Twilight
discussion
Why do you think people hate twilight so much?
Mickey wrote: "The fact that a book is lengthy doesn't really impress me all that much. I don't think it automatically confers special literary status to a book. (If you are so "refined", as you call it, you probably find Stephen King distasteful, and he regularly writes books with 800-1.200 pages.) Nor does it impress me much either. The fact that I mentioned a book that happened to be lengthy does not indicate that length is an indicator of quality in my estimation. If logical errors of this magnitude are the norm on this board, I may be writing my last post.
Good and bad writing can be found in all formats. Just because a book is classified in a certain genre does not also classify its accomplishment or sophistication.
So, you are saying that an undergrad degree in English prevents you from enjoying books? I'm glad I dodged that bullet. That changes my perception of an English degree from being useless to being actually harmful. "
No. Being educated in writing and literature is not a bad thing. It opened me up to reading a wider range of books and helped me to more fully appreciate great writing. To tout ignorance so that you can enjoy the lower things in life while missing out on the grander heights that the greater works can provide to an educated mind is a sad disservice.
I am saying that because I have been trained to write in complete sentences it is hard for me to read an author that uses improperly formed sentences out of ignorance instead of effect. Perhaps it is like a chef that puts ketchup on everything because they have never learned how to make food taste good in the first place. If the writing is poor, I have a harder time enjoying the book, much as a hair stylist would have a hard time appreciating a person’s look after receiving a bad haircut from a $5 barber. The examples could go on and on.
Rob I would find your comments a lot more easier to take if you hadn't listed the da Vinci code as one of your favourite books which regardless of whether you think the plot is any good, is very badly written with many grammar mistakes and very poor sentence structure .
Rob wrote: "Being educated in writing and literature is not a bad thing. It opened me up to reading a wider range of books and helped me to more fully appreciate great writing."You don't need classes to read widely. I consider myself to be fairly well-read, and I wouldn't take more than the minimum English requirements. What do you think is gained from literature classes that could not be gotten from reading independently? The only thing I can think of is a few buzzwords (which, if you really wanted to, could be gotten from books) as well as an almost incredible arrogance towards books themselves. I find no other difference.
Rob wrote: "To tout ignorance so that you can enjoy the lower things in life while missing out on the grander heights that the greater works can provide to an educated mind is a sad disservice."
Why would you assume that I'm missing out on greater works? This isn't an either/or situation. I can like Twilight and more "impressive" books. Disliking Twilight doesn't make you a better reader. You're beginning to strike me as a person who uses books as props to show everyone how smart or educated or refined you are. If you truly are a reader of any substance at all, you should, first and foremost, be about loving books, not using them to impress people. What is your purpose for being here? Are you coming for fellowship or communion with other like-minded people or is this all about you casting yourself into the role of misunderstood intellectual in the midst of uneducated yahoos?
As for your assessment of Meyer's abilities (who, oddly enough, also has an English degree), I'll say it again: I found value in her work. If you couldn't, that is something that you lost out on.
Rob wrote: "Nor does it impress me much either. The fact that I mentioned a book that happened to be lengthy does not indicate that length is an indicator of quality in my estimation. If logical errors of this magnitude are the norm on this board, I may be writing my last post."Promise?
well said Mickey!!!
i deleted my mean statements because after checking out his page and seeing his ratings for certain books that to me was closer in my mind :)
i think that mostly what peoples problem with the series is how popular it got only after the movie came out if though the books were so much better .its the fact that its always being talked about everywhere you look i loved the series and that drives me nuts its the publicity of it its too much too fast too many places
When I first read twilight I thought it was pretty good. I think what destroyed it was so many authors trying to follow after and shove more werewolves and vampires down our throats instead of coming up with their own ideas. I think people in the beginning loved twilight because the idea hadn't been put out for a while or for teenage audiences. The publishing of various books over the mythical creatures became too much and cost us to lose interest in the book at all which is why so many hate it now. It's kind of like listening to your favorite song, but after a while you begin to hate it because you hear it on the radio so often and at one point you finally just change the station.
I think the problem is it lacks in certain areas and that there are to many of the same type of book.Making them the same (sometimes)
At the top
i think some people are just jealous of what Edward and Bells have!
Why would I be jealous, one shes dating someone that wants to taste her blood and two she nearly dies because of him.
i am one of the ones that read it before the movie and i was in love with it and obsessed. but once the movies hit and it became this crazy epidemic i felt kinda weird about being a fan because of how some of the die hard crazy people had turned it out to be
They haven't read the books!
didnt say they did read the books and some did (after they seen the movie) and they just took the crazy to a whole new level
i read the first book and it sucked big time
Nicole wrote: "When I first read twilight I thought it was pretty good. I think what destroyed it was so many authors trying to follow after and shove more werewolves and vampires down our throats instead of comi..."i'm sorry this is off the subject but i've always wondered. who are these paraplegics who don't turn the radio off or down when a song they don't like comes on? i mean i've never suffered this epidemic of having heard a song i used to love on the radio too many times, i turn off the radio. i turn on a different station. i put in a cd.
Rob wrote: "Mickey wrote: "The fact that a book is lengthy doesn't really impress me all that much. I don't think it automatically confers special literary status to a book. (If you are so "refined", as you c..."Some people LIKE ketchup. The general populace doesn't speak properly or in complete sentences, it's kind of fallen to the wayside. Of course, some take it to an extreme level. But, I also think it's important to be able to talk to and relate to people (or books) whether they're grammatically refined or not. I've read classics and 'trash,' and enjoyed them both immensely. AND, I can understand them both.
Sandra wrote: "@ Lea. Nobody said you read "Nothing but fluff". But sad to say Twilight IS fluff! But hey if you like it, so what??? I'm a big Stephen King fan but some would argue his books are formulaic. But I ..."I've read that. I don't have everything that I've read on my list yet, it's kind of a huge task so I keep forgetting about it. I know that no one came out and said that, I've just gotten the impression from some people.
I think people dislike Twilight because its so simple. Its a fun read. And while it won't make you ponder any of lifes questions...I quite think that is the point. I am a fan of the series because it gives you a minute to not have to think so hard, while still providing a story that is interesting and fun to follow.
Janese wrote: I just had to respond to this because of the suggestion of Gone With the Wind as a romance story. Scarlett is in love with (and scheming to steal) a married man for the bulk of the story and has no patience for Rhett, the man who actually wants her. Then when he finally wakes up to what a nightmare she is & walks out, she decides that she wants him. Not really my idea of a good romance. IJS... Gone With the Wind is called a romance because it is unrequited love story. Not all love stories are happiliy ever after.
Brooke-lynn wrote: "I think people dislike Twilight because its so simple. Its a fun read. And while it won't make you ponder any of lifes questions...I quite think that is the point."I think, like any other book, Twilight can be read and enjoyed for the story, but I think it's a mistake to say that there are no deeper ideas in there (if you want to look for them). There are several themes in the books that are explored centering generally under the title of "Love". There is the contrast between the love Bella feels for Jacob and the love she feels for Edward, the idea of the benefits and feasibility of a Paris match vs a Romeo match (in New Moon), there's the exploration of the idea of free will in love (particularly when it's not working out) evidenced by Leah and Jacob. There's a lot of bigger ideas that can be explored, if a person wants to.
Vanessa wrote: "Gone With the Wind is called a romance because it is unrequited love story. Not all love stories are happiliy ever after."I don't think that Janese's objections were with the ending. Her objections, based on her post about Gone with the Wind, seem to be that the story is not about a love relationship like the Twilight books are. Gone with the Wind does not explore the ins and outs of being in a romantic relationship. It centers a lot on the individual's reaction and ideas of each other. No romantic relationship is featured or explored in depth, which makes it a different type of story than Twilight.
i think its just incredibly girly -already narrowing the audience- and it is written in a very naive way.
Daniel wrote: "i think its just incredibly girly -already narrowing the audience- and it is written in a very naive way."I agree that a lot of the flak it's receiving is due to the fact that it's girly. It has a female main character and it centers on romance. I don't think there's anything wrong with either, though. If a reader doesn't like either characteristic, then those readers can find other books to read. There's no point in censoring a book or complaining about something that other people get enjoyment from. Even with the narrowing of the audience, Twilight is a successful series.
How is it written in a naive way?
I am someone who truly does not like Twilight, and it would take a great sum of cash to get me to read the other books in the series. I read the first book, and had to skim to the end. I found it flat and boring. As stupid and annoying as 50 Shades of Gray without the sex. I generally don't like fantasy, yet I really liked the Harry Potter Series (which has their own haters). Twilight did not have any substantial moral or ethical dilemmas worth discussing. It is so easy to poke fun at these books. I did think it was generally awkward and simple writing, but it is a YA book series. YA. So if YOUUNG adults are reading ANYTHING, even Twilight, and liking it, that's fine with me. If you're an adult upset about haters, grow up yourself- you're discussing a YA book series! Get a better topic! If you love it, don't suspect you know why the minority of us really disliked or hated it. Why would you care why someone hates it? Does it really affect you that deeply? Move on. There's a lot more to read. Try some of the National Book winners and finalists in Young Adult fiction. Those have some meat in them.
I have to agree with Sarah and Gwyneth, I mean, most of the time Bella is in trouble Edward just comes along to save her, and then when he leaves in New Moon, she turns into a zombie for three months? For the love of God, please, just move on! Not only does she refuse to let go, but she also puts herself in danger just to see him. That is unhealthy mentally! Personally I think the books are better than the movie, especially New Moon, I mean, in the book, Edward does a lot more than he does in the movie, in the movie he just seemed lazy.
Some people do tend to just be haters just so that they can say they are against the trends, I personally don't like the fact that they sparkle in the sunlight, that just doesn't seem to make sense to me. I personally don't *hate* the Twilight movies or books, they just aren't my favorite ever in the world, sure I'll see/read them, but not a billion times!
Lauryn wrote: "i think some people are just jealous of what Edward and Bells have!"You know, if that were true then by all means go find yourself a stalker that turns out to be an overprotective and controlling guy to marry yourself. See how you'll like that.
Vanessa wrote: "Janese wrote: I just had to respond to this because of the suggestion of Gone With the Wind as a romance story. Scarlett is in love with (and scheming to steal) a married man for the bulk of the st..."I think Mickey said it well. Gone With The Wind was about a lot if things, but a true romance was not one of them, IMHO.
I'll be honest i didn't hate Twilight but i hated the fuss that was made over it, sure its not TERRIBLE, well except for the damn SPARKLES i will never get over the damn sparkly vampires that was just SO very...no.....just....NO! Shit sorry im losing my train of thought where was i...oh yeah it wasnt the worst thing EVER but there are books that are SO much better and they dont get even half the praise, it frustrates me, plus...the sparkles...eeeehhhh bleegh. Oh yeah and Edward (creeper) had no personality, and Bella was, well, sometimes she really did act and sound just like a tween, no person older than that could possiby be such a over-dramatic twit in real life, oh yeah and did i mention the idea of vampires being sparkly, i REALLY hated that! xxx
Tiffany wrote: "i think people hate this movie because these books twisted the vampire into some angst filled love story that sparkles in the sun instead of burning up and dying really they are monsters....watch ..."you can't censor someone's imagination. it happened in the book, so no can say it CANT. it DID.
Janese wrote: "Vanessa wrote: "Janese wrote: I just had to respond to this because of the suggestion of Gone With the Wind as a romance story. Scarlett is in love with (and scheming to steal) a married man for th..."romance is a broader term than that.
Marilyn wrote: "Lauryn wrote: "i think some people are just jealous of what Edward and Bells have!"You know, if that were true then by all means go find yourself a stalker that turns out to be an overprotective ..."
some people love it. some people do marry them.
Katie wrote: "I am someone who truly does not like Twilight, and it would take a great sum of cash to get me to read the other books in the series. I read the first book, and had to skim to the end. I found it f..."You had some really good points, especially the ones about it being YA. Do all the books you read have substantial moral or ethical dilemnas?
Brooke-lynn wrote: "I think people dislike Twilight because its so simple. Its a fun read. And while it won't make you ponder any of lifes questions...I quite think that is the point. I am a fan of the series because ..."very nice
Mickey wrote: "Brooke-lynn wrote: "I think people dislike Twilight because its so simple. Its a fun read. And while it won't make you ponder any of lifes questions...I quite think that is the point."I think, li..."
Very nice! You're absolutely right.
i dont like the movie cuz the acting but i <3 the books
Levina wrote: "Just dropping in...I don't think it's Twilight people hate, per se, or even its popularity - it's the fact that it's so popular while other, much better books don't get half as much attention. I'..."
Thats exactly what i said, i don't hate it though, that would take effort ;) Well ok, i hate the sparkles, i REALLY can't get over that. Vampires should NOT sparkle simple as, end of conversation just no. x
Lea wrote: "Romance is a broader term that." This is true, but I'm generalizing here. Gone With the Wind came up as a suggested alternative to the "love story" told in Twilight. I think that those who love the relationship in this book wouldn't get what they were looking for in GWTW. Not as a romantic alternative to Twilight. And for myself, when I want to read something romantic (which is not often, I like mysteries, horror, & adventures most of the time), I want to read about two people falling.g in love with each other. That's just me.
Will wrote: "Maybe because there is not one redeeming quality in Twilight."Maybe because the characters are vapid and shallow; the plot lines are are banal, and the author cannot write decent English. This "work" is an insult to the genre of really good fantasy and has no literary value whatsoever. However, I do agree with someone who noted the author doesn't really care about the criticism; the books are not a critical success, but the popular success has brought in the megabucks.
No literary value whatsoever? Young adults reading isn't something we should encouraged? It's fine if you don't like it but there's no reason to talk like this about it, or any book simply because you don't like it. We got it, the book wasn't written with perfect form, or grammmar, and it's no literary classic. But it's sparked several young adults (a few I know specifically) to read it, then read the books mentioned in it (classics), and then to read other YA books that have been made into movies. Eventually, they will realize on their own that it's not genuis material. Get over it.
I liked these books very much a few years ago. while i don't like them anymore. i guess i have grown out of them very quick. i started reading more books, and i realised that this is just kinda stupid. sometimes i pick one of the books up and read a few sentences, and i just think 'why did i love this so much'?.
Lea wrote: "No literary value whatsoever? Young adults reading isn't something we should encouraged? It's fine if you don't like it but there's no reason to talk like this about it, or any book simply because ..."I agree with you that there is value in books which encourage young adults and children to read and enjoy ANYTHING. If the experience helps to make them avid readers, great. However, this does not give the work literary value. I think Stephanie's message #1198 speaks to both of us: 1) These books got me to read more, and 2) These books are stupid.
The question was, Why do people hate "Twilight" so much?, not Is it good to get kids to read? People are and should be free to read and enjoy anything they choose, just as they should be free to express their opinions in forums such as this.
Mary Ann wrote: "Lea wrote: "No literary value whatsoever? Young adults reading isn't something we should encouraged? It's fine if you don't like it but there's no reason to talk like this about it, or any book sim..."Amen ! and i also think that these books kinda ruined vampires. they shouldn't sparkle..
Amen ! and i also think that these books kinda ruined vampires. they shouldn't sparkle.. I know when i first read it i literally had to put the 'book' (door wedge) DOWN for at least a few days before i could even think about trying again, i mean really sparkly vampires? when did Meyer come up with that, when she was high? its just no..just...really...NO!
As i said i don't 'hate' Twilight, that would take too much wasted effort, but that doesnt mean i haven't daydreamed about using the books, especialy breaking dawn, as launching missiles......to throw at Justin Beibers face....whilst he's on fire.....it could be like bonfire night.......just more satisfying.....and obviously more evil ;) xxx
Mary Ann wrote: "Lea wrote: "No literary value whatsoever? Young adults reading isn't something we should encouraged? It's fine if you don't like it but there's no reason to talk like this about it, or any book sim..."I didn't mean to give you the idea that you weren't allowed to express your opinions. I reread my message and still don't see anything that points in that direction, however I wrote it very quickly. I think it getting younger people to read DOES give it literary value, and there are deeper themes to be discussed if people could just look at the bigger picture. I think message 1178 describes that very well.
I know, sparkly vampires don't seem very popular, people think Edward is abusive, that Bella is weak and severely lacking, and that apparently people are worried about young girls being too flighty to recognize the difference between fantasy and an attainable reality. Some of it just doesn't make sense to me.
I STILL don't get the anti-sparkle thing, I mean I thought it was creative, maybe a little silly, but people are getting so UPSET and offended about it. I always thought the author had creative license to do whatever she wanted with her pen and imagination. Being a huge true horror fan, I knew going in that this wasn't going to be a traditional vampire, it seemed very obvious to me. Yet, people still read it and are concerned with something so trivial as the sparkles.
I also don't understand why everyone is worried about young people imitating Bella and Edward. I was a very daring reader when I was young. I haven't imitated any of the dangerous, weak, or downright stupid characters I encountered, whether they were the main character or not. In fact, I think it probably taught me how to recognize those traits in men and women, made me critically think and examine situations.
I totally understand if someone didn't like these books, thought they were dull, stupid or not their cup of tea. But people saying they need to be more realistic and morally correct lest someone impressionable reads them? Or saying they're completely worthless? I don't get that. It's a book, there is ALWAYS something to be learned from a book they are NEVER completely void of value or worth.
want some reasons?1)bella's whiny and akward
2)their relationship is completly unrealistic
3)twinkling vamps (srsly?)
4)predictable plot
5)a touch of sexist
6)werewolves too?!?
7)why is it that edward killed before he lost his virginity? srsly?
8)unrealistic, even for a vamp& werewolf book.
(ps:I have both read and watched the movies and sorry for any misspellings)
Lea wrote: "Mary Ann wrote: "Lea wrote: "No literary value whatsoever? Young adults reading isn't something we should encouraged? It's fine if you don't like it but there's no reason to talk like this about it..."Lea, I think you are missing my point. A book may have value for any number of reasons-social, cultural, historical, or, maybe, just plain fun. I have read and enjoyed many books in which I found worth, but I did not delude myself that they were well written in terms of structure, plot, character development, the author's facility in the use of the English language. Twilight, as many, many other books, may, indeed have value to readers, but, as a work of literature, it fails. What you seem to be saying is that any book may have some redeeming social value, even if it is poorly written, such as encouraging kids to read. I AGREE WITH YOU.
I don't know anything about the "sparkly" issue as I could not even finish the first book.
I think we agree more than disagree.
I don't think Bella really deserved either guy. She really played with Jacobs emotions. Edward had been living for so many years and his maturity was way more than hers. What happened with Jacob and Renesme was gross. How are you in love with someone then after it doesn't work out go date their daughter. I still love the love story. Ive read the beginning of book one over again because I'm such a sucker for Love.#teamedward
Mary Ann wrote: "Lea wrote: "Mary Ann wrote: "Lea wrote: "No literary value whatsoever? Young adults reading isn't something we should encouraged? It's fine if you don't like it but there's no reason to talk like t..."I meant to add in there that not all of that was aimed towards you. I read a few posts but wanted to organize all my thoughts into one. Excellent.
Start with the poor writing. Stephen King is right, Meyer's prose is atrocious. Turgid, overwrought, vacuous are some of the adjectives that come to mind. Then there's the characters: Edward's a control freak/stalker and perhaps the most boring vampire in fiction, ever. A vegan, sexless, disco-ball. Bella's a submissive, damsel in distress stereotype of the first order, the kind of cardboard woman you'd expect in a Disney film from the thirties. Frankly, it's an abusive relationship and Meyer should be called out at every turn for glamorizing abuse.
It's not real literature, though it is a good story, which is why I think a lot of people didn't like the books or the fact that they made them into movies. It's written as a simple story told through simple words. But it had a good plot.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Presenting Robert Cormier (other topics)
Presenting Madeleine L'Engle (other topics)
Misery (other topics)
Lincoln's Melancholy: How Depression Challenged a President and Fueled His Greatness (other topics)
More...
V.C. Andrews (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
Presenting S.E. Hinton (other topics)Presenting Robert Cormier (other topics)
Presenting Madeleine L'Engle (other topics)
Misery (other topics)
Lincoln's Melancholy: How Depression Challenged a President and Fueled His Greatness (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Laurell K. Hamilton (other topics)V.C. Andrews (other topics)
I just had to respond to this because of the suggestion of Gone With the Wind as a romance story. Scarlett is in love with (and scheming to steal) a married man for the bulk of the story and has no patience for Rhett, the man who actually wants her. Then when he finally wakes up to what a nightmare she is & walks out, she decides that she wants him. Not really my idea of a good romance. IJS...