Twilight
discussion
Can TWILIGHT get ANY MORE SICKER?
@Kimberly....so....you're in 9th grade? Cause it's my understanding this book was published in 2005. LOL. Alrighty then. And I don't think you're the person who made the list "100 things to Hate twilight". That's who my comment was for.It's a nice series for teenagers. Especially after some of the stuff I've read recently. You have to remember who is buying the book. Teenagers tend to spend the most money on books like this. SO of course it was a best seller. Which in turn makes adults read it because it's on the BEST SELLER list.
I think this series is a complete knock off of The Vampire Diaries, which came out first. But it was still something I was able to read completely through and not hate. For a teenage book, it's actually one of the better books I've read. Note I said TEENAGE. If you are looking for an adult book, best not to pick a book full of high schoolers. Just a thought.
Kimberly wrote: "Age is but a number...Why are you talking about adult books? Very confusing..."
I am confused as well. U seem like you liked the series. So did I. My original comment was for someone who posted way at the beginning of this post, who HATED the series so much they made a list of 100 reason why they hated it.
My comment was not geared toward you or anything you have posted.
Adam wrote: "@Nurlely: In your earlier criticism of Meyer's paranormal writing, you said that she "learned her lesson" after the Twilight series. "The Host is better. I think she did not think Twilight was going to be best seller. She made lots of flaws in the series and due to Jacob's fans wishes, she even made it worse for Jacob by imprinting Bella's baby.
She learned her lesson and made the Host better. At least that what my friends said. I found the Host is quite boring I did not finish reading it.
Gerd wrote: "Like:"2-The actors at the movies SUCK. Why can’t people get that when they’re nominated twice at the Razzies?"
A totally valid reason to hate the book which obviously casted- wait, it didn't, did it?
But seriously:... "
Seriously Gerd. Why did you quote that comment of mine and answered something else?
Were you lost? Or you had to many to write and somehow lost your way in answering the actual question.
Err? The movie??
The movie was the one that threw the books to the sky. Without the movie, the books will not sell that many copies.
I am confused now. How is that related to my comment:
"I think if a reader dislikes or hates a book, giving away reasons of why is the best thing to do. Having the reasons listed is great for that reader knows exactly what s/he hates about the book..." And it was as an answer to Tiffany's comment.
I agree with you that having the reasons listed why you might dislike the book is a good way to exactly point out what bothers you about it or makes you actively dislike it - I was just poking gentle fun at the massive amount of screaming "twilight" haters that actually have a problem with the hype, and/or the fan-army, and not the novel.Or even the movie-
which is something you can't hang on the novel either.
It's much like saying:
"Jurassic Park (the Crichton novel) sucks because of Jurassic Park III..." :D
Shouldn't it be "Could Twilight get any
Nurlely wrote: "Gerd wrote: "Like:"2-The actors at the movies SUCK. Why can’t people get that when they’re nominated twice at the Razzies?"
A totally valid reason to hate the book which obviously casted- wait, it..."
LOL. Is this a debate now, "nurlely"? I never meant for this to be a heated conversation. LOL. Of course, people are entitled to their opinion. Whoever hated the book, bravo to you. But the person who wrote that list of "100" things...seriously? My point was if you hated the book so much why did you read the ENTIRE series. That is four books; probably about 2000 pages; and somewhere between 40 to 50 dollars. You think they would have figured out they hated the book and the characters by the end of the first book.
Case in point, I very much DISLIKED the book FALLen by Lauren Kate. Therefore I did not subject myself or my wallet to buying the entire series.
Also this isn't really giving a reader a reason not to read the book because this is a side subject, not a post on the book's review page. So some readers will never come across this discussion.
And I'm done with this discussion. It's negative for negativities sake.
I don't get the point in writing about how much you hate a book. We get it, you don't like it, but other people do. Just calmly say "I don't care for these books" and be done with it. There is no reason to go on and on about it. I'm sure there are books you love that would piss you off if someone said all sorts of horrible things about it. Just get over it. If you don't like then don't obsess about it. You read it, don't like it, so move on. Read different books. Talk about something else. Just please stop being rude. Thanks. :)
Tiffany wrote: "LOL. Is this a debate now, "nurlely"? I never meant for this to be a heated conversation. LOL. Of course, people are entitled to their opinion. Whoever hated the book, bravo to you. But the person who wrote that list of "100" things...seriously? "I think you missed the point back there. I did not understand why Gerd answered a total different one. As for the person who submit the 100 things, I actually admire her willingness in searching what factors she hated from the series.
But that person did not have to go through the series to write the list. If you google it down, it is easy to find things that you hate about Twilight.
And the topic is hers. If you dislike her way of writing facts, you can argue with that. Point that out to me is ridiculous since I do not hate Twilight. Yes I think its fantasy is so messy but I like its romance.
Tiffany wrote: "Case in point, I very much DISLIKED the book FALLen by Lauren Kate. Therefore I did not subject myself or my wallet to buying the entire series. "
Well...if you want to submit 1-1000 things you disliked so much about Fallen, then be my guest. I never let any negativeness to my favourite books change my opinion.
Gerd wrote: "I agree with you that having the reasons listed why you might dislike the book is a good way to exactly point out what bothers you about it or makes you actively dislike it - I was just poking gent..."I have no idea whether you were answering me or not. I hope not because I do not hate Twilight. I am not fond of the fantasy. I felt that way when I first read the series. I care less about the hype, the fans or the haters. I made my opinion based on my reading.
It is true that loving or hating the books has nothing to do with the movies. But all the great and terrible things about Twilight exploded when the Twilight movie was released. Lots of Twilight fans came from people who watched the movie and then read the series. Even Twilighter and Twihard in my country.
Jennifer wrote: "Natalie - I agree with you. Is it well-written? No. Does it have issues? Yes. Can you put it down? No.This is girl crack. And just because I like it doesn't mean i don't want to smack Edward..."
:/ i so agree. i mean its a great book for us teens, and my mom liked the movies :P. its not written "perfectly" but I couldnt put it down. =)
well, I just wanna say that a lot of the things that people consider "sick"- like being in love with a vampire, or loving a werewolf, or imprinting on a human/vampire baby- I sort of see as commentary upon prejudice. If you'll recall, Bella was very disgusted when she first learned Jacob was a werewolf, and beyond disgusted when she learned that one of the wolves imprinted on a toddler. But she is forced to accept the fact that you can't look down on things just b/c you don't understand. So that's partially why I'm surprised to hear that so many people consider SM prejudiced. As for the lack of non-white vampires, I will say that the population of vampires is very small. If you were to randomly pick 100 people from the US, how many do you think would be white?
Sharon wrote: "Why can't people just take the book for what it is - a good yarn designed for the young adult market. Let's not over analyse this guys! Just enjoy the story. Jeesh!"
I am trying to stay out the the discussion because I have just started reading the first book, however, I have seen the movies. I have to disagree that this is "good yarn" for young adults. If I had a daughter I would let her read 200 other books before letting her go anywere near the Twilight Saga because love, in my opinion, shouldn't be like this. Again, I only watched the movie adaptation, but I lost the little respect I had for Belle when she was mopping in front of a window for months. I wanted to jump into film, bitch slap her and yell SUCK IT UP.
I am trying to stay out the the discussion because I have just started reading the first book, however, I have seen the movies. I have to disagree that this is "good yarn" for young adults. If I had a daughter I would let her read 200 other books before letting her go anywere near the Twilight Saga because love, in my opinion, shouldn't be like this. Again, I only watched the movie adaptation, but I lost the little respect I had for Belle when she was mopping in front of a window for months. I wanted to jump into film, bitch slap her and yell SUCK IT UP.
I think, in the real world, people often get depressed and mopey when going through a serious breakup or divorce. I suppose if you've never experienced anything like that (lucky you), it would seem self-indulgent and weak. Bella tried to seem normal and go through the motions (especially in the book), but it wasn't very convincing.
Kimberly wrote: "Well, the real world is different from this book, or is it?"
No my neighbour just mainstreamed and sparkled all over the place. Anyway, I was revering to Bella's reaction towards Edward, we all fall in love and we all have our hearts broken that is something a lot of people can relate to, my point is that she acted way to pathetic.
No my neighbour just mainstreamed and sparkled all over the place. Anyway, I was revering to Bella's reaction towards Edward, we all fall in love and we all have our hearts broken that is something a lot of people can relate to, my point is that she acted way to pathetic.
Mickey wrote: "I think, in the real world, people often get depressed and mopey when going through a serious breakup or divorce. I suppose if you've never experienced anything like that (lucky you), it would seem..."
Don't presume to know anything about me, I am just stating my opinion. People going throught "serious break up or divorce" don't cry in front of window for 4 months, but I guess her not having a job or having actual real life experience says enough and she could afford to be mopy.
Don't presume to know anything about me, I am just stating my opinion. People going throught "serious break up or divorce" don't cry in front of window for 4 months, but I guess her not having a job or having actual real life experience says enough and she could afford to be mopy.
Wiction wrote: " People going throught "serious break up or divorce" don't cry in front of window for 4 months"Some do. Bella did have a job, by the way.
Mickey wrote: "Wiction wrote: " People going throught "serious break up or divorce" don't cry in front of window for 4 months"
Some do. Bella did have a job, by the way."
I hope you are not referring to yourself, because that would make you a total MOBI, if not please feel free to give me some examples. I can't think of any self-respecting woman or a fictional one at that who dealt with a hearth break like Bella. Not even Buffy who killed her vampire lover.
Some do. Bella did have a job, by the way."
I hope you are not referring to yourself, because that would make you a total MOBI, if not please feel free to give me some examples. I can't think of any self-respecting woman or a fictional one at that who dealt with a hearth break like Bella. Not even Buffy who killed her vampire lover.
I've already posted this on several other twilight topics, but here seems an appropriate place as well...how is it that Bella's "moping" for four months (which, when you've lost your lover, your best friend, your extended family, all your confidence, and your planned immortality is not really that long of a period to be crushed) is inexcusable, but romeo and juliet continues to be considered by many as the quintessential romance?
Kimberly wrote: "Wiction wrote: "Kimberly wrote: "Well, the real world is different from this book, or is it?"
No my neighbour just mainstreamed and sparkled all over the place. Anyway, I was revering to Bella's r..."
Thank you for that insightful titbit of information.
No my neighbour just mainstreamed and sparkled all over the place. Anyway, I was revering to Bella's r..."
Thank you for that insightful titbit of information.
Kirby wrote: "I've already posted this on several other twilight topics, but here seems an appropriate place as well...how is it that Bella's "moping" for four months (which, when you've lost your lover, your be..."
Is that the message young girls need these days. If you get dumped be a sack of useless human goo?
Is that the message young girls need these days. If you get dumped be a sack of useless human goo?
Wiction wrote: " if not please feel free to give me some examples. I can't think of any self-respecting woman or a fictional one at that who dealt with a hearth break like Bella."This is an incomplete list. The criteria that I am using is that the person (I'm including men and boys here too) grieves for a period of over four months. I'm including death as well as other types of loss. This doesn't mean a complete breakdown of productivity, because I'm mirroring Bella's experience (in the books, she goes to school and gets good grades. She just feels colorless and depressed.) I put spoiler alerts in case people haven't read these books and don't wish to know the details.
Fictional characters:
*Maurice Bendrix from Graham Greene's The End of the Affair:(view spoiler)
*Humbert Humbert from Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita:(view spoiler)
*Edward Cullen from Stephenie Meyer's New Moon refers to his time spent away from Bella as being torturous and tells her that he was nearly ready to come to her and beg her to let him back in her life. He refers to his life before meeting her as a night and compared her to a meteor that was so brilliant, he could not be satisfied with his previous life anymore. He attempts to kill himself when he thinks Bella is dead.
*Philip Wakem from George Eliot's The Mill on the Floss:(view spoiler)
*Emperor Claudius from Robert Graves's Claudius the God: (view spoiler)
*Anne Eliot and Frederick Wentworth from Jane Austen's Persuasion:(view spoiler)
*Severus Snape from the Harry Potter series: (view spoiler)
*Jane Bennett from Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice: (view spoiler)
*Dr. Paul Courreges from Francois Mauriac's Desert of Love: (view spoiler)
Historical Figures:
*Queen Victoria never got over her husband Albert's death. She refused to appear in public for several years after his death and wore black for the rest of her life (around 40 years)
*American president Theodore Roosevelt dealt with the death of his first wife (and also his mother on the same day) by throwing himself into his work for a period of several months. He refused to mention his first wife for the rest of his life and didn't mention her in his autobiography.
well, first of all you ignored the fact that, as I said, this was not a simple case of being dumped. secondly, I believe that I also said this in another topic, but I'll say it again...I don't think it's at all appropriate to expect novels to teach young people morals and values, anymore than they should be expected to erode the morals and values that they have hopefully been taught by some adult at some point. unfortunately, however, I suppose that there are some young people out there who take fiction more seriously than is healthy. so let's just say, for argument's sake, that all fictional stories that may fall into the hands of children are supposed to have only good and positive messages contained w/in them, and twilight does not fall into this category. okay, so it's a good thing that it's not required reading at any schools, right? but what about ROMEO AND JULIET?! I was forced to read it in school, and, sticking w/ the assumption that teenage girls are so impressionable that they'll emulate any fictional character forced under their noses, how is this at all appropriate? if someone MOPING over a boy for four months at the age of 17 is inappropriate, then how the hell is a 14 year old girl committing SUICIDE over a boy appropriate enough to be REQUIRED? I don't get it!
Kirby wrote: "well, first of all you ignored the fact that, as I said, this was not a simple case of being dumped. secondly, I believe that I also said this in another topic, but I'll say it again...I don't thi..."
Yes, you've mentioned it twice now, that you have mentioned this before. And yes , I have ignored what you said because even in the supernaturalverse you still can get over these things. The fact that she is moping over not getting her “immortality” just makes her come across as just plain spoiled. You mentioned Romeo and Juliet for the obvious “suicide” similarities, and I find it insulting to compare Shakespeare with SM. I do not consider Bella and Edward star crossed lovers, the reason Edward dumped, yes, I said it again dumped, Bella was the simple fact that somebody wanted to eat her, in the bad way and tries to get over her lose with some trill seeking, near death, experiences. Of course it wouldn’t be a total Romeo and Juliet ripoff if Edward wouldn’t try off himself when he thinks Bella is dead. That be the power of sparkle love (or some R&J).
Shakespeare was written around 1595, and I believe set around 1500, an age where girls who had their first bleeding , usually at the age of 12, had to marry whomever their father deemed fit, patriarchal society was a bitch. So am I shocked by the fact that Juliet is 14 years old, well no. As for impressionable young girls, Juliet defies her father to be with the man she loves. Something that was simply not done, with this single act she is more active then Bella, who is as passive as a woman can get in a work of fiction. This is what I got from the play and not the fact that circumstances beyond their control ended up in their “SUICIDE.”
Yes, you've mentioned it twice now, that you have mentioned this before. And yes , I have ignored what you said because even in the supernaturalverse you still can get over these things. The fact that she is moping over not getting her “immortality” just makes her come across as just plain spoiled. You mentioned Romeo and Juliet for the obvious “suicide” similarities, and I find it insulting to compare Shakespeare with SM. I do not consider Bella and Edward star crossed lovers, the reason Edward dumped, yes, I said it again dumped, Bella was the simple fact that somebody wanted to eat her, in the bad way and tries to get over her lose with some trill seeking, near death, experiences. Of course it wouldn’t be a total Romeo and Juliet ripoff if Edward wouldn’t try off himself when he thinks Bella is dead. That be the power of sparkle love (or some R&J).
Shakespeare was written around 1595, and I believe set around 1500, an age where girls who had their first bleeding , usually at the age of 12, had to marry whomever their father deemed fit, patriarchal society was a bitch. So am I shocked by the fact that Juliet is 14 years old, well no. As for impressionable young girls, Juliet defies her father to be with the man she loves. Something that was simply not done, with this single act she is more active then Bella, who is as passive as a woman can get in a work of fiction. This is what I got from the play and not the fact that circumstances beyond their control ended up in their “SUICIDE.”
Mickey wrote: "Wiction wrote: " if not please feel free to give me some examples. I can't think of any self-respecting woman or a fictional one at that who dealt with a hearth break like Bella."
This is an inc..."
Mickey wrote: "Wiction wrote: " if not please feel free to give me some examples. I can't think of any self-respecting woman or a fictional one at that who dealt with a hearth break like Bella."
This is an inc..."
some of the fictitious personages are good examples, but most of these people/characters did something with their grief, even Queen Victoria did not fully give into her grief and attended to most of her tasks during her seclusion.
Jane Bennett was melancholy but she never displayed any of the zombie like symptoms, same goes for Snape even heartbroken they moved on, and that is my main point.
This is an inc..."
Mickey wrote: "Wiction wrote: " if not please feel free to give me some examples. I can't think of any self-respecting woman or a fictional one at that who dealt with a hearth break like Bella."
This is an inc..."
some of the fictitious personages are good examples, but most of these people/characters did something with their grief, even Queen Victoria did not fully give into her grief and attended to most of her tasks during her seclusion.
Jane Bennett was melancholy but she never displayed any of the zombie like symptoms, same goes for Snape even heartbroken they moved on, and that is my main point.
well, I don't feel like any of my points were actually considered, so rather than repeat myself again (now that I know I'm being intentionally ignored)...*hands raised in surrender*
Wiction wrote: " Juliet defies her father to be with the man she loves. Something that was simply not done, with this single act she is more active then Bella, who is as passive as a woman can get in a work of fiction."Charlie made it clear that he would rather have Bella with Jacob than with Edward. So, she 'defies' him as well. Not that I think defying someone is a sign of being active, necessarily, but I'm going with your line of reasoning.
Vixenne wrote: "Valerie wrote: "The only reason why Twilight is popular is because it provides wish fullfillment. Bella is a blank slate of a character, and the only thing that fills her out, even a little bit, is..."If you want a really good paranormal/urban fantasy series that isn't completely caucasian, I would recommend the Mercy Thompson and the Alpha and Omega series, both by Patricia Briggs. Both series' MCs are Native American (although A & O has 2 MCs, one of which is white) and there are lots of strong non-white supporting characters in both series, Mercy Thompson especially.
http://www.patriciabriggs.com/books/
Mickey wrote: "Wiction wrote: " Juliet defies her father to be with the man she loves. Something that was simply not done, with this single act she is more active then Bella, who is as passive as a woman can get ..."
You can't compare a girl, who has no say what so ever of her own life, and will be used to up the position of the family in court, to a girl who has the freedom to do what she wants, Bella does not have to 'obey' Charlie.
You can't compare a girl, who has no say what so ever of her own life, and will be used to up the position of the family in court, to a girl who has the freedom to do what she wants, Bella does not have to 'obey' Charlie.
Kirby wrote: "well, I don't feel like any of my points were actually considered, so rather than repeat myself again (now that I know I'm being intentionally ignored)...
*hands raised in surrender*"
I understand what you are trying to say, but even these facts, for me, don't justify her reaction.
*hands raised in surrender*"
I understand what you are trying to say, but even these facts, for me, don't justify her reaction.
Wiction wrote: "but most of these people/characters did something with their grief, even Queen Victoria did not fully give into her grief and attended to most of her tasks during her seclusion.Jane Bennett was melancholy but she never displayed any of the zombie like symptoms, same goes for Snape even heartbroken they moved on, and that is my main point. "
You have not read New Moon, right? Bella discusses her attempts to stop Charlie from worrying about her. I've already discussed the fact that she is going to school and has pulled her grades up. So, she is also 'attending to her duties' like Victoria.
These examples I gave did not 'move on'. That was the point. Many of these people haven't moved on after years of being parted with their loved one. Snape cried at a photograph of Lily 16 years after she died.
Kirby wrote: "well, I don't feel like any of my points were actually considered, so rather than repeat myself again (now that I know I'm being intentionally ignored)...*hands raised in surrender*"
You raised some really good points, Kirby. I also think it's a little paternalistic to think that girls are so malleable that they will begin imitating any girl character they come across, so they have to be protected from themselves.
It's my understanding that Romeo and Juliet is also under fire from many people who think that teenagers can't fall in love and that it was only obsession and hormones. I think it stems from this rejection of love being intense and all-consuming(or 'unhealthy', as I've heard it called). The view of love being a blending of two people is seen as threatening to the individuality of both(particularly the female).
Jo wrote: "100 Reasons Twilight Sucks.1-It is too copied off Jane Austen’s books. I hate that. Although JA also sucks...
2-The actors at the movies SUCK. Why can’t people get that when they’re nominated ..."
Ok...I understand why you wrote this...Twilight is not one of my favorite pieces of fiction, by far. But while you make some decent points, you become so rambling, repetitive and incoherent, I had to stop somewhere halfway through the list. And point number 19 is just offensive; you do realize that's the sort of logic rapists use, right?
Vixenne wrote: "You are one of the few people who point out the series' not-so-subtle racism. Then again, what else does one expect from Meyer incorporating her Mormon beliefs? On the other hand, the entire paranormal genre tends to be most caucasian anyway--as if there can't possibly be weres, vamps and other mythical beings of other ethnicities. That gets to be pretty boring."Actually, while fine fiction it is not, the Anita Blake series involves a lot of ethnicities and races in positive AND negative lights. The main character is mixed white and Latino (Mexican, to be exact). Just pointing out that there are some writers who include other races in supernatural fiction (though I'm not exactly sure how I feel about one of the Latinos being the leader of the rat shapeshifters, when the white guy is the leader of the wolves---and this is coming from a white girl).
Kataury wrote: "The fact that you find it to be a way of control indicates that you yourself have never known what it is like to need something to guide you. The Catholic church, for example, is one of the biggest..."Very, VERY well said. I may not agree with all religions (after all, Satanism--while not really a religion, per se, but a belief system/way of living--is purely hedonistic, which is not acceptable to most of society), but religion has persisted since the dawn of time (or since the apes stood up, if that's what you believe) because people NEED something to believe in; they need hope. The Catholic Church has often been corrupt and more harmful than helpful; the Protestant Church was essentially created because a king got horny and couldn't have what he wanted; the Muslim faith is obviously flawed as well...Buddhism, Judaism, old-school polytheism...They all have negatives and flaws, obviously, but they all come down to people needing to put their faith in something or someone. One just needs to be discerning in what (or who) he or she puts his or her faith in.
Laura wrote: "...the Protestant Church was essentially created because a king got horny and couldn't have what he wanted"Are you talking about Henry VIII wanting to marry Anne Boleyn? That might be a reason why England went Protestant, but it wasn't the start of Protestantism. It was already in full swing on the continent.
I was referring to that, yes. I am aware that there was dissension in many places at the time; Martin Luther was active during the same time, and was initially despised by Henry. I am also aware that Henry VIII was actually a very intelligent and interesting person, who was not comfortable with Italians making all of the decisions for England. But the major catalyst for his (and England's) separation from the Roman Catholic church, though the full issue is much more complex, was his desire for Anne Boleyn.
Laura wrote: "I was referring to that, yes. I am aware that there was dissension in many places at the time; Martin Luther was active during the same time, and was initially despised by Henry for his criticism o..."I can agree with that statement. I just can't see how you can say that Protestantism started with Henry VIII.
It's late (or early, rather), and I have a headache...May I use that as an excuse? lol.
Works for me. It is rather early for historical debates. Hope you feel better.
Thank you...History and religion shouldn't be debated when one is tired, ill, or cranky. I'm thinking sleep will remedy the headache, but I'm in the middle of something at the moment.
Kimberly wrote: "Wiction wrote: "Kirby wrote: "well, first of all you ignored the fact that, as I said, this was not a simple case of being dumped. secondly, I believe that I also said this in another topic, but I..."
Read my pervious post and have you even read R&J?
Because your posts scream "I have no idea what I am talking about," all over the place. Juliet feigned her suicide so you could escape with Romeo, this was NOT her idea, btw.
Read my pervious post and have you even read R&J?
Because your posts scream "I have no idea what I am talking about," all over the place. Juliet feigned her suicide so you could escape with Romeo, this was NOT her idea, btw.
juliet may have originally feigned suicide, but that doesn't change the fact that she killed herself...at the age of 14 (actually, wasn't she not even 14 yet?)...over a boy...whom she married less than 24 hours after meeting- and the main explanation given for this ridiculously brief courtship is physical attraction. so, I'll even concede the point that Bella's moping is not completely justified, and she is therefore a bad role model for young girls. but wouldn't you have to concede the point that there is even less justification for suicide, and therefore romeo and juliet are also bad role models?
I'm very glad to hear that at least someone's up in arms about this being required reading at some schools...
Let's say I didn't hate Twilight Saga, but the more I went through my reading, the more it disappointed me. The first book was good, the second one, not that good, the third one, annoying and the last one made me want to vomit.As for SM writing, well, a lot of cuts would have been necessary. The same things are written over and over again. Ok, Bella, stop worshiping Edward! He's not a god; he's just a «glow-in-the-sun» vampire.
Ok, ok... It was sort of a pleasant reading in the end, but I think that all of the «passion» for the saga made me expect something else.
The comparison of Romeo and Juliet and the Twilight Saga is an interesting one. There are many people who don't like the Twilight Saga who focus on the idea that Bella is a poor role model for girls and that the story showcases an unhealthy view of romantic love. (Unhealthy meaning that too much emphasis is placed on it.) Of course, the same things could easily be said about Romeo and Juliet. I think these criticisms of both works come from a difference of what people think literature should be. I usually think about it in terms of the way I teach my students about what a theme is. When they leave elementary school, most students confuse the word 'theme' with 'moral'. If you ask them for the theme of a story, you might get something like, 'You shouldn't lie' or 'You can be happy without money'. It's as if stories are like a puzzle for the brain and, at the end, you are rewarded with a fortune cookie saying. According to this view, a story is just a long-winded maxim. Instead, I teach them that the theme is maybe a few words at most, such as (borrowing from above) 'Deception' or 'Poverty'. It's an exploration of those ideas, not a lesson about them. It may seem like the difference is just one of semantics, but I think it's actually one of the more important distinctions.
I do not have a problem with Romeo and Juliet being required reading. It was never my favorite Shakespeare play, but it is a popular choice.
I would say that most books that are studied in schools don't have morals to them. They have themes. I've explained the difference in my most recent post, so I won't go over it again. The only one I can think of that has morals to it is To Kill a Mockingbird.
Kimberly wrote: "So, if you have anymore reasons why it should/shouldn't be required reading...please let me know or post it yourself..."I'm not sure if R&J is a good play to keep as required reading, although I love it for the language it uses
"O that I were a glove upon that hand,
That I might touch that cheek!"
And I like how Shakespeare opens the play by casting doubt upon the nature of Romeo's love, but shows him to be a silver tongued devil, and as any youth quick to convince himself of the gravity of his love.
That keeps it a very modern play, showing how few we actually change.
However, on the other hand it feels very heavy handed with that chorus laying out the whole story and moral ahead of us. And there it already says that R&J do not die out of love, but are victims of their families mindless feuding.
Mickey wrote: "Instead, I teach them that the theme is maybe a few words at most, such as (borrowing from above) 'Deception' or 'Poverty'. It's an exploration of those ideas, not a lesson about them. It may seem like the difference is just one of semantics, but I think it's actually one of the more important distinctions..."
Fair point!
Ok so I am a fan of Twilight. I like the books and the movies. I've read through some of the comments and some of thm are right. it is annoying how Bella doesn't kill anyone as a vampires I mean really a new born vampire that doesn't want to kill anyone is not possible. Give her a few years to adjust to NOT killing a human like the rest of the Cullens had to learn. It's also annoying how they don't have fangs, I mean really how can you be a vampire without fangs, what pierces the skin of the animal when they need to drink blood. The baby thing I didn't much understnad and the only reason Bella survived that is because of Edward but even when he was biting her all over her body the blood would of drained out and she should have lost her life that way. The child's name is stupid and it's confusing as to how fast she grows becasue techinally vampires don't age. I know, I know she's a mix between human and vampire which makes her a dhampir but still even dhampir's don't age that fast. Plus, who the hell says when a huamn gets pregnant by a vampire her stomach turns into a hard shell, really that made no since to me.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Like:
"2-The actors at the movies SUCK. Why can’t people get that when they’re nominated twice at the Razzies?"
A totally valid reason to hate the book which obviously casted- wait, it didn't, did it?
But seriously:
1. Great Publicity Campaign
2. Guys and Girls trying to please themselves...in short...EMOS/GOTHS/Girls who are toooo girlie.
3. MOVIE.
How does any of the above relate to the book?
1. The publicity annoys you? Take it up with the publisher and the media.
2. People reading it for ... pleasure! Oh my god, quick, burn it! Throw "Catcher in the rye" novels at them!!
3. Yeah, didn't like the movie either- but how is that Stephenie's fault?