, personally, horror was never my thing. Nor was reading up until a few years ago.
But to me and people like me, who haven't read any and all vampire novels - vampires are pretty much always the same. And it isn't really that interesting or appealing to try out a vampire book since it seems that way. I was really hesitant to even read Twilight at first because it was about 'vampires'. It just didn't appeal to me on that subject alone.
The fact that Twilight is different has stirred our interest in vampires much more than before and has probably gotten alot more people actually reading the ones you consider to be the good ones. Not me, since I'm still not all into vampires, though.
I haven't read any of the ones you listed. Although I did try vampire diaries. I didn't make it past chapter 3. The writing and plot line were terrible...at least to me.
And I intend to try out the sookie stackhouse ones.
But I think the thing I really liked about it was that the vampire aspect isn't the main focus in the book. The love story is. It's really about Bella and Edward falling in love and, oh yeah, he's a 'vampire'.
I think maybe that's why I have such a hard time seeing the problem with changing the vampire image for it.
Helen wrote: "Kristen wrote: "The comments about Bella being a bad role model/weak, etc. Um, she fell in love with a vampire who, as a predator, had all the supernatural vampire lure, that a hormonal teenage gir..."Maybe you weren't, but alot of people do. I'm not sure why...
I agree, I hope she finishes it too. But as more and more time goes by, I tend to think it won't happen.
Kristen wrote: "Amina wrote: "Yes, it was more prominent in Eclipse, but the reader can see where her thought process will lead her. "lol, like most teenagers...
Everyone has 'bad' thoughts, but what matters is ..."
Right - and virtue...
Kristen, as we seem to have reached an impasse on almost all of the above, there is one thing I'd like to address from your last post...But I think the thing I really liked about it was that the vampire aspect isn't the main focus in the book. The love story is. It's really about Bella and Edward falling in love and, oh yeah, he's a 'vampire'.
I think maybe that's why I have such a hard time seeing the problem with changing the vampire image for it.
And that's fine. However, I think the heated objections from those who were reading and/or reading horror before Twilight came around stem from a lot of that. While you may enjoy it because the vampirism is a side element, many people were offended by that very thing. Besides, if it was mostly about the love story, why include vampirism at all? (Just speaking rhetorically here.) There's a perfectly healthy romance genre that would have allowed Meyer to tell her story in that framework, and it wouldn't have changed the characterization all that much. As it was, she trod on the toes of a lot of people by making the Cullens vampires.
(Full disclosure: At this point I should probably mention that I'm not a big vampire aficionado, but I do have several friends who are; of the books I listed above the only one I've read was Dracula. Sorry if that was confusing at all.)
I know you said it was rhetorical, but I'm going to answer anyway. She added vampires b/c she wanted that forbidden element. The 'we are in love and want to be together but it's probably wrong'. That's the whole point of the cover with the apple, actually - the forbidden fruit.I understand how that can be annoying, but I think (personally) that's getting a little too involved to actually get upset about her "misusing" the word vampire. It's a story. It's wasn't meant to be taken so seriously one way or another.
If you(generally) don't like it, don't read it. It wasn't exactly a secret that it was a teen romance and not a horror themed story.
How much horror is there actually in the YA category anyway - other than the awful plots and/or writing of some, lol - You sort of have to expect that if there's a YA vampire book, it's most likely not going to be the traditional mythology.
"At this point I should probably mention that I'm not a big vampire aficionado, but..."
That's ok, I was speaking more in the general sense, anyway. I hope you (or anyone else) isn't taking offense to any of my comments.
Palice wrote: "I'm sorry, but I couldn't resist commenting again.I can think of many other 'we are in love and want to be together but it's probably wrong' stories. For instance, did Romeo and Juliet involve Vam..."
Yeah, but Romeo and Juliet were both human. Romeo wasn't afraid he was going to lose control and kill her. And besides the Romeo and Juliet thing's been done again and again and again.
Yeah...I'm not sure why they would emphasize the vampire part of it. Everyone I told about it (was actually turned off by the vampire thing), I said basically how I said it before - it's a romance and he happens to be a vampire. I think I added something like, 'but they're not regular vampires' and 'no, no, it's good, really'. lol
I even heard Meyer describe it that way - that it was a love story and the vampire aspect of it was more like he just had a disease - like how Edward hates what he is so much and didn't get a choice.
She wasn't trying to create a new image for vampires, she needed him to be in that position of being in love with her but not wanting what he is to kill her.
lol, but yeah, I get why you didn't like it. That would have ticked me off too.
My problem with the 'forbidden element' is that it never was really, you know, 'forbidden'. Edward got over his lust for Bella's blood in the first book and then demonstrated by the end of it that he and his family could keep her safe from any other vamps looking for noms. They made out a lot. A. LOT. And then they got married, did the horizontal hoedown, and had a baby and all this was before Bella was a vampire. So, um, forbidden is missing. (Addendum: It is my personal belief that authors of paranormal romance are missing the big point- that the heart of the story ought to be not so much 'I want to kill you but I love you' since this is clearly refuted. I would prefer more of 'you will grow old and die and there is nothing, nothing, nothing I can do about it', which makes vampire romance problematic because there is something they can do about it. Credit where credit is due, Meyer addressed this. Then she fixed it. My preferred conflict was gone.)
It's too late for 'If you don't like it, don't read it' because I read it years ago. And I read it three times. And then I read all the sequels. I did like it at the time; I have problems with it now.
There's not too much true horror in YA, I concede. It's too patchy an age group for that to really be marketable. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head that's even quasi-horror is Dan Wells' I Am Not A Serial Killer, which if I recall correctly is marketed as adult overseas and may or may not be so here- but has a teen hero.
I read the twilight books in early 09 and I really did enjoy it. Then I heard that that the movie was coming out and I was pretty keen to see it. But when I did, I was really disappointed. The acting was terrible and I didn't feel that they chose the right actors for it. Although, I will admit, the movies are getting better, I don't particularly care for them, but I don't mind if others like them. Everybody has opinions. The thing that really annoyed me was how people got TOO obsessed with it. Pretending to be vampires, thinking everything in the book is true, thinking they themselves ARE vampires. THAT annoys me.
Twilight was alright, I just don't like how seriously people have taken it. Some obsessed people are thinking evrything in the book is real, pretending to be vampires or thinking that they ARE vampires. I'm not saying all twilight fans are, I liked it, but some of the hype is just ridiculous. I mean, Team Edward? Team Jacob? Some of these people really need to find something else to do, other than bore people with their constant chatter about how twilight is SO great and how much they LOVE edward. I don't think the movie was very good, but I have nothing against those who enjoyed it. I did, however enjoy stephanie meyers other book, The Host. I found it more believable, and a lot more interesting and well written
Anila wrote: "My problem with the 'forbidden element' is that it never was really, you know, 'forbidden'. Edward got over his lust for Bella's blood in the first book and then demonstrated by the end of it that..."Well, no, the forbidden element was mainly for the first book. The big triumph is after Edward doesn't kill her at the end, so it's pretty consistent.
The other books are just a continuation of what was already established, although it's still somewhat 'forbidden' because Edward realizes after Jasper tries to attack her in New Moon and once they learn about the newborns and the Volturi coming in Eclipse(actually the volturi in NM, too), he knows that she'll never be "safe" in his world. Which was the whole reason he left in NM.
But it's kinda too late by that point. So it was basically, she becomes a vampire or someone else will kill her. The growing old and dying option was eliminated after he allowed her to get involved in his world - which he makes pretty clear that he hates himself for.
"It's too late for 'If you don't like it, don't read it' because I read it years ago. And I read ..."
I'm almost afraid to go back and read them again for that reason. It's also been a few years since I read them all - I think all the hype from the movies pretty much killed my need to read them again. But I wonder if I'll still think they're as good as I did...
Gabby wrote: "Twilight was alright, I just don't like how seriously people have taken it. Some obsessed people are thinking evrything in the book is real, pretending to be vampires or thinking that they ARE vamp..."I agree, I think the Twilight obsession has gotten WAY out of control.
Someone asked me(back when the first movie came out) If I was team Edward or Jacob. I laughed and said Emmett, lol - not seriously, but I do love Emmett :)
message 94:
by
The FountainPenDiva, Old school geek chick and lover of teddy bears
(new)
-
rated it 1 star
Listen, I don't have an issue with Twilight fans. I DO take serious issue when people try and convince the rest of us who think the books are absolute dreck and send the wrong messages to girls and women, that somehow we're wrong or "not getting it. If you love the books, good for you. But please, don't expect everyone in the world to share your fanaticism.I really have problems with Twi-hards who loudly proclaim that Twilight is the greatest book in Western Literature (yes, I've seen and heard that sentiment expressed many times and they were not joking). No, it is not nor ever will it ever be on the same level as Bram Stoker or Sheridan le Fanu. Treat it as light, fluffy reading and wish-fulfillment and we're all good.
I really have problems with Twi-hards who loudly proclaim that Twilight is the greatest book in Western Literature (yes, I've seen and heard that sentiment expressed many times and they were not joking).
And I bet this was typed in IMspeak as well.
And I bet this was typed in IMspeak as well.
message 96:
by
The FountainPenDiva, Old school geek chick and lover of teddy bears
(new)
-
rated it 1 star
LOL, I seriously wish it were.I love Harry Potter, but not enough to put it on par with Siddhartha. Then again, the theme of this topic speaks volumes. Fanaticism isn't intellectual. It's emotional. Don't get me wrong, I've got my own fangirl/geek girl things happening, but I make a point of sharing it with others of like mind and I'm accepting that other folks just might not be into what I'm into. I've come across too many rabid Twi-hards who take any criticism of their goddess Stephanie Meyer as heresy. It's a damn good thing we don't burn people at the stake or us anti-Twilight folks might be in BIG trouble, LOL.
Vixenne wrote: "Twi-hards who loudly proclaim that Twilight is the greatest book in Western Literature (yes, I've seen and heard that sentiment expressed many times and they were not joking)."Well, now, that's just sad. But I guess it's good that they're actually reading.
I hope I didn't come across as one of those. I just like to debate/discuss...
I don't have a problem if people don't like it. I mean I think reality tv is a complete and utter wasted of time, but I don't have a problem with people who love it.
I do, however, think you're wrong by saying that it "sends the wrong message". As you said, it's just "light, fluffy reading."
At least for me. I know people like you described, probably think it's their Bible or something.
Wow! I've never heard anyone call it "the greatest Western Literature ever" or something like that. I consider my self a Twihard, but dang, even I have to agree that that's going overboard. It's a very good book, and it think that it sends good messages. Just have fun with it people! Like I said before, I will defend it to people who bash it, but I'm not going to compare it to Shakespear, or Vampire novels that come from the talent of Anne Rice.
It's written for young adults. YOUNG! I've read Interview With a Vampire, (awesome book) and plan to read the rest someday. I work in a middle school, and I don't know very many Young readers that could handle Anne Rice, it would confuse them. Plus, in my opinion, much too graphic for their age anyway.
They're just not in the same catagory.
I guess that I'm a Twihard with a good sense of reality! : ) Happy Reading everyone!!!
i am so a twilight fan cause of jacob
I've come to realize, viewing comments that everyone has said here, that I'm pretty low on the "Twihard" scale. If it were from 0 to 20. 0 being a person that totally loves the books, has a mild Twilight collection, and is in love with a certain charachter. And 20 being someone that claims that the books are the greatest piece of American Literature ever, does every thing they can to own everything Twilight, visits locations, and stalks the actors.I am about a 5 or 6.
I didn't realize that some people were taking it that far!!!! Wow!
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Kamikaze Girls (other topics)
I Am Not a Serial Killer (other topics)
The Host (other topics)
Twilight (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
The Shining (other topics)Kamikaze Girls (other topics)
I Am Not a Serial Killer (other topics)
The Host (other topics)
Twilight (other topics)
Really there isn't anything wrong with it. But you have to admit that talking about Twilight non-stop does get old. I mean really wouldn't you get tired of a book, TV show, movie, or whatever if it was talked about 24/7...? Like let's say you find someone who is a baseball freak, or a Dancing with the Stars freak. And that's all they talk about. Now wouldn't' that get old really quick?