Twilight

[Allannah]

Okay, thanks (:

[Niamh]

its called midnight sun Allannah. It only goes up as far as before the meadow scene. But there is talk that she is going to publish it now because of petitions etc. Its interesting.

I loved that bit in the movie as well, and the guy thinking of his cat kind of lovingly sighs. had me in stitches.

[kelby_lake]

I find it amusing that Twilight seems to think it is being all burning desire/forbidden love, when they basically have a conventional boring relationship, minus the vampies butting in occasionally.

[Joreads]

Summit pictures have announced that New Moon will more than likley have release date of the 20th November 2009!!! They hope to film New Moon and Eclipes back to back so it will not be much of a wait for it either.

The obsession continues.

[aBIGsheep]

I find it amusing that Twilight seems to think it is being all burning desire/forbidden love, when they basically have a conventional boring relationship, minus the vampies butting in occasionally.

Convetional, violent, boring, vampire-baby-momma-killing, relationship.

[Dori]

Interestingly enough, a rumor went around school today that a certain male of the most impressionable nature had read one of the Twilight books. He was ridiculed all day for it..

Don't pity him, please. He can be a real jerk sometimes (unless you're an attractive female---then he'll drool all over you and stoop down to kiss your feet....I digress :lol:).

[Joreads]

Convetional, violent, boring, vampire-baby-momma-killing, relationship.

Pretty normal than:lol:

[hoope]

Twilight is a wonderful story to read, i myself enjoyed readin it alot.
And Edward is great.. i loved his character alot.

The movie has been released , and i guess the book is way better though everything has be put in to real .. yet they can't mention all the story .

[Iris dark]

Anyway,I feel this book is good.

[1n50mn14]

Twilight is a wonderful story to read, i(I) myself enjoyed readin(g) it alot. (a lot)
And Edward is great.. i(I) loved his character alot. ( a lot)



However, your grammar certainly doesn't speak well for the type of people who read the book.

I know that isn't fair and doesn't encompass everybody, and I'm sorry, but I can never resist a dig at bad grammar.

[Hell girl]

I love this novel,It's so wonderful.And I think,For anything else, different people have different ideas, we certainly can not view the same.:yawnb:

[Allannah]

However, your grammar certainly doesn't speak well for the type of people who read the book.

I know that isn't fair and doesn't encompass everybody, and I'm sorry, but I can never resist a dig at bad grammar.

Lol don't, it's dangerous to correct grammar here ^^

[kelby_lake]

Pretty normal than:lol:

That's all just thrown in to make it seem 'exciting'. And the whole keeping the baby even though it's killing you is just propaganda.

[JBI]

That's all just thrown in to make it seem 'exciting'. And the whole keeping the baby even though it's killing you is just propaganda.

I'm with you on that - can I get an OK from a moderator though, before we head down this road? I know you guys don't like us talking about controversial subjects, but I think this one is central to the text.

[Joreads]

I'm with you on that - can I get an OK from a moderator though, before we head down this road? I know you guys don't like us talking about controversial subjects, but I think this one is central to the text.

So does that mean you have read it now? I am not quite sure how you would know what was central to the plot otherwise?

[*Classic*Charm*]

so does that mean you have read it now? I am not quite sure how you would know what was central to the plot otherwise?

hahahahaha



Classic Charm- I don't know why you're talking about mental capacity; I never referred to it whether directly or indirectly. I would appreciate it if you at least tried to interpret what I said correctly! =] I would certainly not say that. My friend Hannah loves the Twilight series, and yet has an IQ of about a billion ^^ You have doubtless not read my former post on the previous page in which I explained why exactly I felt that you could not enjoy both authors both to the same degree.

Actually, since I was about eight or nine when I started reading books in French, I doubt that I really had the capacity to conciously "apply" myself- which is why I used myself as an example to support my point.

To anyone else that I've inadvertently offended: I'M SORRY! x]

Try to interpret correctly?? I wouldn't try to interpret anything any other way...:confused: I'm not looking to be insulted, Allannah. If that's not what you meant, my apologies for jumping on you:) As for my comment on mental capacity, I don't quite understand what other type of capacity one uses when reading...I had read your post explaining your view, but it still lead me to believe that a connection to work like Twilight meant that one could not have a thorough understanding of more (for lack of a better term) accomplished work. Really, it was your use of the phrase "because it's so evidently lacking" in reference to Twilight. It simply made me think that if a reader does not "realize" that Twilight is lacking, he or she would not be able to appreciate a classic, more distinguished work. Hopefully that explains my thought process to you. :)

Thank you for your apology, and my own to you for misinterpretation.

[JBI]

So does that mean you have read it now? I am not quite sure how you would know what was central to the plot otherwise?

I read what you guys put - I merely wanted an OK from a mod in order to begin looking at that, as abortion, and other topics relate to it are generally hot-button issues.

[Joreads]

I read what you guys put - I merely wanted an OK from a mod in order to begin looking at that, as abortion, and other topics relate to it are generally hot-button issues.


I still don't see how you can argue one way or the other by piggy backing our thoughts on the novel. Don't get me wrong if people have read the book, or at least given it a good go and didn't like it I am fine with that and more than happy to talk about it. But to simply read what a few people think and than deciding what side of the fence you are on from that doesn't seem to have a lot of merit to me. Does that make sense to you?


PS as far as I am concerned the central theme is the love story between Edward and Bella not the baby or the choice that was made in regards to it

[*Classic*Charm*]

Agreeing with Jo on this...as I'm sure you can guess, JBI:D

Unless you have read the book, you can't understand the circumstances behind the pregnancy with respect to the characters and yes, the fact that they're vampires does matter to the discussion of unwanted pregnancy, abortion, etc.

To have heard that the girl gets pregnant by a vampire and the baby is supposed to claw its way out of her is not a good enough background.

I will, of course, also await the go ahead by a moderator before I say anything more.:)

[JBI]

I still don't see how you can argue one way or the other by piggy backing our thoughts on the novel. Don't get me wrong if people have read the book, or at least given it a good go and didn't like it I am fine with that and more than happy to talk about it. But to simply read what a few people think and than deciding what side of the fence you are on from that doesn't seem to have a lot of merit to me. Does that make sense to you?


PS as far as I am concerned the central theme is the love story between Edward and Bella not the baby or the choice that was made in regards to it

I gave it three pages, more than it deserved. Just because its popular poorly written cliché doesn't mean I should be forced to read it before commenting.

It's like saying I must read every bad book before being able to say they are bad. As a student of contemporary literature, that puts me in a problem spot - how the hell can one read good books, if they are forced to finish every bad book before they are "allowed to comment". The point is, I saw the thread heading in a direction, and I wanted to approach it from perspective points, but am awaiting a go ahead, as it is rather pushing against some of the forum rules, mainly the no discussing current events, which could or could not include said subjects.

But yeah, I haven't read the book, so I can't comment on said subjects right? I'm not a Twilight authority, so I can't comment on politics.



On another note, how the **** am I supposed to comment on the fourth book of a mediocre series, without reading the whole thing. By that notion, every review of that book is naturally biased, given that the readers had first wanted to continue after the first one, therefore rendering the reading relative to other volumes in the series, rather than to literature in general.

But yeah, sit back and enjoy your thread, because I'm not allowed to comment, right? I haven't read the whole book, so I clearly no nothing about the American tradition, or American politics in novels.

[sundays50]

dis book sucks i canrt beleive any 1 likes it. whats wrong wit the world today that peple can call this dog crap good

[Zee.]

After reading most of the posts, I think only one thing can be said:

One man's junk is another man's treasure.

[Joreads]

I gave it three pages, more than it deserved. Just because its popular poorly written cliché doesn't mean I should be forced to read it before commenting.

It's like saying I must read every bad book before being able to say they are bad. As a student of contemporary literature, that puts me in a problem spot - how the hell can one read good books, if they are forced to finish every bad book before they are "allowed to comment". The point is, I saw the thread heading in a direction, and I wanted to approach it from perspective points, but am awaiting a go ahead, as it is rather pushing against some of the forum rules, mainly the no discussing current events, which could or could not include said subjects.

But yeah, I haven't read the book, so I can't comment on said subjects right? I'm not a Twilight authority, so I can't comment on politics.



On another note, how the **** am I supposed to comment on the fourth book of a mediocre series, without reading the whole thing. By that notion, every review of that book is naturally biased, given that the readers had first wanted to continue after the first one, therefore rendering the reading relative to other volumes in the series, rather than to literature in general.

But yeah, sit back and enjoy your thread, because I'm not allowed to comment, right? I haven't read the whole book, so I clearly no nothing about the American tradition, or American politics in novels.


JBI what are we going to do with you. There was no intention to stop you commenting in this or any other thread. So lets talk.

We will have agree to disagree about the three pages being enough to judge a book. I think that is a little stiff but I will grant that you may know your stuff and your mind better than I know mine.

As a student of contemporary literature you are going to come across bad books I am sure, looks like you have already found four;) I have no idea how to deal that so I am of no help to you there, but if you could answer me one question how do you know what's a good book if you don't read any bad ones?

As for the direction of the thread you are right we need to wait for the go ahead but as I said ealier I think this is a small part of the book but you and Kelbl Lake are right (see I have been thinking about it) it could do with some discussion. If we get the go ahead I hope you allow us the chance to explain to you the circumstances surrounding the event to put it into context, at least as we (Charm and Myself) see it - I am not sure we are on the same page with regards to that. So if we are allowed we will pick up the gloves then.

No one said you had to be a Twilight authority in fact I am not sure I am either - but if you wanted to ask me about Edward than we are good to go :blush:

I'll give you this you add a little spice to a thread so if you would do me one small favour and stick around I would really appreciate it. A little spice does the soul good every now and again doesn't it.

So to keep the thread moving alone I still think that the book is a love story at its core. Does anyone else have any other thoughts on that? JBI what do you think?

[*Classic*Charm*]

Jo, you are so much more diplomatic than I!

And I agree with you completely. I'm sorry JBI, I get ahead of myself sometimes. I'd love to go ahead with this discussion if we get a mod on board, and I promise I'll try to be fair and keep my temper:)

[Zee.]

Yep - at the heart, it's a life style.

I don't know about everyone else but i love fluffy books. I read them because I don't want to read heavy or thought provoking books all the time. Same reason i watch fluffy movies and fluffy tv.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Yep - at the heart, it's a life style.

I don't know about everyone else but i love fluffy books. I read them because I don't want to read heavy or thought provoking books all the time. Same reason i watch fluffy movies and fluffy tv.

Haha LJ, I love that you're trying to keep this thread from getting into an argument. A valiant effort!

[Joreads]

Jo, you are so much more diplomatic than I!

And I agree with you completely. I'm sorry JBI, I get ahead of myself sometimes. I'd love to go ahead with this discussion if we get a mod on board, and I promise I'll try to be fair and keep my temper:)

Years of practice Charm years of practice.

[Zee.]

Oh my lord there is something wrong with me.

LIFE STYLE?

I meant love story.

Oh my god i'm deranged.

And thanks Charm :)

[Joreads]

Oh my lord there is something wrong with me.

LIFE STYLE?

I meant love story.

Oh my god i'm deranged.

And thanks Charm :)

Well I didn't even pick that up myself I read Love Story. I seriously need some help :p

[*Classic*Charm*]

Funny...I did read Life Style and still didn't notice at all that it made no sense...perhaps some sleep is in order!

[Allannah]

The main thing is that people love the books and that they get enjoyment out of them!

[stlukesguild]

The main thing is that people love the books and that they get enjoyment out of them!

Yes... and do you think that JBI or I read Dante or Shakespeare or Proust or T.S. Eliot for any reason but pleasure? The reality is that with experience (at least in my experience) one no longer finds much pleasure to be had in books that laden with tired plots, weak characters, mediocre use of language, and ridden with cliches. Personally I don't find much pleasure in trashy or fluffy books or music or art because they don't engage my mind and their attempts to manipulate my emotions are far too obvious. I can't imagine wasting my time when there are so many great books (and other works of art) still to be experienced and enjoyed.

[kelby_lake]

And imprinting is also iffy...I think we oughta have a separate thread to discuss the more controversial stuff, as some people may not have read the whole saga. And not so I can say 'Ooh,this is an EVIL book!' just so I can see what other people think of the iffy parts.

[Niamh]

The imprinting thing was iffy. At first the concept sounded kind of okay, until the whole think of imprinting on kids and babies... :sick:

[MattG]

This is one of the funniest threads on the board. :)

[*Classic*Charm*]

The main thing is that people love the books and that they get enjoyment out of them!

Yes... and do you think that JBI or I read Dante or Shakespeare or Proust or T.S. Eliot for any reason but pleasure? The reality is that with experience (at least in my experience) one no longer finds much pleasure to be had in books that laden with tired plots, weak characters, mediocre use of language, and ridden with cliches. Personally I don't find much pleasure in trashy or fluffy books or music or art because they don't engage my mind and their attempts to manipulate my emotions are far too obvious. I can't imagine wasting my time when there are so many great books (and other works of art) still to be experienced and enjoyed.

I see what you mean, but I think it's a very different kind of enjoyment. I take pleasure in reading both Shakespeare and Dante (Haven't read the other two yet, unfortunately) because they do engage my mind, but I also enjoy fluff for its ability to mindlessly distract me. It's a different kind of enjoyment that is just necessary (at least for me) sometimes.

[stlukesguild]

I see what you mean, but I think it's a very different kind of enjoyment. I take pleasure in reading both Shakespeare and Dante (Haven't read the other two yet, unfortunately) because they do engage my mind, but I also enjoy fluff for its ability to mindlessly distract me. It's a different kind of enjoyment that is just necessary (at least for me) sometimes.

The thing is... I find that there is enough art... books, paintings, music... that is not overly difficult... that is entertaining and magical and light... yet still never bores me or speaks down to me. There is Italo Calvino, and Mozart, and Puccini, and Monet, and Bonnard, and Paul Verlaine, and Checkoff, and Lewiss Carroll, and Heinrich Heine, etc... etc... so many that I cannot ever bother myself with pure fluff.

[kelby_lake]

I don't mind fluff, as long as it admits it is.

[mayneverhave]

I see what you mean, but I think it's a very different kind of enjoyment. I take pleasure in reading both Shakespeare and Dante (Haven't read the other two yet, unfortunately) because they do engage my mind, but I also enjoy fluff for its ability to mindlessly distract me. It's a different kind of enjoyment that is just necessary (at least for me) sometimes.

I find myself agreeing both with you and stlukes.

Ultimately I'm somewhat of an elitist. I will choose Proust and Shakespeare over Stephen King or Stephanie Meyer in the long run, but occasional distractions are necessary.

Being somewhat of a film buff, I prefer watching classic films like Citizen Kane, 2001: A space odyssey over 300, or Spider-man 3, but occasional exersions into the cliche, weak, popular art is easier on the mind. Occasionally, I enjoy watching plots that are poor, acting peformances that are empty, and direction that is sloppy. This is more psychological than aesthetic.

With literature, I'm slightly different. I have not read a "crap" novel in perhaps about 5 years - I've soley dedicated myself to reading classics and well-recieved literature. This is because the reading of a novel usually takes much longer than watching a movie, and I simply don't have the time to waste reading some penny-dreadful. If I had fantastic mental capabilities and could read a book a day, this might be different, but as it stands, my time is valuable.

[Zee.]

When I read literature, granted it is also for the story, but I generally enjoy it for the sense of understanding it gives me about other people.

When I read "fluff" I don't care for the characters, I just want to shut my head off and simply follow a story.


But honestly, thank god everyone is very different and that not everyone enjoys fluff - because it means there's more for me :)

Stephen King isn't crap though.

He shouldn't be listed next to Stephanie Meyer.

Also, I have a taste for horror.

And I find that it's satisfied by more modern day authors who aren't literary greats.

I'm not saying that horror these days is all fluffy stupidity. Most of the horror I read is intelligent and well thought out. Far from fluff.

[Joreads]

And imprinting is also iffy...I think we oughta have a separate thread to discuss the more controversial stuff, as some people may not have read the whole saga. And not so I can say 'Ooh,this is an EVIL book!' just so I can see what other people think of the iffy parts.

Kelby that is a great idea I love to hear your idea's - don't always agree:D but love to hear them. In actualy fact you made me look at things a little differently when you pointed out a few points and that is always a great thing.


The imprinting thing was iffy. At first the concept sounded kind of okay, until the whole think of imprinting on kids and babies... :sick:

Niamh do you think that we can open up another thread prehaps with a warning (might not be the right word) to discuss the imprinting and the baby for example -we were not sure JBI, Charm and myself is some of the topics may be out of bounds. Kelby has some great points to offer also.

Thanks
Jo


This is one of the funniest threads on the board. :)

Welcome to the fun zone pull up a chair and be prepared to be entertained :lol:

PS what are your thoughts on the novels by the way - no need to be scared we will play nice - maybe;)

[*Classic*Charm*]

I find myself agreeing both with you and stlukes.

Ultimately I'm somewhat of an elitist. I will choose Proust and Shakespeare over Stephen King or Stephanie Meyer in the long run, but occasional distractions are necessary.

Being somewhat of a film buff, I prefer watching classic films like Citizen Kane, 2001: A space odyssey over 300, or Spider-man 3, but occasional exersions into the cliche, weak, popular art is easier on the mind. Occasionally, I enjoy watching plots that are poor, acting peformances that are empty, and direction that is sloppy. This is more psychological than aesthetic.

With literature, I'm slightly different. I have not read a "crap" novel in perhaps about 5 years - I've soley dedicated myself to reading classics and well-recieved literature. This is because the reading of a novel usually takes much longer than watching a movie, and I simply don't have the time to waste reading some penny-dreadful. If I had fantastic mental capabilities and could read a book a day, this might be different, but as it stands, my time is valuable.

In the long run, I too, will choose to read Shakespeare over Stephenie Meyer. No question, if I had to pick one over the other. No question at all. As you say, it's an occasional distraction. I read the four of them quickly, and now have the reading of them out of my system. That doesn't mean that some other time when I require some fluff again I won't reread them, but for now I'm done. Back to what I was reading before. part of it also comes from what I study at school. As much as I love studying science, I find it really doesn't allow much in the way of creative thinking. With a heavy curriculum that's really destroying my imagination, I need something completely absurd.

That's funny, though, because when it comes to film I'm the opposite. I cannot stand to sit through a bad film.


Welcome to the fun zone pull up a chair and be prepared to be entertained :lol:

PS what are your thoughts on the novels by the way - no need to be scared we will play nice - maybe;)

Oh yeah, we're just a riot.;)

[Allannah]

Yeah, I'm surprised the book was, like, accepted because of that lol.
edit: imprinting, I mean.

[Joreads]

OK guys I have checked with one of the lovely mods here and we have permission to discuss the baby, the imprinting and anything relating to the books. Lets be careful to keep it about the books I would hate for any of us to get in trouble and end up :bawling:.

[*Classic*Charm*]

OK guys I have checked with one of the lovely mods here and we have permission to discuss the baby, the imprinting and anything relating to the books. Lets be careful to keep it about the books I would hate for any of us to get in trouble and end up :bawling:.

haha excellent

I wish she hadn't had the baby. Straight up. It ruined my happy picture.

[kandaurov]

Good then! Well, apparently the point is that they're brainwashing teens with pro-life propaganda. Is that it? Sure looks like it anyway.

[Joreads]

haha excellent

I wish she hadn't had the baby. Straight up. It ruined my happy picture.

The birth of the baby didn't worry me so much as the imprinting of the babies did.

Why did the baby bother you? Actually it is kind of a Hollywood ending isn't it everyone gets what they want.

[*Classic*Charm*]

The birth of the baby didn't worry me so much as the imprinting of the babies did.

Why did the baby bother you? Actually it is kind of a Hollywood ending isn't it everyone gets what they want.

Because she and Edward were supposed to have a perfect obsessive teenage romance forever. And now they have responsibilities which ruins the perfection. Obviously, I like this story because of completely impossible it is in real life to have such a romance.

The imprinting didn't bother me, really. There is no sexual desire while the child is that young. It's merely a caring uncle type thing.

[MattG]

PS what are your thoughts on the novels by the way - no need to be scared we will play nice - maybe;)

Unlike a good number of the critics, I actually did read the first book. It was OK, the characters were a little young for me to really connect with both in literal age and in insight, but I don't have anything against it. I certainly wasn't compelled enough to go get the second book.

I think it's funny that Raymond Chandler, for example, wrote pulp & 'trash' before his work was considered literature. I'd wager that a lot of folks who find themselves shelved in the 'classics of literature' section would be surprised that their work is featured there were they alive to see it. Ask Harper Lee if you don't believe me. :D

[JBI]

Unlike a good number of the critics, I actually did read the first book. It was OK, the characters were a little young for me to really connect with both in literal age and in insight, but I don't have anything against it. I certainly wasn't compelled enough to go get the second book.

I think it's funny that Raymond Chandler, for example, wrote pulp & 'trash' before his work was considered literature. I'd wager that a lot of folks who find themselves shelved in the 'classics of literature' section would be surprised that their work is featured there were they alive to see it. Ask Harper Lee if you don't believe me. :D

I still think Raymond Chandler wrote pulp and trash, and I don't know many who consider him to be that great a literary mind, perhaps merely a significant developer of a genre that for the most part is pulp and trash.

[MattG]

I still think Raymond Chandler wrote pulp and trash, and I don't know many who consider him to be that great a literary mind, perhaps merely a significant developer of a genre that for the most part is pulp and trash.

Well you're obviously much higher minded than I am. I do appreciate your willingness to descend for long enough to put me in my place though.

[Joreads]

Because she and Edward were supposed to have a perfect obsessive teenage romance forever. And now they have responsibilities which ruins the perfection. Obviously, I like this story because of completely impossible it is in real life to have such a romance.

The imprinting didn't bother me, really. There is no sexual desire while the child is that young. It's merely a caring uncle type thing.

OK I see where you are coming from now. I guess I can see that. I


Charm remember that Edward told Bella he did not want her to miss out on human things and she said she did not care? I liked the reversal when she found out about the baby she wanted the baby more than her life and Edward was the one that was concerned. That was why I liked that story line.


Unlike a good number of the critics, I actually did read the first book. It was OK, the characters were a little young for me to really connect with both in literal age and in insight, but I don't have anything against it. I certainly wasn't compelled enough to go get the second book.

. :D

Matt you little devil you read the first book. They are a little young for me as well but I loved them. You know what I think this is a book for woman maybe can you guess why? Edward of course, He is a dream man - if you can over look one tiny floor he wanted to kill you. Why is it that woman love the bad boys?

[JBI]

Matt you little devil you read the first book. They are a little young for me as well but I loved them. You know what I think this is a book for woman maybe can you guess why? Edward of course, He is a dream man - if you can over look one tiny floor he wanted to kill you. Why is it that woman love the bad boys?

I know I promised not to post here, but I couldn't help but jumping in on this comment.

Some critics believe that the whole liking the bad boy is a gender role adopted by people because society creates that image. There has been a great deal of scholarship done on gender and sexuality as roles, rather than biological necessities, and for a great many of critics, the "she likes him because" is another way of saying "society makes her like him because," or "she pretends to like him because..."

The notion of women liking someone because of x or y is really societal more than biological or truthful. I think, up until about age 20 that may be so, but after that, when people begin to accept a more solidified sense of self, they kind of drift away from those notions, to the more nuanced.

I can see many critics, if they were writing criticism on these books, which they probably won't, take issue with this notion of female submission and male dominance. I know one poster has already razed the issue, so I am just going to throw it out there, as you know, at this point I could really care less, I just think this would take the book into an interesting angle, in terms of theme, symbol and allegory.

[*Classic*Charm*]

OK I see where you are coming from now. I guess I can see that. I


Charm remember that Edward told Bella he did not want her to miss out on human things and she said she did not care? I liked the reversal when she found out about the baby she wanted the baby more than her life and Edward was the one that was concerned. That was why I liked that story line.

Yes, I do remember that. It wasn't the fact that she suddenly wanted a human experience that bothered me. It really was simply that suddenly she cared about something/someone more than she cared for Edward. :blush: I'm lame.


Some critics believe that the whole liking the bad boy is a gender role adopted by people because society creates that image. There has been a great deal of scholarship done on gender and sexuality as roles, rather than biological necessities, and for a great many of critics, the "she likes him because" is another way of saying "society makes her like him because," or "she pretends to like him because..."

Interesting point, but I have a hard time blaming everything on society.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Does society reflect the opinions/desires of individuals or does the individual adopt what is shown to him/her by society?

Maybe I'm just not ready to entirely give up my free will to the general opinion of the media and the masses, especially when it comes to attraction, etc.


The notion of women liking someone because of x or y is really societal more than biological or truthful. I think, up until about age 20 that may be so, but after that, when people begin to accept a more solidified sense of self, they kind of drift away from those notions, to the more nuanced.

But there is also evidence that women typically find themselves "attracted" to men who are similar in some way to the male authorities in their lives. Is that biological or societal?

I do, of course, acknowledge that society does impact what an individual finds attractive about another ("she likes him because"), but I wouldn't attribute the liking of the "bad boy" image to that. I'll admit that yes, that image is portrayed in the media as being attractive, but I think it's the female's reaction the whole "bad boy" thing that's important. What aspect of the "bad boy" is attractive?

I also wonder what you mean by truthful?


I can see many critics, if they were writing criticism on these books, which they probably won't, take issue with this notion of female submission and male dominance. I know one poster has already razed the issue, so I am just going to throw it out there, as you know, at this point I could really care less, I just think this would take the book into an interesting angle, in terms of theme, symbol and allegory.

Yes, I agree that critics probably would take issue with the male dominance/female submission view. It's interesting though, because while it's typically women who have a problem with being portayed as weaker and submissive, it's the women readers who are so attracted to the idea of being submissive to a dominant male like Edward's character. Apparently, we like being weak and in need of protection.

[Mopey Droney]

Why because he is commenting on something that he hasn't read?Well, I did read the first book, and I can tell you that despite the fact that JBI has only read three pages of the actual novels in addition to the Wikipedia pages, he has so far given us far more spot-on analysis of the novels than any of those who have read the whole series.

[Joreads]

I know I promised not to post here, but I couldn't help but jumping in on this comment.

Some critics believe that the whole liking the bad boy is a gender role adopted by people because society creates that image. There has been a great deal of scholarship done on gender and sexuality as roles, rather than biological necessities, and for a great many of critics, the "she likes him because" is another way of saying "society makes her like him because," or "she pretends to like him because..."

The notion of women liking someone because of x or y is really societal more than biological or truthful. I think, up until about age 20 that may be so, but after that, when people begin to accept a more solidified sense of self, they kind of drift away from those notions, to the more nuanced.

I can see many critics, if they were writing criticism on these books, which they probably won't, take issue with this notion of female submission and male dominance. I know one poster has already razed the issue, so I am just going to throw it out there, as you know, at this point I could really care less, I just think this would take the book into an interesting angle, in terms of theme, symbol and allegory.


Glad to have you back JBI.

You raise a very valid points there. So I guess the question is do you think Bella is submissive to Edward?. I am not sure I think that she is. In the third book she insists on seeing Jacob even though Edward doesn't want her to. I will admit that Edward is more than a little controlling with Bella but there are reasons for that, so I guess the question is does the "why" justify his actions.

I will admit that it didn't bother me so much but I can see how it would bother some people.






Yes, I agree that critics probably would take issue with the male dominance/female submission view. It's interesting though, because while it's typically women who have a problem with being portayed as weaker and submissive, it's the women readers who are so attracted to the idea of being submissive to a dominant male like Edward's character. Apparently, we like being weak and in need of protection.


And there we have it folks the nail has just been hit on the head. We like to feel protected, I am not so sure about weak though Charm. The other thing to consider here is that Bella is weaker than most of the characters in the book that she comes up against, even Jacob (apart from the humans of course). There is no way she could defend herself against James and the others she needs Edward and Alice to help her.

Lets also not forget that Bella walks into the ballet studio on her own to face James not knowing that Edward would be there to save her. I wouldn't call that weak.

Also in Breaking Dawn it is Bella's skill that protects Edward and everyone else in the clearing from Jane and her brother. Bella is in fact the reason she survives.

[*Classic*Charm*]

And there we have it folks the nail has just been hit on the head. We like to feel protected, I am not so sure about weak though Charm. The other thing to consider here is that Bella is weaker than most of the characters in the book that she comes up against, even Jacob (apart from the humans of course). There is no way she could defend herself against James and the others she needs Edward and Alice to help her.

Lets also not forget that Bella walks into the ballet studio on her own to face James not knowing that Edward would be there to save her. I wouldn't call that weak.

Also in Breaking Dawn it is Bella's skill that protects Edward and everyone else in the clearing from Jane and her brother. Bella is in fact the reason she survives.

Haha Jo, actually that last sentence was said with a touch of sarcasm:rolleyes:. Obviously, no one wants to feel weak or in need of protection. I'll not argue with the fact that we do like to feel protected though. Whether or not she could have protected herself is really not of importance though- the point is that she has this guy who will do absolutely anything for her including risk his own life. I'm not saying that Bella is weak (as a person, this is not a commentary on the quality of the written character), just that she's a typical woman- she likes having a big strong man to save her. Who wouldn't?

[Joreads]

Haha Jo, actually that last sentence was said with a touch of sarcasm:rolleyes:. Obviously, no one wants to feel weak or in need of protection. I'll not argue with the fact that we do like to feel protected though. Whether or not she could have protected herself is really not of importance though- the point is that she has this guy who will do absolutely anything for her including risk his own life. I'm not saying that Bella is weak (as a person, this is not a commentary on the quality of the written character), just that she's a typical woman- she likes having a big strong man to save her. Who wouldn't?

Got you sorry about that my fault.

As for the strong man to save you feel free to send a few my way.:lol::lol: Oh can they look like Edward or is that asking for to much. Gee we have one track minds and it is only 12:30 in the afternoon here.

[Zee.]

If you read the synopsis, it sounds like one of those terrible ridiculous teenage books that are all written the same and have proposterous plot lines that make you want to throw up.

But it isn't.



But...

it is.

[*Classic*Charm*]

But...

it is.

Yeah, it really is.

And I love it:D


Got you sorry about that my fault.

As for the strong man to save you feel free to send a few my way.:lol::lol: Oh can they look like Edward or is that asking for to much. Gee we have one track minds and it is only 12:30 in the afternoon here.

Whoo, I wish I had one for myself, let alone a few to send your way! Haha.

We really do have one track minds :p

[Pewnut]

I know there are a lot of Twilight fans out there who aren't necessarily hormone-driven teens, and I say this having read the books myself, but I found the entire "saga" to be nothing more than glorified amateur fiction. Kills your brain cells, to be honest.

[JBI]

Got you sorry about that my fault.

As for the strong man to save you feel free to send a few my way.:lol::lol: Oh can they look like Edward or is that asking for to much. Gee we have one track minds and it is only 12:30 in the afternoon here.

See that's the problem - contemporary trends in literature, and I am talking specifically from a Canadian literary viewpoint, have been to go against these notions of damsel in distress, undercut them, and create a new image of independent female, or at least one as capable and strong as the "knight in shining armor" cliché fed out by, it would seem from your description, Twilight, and essentially every romance novel ever written.

I think the approach of "it's just a silly novel" is not a fair one, given that these novels most definitely have an impact, and perhaps are resetting, feminist notions. I don't think it would be too far a stretch to say the books don't approach, if not support, a patriarchal vision, or at least one with women as subordinate.

The notion of the woman needing rescuing, percieved through the novel as commentary, would connote a meaning of perhaps a necessity of male dominance, or male protectiveness, when really, I would think, especially for teenage women's literature, a viewpoint towards progress, or independence would be more suitable.

Ultimately the book shares many similarities with the Bildungsroman narrative, from what I understand, and for young women, and girls reading these novels, while furnishing their own identities, to be subjected to such close-minded a vision as the one you seem to equate with the book is perhaps a little bit disastrous in terms of progress.

The vision of Twilight, from my understanding, is one of female weakness, or perhaps one female's weakness, where protector men save the day, and good ol' fashion girls seem to be idealized for allowing the men to. It is a patriarchal vision from my understanding, and one agreeing with many religious, and political trends that seem to be heightened by American media, and to a lesser extent, world media.

[mortalterror]

See that's the problem - contemporary trends in literature, and I am talking specifically from a Canadian literary viewpoint, have been to go against these notions of damsel in distress, undercut them, and create a new image of independent female, or at least one as capable and strong as the "knight in shining armor" cliché fed out by, it would seem from your description, Twilight, and essentially every romance novel ever written.

I think the approach of "it's just a silly novel" is not a fair one, given that these novels most definitely have an impact, and perhaps are resetting, feminist notions. I don't think it would be too far a stretch to say the books don't approach, if not support, a patriarchal vision, or at least one with women as subordinate.

The notion of the woman needing rescuing, percieved through the novel as commentary, would connote a meaning of perhaps a necessity of male dominance, or male protectiveness, when really, I would think, especially for teenage women's literature, a viewpoint towards progress, or independence would be more suitable.

Ultimately the book shares many similarities with the Bildungsroman narrative, from what I understand, and for young women, and girls reading these novels, while furnishing their own identities, to be subjected to such close-minded a vision as the one you seem to equate with the book is perhaps a little bit disastrous in terms of progress.

The vision of Twilight, from my understanding, is one of female weakness, or perhaps one female's weakness, where protector men save the day, and good ol' fashion girls seem to be idealized for allowing the men to. It is a patriarchal vision from my understanding, and one agreeing with many religious, and political trends that seem to be heightened by American media, and to a lesser extent, world media.

You are operating under the fallacy that gender roles are interchangeable and that feminism is a striving for masculine equality rather than a liberty to be truly feminine in behavior. Simple sexual dimorphism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism)should tell you that biologically men and women are not the same and should not act as if they were. Furthermore, you are assuming that traditional roles and behaviors are unnatural and the product of repressive societies as a given, instead of proving your underlying premise at the outset of your argument.

"How can society be just when genetics are so manifestly unjust?"- Dr. James Watson, winner of the Nobel Prize, discoverer of DNA

[Joreads]

Yeah, it really is.

And I love it:D

Me to.

I was wondering what people would say was their favorite book from the series. For me it is Midnight Sun, I know it is not complete but I am including it anyway because well I can. I loved hearing what Edward was think and I love the way he makes fun of himself after he realises that he is in
love with Bella. "Feel the burn" is still my favorite of his saying to himself.

[Mopey Droney]

Also not all feminists hold that desiring a man as a life partner or hero figure is necessarily a weakness or bad thing. They should be free to go after whatever man they feel would fulfill their needs, and saying to them: "No man will fulfill your needs" may be true, but it's just imposing another stupid set of laws upon them.

[JBI]

You are operating under the fallacy that gender roles are interchangeable and that feminism is a striving for masculine equality rather than a liberty to be truly feminine in behavior. Simple sexual dimorphism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism)should tell you that biologically men and women are not the same and should not act as if they were. Furthermore, you are assuming that traditional roles and behaviors are unnatural and the product of repressive societies as a given, instead of proving your underlying premise at the outset of your argument.

"How can society be just when genetics are so manifestly unjust?"- Dr. James Watson, winner of the Nobel Prize, discoverer of DNA

Yes, and I remember a very convincing essay I read about how women shouldn't read books because their brains were smaller, and they may become physically ill and sometimes fatally do to their brains being filled past capacity with information.

[Mopey Droney]

Yes, and I remember a very convincing essay I read about how women shouldn't read books because their brains were smaller, and they may become physically ill and sometimes fatally do to their brains being filled past capacity with information.Come on, you're smarter than that.

[Joreads]

Also not all feminists hold that desiring a man as a life partner or hero figure is necessarily a weakness or bad thing. They should be free to go after whatever man they feel would fulfill their needs, and saying to them: "No man will fulfill your needs" may be true, but it's just imposing another stupid set of laws upon them.

I agree 100%. Also it is not about needing protection it is about knowing that someone is there who loves you enough to protect you if you need it. That to someone you are the most important thing in the world even more important than their own life. I don't think that means that I am not a feminist but if it does than so be it, I like being loved and feeling safe. We all need protecting every now and again, even men, be that from ourselves or someone else.

[JBI]

Come on, you're smarter than that.

Yeah, I was being ironic. I was merely pointing out the silliness of this notion. To quote the Canadian poet Milton Acorn, when asked if he was a Chauvinist, "Absolutely, I believe the feminine sex is vastly superior."

The notion of female subversiveness is, though not an open shut issue, still not one that can be reduced to "women are biologically weaker, therefore should be dominated/subject to patriarchal control." Such notions are dated, and I think any liberal person, or better yet, any progressive person, can agree that both sexes deserve equal treatment.

[Joreads]

Charm

I am listening to the sound track for Twilight at the moment. I didn't realise that the guy that plays Edward - sorry the name escapes me - actually wrote some songs for the movie. He actually does a pretty good job I quite like the song. I will find out the name and post it later. I left the cover at the other end of the house.

[Mopey Droney]

Yeah, I was being ironic. I was merely pointing out the silliness of this notion. To quote the Canadian poet Milton Acorn, when asked if he was a Chauvinist, "Absolutely, I believe the feminine sex is vastly superior."

The notion of female subversiveness is, though not an open shut issue, still not one that can be reduced to "women are biologically weaker, therefore should be dominated/subject to patriarchal control." Such notions are dated, and I think any liberal person, or better yet, any progressive person, can agree that both sexes deserve equal treatment.True but (and I may be wrong) I don't think he was suggesting that they should have unequal treatment or that they are unequal beings; rather, that there are indisputable scientific differences between sexes and that women do not become better women than other women through "acting like men". True liberation means they should feel free to do whatever they like, whether that is to be a housewife or become the next Gertrude Stein, not to follow any sort of Woman's Rulebook, even if it is written by supposed liberators. I hope I am not coming across as Pat Buchanan here; I certainly consider myself a progressive in policy, I just get antsy when any philosophy starts telling people what emotions they should or shouldn't be feeling.

[JBI]

True but (and I may be wrong) I don't think he was suggesting that they should have unequal treatment or that they are unequal beings; rather, that there are indisputable scientific differences between sexes and that women do not become better women than other women through "acting like men". True liberation means they should feel free to do whatever they like, whether that is to be a housewife or become the next Gertrude Stein, not to follow any sort of Woman's Rulebook, even if it is written by supposed liberators. I hope I am not coming across as Pat Buchanan here; I certainly consider myself a progressive in policy, I just get antsy when any philosophy starts telling people what emotions they should or shouldn't be feeling.

True to an extent, but to what extent are the roles of women determined on genetics, or on culture? I would say mostly on culture, judging by the wide range of views on the role of women throughout history, and even today, where you have the women as equal, to women as superior, or the radical "women as manufacturers of men", But the point is, a work that automatically creates a role as the ideal isn't allowing freedom or liberty, but rather feeds a cultural assumption, and puts additional pressure on society to make that assumption a realization.

[Joreads]

You know what else I was thinking if SM was inclined to write some more books (Midnight Sun of course first) it would be nice if she wrote books about some of the other characters. I for one would love to hear Jaspers story. I know we got a little bit of it in, damn I can not remember which book, it would be wonderful to have that expanded on.

[Mopey Droney]

But the point is, a work that automatically creates a role as the ideal isn't allowing freedom or liberty, but rather feeds a cultural assumption, and puts additional pressure on society to make that assumption a realization.I think I agree with you, but would you agree that literature that creates an ideal role based on one author's particular feminist assumptions has at the very least the potential to be just as oppressive as one based on another author's archaic assumptions?

[*Classic*Charm*]

See that's the problem - contemporary trends in literature, and I am talking specifically from a Canadian literary viewpoint, have been to go against these notions of damsel in distress, undercut them, and create a new image of independent female, or at least one as capable and strong as the "knight in shining armor" cliché fed out by, it would seem from your description, Twilight, and essentially every romance novel ever written.

I think the approach of "it's just a silly novel" is not a fair one, given that these novels most definitely have an impact, and perhaps are resetting, feminist notions. I don't think it would be too far a stretch to say the books don't approach, if not support, a patriarchal vision, or at least one with women as subordinate.

The notion of the woman needing rescuing, percieved through the novel as commentary, would connote a meaning of perhaps a necessity of male dominance, or male protectiveness, when really, I would think, especially for teenage women's literature, a viewpoint towards progress, or independence would be more suitable.

Ultimately the book shares many similarities with the Bildungsroman narrative, from what I understand, and for young women, and girls reading these novels, while furnishing their own identities, to be subjected to such close-minded a vision as the one you seem to equate with the book is perhaps a little bit disastrous in terms of progress.

The vision of Twilight, from my understanding, is one of female weakness, or perhaps one female's weakness, where protector men save the day, and good ol' fashion girls seem to be idealized for allowing the men to. It is a patriarchal vision from my understanding, and one agreeing with many religious, and political trends that seem to be heightened by American media, and to a lesser extent, world media.

In some ways, I completely agree with you, JBI. The connotations presented by the novel's presentation of women as subordinates could definitely make an impact on the current generation of female youth.

The problem, though, is something that only Jo mentioned in an earlier post but that we haven't really examined yet: The entirety of the series is completely contradictory in it's viewpoint on male dominance and feminist independence.

Yes, as we've all stated, there is clearly the tone of the weak, female who wants and needs the comfort and protection of a male counterpart.

There is also a middle, more equal ground. The whole second novel (New Moon) revolves around the idea that the two characters are parts of one whole, and cannot live without the other. While it's from the girl's perspective and her agony seems completely preposterous, it is clear that Edward is also not able to properly function without her.

Finally, towards the end of the series (Breaking Dawn mostly), we the readers come to realize that Bella is actually the strongest of them all and is actually the only one capable of saving all the other characters.

This almost seems like a nice tidy progression of things, which leaves me utterly confused. If one follows the progression, it almost seems like the author is pushing for feminist liberty; And yet, it's still the protective dominant male that most readers are more attracted to. Many people who have read the books have stated that they don't like Bella, but would jump Edward in a second.

[Joreads]

Charm thanks for stating what I couldn't seem to get across


Bella finds her strength when she accepts that Edward lovers her - at the end of New Moon the change begins to happen. I should point out that Bella was weak (might not be the right word) well before she fell in love with Edward. That I believe is a product of the way she was raised by her hippy mum and the fact that she came from a broken home - Charm do you agree with that? It is a result of loving Edward and finding her inner strength to save the baby and in fact all the Cullens that she becomes his equal.

I never thought that Edward was trying to dominate Bella - he loved her and he knew how breakable (his words) she was. He was actually doing everything in his power to keep her safe and in fact saves her life three times, two of which were not his fault,the car and the murders. The last time that he saved her was from James and you could argue that it was as a result of him that situation happened.

JBI I think is right in one respect that woman see Bella as weak and that is why they do not like her - I am not one of them by the way.

Why do we love Edward? Because he is in so many ways perfect and in one large way imperfect. I think it is in Midnight Sun - Charm correct me if I am wrong, where Edward explains that when you become a vampire you are fixed, your likes your dislikes your character everything and only something amazing, and for a vampire once in a life time, can change that. For Edward his love of Bella is that change. It is in that moment that he decides that even though her blood to him is the most potent on the plant that he will not kill her. That is why in New Moon he can leave her even though he loves her more than life itself, and that is why he comes back. His love of her changes him to his very core.

It is at its heart a love story and why does love sell - because everyone wants it!!!

Midnight Sun actually gives a really great look into Edwards mind and is in fact my favorite of the novels that being said I am clearly an Edward fan.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Charm thanks for stating what I couldn't seem to get across


Bella finds her strength when she accepts that Edward lovers her - at the end of New Moon the change begins to happen. I should point out that Bella was weak (might not be the right word) well before she fell in love with Edward. That I believe is a product of the way she was raised by her hippy mum and the fact that she came from a broken home - Charm do you agree with that? It is a result of loving Edward and finding her inner strength to save the baby and in fact all the Cullens that she becomes his equal.

I actually disagree with you, Jo. I think her strange family life and having to take care of her mother gave her her independence. It's what made her so wary of having Edward take care of her and made her hesitant in accepting his protection. Her weakness isn't really weakness- she's just clumsy and oblivious, really, and I think that's because she has never paid attention to herself before because she was taking care of her mother.


I never thought that Edward was trying to dominate Bella - he loved her and he knew how breakable (his words) she was. He was actually doing everything in his power to keep her safe and in fact saves her life three times, two of which were not his fault,the car and the murders. The last time that he saved her was from James and you could argue that it was as a result of him that situation happened.

He wasn't trying to dominate her, just take her of her. It simply worked out that way.


JBI I think is right in one respect that woman see Bella as weak and that is why they do not like her - I am not one of them by the way.

Why do we love Edward? Because he is in so many ways perfect and in one large way imperfect. I think it is in Midnight Sun - Charm correct me if I am wrong, where Edward explains that when you become a vampire you are fixed, your likes your dislikes your character everything and only something amazing, and for a vampire once in a life time, can change that. For Edward his love of Bella is that change. It is in that moment that he decides that even though her blood to him is the most potent on the plant that he will not kill her. That is why in New Moon he can leave her even though he loves her more than life itself, and that is why he comes back. His love of her changes him to his very core.

It is at its heart a love story and why does love sell - because everyone wants it!!!

Midnight Sun actually gives a really great look into Edwards mind and is in fact my favorite of the novels that being said I am clearly an Edward fan.

Jo, I believe he explains it in one of the other novels as well.

[Joreads]

Thanks Charm you are a doll. I don't haev my books they have been borrrowed by friends.

I see what you mean about her independence I will have to give that some more thought.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Thanks Charm you are a doll. I don't haev my books they have been borrrowed by friends.

I see what you mean about her independence I will have to give that some more thought.

Ha, how'd I manage to fool you into thinking that? :p

oh, and by the way, I also don't agree with you that her love for Edward gave her the strength to save the baby. I think Rosalie's manipulation had a LOT to do with that.

[Joreads]

Ha, how'd I manage to fool you into thinking that? :p


oh, and by the way, I also don't agree with you that her love for Edward gave her the strength to save the baby. I think Rosalie's manipulation had a LOT to do with that.




I can see that but I think her mind was already made up about that and that is why she rang Rosalie from the island to meet her at the airport. I agree that Ishe knoew taht Rosalie would not allow Edward to talk her into anything. Wow a conversation about the book isn't that a nice change.:p

Who desides Edward is you favorite character. I have to say Alice.

[*Classic*Charm*]

I can see that but I think her mind was already made up about that and that is why she rang Rosalie from the island to meet her at the airport. I agree that Ishe knoew taht Rosalie would not allow Edward to talk her into anything. Wow a conversation about the book isn't that a nice change.:p

Who desides Edward is you favorite character. I have to say Alice.

Yes, I suppose that's true too. Either way, I'm still bitter about the whole baby in the first place. Actually, I was really enjoying the feminism conversation. What happened to J and Mopey??;)

Hmm. Favourite other than Edward...that's tough. I think I'm gonna go for a couple of them: Alice, Seth and Emmett.

Why Alice for you?

[Joreads]

Yes, I suppose that's true too. Either way, I'm still bitter about the whole baby in the first place. Actually, I was really enjoying the feminism conversation. What happened to J and Mopey??;)

Hmm. Favourite other than Edward...that's tough. I think I'm gonna go for a couple of them: Alice, Seth and Emmett.

Why Alice for you?

I know the baby bothers you and I can understand why so in the interest of friendship it is off the table as from now ;).

I have no idea what happened to J and Mopey hopefully they will join us for another round tomorrow it might be late where they are I am not sure. Two guys standing up for women's rights those boys are dolls to as far as I am concerned.:) maybe I should have said GI Joe's - I am sure they will understand what I mean.

Alice is so quirky and I love the whole vision thing. She would make a really good best friend. She kind of reminds me of my sister - just so we are clear my sister is not a vampire:D, my sister is always telling me what to wear and taking me shopping and generally pushing me around.

I tell who else I liked Jasper and I would love to know more about his story. I think you could get a stand along book out of that if you wanted to.

Seth and Emmett why?

[*Classic*Charm*]

I know the baby bothers you and I can understand why so in the interest of friendship it is off the table as from now ;).

I have no idea what happened to J and Mopey hopefully they will join us for another round tomorrow it might be late where they are I am not sure. Two guys standing up for women's rights those boys are dolls to as far as I am concerned.:) maybe I should have said GI Joe's - I am sure they will understand what I mean.

Alice is so quirky and I love the whole vision thing. She would make a really good best friend. She kind of reminds me of my sister - just so we are clear my sister is not a vampire:D, my sister is always telling me what to wear and taking me shopping and generally pushing me around.

I tell who else I liked Jasper and I would love to know more about his story. I think you could get a stand along book out of that if you wanted to.

Seth and Emmett why?

No, no, we can talk about it if you'd like. I'm always up for it!

Haha GI Joes. That's excellent. Do they still make those?

Emmett's just hilarious. Big, burly, rash, and completely oblivious. He's just good for a laugh.

I loved Seth's loyalty and innocence. He's really the only truly innocent character in the books, and I think the most lifelike (despite that he's a werewolf, yadda yadda yadda)

[Joreads]

No, no, we can talk about it if you'd like. I'm always up for it!

Haha GI Joes. That's excellent. Do they still make those?

Emmett's just hilarious. Big, burly, rash, and completely oblivious. He's just good for a laugh.

I loved Seth's loyalty and innocence. He's really the only truly innocent character in the books, and I think the most lifelike (despite that he's a werewolf, yadda yadda yadda)

GI Joes who needs them we have our own.

The baby I still haven't made my mind up on that yet. But I love the way Edward :blush: and everyone else is with the baby. Still not sure about the vampires having babies though I thought that they couldn't because they had no bodily fluids - surely Edward or Bella would have noticed that - Is that crossing the line here????

Oh Seth - I was thinking Sam - I am getting my mythical creatures mixed up. Seth is the one that stays with Bella and Edward in the tent and faces Victoria. Got ya. He was cute.

I guess I am a vampire girl at heart. I don't think I have told you this but I am in a movie club here and we are doing vampire movies starting this month. Basically we see a movie each month and then discuss it but it has to have a vampire theme we do a theme for 12 months. I am currently reading up on vampire methology and comparing it to Twilight she has made some interesting changes. Told you a vampire girl at hear.

Emmetts love for Rose is what I remember him for and his loyalty to Bella once she is accepted as one of the family.

[Niamh]

The whole incabus thing bugged me as well. I had kind of hoped the thing would be an evil demon and that they would have to distroy it... But no no! happy families!
Alice rules! and seth is such a little cutie!!!
There was one rule of writing that i was always though by my teachers, watch the amount of characters you have. With Breaking Dawn, i felt there were too many characters, too many smaller stories, and too much going on, that the main focus of the series (Bella and Edward) was lost somewhat, and i think the blame for that was making Jacob a narrator. She should have Made Edward it, especially seeing as she was going to write Midnight Sun and it would have connected the two perspectives. It also would have eased up on a lot of the chaos, and we would have been able to feel Edwards pain and Bellas suffering. It would have brought a better understanding and maybe even made it a better story because we may have understood the whol incubus thing better.

[kelby_lake]

In case people haven't finished the series. I don't wanna be a spoilsport :D

Oh no, what really bugged me was how Bella was so 'selfless' and she moved to give her mum and Phil 'space'. And she rarely calls her parents Mum or Dad. Maybe she has an Electra complex, hence going for 100 year old Eddie. She is a bit messed-up.

Imprinting is basically grooming. If you choose a godfather for your child, it is not so they can bed them at a later date. Quil has to suffer '12 years of monkitude'. How can Meyer think it's okay to say that?

And Quil + Clare...Clare Quilty. What a creepy coincidence.

[Joreads]

The whole incabus thing bugged me as well. I had kind of hoped the thing would be an evil demon and that they would have to distroy it... But no no! happy families!
Alice rules! and seth is such a little cutie!!!
There was one rule of writing that i was always though by my teachers, watch the amount of characters you have. With Breaking Dawn, i felt there were too many characters, too many smaller stories, and too much going on, that the main focus of the series (Bella and Edward) was lost somewhat, and i think the blame for that was making Jacob a narrator. She should have Made Edward it, especially seeing as she was going to write Midnight Sun and it would have connected the two perspectives. It also would have eased up on a lot of the chaos, and we would have been able to feel Edwards pain and Bellas suffering. It would have brought a better understanding and maybe even made it a better story because we may have understood the whol incubus thing better.


I am with you on this Breaking Dawn was way to long and why on earth would you let Jacob tell the story!!! I would think that most people would want to hear from Edward. Way to much going on for me it was my least favorite of the books.

Where do you want to start I am up for it?

[*Classic*Charm*]

The whole incabus thing bugged me as well. I had kind of hoped the thing would be an evil demon and that they would have to distroy it... But no no! happy families!

Me too. I really wanted it to be a demon that had to be destroyed, which makes me sound completely cruel. Oh well. I wanted it to happen so that Rosalie would suffer for being such a (insert a choice word here).

I'll start by saying the Breaking Dawn had the most anti-climactic ending I think I've ever read. I was disappointed.

[Joreads]

Charm I agree with out about the ending of Breaking Dawn. It felt to me like SM realized that the book was already too long and she had to finish it so she hurried up and finished it. I have said previously that it is my least favorite book, partly because of the whole Jacob narration and because of the ending. It was to neat and tidy for my liking and Bella got everything that she wanted she gets to keep both Edwar and Jacob and that peeved me no end. I think that was the reason behind the whole imprinting the baby it was a way for SM to give Bella her happy ending. There wasn’t even really a big fight scene with the Voultri (Sorry if that is spelt wrong) nothing beats a good dust up as far as I am concerned.
Did anyone else buy that the werewolves were in fact not werewolves but shape shifters that kind of ruined it for me as well.


By the way why do people think Bella took to being a vampire so well? It was never really explained

[faithalina]

In some ways, I completely agree with you, JBI. The connotations presented by the novel's presentation of women as subordinates could definitely make an impact on the current generation of female youth.

The problem, though, is something that only Jo mentioned in an earlier post but that we haven't really examined yet: The entirety of the series is completely contradictory in it's viewpoint on male dominance and feminist independence.

Yes, as we've all stated, there is clearly the tone of the weak, female who wants and needs the comfort and protection of a male counterpart.

There is also a middle, more equal ground. The whole second novel (New Moon) revolves around the idea that the two characters are parts of one whole, and cannot live without the other. While it's from the girl's perspective and her agony seems completely preposterous, it is clear that Edward is also not able to properly function without her.

Finally, towards the end of the series (Breaking Dawn mostly), we the readers come to realize that Bella is actually the strongest of them all and is actually the only one capable of saving all the other characters.

This almost seems like a nice tidy progression of things, which leaves me utterly confused. If one follows the progression, it almost seems like the author is pushing for feminist liberty; And yet, it's still the protective dominant male that most readers are more attracted to. Many people who have read the books have stated that they don't like Bella, but would jump Edward in a second.


I agree with your views on there being a definite equality in degrees of regard between Edward and Bella. While in twilight Bella is definitely obsessed with Edward from the beginning (and of course Edwards feelings become stronger and more apparent as the story unfolds), after reading Midnight Sun (what there is of it) it becomes even clearer that those feelings are entirely mutual and therefore her devotion seems far less pathetic...almost enviable. The strength of their love is almost a character in itself, that is present throughout the books, and carries the story through to it's conclusion.

As a woman, and a fairly liberated one I think, i actually appreciated the strength of Edwards character in the first two books. i do think though, that he wouldn't have needed to be quite so overbearing if Bella didn't make such poor choices...but then...where would the story go without her flawed humanity? I do not believe that being devoted to another person and to have that devotion returned in any way diminishes a woman's individuality, independence or ability to see clearly. Admittedly, though, there were moments in all 4 books where I shook my head and felt concerned as to what kind of message was being sent to young girls all over the world.

Perhaps my biggest frustration in Breaking Dawn (and Eclipse, to some extent) was the fact that, yes as you say, Bella became the 'strength' of the text, however, to allow that, suddenly Edward had no presence at all. I can imagine him shrinking under the weight of his guilt for putting her through such physical trauma etc...it just felt like he'd given up.

[*Classic*Charm*]

I agree with your views on there being a definite equality in degrees of regard between Edward and Bella. While in twilight Bella is definitely obsessed with Edward from the beginning, after reading Midnight Sun (what there is of it) it becomes clear that those feelings are entirely mutual and therefore her devotion seems far less pathetic...almost enviable. The strength of their love is almost a character in itself, that is present throughout the books, and carries the story through to it's conclusion.

As a woman, and a fairly liberated one I think, i actually appreciated the strength of Edwards character in the first two books. i do think though, that he wouldn't have needed to be quite so overbearing if Bella didn't make such poor choices...but then...where would the story go without her flawed humanity?

Perhaps my biggest frustration in Breaking Dawn (and Eclipse, to some extent) was the fact that, yes as you say, Bella became the 'strength' of the text, however, to allow that, suddenly Edward had no presence at all. I can imagine him shrinking under the weight of his guilt for putting her through such physical trauma etc...it just felt like he'd given up.

I agree with you. I found Breaking Dawn almost disjointed from the rest of the series when Edward had really given up and suddenly Bella was completely different. It was as though everything they had been through and everything he had done for her was no irrelevant. The relationship they had built up was completely redundant.


Charm I agree with out about the ending of Breaking Dawn. It felt to me like SM realized that the book was already too long and she had to finish it so she hurried up and finished it. I have said previously that it is my least favorite book, partly because of the whole Jacob narration and because of the ending. It was to neat and tidy for my liking and Bella got everything that she wanted she gets to keep both Edwar and Jacob and that peeved me no end. I think that was the reason behind the whole imprinting the baby it was a way for SM to give Bella her happy ending. There wasn’t even really a big fight scene with the Voultri (Sorry if that is spelt wrong) nothing beats a good dust up as far as I am concerned.
Did anyone else buy that the werewolves were in fact not werewolves but shape shifters that kind of ruined it for me as well.


By the way why do people think Bella took to being a vampire so well? It was never really explained

Yeah, there should have been a fight scene. It only made sense. And the werewolf bit was completely unnecessary.

[faithalina]

Me too. I really wanted it to be a demon that had to be destroyed, which makes me sound completely cruel. Oh well. I wanted it to happen so that Rosalie would suffer for being such a (insert a choice word here).

I totally thought Jacob was going to kill the child...of course he wouldn't, but what was more horrific was what occurred instead...i can't believe they imprinted. It's all just a little to icky for me.


Charm I agree with out about the ending of Breaking Dawn. It felt to me like SM realized that the book was already too long and she had to finish it so she hurried up and finished it. I have said previously that it is my least favorite book, partly because of the whole Jacob narration and because of the ending. It was to neat and tidy for my liking and Bella got everything that she wanted she gets to keep both Edwar and Jacob and that peeved me no end. I think that was the reason behind the whole imprinting the baby it was a way for SM to give Bella her happy ending. There wasn’t even really a big fight scene with the Voultri (Sorry if that is spelt wrong) nothing beats a good dust up as far as I am concerned.
Did anyone else buy that the werewolves were in fact not werewolves but shape shifters that kind of ruined it for me as well.


By the way why do people think Bella took to being a vampire so well? It was never really explained

Yep...it was happy endings all round! A little too perfect for Bella. I'm glad she became a vampire, but it all just seemed a little too convenient that one of her special gifts could be self control...I think it has something to do with her being such a giving and 'responsible' human, that she took that aspect of her personality with her...

SM could have halved the pregnancy and jacob sections of the book to make space for her 'newborn-ness'...i was a bit disappointed that she didn't start attacking!

I think if Edward had any real balls, he'd have gotten rid of Jacob in Eclipse after she kissed him. The triangle was a bit much for me, right to the end. I know SM was doing the whole 'Wuthering Heights' thing, but yeah, I didn't enjoy that aspect of the series.

[Joreads]

I think if Edward had any real balls, he'd have gotten rid of Jacob in Eclipse after she kissed him. The triangle was a bit much for me, right to the end. I know SM was doing the whole 'Wuthering Heights' thing, but yeah, I didn't enjoy that aspect of the series.

Ah but Bella asked him to kiss her!

[faithalina]

indeed she did...but only after he used that age-old tactic of emotional manipulation...'ask me to kiss you or i'll walk into certain death and it will be all your fault'!! very telling of their age...though i guess such tricks are adapted and perfected right into adulthood...

[*Classic*Charm*]

It didn't bother me that she asked him to kiss her to save his life, but it bothered me when he was kissing her and then she just decided that she was in love with him too and started kissing him back. I hated that. Poor Edward...

I was pretty happy when he started howling because he overheard them talking about their marriage.

[Joreads]

It didn't bother me that she asked him to kiss her to save his life, but it bothered me when he was kissing her and then she just decided that she was in love with him too and started kissing him back. I hated that. Poor Edward...

I was pretty happy when he started howling because he overheard them talking about their marriage.

We really are Edward girls aren't we:blush:

[*Classic*Charm*]

We really are Edward girls aren't we:blush:

To a fault, I think. :blush:

He's pretty much perfect.

It's a wonder more guys haven't thought to read these considering many a girl/woman has declared that they contain a widely accepted example of a perfect man! It could be educational for them ;)

[faithalina]

It's a wonder more guys haven't thought to read these considering many a girl/woman has declared that they contain a widely accepted example of a perfect man! It could be educational for them ;)

SM has very much ruined things for every mortal male...


It didn't bother me that she asked him to kiss her to save his life, but it bothered me when he was kissing her and then she just decided that she was in love with him too and started kissing him back. I hated that. Poor Edward...

I was pretty happy when he started howling because he overheard them talking about their marriage.

confession...i literally threw the book across the room when i realised she was going to kiss him back. edward deserves better...sigh...

jacob is just a tenacious fool...

[*Classic*Charm*]

confession...i literally threw the book across the room when i realised she was going to kiss him back. edward deserves better...sigh...

jacob is just a tenacious fool...

I concur...

[Joreads]

Wow we are going to turn this into an Edward loving thread:lol:

The guy that plays Edward is only 22 I keep telling myself that there is nothing wrong with that but I am far from 22 oh well:blush:

I could have screamed when she kissed Jacob as well. That whole thing annoyed me.

So what is your favorite Edward moment?

That is not really a topic though.

So in New Moon when Bella could hear Edwards voice - what was going on was it her imagination or something more? I thought at one stage it may have been Alice??

[*Classic*Charm*]

Wow we are going to turn this into an Edward loving thread:lol:

The guy that plays Edward is only 22 I keep telling myself that there is nothing wrong with that but I am far from 22 oh well:blush:

I could have screamed when she kissed Jacob as well. That whole thing annoyed me.

So what is your favorite Edward moment?

Yeah, but he's not Edward! He's just an actor...though 22 is perfectly legitimate for me!:D

Hmm favourite Edward moment...I'll have to give that a moment's thought.

[faithalina]

Wow we are going to turn this into an Edward loving thread:lol:

The guy that plays Edward is only 22 I keep telling myself that there is nothing wrong with that but I am far from 22 oh well:blush:

I could have screamed when she kissed Jacob as well. That whole thing annoyed me.

So what is your favorite Edward moment?

man, seriously! am i the ONLY one who is NOT attracted to Rob Patterson or whatever his name is? ignore question...not really forum-relevant.

considering fave moment...

[Joreads]

Yeah, but he's not Edward! He's just an actor...though 22 is perfectly legitimate for me!:D

.

Yes but he will do. No so for me but it is legal;)


man, seriously! am i the ONLY one who is NOT attracted to Rob Patterson or whatever his name is? ignore question...not really forum-relevant.

considering fave moment...

See above - just remember Charm is right he is not Edward so no cake and eatting it to

On a serious note. Is Twilight a real world look at the highs and lows of first love? Vampires not withstanding?

[faithalina]

On a serious note. Is Twilight a real world look at the highs and lows of first love? Vampires not withstanding?

Hmmm, good question. I certainly remember obsessing over a boy when i was 17-18, but would I die if he left me...obviously not. First love, though, that was pretty all-consuming...almost unhealthy.



So in New Moon when Bella could hear Edwards voice - what was going on was it her imagination or something more? I thought at one stage it may have been Alice??

I just thought it was her sub-conscious...willing his voice into existence, if that makes sense. Wanting him so much that she convinced herself that he was still protecting her, being the voice of reason, even in his absence.

[Joreads]

Isn’t that what first love is like though? I think SM does a great job of portraying the experience of first love for two people that are so right for each other and yet so wrong for each other. I could really identify with the inner struggle they both went through (for Edward you need to have read Midnight Sun) grant this inner struggle is a little more than any of us have to deal with but still I think you see where I am coming from. First love is something that you never forget or at least it should be.
I loved their first kiss and the fact that Bella could not control herself even though she knew that she should – have we not all been there?

[faithalina]

Isn’t that what first love is like though? I think SM does a great job of portraying the experience of first love for two people that are so right for each other and yet so wrong for each other. I could really identify with the inner struggle they both went through (for Edward you need to have read Midnight Sun) grant this inner struggle is a little more than any of us have to deal with but still I think you see where I am coming from. First love is something that you never forget or at least it should be.
I loved their first kiss and the fact that Bella could not control herself even though she knew that she should – have we not all been there?

yes, midnight sun definitely put things in perspective, particularly the fact that they were both so drawn to each other, without any say on their part, and that they loved each other, sadly, beyond what many will ever experience. i think there is the potential for danger in getting too caught up in these books...reality pails...leaving dissatisfied individuals scratching their heads and wondering why on earth they're alone!!...haha, maybe not quite that bad.

yeah, i have to say, their first kiss...but also, the first time he touches her cheek etc. you felt the 'dazzle'...

[*Classic*Charm*]

I think my favourite Edward moment comes from Midnight Sun, when the two of them are sitting beside each other in Biology and the teacher turns the lights off. It was interesting reading about the "electricity" from Bella's POV, but so much better from Edward's because he sees that Bella is experiencing the same feelings he is, which shouldn't be happening because she is human. It's almost like he sees her feeling something like a bloodlust and that makes her even more attractive. Yes, I loved the first kiss as well and how Bella couldn't restrain herself. I thought that was one of the most realistic moments in the book. Yes, I think we've all been there.

It took me a while to decide what I thought about Bella's hearing Edward's voice. I think it was completely a delusion that she created because she had become so completely obsessed with him. She wanted him so badly that she was willing to endanger herself to have him, so her mind created that for her, almost like it was her mind's way of trying to save her. This is hard to explain haha. I mean, consciously, Bella wanted to hurt herself because she couldn't have Edward. Her subconscious knew that this was stupid, so it created what she wanted in order to save her. Obviously, that backfired.

Hmm...I think there's a huge difference between obsessing over another person, and being obsessively in love. Does that make sense? I think it's difficult to say where the "first love" line is drawn between the two. My own experiences limit how much input I have into this. To be quite honest, I don't think two teenagers are really capable of a love like this. People that young are WAY too preoccupied to be that obsessed with only each other. I know that sounds contradictory, and yes, I've known a lot of teenage couples who were seemingly obsessed with each other, but they're not really obsessed with each other, they're obsessed with the relationship, which again I think is very different. This probably makes no sense...sorry.

[Joreads]

Mine is also Midnight Sun Edward is talking to Bella about being friends. Part of him wants her to understand how bad he is for her and part of him does not. It is the one line on the whole series that makes me laugh out loud
“I waited for her response torn in two – wishing she would finally hear and understand, thinking I might die if she did. How Melodramatic. I was turning into such a human. – Funny stuff

Charm your posts made sense to me at least and I see exactly where you are coming from.

OK hat do you think time for the next question?

Given some of the discussion in the other threads and the very valid points raised by JBI and others what is it about these novels that has touched so many people in fact let me change that to women.


Vampires got me in the door, I have to be honest about that but the love story made me want to stay. I found the novels to be very sensual without being over sexual (breaking dawn changes that somewhat). I also thought that in parts they were very funny and I often caught myself smiling (note to self be careful when reading in the lunch room) at what was written on the page.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Mine is also Midnight Sun Edward is talking to Bella about being friends. Part of him wants her to understand how bad he is for her and part of him does not. It is the one line on the whole series that makes me laugh out loud
“I waited for her response torn in two – wishing she would finally hear and understand, thinking I might die if she did. How Melodramatic. I was turning into such a human. – Funny stuff

Charm your posts made sense to me at least and I see exactly where you are coming from.

OK hat do you think time for the next question?

Given some of the discussion in the other threads and the very valid points raised by JBI and others what is it about these novels that has touched so many people in fact let me change that to women.


Vampires got me in the door, I have to be honest about that but the love story made me want to stay. I found the novels to be very sensual without being over sexual (breaking dawn changes that somewhat). I also thought that in parts they were very funny and I often caught myself smiling (note to self be careful when reading in the lunch room) at what was written on the page.

Came for the vampires, stayed for the love story huh? Actually, that's why one of my housemates got into them. She has an admitted Vampire fetish (I really don't understand that), and she had read a lot of really trashy romance novels with vampires in them and that's why she read Twilight. I saw the film before I read the books, because I watched it with her one night. It was the obsessive romance that made me want to read the books. You could only get an impression from the film. I don't know why I was so attracted to it. I have a really obsessive personality and you don't often see an obsessive love story like this one that's not unhealthy. It was very satisfying.

Ooh I agree. That was why I liked Twilight so much- it was sensual without being sexual.

[Joreads]

Well I wouldn't say I have a fetish but vampires interest me I love the methology behind them. Blade, Underworld, Buffy, Angel, Moonlight, blood Ties the whole works. i love the Supernatural. I am a little obsessive myselfl so once I was hooked on vampire there was no going back.


i think there is the potential for danger in getting too caught up in these books...reality pails...leaving dissatisfied individuals scratching their heads and wondering why on earth they're alone!!...haha, maybe not quite that bad.



I don't think we are that far gone even though it may appear to others that we are:lol:

Reality for me has never pailed to that of a book. there is nothing that measures up to holding the one you love - man that is not book ;)

[*Classic*Charm*]

Reality for me has never pailed to that of a book. there is nothing that measures up to holding the one you love - man that is not book ;)

Suuurrrreee....;):D

There are days if given the choice of a man or a book, I'd take the book.:p

[faithalina]

Suuurrrreee....;):D

There are days if given the choice of a man or a book, I'd take the book.:p

Of course...I quite agree. But again, this is not always the case...

[kelby_lake]

ha, ha, let's dig deeper now girlies...

Imprinting. Did you find that a bit...creepy?...

Reading the series was sort of voyeuristic. I really couldn't imagine myself as bella, and that basically is key to liking the books.

[faithalina]

ha, ha, let's dig deeper now girlies...

Imprinting. Did you find that a bit...creepy?...

Reading the series was sort of voyeuristic. I really couldn't imagine myself as bella, and that basically is key to liking the books.


At first I thought it was a very interesting idea; to know the instant you looked at each other, you were each others' "the one"...but it all got a bit weird with Quil and the little girl...and again with Jacob and Renesmee...would there really ever be any true equality between them, once the child grew up, when for their entire lives, they've been 'looked after' by their partner. When would the parenting stop and the partnering begin?

If they imprinted on a human, would that mean that the shapeshifters would remain the same age but their partners would still grow old?

so, are you saying that being unable to see yourself as the characters is what makes a book work? just want to make sure i understand.

[Joreads]

I am with Kelby let’s start digging.

The imprinting confused me a little bit is there actually a physical act involved, it sounds like when I cat pee’s everywhere?
I didn’t mind the imprinting when it was Sam and Emily (I don’t have my books so if I get the names wrong sorry guys just correct me). I guess the fact that it was between two adults that made it OK. My stomach turned a little with it was Quil and the baby and then Jacob and the baby – and it still doesn’t actually sit right with me. SM went to great pains to explain that there was nothing sexual when it happened with a baby or a child but still there is something not quite right with it because eventually it will end up being a sexual relationship – or at least that is my understanding.
I couldn’t see myself as Bella either but that didn’t bother me much. I think people (women?) see her as weak but we need to remember that in most physical aspects in the first three books at least she is weaker than everyone around her (apart from the human’s). I get the impression that she was just as smart as Edward (remember the biology lab) and just as observant and fiercely independent to a fault. These are features to admire I think. Did anyone else get that?
What did both me was the fact that Sam had injured Emily when he was a young werewolves did that bother anyone else



If they imprinted on a human, would that mean that the shapeshifters would remain the same age but their partners would still grow old?



Sorry just saw this - once they stop shifting they begin to age again

[*Classic*Charm*]

Yes, digging is always good.

I don't really feel anything about imprinting to be honest. I completely see how you are all creeped out by the idea of imprinting and the line between the caring relationship and the sexual one, if you know what I mean. SM describes the relationship as the werewolf being whatever the imprintee needs at the time, so when the imprintee is ready for a new kind of relationship, the werewolf steps up. Really, I think this concept is just so completely impossible that I cannot even fathom it, so I have no opinion. I find it slightly mind-boggling. And I know that there are a lot of impossible things and concepts in this novel, but this one is based on real human emotion and thus seems the most impossible for me. Difficult to explain...

I also see what you mean by needing a connection with the character to enjoy the book. I actually see a lot of similarities between myself and Bella (I don't think I'm quite so pathetic, though), in that I'm extremely clumsy and weak and stubborn to the point of absurdity. So in some ways it's a nice read because it's like writing myself into a ridiculous love story (don't worry, I'm not naive enough to think that a romance like this is healthy/ possible).

[Joreads]

Guys does anyone know if Imprinting is actually part of the werewolves canon or is it something that SM made up?

Charm we should compare bruises one day if there is something to run into I am bound to find it. You are far from pathetic by the way.

Kelby would you mind telling us what is it about Bella that most annoyed you ? Sorry if you have answered that somewhere else. So we can discuss

[*Classic*Charm*]

Guys does anyone know if Imprinting is actually part of the werewolves canon or is it something that SM made up?

Charm we should compare bruises one day if there is something to run into I am bound to find it. You are far from pathetic by the way.

Kelby would you mind telling us what is it about Bella that most annoyed you ? Sorry if you have answered that somewhere else. So we can discuss

I never really thought of there being a werewolf canon...

Ha! Yes, I have a lot of scars too:sick: Why thank you:)

Yes, I'm curious too, though I think it's fairly common amongst the readers.

[Joreads]

I never really thought of there being a werewolf canon...

Ha! Yes, I have a lot of scars too:sick: Why thank you:)

Yes, I'm curious too, though I think it's fairly common amongst the readers.

there is a vampire canon so I assume there is one for the wolves for example the stand is that vampires cannot enter your house without an invitation - clearly not the case in Twilight.

If she did make it up it puts a whole new slant on it don't you think? I will see what I can dig up

[faithalina]

Questions:
What do you think of Rosalie as a character?
Is her presence in the texts merely to antagonise and provide tension within the family? or is there more to her? What does she provide for the reader?

[*Classic*Charm*]

Questions:
What do you think of Rosalie as a character?
Is her presence in the texts merely to antagonise and provide tension within the family? or is there more to her? What does she provide for the reader?

Ooh I hate Rosalie. She's a stupid selfish moron.

I don't think her presence is merely to antagonize. I think she's there to show the opposite viewpoint. All the other vampires were grateful to Carlisle for saving them and are happy with their "lives" and have matured to the point where they have accepted the fact that they will not grow and change. They have all come to terms with it except for Rosalie who is bitter and resentful, and petty in that she still only thinks of herself and how beautiful she is. It's a wonder Emmett puts up with her. I think she's there so that the reader (and Bella) gets the idea that it's not always easy to accept that fate.

[Joreads]

I agree with Charm on that one. She was there to show the other side of the coin in that given a choice she would not have become a vampire. Her character was meant to balance out Bella’s obsession with becoming a vampire to provide her and the reader with what you miss out on when you come a vampire – kids for example ignoring what happens later of course
.
I think also we needed to get a feel for just how alone Edward had been before Bella. He was really the odd man out in the family there were three sets of perfect, made for each other couples and yet he had walked along for 100 years until he found Bella. It is a really nice balance I think forever with someone verse a human life and everything that goes with it

[faithalina]

I agree with Charm on that one. She was there to show the other side of the coin in that given a choice she would not have become a vampire. Her character was meant to balance out Bella’s obsession with becoming a vampire to provide her and the reader with what you miss out on when you come a vampire – kids for example ignoring what happens later of course
.
I think also we needed to get a feel for just how alone Edward had been before Bella. He was really the odd man out in the family there were three sets of perfect, made for each other couples and yet he had walked along for 100 years until he found Bella. It is a really nice balance I think forever with someone verse a human life and everything that goes with it

I agree, and was thinking along the same lines also. I did not really like her, even at the end in Breaking Dawn, when she and Bella joined forces, so to speak, but I appreciated the contrast she provided, which ultimately equated to balance.

You are right, the perfect partnerings within the Cullen family, definitely emphasised just how lonely Edward was, which further explains the rest of the family being so supportive of Edward and Bella's 'impossible' relationship and their willingness to include her in their family. Certainly highlights the whole idea of family being more than just 'blood'...no pun intended.

Breaking Dawn was very different to the previous 3 books. It wasn't spectacular, that is for sure, though I wouldn't say I didn't like it. There has been quite a lot of negative attention given to this text, with some unhappy readers demanding their money back and so forth. To give specific examples as to why, would be to give away too much for those who haven't read it yet. In saying that, having read the series and being able to appreciate the various arguments out there, I must say that there were still some satisfying moments in the book that salvaged the overall story for me.

[Joreads]

I agree, and was thinking along the same lines also. I did not really like her, even at the end in Breaking Dawn, when she and Bella joined forces, so to speak, but I appreciated the contrast she provided, which ultimately equated to balance.

You are right, the perfect partnerings within the Cullen family, definitely emphasised just how lonely Edward was, which further explains the rest of the family being so supportive of Edward and Bella's 'impossible' relationship and their willingness to include her in their family. Certainly highlights the whole idea of family being more than just 'blood'...no pun intended.

More than Blood I like it.:lol:


Breaking Dawn was very different to the previous 3 books. It wasn't spectacular, that is for sure, though I wouldn't say I didn't like it. There has been quite a lot of negative attention given to this text, with some unhappy readers demanding their money back and so forth. To give specific examples as to why, would be to give away too much for those who haven't read it yet. In saying that, having read the series and being able to appreciate the various arguments out there, I must say that there were still some satisfying moments in the book that salvaged the overall story for me.

Feel free to add it to the spoiler thread

http://www.twilightteez.com/


Check out the above site that actually have an Edward hoddie that says you guessed it

BITE ME

[skasian]

Thanks to Joreads, I read the draft of Midnight Sun, and I have to say it wasnt a waste of two and a half hours of my time. But, was it necessary? It certainly improved our understandings of Edward, but I believe that keeping Edward in the shade of mystery was better off. It was bit predictable at times, and overall, Midnight Sun made my imaginations of Edward less intriguing and charismatic. I agree with you Joreads, that it was far humourous in comparison to Twilight, and with the exceptions of being abit loose again, it was quite entertaining.

[Niamh]

Some new moon movie news

Summit and Chris Weis have decided to keep actor Taylor Lauther on to play Jacob after months of deliberating whether or not he was too soft to play the bulked up Jacob of New Moon. Poor kid spent months bulking up in Gyms trying to hold onto the role.
And he is cute.

[kelby_lake]

Guys does anyone know if Imprinting is actually part of the werewolves canon or is it something that SM made up?

Kelby would you mind telling us what is it about Bella that most annoyed you ? Sorry if you have answered that somewhere else. So we can discuss

Initially in Twilight, there were sort of similarities. I'm a bit clumsy and I feel ancient.I read lots. But the whole character just seemed so forced, as of Meyer was trying to make a vague vessel which could apply to anyone, which probably is what she was doing.

New Moon she was very melodramatic but I didn't mind that so much- the whole 'saga' is a melodrama- but she turned into a nympho in Eclipse. If Eddie says no...stop pressurising the poor vampire. She is an absolute cow- she makes jessica tell some story to her and then blatantly ignores her and says how insignificant she is, she moans on and on about not wanting a party, even though the nice vampires have organised one for her...not exactly nice qualities, which is why I couldn't picture myself as her.

Let's be honest, the series is Mills and Boony. You'll enjoy it most by getting teenage kicks out of a fictional gorgeous man burning with desire for you.

[Joreads]

Some new moon movie news

Summit and Chris Weis have decided to keep actor Taylor Lauther on to play Jacob after months of deliberating whether or not he was too soft to play the bulked up Jacob of New Moon. Poor kid spent months bulking up in Gyms trying to hold onto the role.
And he is cute.

They start filming in March due for release 20th November - WOW

[*Classic*Charm*]

New Moon she was very melodramatic but I didn't mind that so much- the whole 'saga' is a melodrama- but she turned into a nympho in Eclipse. If Eddie says no...stop pressurising the poor vampire. She is an absolute cow- she makes jessica tell some story to her and then blatantly ignores her and says how insignificant she is, she moans on and on about not wanting a party, even though the nice vampires have organised one for her...not exactly nice qualities, which is why I couldn't picture myself as her.

Yeah, I wasn't impressed by the fact that she was suddenly all sex-crazed. It was weird. But I won't lie- I would really not enjoy having a party thrown for me, either. I would be upset if my friends did that, knowing full well that I don't like most of the people there, nor do I enjoy being the centre of attention.


Let's be honest, the series is Mills and Boony. You'll enjoy it most by getting teenage kicks out of a fictional gorgeous man burning with desire for you.

Yep, that's exactly right!

Any news on the werewolf front, Jo?

[Joreads]

Any news on the werewolf front, Jo?

It seems, as far as I can tell that SM made imprinting up herself. I could find no other reference to it anywhere but I will keep digging.

The werewolf as a enemy of the vampire has been a long standing accepted "fact" so there is nothing new there. Strange then that Jacob could imprint on a 1/2 vampire?

[*Classic*Charm*]

It seems, as far as I can tell that SM made imprinting up herself. I could find no other reference to it anywhere but I will keep digging.

The werewolf as a enemy of the vampire has been a long standing accepted "fact" so there is nothing new there. Strange then that Jacob could imprint on a 1/2 vampire?

Weird...well, maybe it's a "shapeshifter" thing...

[Zee.]

Imprinting was made up, yes.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Imprinting was made up, yes.

Why though? So there was a convenient excuse for Jacob's love for Bella? Her non-existent half-child? I don't see the point, really...

[Joreads]

Why though? So there was a convenient excuse for Jacob's love for Bella? Her non-existent half-child? I don't see the point, really...

I am with you. Remember that Edward tells Jacob that even if Bella picked him that he may leave her one day as he wouldn't have a choice. I think that was the tie at SM used to have a happy ever after. If they are enemies though how is the imprinting on a half vampire even possible.

Sorry Jacob never imprinted on Bella - still sounds like a cat peeing to me!!!

[*Classic*Charm*]

I am with you. Remember that Edward tells Jacob that even if Bella picked him that he may leave her one day as he wouldn't have a choice. I think that was the tie at SM used to have a happy ever after. If they are enemies though how is the imprinting on a half vampire even possible.

Or better yet, how could he imprint on an unfertilized egg? Apparently Renesmee is the reason he was in love with Bella all along...makes no sense to me, as she did not exist, nor did the notion of her.

[Zee.]

To add dimension to the werewolves.

Certain things in the story are put there only to benefit something else. Or, highlight a point.

E.g When Bella falls for Jacob.
This was a device used to show how much she is in love with Edward because she CHOOSES Edward, at the end of it.

[*Classic*Charm*]

To add dimension to the werewolves.

I really don't think it does, to be honest with you. All it really does is explain why Emily stays with Sam, after he mutilated her face. (maybe that is a touch crude...)

[Joreads]

Certain things in the story are put there only to benefit something else. Or, highlight a point.

E.g When Bella falls for Jacob.
This was a device used to show how much she is in love with Edward because she CHOOSES Edward, at the end of it.

Yep spot on with that one Lim


I really don't think it does, to be honest with you. All it really does is explain why Emily stays with Sam, after he mutilated her face. (maybe that is a touch crude...)

That sat really poorly with me

[Zee.]

I really don't think it does, to be honest with you. All it really does is explain why Emily stays with Sam, after he mutilated her face. (maybe that is a touch crude...)

I think it adds more to the story though. It adds to the fact that they ARE supernatural creatures.

She also probably had a little fun with it...

[*Classic*Charm*]

Certain things in the story are put there only to benefit something else. Or, highlight a point.

E.g When Bella falls for Jacob.
This was a device used to show how much she is in love with Edward because she CHOOSES Edward, at the end of it.

Oh, I agree with you on that. I really don't see how imprinting adds dimension. I'd be far more impressed if the women had some choice in the matter- if they realized that the men they're in love with are not human, and chose to stay with them anyways. That says more about the werewolves to me than some ritual of unavoidable love at first sight.


That sat really poorly with me


The plotline or my phrasing? If it was me, I apologize. :)



She also probably had a little fun with it...

I think that's more it than anything. It's a clever concept, I'll admit, just not one I find beneficial to the story.

[Joreads]

I am listening to the soundtrack as we speak. Did you know that Rob (Edward) wrote some of the songs for it. In the movie when he is playing Bella's song it is actually him playing - seems he is more than just a pretty face:ladysman:

[*Classic*Charm*]

I am listening to the soundtrack as we speak. Did you know that Rob (Edward) wrote some of the songs for it. In the movie when he is playing Bella's song it is actually him playing - seems he is more than just a pretty face:ladysman:

Damn...can't resist men with musical talent!:D

[Zee.]

Yeah he wrote that Let Me Sign song too.


Yeah but CC, I think the book would be boring if it lacked certain details like Imprinting.

[Joreads]

Damn...can't resist men with musical talent!:D

Me tooooo

[*Classic*Charm*]

Yeah he wrote that Let Me Sign song too.


Yeah but CC, I think the book would be boring if it lacked certain details like Imprinting.

I suppose that's true. What else would be be talking about?

[Zee.]

See you later guys,

if I stay any longer CC will make fun of my pathetic logging out attempts. :D

[*Classic*Charm*]

See you later guys,

if I stay any longer CC will make fun of my pathetic logging out attempts. :D

Check!

[Joreads]

Hey lets talk about the, some would, ugly turn that Breaking Dawn took. In particular the baby what do you guys think. What was the purpose behind that.

http://twilightnovelnovice.com/exclusives/interviews/exclusive-interview-solomon-trimble/

Interesting article by the guy that plays Sam

[kelby_lake]

Hey lets talk about the, some would, ugly turn that Breaking Dawn took. In particular the baby what do you guys think. What was the purpose behind that.

Meyer wanted to portray a normal lovely relationship. Meet- get attracted- kiss- date- marriage (because Meyer believe in the whole abstinance til your married thing)- sex-baby.

Jacob and Renesmee was just wrong. He was in love with her mother. Next we'll find out that he's actually in love with Renee...
Or maybe it's the Eddie part of the baby he's imprinted on :P

[Joreads]

Meyer wanted to portray a normal lovely relationship. Meet- get attracted- kiss- date- marriage (because Meyer believe in the whole abstinance til your married thing)- sex-baby.

Jacob and Renesmee was just wrong. He was in love with her mother. Next we'll find out that he's actually in love with Renee...
Or maybe it's the Eddie part of the baby he's imprinted on :P

That is an interesting point about imprinting on Eddie's part of the baby. If they are enemies can that be possible.

I heard an interview with her somewhere on line and I wouldn't be surprised if we get another installment of the book - Midnight sun first I hope first.

I for one would really like to have a book on Jaspers story.

Kelby I didn't know Meyers church of choice until last night - interesting - if you guys aren't sure let me know - is that breaking the rules? I can PM you anyway.

Saw the movie for the 5th time last night - it is growing on me.

[*Classic*Charm*]

That is an interesting point about imprinting on Eddie's part of the baby. If they are enemies can that be possible.

I heard an interview with her somewhere on line and I wouldn't be surprised if we get another installment of the book - Midnight sun first I hope first.

I for one would really like to have a book on Jaspers story.

Kelby I didn't know Meyers church of choice until last night - interesting - if you guys aren't sure let me know - is that breaking the rules? I can PM you anyway.

Saw the movie for the 5th time last night - it is growing on me.

I knew about the author's religious affiliations. It was used as an explanation for why everything was so nicey nicey in the first books (which as we've already discussed, was nice- the whole sensual but not sexual thing). But then Breaking Dawn comes along and BAM. So I don't know if the author's religion can really be used as an explanation for anything (explanation is not the word I want to use, but I can't think of anything better).

[kelby_lake]

Excuse might be a better one. (and by the way I don't mean to offend people with those beliefs, it's just relevant).

The books are pretty much Meyer's dreams, so I guess she has weird dreams...

[*Classic*Charm*]

Excuse might be a better one. (and by the way I don't mean to offend people with those beliefs, it's just relevant).

The books are pretty much Meyer's dreams, so I guess she has weird dreams...

Really? That I didn't know

[kelby_lake]

I know the first one is actually from a dream, the rest pretty much read like a woman of her age's fantasy.

[Joreads]

Excuse might be a better one. (and by the way I don't mean to offend people with those beliefs, it's just relevant).

The books are pretty much Meyer's dreams, so I guess she has weird dreams...

No offence taken in this thread Kelby - love your comments they make me think abut things I hadn't before

[*Classic*Charm*]

Yeah, there's no offense taken on my end either.

Jo, did you say she was doing more novels other than Midnight Sun, or did I make that up?

[melissa martin]

I love vampire books, but i'm a little sick of them all being vampire romance... ugh... i haven't read a decent vampire story in ages... i liked the concept of twighlight, but i hate the way she has written it. I'm sure many others immensly enjoyed it, 'for some to love it, others must loath it', and the whole shiny vampire in the sun thing... *shakes head in disgust*, well, wondering if anyone can point me to some better written vampire books...

[Joreads]

Yeah, there's no offense taken on my end either.

Jo, did you say she was doing more novels other than Midnight Sun, or did I make that up?

No more books :bawling: I would love one on Jasper though

[*Classic*Charm*]

So here's my next question:


If vampires have no blood...


and no bodily fluids...




How did this all happen?

please tell me this does not require clarification

[Joreads]

So here's my next question:


If vampires have no blood...


and no bodily fluids...




How did this all happen?

please tell me this does not require clarification

I know surely one of them would have noticed the exchange of fluids!!!

[*Classic*Charm*]

even before that...

I actually asked my housemate about it- the one with the fetish- and she said that opinions on this vary from book to book. Some say that once a vampire falls in love he starts "living" again, heart beating and whatnot. I think it's just a convenient excuse for the vampire to be able to get laid. Silly vampire romance novels, she reads! :lol:

[Joreads]

even before that...

I actually asked my housemate about it- the one with the fetish- and she said that opinions on this vary from book to book. Some say that once a vampire falls in love he starts "living" again, heart beating and whatnot. I think it's just a convenient excuse for the vampire to be able to get laid. Silly vampire romance novels, she reads! :lol:

Oh sorry - I really don't have a one track mind. I will have to think about that one:D

[*Classic*Charm*]

Alrighty, you ponder that one and get back to me:D

[Joreads]

Ok I am baack and in control of myself Charm so here I go.

It is standard lore in the vampire cannon that vampire usualy mate for "life" - hence Victorias reaction in Twilight when they kill James. So all I can guess is that love is an emotion and a such is not connected to the silent heart of the vampire but to the mind -I would have said soul but then we have a whole other fight on our hands do they or do they not have a soul.

I think that Bella is Edwards "soul" mate and that is why she smells so good to him and that is why it is so rare for a vampire to have that reaction to a human. Sort of a love at first smell rather than sight if you will. Jasper alreaady has Alice and Emment killed the woman that smelt so good to him and now he has Rose. Carilse has Esme so no problem there.

Vampires and the act of drinking blood have always been expressed as being a sensual act - even Edward says that sex is second to drinking human blood I persoanlly think that they are linked and that vampires get off on feeding.

It was only Edwards control that let him move past wanting to feed on Bella and thus allowing the love for her to take over. By the end of New Moon is tells her that he is over the thirst for her blood that thinking she was dead cured him. In Eclipse she falls and cuts her hand and he patches her up. I think that vampires do retain their sould I just think that it is very well buried and in some cases as the Cullens do they manage to set a little piece of itfree. That is how I think Edward is able to fall in love with Bella.

I hope that makes sense Charm hit me on the head if it doesn't. It is late Friday night here and I have had a hell of a day.

I still can not explain the baby though we still have the problem of the bodily fluid - I think she fell pregnant the first time they made love and remember it was the first time for both of them!!! Maybe that 100 years of waiting paid off for Edward - told you it was late.

[*Classic*Charm*]

AHA!! Now we have it! All the fluids he stored up before he became a vampire. I think that's our only explanation...though, even still...

I'm a student of science, my brain is just not allowing me to grasp the concept of impregnating without blood or fluids...I'm trying, but I just don't get it!

I suppose I'll have to take me roommate's advise:
"They're vampires! Just bend your mind!"

Apparently I'm not very flexible. :sick:

[Joreads]

AHA!! Now we have it! All the fluids he stored up before he became a vampire. I think that's our only explanation...though, even still...

I'm a student of science, my brain is just not allowing me to grasp the concept of impregnating without blood or fluids...I'm trying, but I just don't get it!

I suppose I'll have to take me roommate's advise:
"They're vampires! Just bend your mind!"

Apparently I'm not very flexible. :sick:

Don't forget his boys were on ice - I don't know either.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Don't forget his boys were on ice - I don't know either.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Actually laughing out loud right now

I did have to think about that for a second though!:blush::blush:

[Equality72521]

Don't forget his boys were on ice - I don't know either.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Totally love that....

[*Classic*Charm*]

Welcome to the Twilight nonsense discussion, Equal! Feel free to throw in your two cents (or whatever your smallest denomination of currency might be)!

Are you a fan?

[kelby_lake]

Same here. I can't see why he didn't just agree to be a godfather to her or something.

[Joreads]

I agree with Kelby on this. It could have been handled so many way and each of them would have been better

I know it has been a while since this thread had been posted to but I thought that I would share this with you all. Monday night we had our first book club meeting for 2009 and the book being discussed well no prizes for guessing – it was Twilight. There were 11 women at the meeting, there are usually 10 but we had a guest at this meeting a huge fan of Twilight.
Of the 11 of us at the meeting 7 loved the book and in fact the whole series (some of them were still reading it) 3 did not like Twilight and have no intention of reading the rest of the novels, 1 was neither loved or hated it. We range in ages from 33 to 79 and I have to say the 33 year old disliked the books the most. This was one of the liveliest discussions that we have ever had and in fact it went for three hours and I had to end up kicking them out of my house at 11pm – some of us have to be up early. We are planning on getting together as a group to discuss the entire series once everyone that wants to has read them all. So these are some of the comments that were made by the group. I should point out that we only discussed Twilight as some of the group had not finished reading the other novels.
Addiction: - there is a strong theme of addiction and denying that addiction throughout the novel. Firstly the vampires addiction to blood and their resistance of that addiction. We are also given a brief look at Jaspers struggle with addiction. Edward actually says that Bella is his own personal brand of heroin and it takes every ounce of self control that he has not to act on that addiction. Secondly Bella and Edwards addiction to each other and it is in fact this addiction that keeps Bella alive even when Edward is forced to drink her blood to save her he is able to stop himself from killing her because he is in love with her.
Bella as a role model: - While one or two people in the group thought Bella is a weak character most of us actual thought she was one of the strongest emotionally in the book. At the age of 17 she packs up her belongings leaves her beloved mother to live with a father is barely knows in a place she does not want to. She accepts Edward flaws and all and knowing that he could kill her. She walks into a house full of vampires and lastly she walks into that ballet studio to face James on her own.
There was one issue raised about Bella that I had not thought of and that is the fact that she does not eat when stressed or around Edward she only drinks. I totally missed this even though I had read the novel several times. Most agreed that was a negative aspect to the character.
Esme was also a large talking point in our discussion and the fact that some of the group thought that she was actually a better “mother” than Renee. In fact some of the group actually thought that the strongest family unit in the whole books was in fact the Cullen’s.
These are just a few of the themes and talking points that we covered in our discussion, I will add more if this stimulates the conversation again. So I guess it goes to show you that a book that has been dismissed by some people, who haven’t even bothered to read it, as trash might actually have something to offer after all. We all acknowledge that these books are not great literary works they never claimed to be but that does not mean that they have no social value.

[*Classic*Charm*]

I don't know that I would consider Bella a role model, and not even because of her terrible eating habits. If you put aside the whole "perfect romance" thing, I'd be pretty upset if my daughter (theoretically, of course) idolized a girl who fell for a guy and completely ditched all her friends and everything to be obsessed with him. This kind of romance is fictional, and I would not want girls to have a role model based around something like this.

But of course, who wouldn't want to be in Bella's place?

[kelby_lake]

Me, not with Eddie and his special spermy venom. HE'S OLD!

[*Classic*Charm*]

me, not with eddie and his special spermy venom. He's old!

hahahahahahahahaha

[Joreads]

So what is it that has made these books so popular?

[faithalina]

So what is it that has made these books so popular?

Maybe some or all of these points have been made since I was last on here, but in response to your question joreads, here are a few of my thoughts.

Perhaps the idea that, these books present something of an 'ideal' both hero and love which, in many ways, reflects those represented in fairy tales of our childhood - the coda being that 'love conquers all' - is what engages readers. These timeless roles and ideals resonate, on some level with guys and girls, no matter how non-PC they are or how 'healthy' they are. Whilst reality for most, if not all, of us has fallen short of this ideal, books like Twilight in some ways kind of keep the dream alive, so to speak. This can be a good thing, or a bad thing...I have a friend who has been single for a very long time who cannot tear herself away from these books or the movie (a travesty in itself - the movie, i mean - in my opinion). It's like she's stuck...she can't move past this story.

Another interesting and (I think) significant aspect of the story many readers may relate to is that of salvation...Edward is always stepping in and 'saving' Bella from all harm, including that which he himself could potentially inflict. Whether they admit it or not, many women (and men too, i guess) want to be saved, even if it is just from themselves! To read about a man, albeit a vampire, so willing to put himself out (ie overcome his natural instincts) for the one he loves, is highly intoxicating, particularly to those who have never experienced any real kind of devotion or sacrifice (I have another friend who seems to pick guys with 'issues' to see if they will change FOR her...a very selfish/conceited form of 'salvation'). Mind you, even those who have known intense love can still get lost in this portrayal of it...

Bella, in turn, saves Edward from continued loneliness and alienation from his family, through allowing him to participate in a relationship of unconditional love and acceptance with her, just as the rest of the Cullens do. However, in saying that, his tendency to loathe who he is definitely surfaces throughout the text as a result of their relationship. But then, don't relationships bring out both the best and the worst in us at times...Bella is bringing out his 'humanity' and reminding us that even the most seemingly perfect among us will have faults.

Also, through his determination to abstain from what his nature almost demands of him, he may feel he is earning his salvation in a spiritual sense, which is hinted at in the text and is how many people believe 'good' lives must be lived. A desire to see him successful in his efforts to be 'redeemed' may also motivate readers.

The popularity of these books rests on their ability to explore issues that are relevant to the readers and that are timeless. Remove the fantasy elements and those relationship truths still exist and still demand our attention, both in make believe and in reality.

[kelby_lake]

Remove the vampire part and you have a fairly boring conventional romance, the sort of thing we'd be writing 2 centuries ago.

It's like Mills and Boon.

[faithalina]

Remove the vampire part and you have a fairly boring conventional romance, the sort of thing we'd be writing 2 centuries ago.

It's like Mills and Boon.

in general, vampires are NOT my thing...being fairly new to the whole fantasy genre, perhaps that is why I really enjoyed the books, having nothing to compare them too. However, as new to it as I may be, I can see that, as you say, without the fantasy element, the story itself would be a rather bland narrative, despite the issues it raises. combined though, the text (while not without its faults) is very readable. While i've not read any mills and boon and therefore cannot really comment on that, I must confess that i do LOVE my conventional romances from centuries ago...a romantic through and through!!

[Tyler Self]

I thought it was neat and interesting how Meyer decided to take commonly accepted vampire 'canon' (i'll use that since it was used for werewolves in this thread lol) and pushed that aside and made her own, explaining the other things as myths made by people.

I really liked the series, and I think it would be the only series I would think of re-reading. But the ending for Breaking Dawn was so wrong in my opinion. It would have been so much better if the Cullens and the rest of the vampires ended up fighting and killing the Volturi. I couldn't believe Meyer just ended it with them walking away. It made no sense.

[seanlol]

I thought the Twilight series was absolutely amazing. They were all well written and had amazing imagery. I also agree with Tyler Self about the ending of Breaking Dawn. All this talk of a huge fight and then as the Cullens hoped there was none which was disappointing for me.

[kelby_lake]

I thought it was neat and interesting how Meyer decided to take commonly accepted vampire 'canon' (i'll use that since it was used for werewolves in this thread lol) and pushed that aside and made her own, explaining the other things as myths made by people.


That would have been good had she actually made some beneficial changes. She turned them all into bloody fairies! It's like saying 'I think the recipe of bread is too cliche. I know! I'll throw in eggs, chicken, milk, and dog intestines! Isn't that a more interesting recipe for bread!'

[Tyler Self]

Yes but if Edward and the vampire world in Twilight were a food they'd be a lot more yummy than that.

[wishiwasausten]

I agree, I think the thing with Jacob imprinting was just weird and Jacob annoys me at certain parts in Breaking Dawn! I still love the books though and I couldnt help wondering if because Jacob has imprinted on Renesmee that he will choose to live forever so will he have to move continuosly like the Cullens to avoid being under suspicion??

What did people think of the film in comparison to the book? I liked it but it was no where near as good as the film.

[Adelheid]

I love the series! I must confess I thought it would be one of those silly fantastical series, but after reading a bit of the book during my holidays, I got so hooked on it that I went and got all the books!!

The characters were vivid and personalised - you could imagine them. It wasn't scary... it wasn't mushy romance. There was a perfect balance of the ordinary and extraordinary - just enough to keep one addicted but not too much to cause one to 'overthrow' the whole series as a stupid fantasy book - a notion that somewhat comes with the idea of a 'vampire'. :)

I highly recommend it for those looking for a good, entertaining read! I even learnt new words during this read.... something highly original for me....

[kelby_lake]

I would've enjoyed it more if it was MUCH shorter. As it is, the series is the epitome of vacuousness.

[TurquoiseSunset]

I must say I completely agree with everything LimaJean has said. I think the story was a good idea, although I liked the movie's structure better. The writing on the other hand was like reading a 13 year old's diary. And really diaries aren't written to be read the way you would novels. My English is terrible, it's not my first language, and I don't claim to be a classic buff and therefore knowledgable on "good" books (I read what looks good to me), but even for me this was a stretch.
I bought The Host and have only read a few pages, but it seems to be an improvement so far...here's hoping.
Maybe this is because I'm 24?

[wat??]

Twilight is bad and the fanbase is even worse.


The writing on the other hand was like reading a 13 year old's diary. And really diaries aren't written to be read the way you would novels.

Do you have some sort of a problem with the Diary of Anne Frank? :P

[Beautifull]

i wonder if anyone besides me has realized the Twilight movie crap is going too far?!

[Lynnwood]

^ I think the whole "Twilight Craze" went too far when it became the "Twilight Craze".

It's basically the Hannah Montana of literature. Do depth, no value, very stereotyped, cliche, unoriginal, but........it's good mindless fun. In today's entertainment, that's really all that's required to be popular.

While I wish that other more well-written book series could get as much attention as Twilight gets, all I can do is just recommend them to people who ask.

[Seraphina]

i understand people like Robert Pattison, but he's just not Edward Cullen!

if you read the books, you'd understand why. he's just not cut out to be like Edward.he doesn't even look like him.:rage:



hmm, I read the books (what I thought of them is another matter), and I have to say I thought Robert Pattinson played Edward to perfection. I'm usually ultra critical on actor's portrayals of characters, but I thought Pattinson was perfect.

As for the book itself....mostly, it was a good idea. I...didn't exactly enjoy them, but I didn't hate reading them. However, I'll never pick them up again. I have a major personal ick over the whole idea of vampires not going out in the sun because they're too sparkley and pretty, though...honestly. Best way I'd describe it, is as literary candyfloss; no nutritional value, but most people enjoy it once in a while.

[JBI]

hmm, I read the books (what I thought of them is another matter), and I have to say I thought Robert Pattinson played Edward to perfection. I'm usually ultra critical on actor's portrayals of characters, but I thought Pattinson was perfect.

As for the book itself....mostly, it was a good idea. I...didn't exactly enjoy them, but I didn't hate reading them. However, I'll never pick them up again. I have a major personal ick over the whole idea of vampires not going out in the sun because they're too sparkley and pretty, though...honestly. Best way I'd describe it, is as literary candyfloss; no nutritional value, but most people enjoy it once in a while.

He's perfect in the sense that the mass audience - primarily adolescent girls - decided he was a "Hunk", and therefore could be marketed as one. IF the person fit the visual description perfectly, acted perfectly, except had very little physical appeal to the adolescent girls, he most certainly would not have been accepted.

In truth, the books try, it would seem, to sell sex, yet at the same time, to sell religion. So in truth, we can interpret them, on a scale, to hypersexualize female identity, which isn't really a bad thing, in the sense that it is natural, and a form of feminist resistance to certain forms of Victorian patriarchy, yet at the same time, to subvert the female as following the whim of the powerful, hunky, male, and ultimately denying a real sexual identity until marriage, at which point, the bildungsroman, and the sexual awakening in the earlier books, it would seem, would revert back to a place of mother/wife, instead of lover/adolescent. In a sense, Edward it would seem is the archetypal romance novel hero, in the sense that he is a) powerful (perhaps a substitution for the usual "rich"), b) good looking, c) goes after the virgin, d) waits for marriage, and e) still enforces himself in a dominating position within the relationship. Edward is the provider and the muscle - he is in control, and ultimately, he is fulfilling a pretty mediocre fantasy which does nothing. Of course, the bulk of readers here aren't naive 14 year olds, so they ultimately see passed this sort of anti-feminist, highly religious dupe (which seems to try and override everything in the past 50 years the mothers of such readers struggled for) yet for the average reader, whose shelf consists of The Potters, Twilight, Stephen King, and some Sabrina the Teenage Witch books (those were the pulp in my day, I don't know what young girls read in terms of junk fiction today, as it seems to change as quickly as pop celebrities), I think there may be a problem, in terms of context. The books are highly politicized, as almost all books are highly political, except these ones, from my perspective, serve a rather harmful political cause, and ultimately aim to "reinstate" certain values meanwhile silencing others, and doing nothing to empower, or even educate properly these young readers. Keep in mind, the goal of the text ultimately is to serve as a morality tale, except the morality is so out of whack that it's almost ridiculous.

It's a shame really. The late 80s and 90s young adult novels had so much potential; one likes to think of Tamora Pierce, Monica Hughes, Judy Blume, Mercedes Lackey, amongst others. It seems now though, that instead of just banning books that offer a sense of progression, they started writing and promoting them. In essence, Meyer's publishers most definitely read into the contexts and politics of the book - I'm sure almost every publisher writing for that age group, if they are doing a mass printing will do so - and really, it must have been planned, well out in advance, that this would be the voice of the new Young Female, in the sense that Hillary Duff, and then this new Hannah Montana were planned, planted, promoted, and sold, and eventually will be killed all by their publicists.

In essence, Twilight is the Narnia of America, though aimed at an age bracket 2-3 years older (probably because Lewis' readership could read better, though perhaps not tackle mature themes). The religious elements seem, instead of being Catholic/European to instead be the political elements that dominate concepts of religion in the states; Abortion, feminism, pre-marital sex, the family/marriage, and ultimately teen relationships, and the lives of the youth, as they are, in culture and in the book, perceived by a conservative audience as both a) innocent angels who can be corrupted, and b) contradictorily as demonic misfits who have degraded from their previous generations because of the influence of sex, drugs, and liberalism, and education.

[Beautifull]

true!! but the movie just made it too much! i don't see what the fuss is about the movie, it was horrible!it was monologue, and just needed to chill...or get a new director...

[mystery_spell]

I really dislike Stephenie Meyer. I think that she is an author of the moment and only that. She's not timeless and does not appeal to all age groups or genders. She doesn't even have any talent really. Her stories are rather boring because they're so predictable. If the books did not have so much fluff in them, they could easily be condensed down into a single novel.

-shrugs- Each to his own I suppose.

[Beautifull]

i understand where you're coming from Mystery, but i think most just don't like her because all this fuss over her book and crap... i mean there's movies out for her book, there candy coming out with that Twilight crap, and there might even be a new kind of ice cream for it or something...

but Stephenie Meyer is a pretty good author...that's why we are tired of her, because we hear her name so much it's sickening...

BTW, has anyone read her other book? Talking about Twilight is getting boring, what about The Host ?

[wat??]

She's a pretty good author in the same way Dan Brown is a pretty good author. She sells books.

I was actually going to make the comparison to J.K Rowling, but I remembered that I actually enjoyed the first Harry Potter book quite a bit.

[rozreads]

I read the first one, Twilight, and I felt like it went in and out of interesting, like two people were writing it...but it gets young people to read, so that, in itself, is anaccomplishment..

[JBI]

I read the first one, Twilight, and I felt like it went in and out of interesting, like two people were writing it...but it gets young people to read, so that, in itself, is anaccomplishment..

Read what though? Are we that desperate or that illiterate? That's hardly an excuse - if reading means, in my opinion, being exposed to Twilight, then quite frankly, as McLuhan put it decades ago, the book is dead. I see no justification that literacy is important if the value placed in it is the ability to discern the meaning of Twilight, a relatively meaningless (in terms of depth) text.

[Joreads]

but Stephenie Meyer is a pretty good author...that's why we are tired of her, because we hear her name so much it's sickening...

BTW, has anyone read her other book? Talking about Twilight is getting boring, what about The Host ?


yes and it would seem that it is not only fans that cannot move on talking about her

[Dr. Hill]

i understand where you're coming from Mystery, but i think most just don't like her because all this fuss over her book and crap... i mean there's movies out for her book, there candy coming out with that Twilight crap, and there might even be a new kind of ice cream for it or something...

but Stephenie Meyer is a pretty good author...that's why we are tired of her, because we hear her name so much it's sickening...

BTW, has anyone read her other book? Talking about Twilight is getting boring, what about The Host ?

Stephenie Meyer isn't a good author :\ Her books are aimed at people who aren't mature enough to understand what a good author is and are impressionable enough to become entirely immersed in a fantasy world in which all guys are perfect, even the nerdy girl gets laid and vampires have a sweet and innocent side (much unlike the eponymous bloated leech who throws dogs through doors, found in Bram Stoker's famous work, Dracula).

[Lynne50]

Read what though? Are we that desperate or that illiterate? That's hardly an excuse - if reading means, in my opinion, being exposed to Twilight, then quite frankly, as McLuhan put it decades ago, the book is dead. I see no justification that literacy is important if the value placed in it is the ability to discern the meaning of Twilight, a relatively meaningless (in terms of depth) text.

Oh,JBI , that sounds a bit harsh. Should we only provide books to people who have above average reading abilities? That denies a whole population of people the pleasure of reading. Who knows where the reading of Twilight will take them. It may just be a stepping stone,one where they take pride in finishing a series and now want to explore other avenues. Not everyone can start out reading War and Peace. Teenage readers need help in finding books they feel are relevant to them. Everyone knows that Twilight is not great literature, but it may give help to those who struggle with reading. The more you read, the better you get at it.

[JBI]

Oh,JBI , that sounds a bit harsh. Should we only provide books to people who have above average reading abilities? That denies a whole population of people the pleasure of reading. Who knows where the reading of Twilight will take them. It may just be a stepping stone,one where they take pride in finishing a series and now want to explore other avenues. Not everyone can start out reading War and Peace. Teenage readers need help in finding books they feel are relevant to them. Everyone knows that Twilight is not great literature, but it may give help to those who struggle with reading. The more you read, the better you get at it.

That wasn't my point - at least there reading automatically lowers the bar, and makes reading essentially books for 12 year olds the standard of literacy. If we praise things that have no complexity inside them, or no depth, then ultimately, reading as a whole is degraded, and quite simply, if Twilight is the standard, then I hardly think reading is even worth saving. I assure you, few respect literary culture as much as I do - my adolescence, in effect, was essentially constructed out of it - but to degrade it so is just silly.

I have no problem giving help to those who struggle with reading - I myself struggle with reading daily, as I try and read texts in other languages, and, thanks to the help of friends, I slowly make progress. But since my literacy in Italian essentially means the only text I can read with ease is a cheap magazine, does that mean we should praise the cheap magazines because I am able to read them? I can't even read nursery rhymes in Chinese, should we scrap those?

Of course, reading is difficult, but there are plenty of texts, such as Housman's verse, which require minimal knowledge of the language to really appreciate - though, they often take a sort of willingness to be open minded on the part of the reader. But I don't quite see that in Twilight, in the sense that Mozart's music can often be very, very simple in its style, that any child can hum the tune, yet even then, I wouldn't consider a popsong by The Backstreet Boys to be an "at least they are listening to music".

[Lynne50]

Respectfully, JBI Who says that books for 12 year olds lowers the standard of literacy? You also stated that" if we praise things, that have no complexities inside them, then the whole of reading is degraded."
How do we know what complexities are found in these books for 12 year olds? These books may indeed make young people think deeply about things, just on a 12 year old's level which is appropriate.

[Beautifull]

Joreads...you are tru...so true!


Stephenie Meyer isn't a good author :\ Her books are aimed at people who aren't mature enough to understand what a good author is and are impressionable enough to become entirely immersed in a fantasy world in which all guys are perfect, even the nerdy girl gets laid and vampires have a sweet and innocent side (much unlike the eponymous bloated leech who throws dogs through doors, found in Bram Stoker's famous work, Dracula).

HAVE YOU READ ANY OF HER OTHER BOOKS BESIDES THOSE VAMP BOOKS?!!:flare::rage:

jeez, can't you understand that its not what the book is about but the quality of how she put it together?

yeah i understand you don't like the story...but the book was made to bring an escape to fantasy world,in a manner of speaking...

yeah i understand you didn't like guy-perfect and nerdy girl-laid thing, but to each his own.

have you even tried to write a story of your own..maybe then you'll see what i'm talking about, it's not so easy to make your characters come to life.
what i'm saying is Stephenie has a knack of making her book seem near real, making a world where things don't seemed planned out by an author, but it's almost real;believable.

if you can't see that, i pity you!!!


hmm, I read the books (what I thought of them is another matter), and I have to say I thought Robert Pattinson played Edward to perfection. I'm usually ultra critical on actor's portrayals of characters, but I thought Pattinson was perfect.

As for the book itself....mostly, it was a good idea. I...didn't exactly enjoy them, but I didn't hate reading them. However, I'll never pick them up again. I have a major personal ick over the whole idea of vampires not going out in the sun because they're too sparkley and pretty, though...honestly. Best way I'd describe it, is as literary candyfloss; no nutritional value, but most people enjoy it once in a while.

to each their own, right?

[Homers_child]

jeez, can't you understand that its not what the book is about but the quality of how she put it together?

But see, the thing is, the 'story' is the only thing that got her famous. The quality of the writing when you actually evaluate it is not that good.

I read Twilight the first time and I was intrigued by it. But when I tried to read it again, all I noticed was how sucky it was written. Without the mystery/love story, the book has nothing.


have you even tried to write a story of your own..maybe then you'll see what i'm talking about, it's not so easy to make your characters come to life.
what i'm saying is Stephenie has a knack of making her book seem near real, making a world where things don't seemed planned out by an author, but it's almost real;believable.

I hate when people use the comeback of 'you don't write stories so you can't critique'. We don't have to be writers to know if a story sucks or not. It's almost like saying, if you don't write than you can't fully appreciate the book either. That's absurd. We have tons of books to judge Meyer's story against and that's what we do. And to a lot of people, hers just doesn't equate with the amount of fame and popularity she's receiving.

And for the record, I do write frequently. ;)

[*Classic*Charm*]

My goodness this discussion just keeps going in circles.


But see, the thing is, the 'story' is the only thing that got her famous. The quality of the writing when you actually evaluate it is not that good.

I read Twilight the first time and I was intrigued by it. But when I tried to read it again, all I noticed was how sucky it was written. Without the mystery/love story, the book has nothing. )

I have to say, I agree with this. The story is intriguing and that's what carries the popularity of the book. The writing itself is of rather poor quality. Grammatically, it's painful. And this in itself shows how the novel has it's use- it's a nice story. That's all. And really, do some degree, that's all it needs.

If we were to say, think of a piece of literature like a cake (I know this sounds lame, but it's the closest analogy I could find):

Anyone can make a cake. Bake batter in a pan. It may be bare bones and require no skill to make, but it's still a cake and it still tickles your sweet tooth. Then there's the master baker's cake. Layers of cake and custard and fruit and icing and chocolate with all kinds of adornments. Every little detail is there and eating it is an experience unto itself. You pay attention when you eat it.

The classic, renowned works of literature are these master cakes. It's a carefully, masterfully adorned work of character and story and setting and every other device down to the most minute detail all laid out in seamless prose. And almost everyone can read and agree that this is true art. But it doesn't mean that a novel with a story and nothing else does not still serve a purpose.

Reading Thomas Hardy is for me, a moving experience. But it doesn't mean that reading Twilight in one sitting doesn't strike my fancy in a different way.

And as I said, just because you don't have the time, patience, skill, whatever to bake the master confection doesn't mean there's anything wrong with a piece of plain white vanilla cake.

[Dr. Hill]

HAVE YOU READ ANY OF HER OTHER BOOKS BESIDES THOSE VAMP BOOKS?!!
Don't care to.


jeez, can't you understand that its not what the book is about but the quality of how she put it together?
The way she put it together is rather simple, and without any originality.


yeah i understand you don't like the story...but the book was made to bring an escape to fantasy world,in a manner of speaking...
So can any other book.


yeah i understand you didn't like guy-perfect and nerdy girl-laid thing, but to each his own.
You're right, but I'm giving you my opinion, as that is what you ask for in this thread.


have you even tried to write a story of your own..maybe then you'll see what i'm talking about, it's not so easy to make your characters come to life.
what i'm saying is Stephenie has a knack of making her book seem near real, making a world where things don't seemed planned out by an author, but it's almost real;believable.
I've written on my own and it was rubbish. So is what Stephenie Meyers writes. I could probably get the junk I write published if I aimed it at a drooling audience; it's all business--Stephenie Meyers is a businesswoman, a capitalist. She knows how to advertise and she knows how to strike the hearts of pubescent girls.


if you can't see that, i pity you!!!

All right.

[Bakiryu]

HAVE YOU READ ANY OF HER OTHER BOOKS BESIDES THOSE VAMP BOOKS?!!:flare::rage:

jeez, can't you understand that its not what the book is about but the quality of how she put it together?

yeah i understand you don't like the story...but the book was made to bring an escape to fantasy world,in a manner of speaking...

yeah i understand you didn't like guy-perfect and nerdy girl-laid thing, but to each his own.

have you even tried to write a story of your own..maybe then you'll see what i'm talking about, it's not so easy to make your characters come to life.
what i'm saying is Stephenie has a knack of making her book seem near real, making a world where things don't seemed planned out by an author, but it's almost real;believable.

if you can't see that, i pity you!!!

Basically both the quality and the story are mediocre at best.

Her fantasy world is unrealistic.

Both Edward and Bella and everyone else are Mary/Marty sues with no real personality.

I do write and to be honest her work is NOT realistic, it reads like a cheap fanfic or even My Immortal (If you haven't read it, then google it, I'll bet you'll like it)

[amarna]

That wasn't my point - at least there reading automatically lowers the bar, and makes reading essentially books for 12 year olds the standard of literacy. If we praise things that have no complexity inside them, or no depth, then ultimately, reading as a whole is degraded, and quite simply, if Twilight is the standard, then I hardly think reading is even worth saving. I assure you, few respect literary culture as much as I do - my adolescence, in effect, was essentially constructed out of it - but to degrade it so is just silly.
Of course, reading is difficult, but there are plenty of texts, such as Housman's verse, which require minimal knowledge of the language to really appreciate - though, they often take a sort of willingness to be open minded on the part of the reader. But I don't quite see that in Twilight, in the sense that Mozart's music can often be very, very simple in its style, that any child can hum the tune, yet even then, I wouldn't consider a popsong by The Backstreet Boys to be an "at least they are listening to music".

The vampire books of Stephenie Meyer aren't silly - or at least not sillier than the Tarzan and Winnetou Stuff I read when I was 12 years old. They're just children's literature like Harry Potter, Eragon, Lord of the Rings. That children's literature seems to become standard of literature results imho from a infantilization of culture as a whole. Consumption patterns and cultural preferences of children and teens have been increasingly taken over by adult age groups. Being mature has become worthless, everyone (or at least a lot of people I know) wants to stay as young and as childish as possible. It's not the fault of Stephenie Meyer ...

[kevinthediltz]

The vampire books of Stephenie Meyer aren't silly - or at least not sillier than the Tarzan and Winnetou Stuff I read when I was 12 years old. They're just children's literature like Harry Potter, Eragon, Lord of the Rings. That children's literature seems to become standard of literature results imho from a infantilization of culture as a whole. Consumption patterns and cultural preferences of children and teens have been increasingly taken over by adult age groups. Being mature has become worthless, everyone (or at least a lot of people I know) wants to stay as young and as childish as possible. It's not the fault of Stephenie Meyer ...

Its not the Fault of Meyer but she is profiting from the ignorance you just stated with a horribly written fantasy book. People that see the ignorance in society should stand up and fight it instead of just giving in.

[amarna]

Its not the Fault of Meyer but she is profiting from the ignorance you just stated with a horribly written fantasy book. People that see the ignorance in society should stand up and fight it instead of just giving in.

I agree but anyway I don't have the slightest clue how to fight an army of giggling 30-year-old Peter Pans. And I'm not sure if there isn't something like a human right to bad taste, silliness and infantilism which has to be respected.

[kevinthediltz]

I'm not saying fight everyone and try to take down Meyer. Just dont support her writing if you dont like it or think that it fuels a generation of idiots like you posted above. I'm not telling you to hate people for reading Meyer. Just dont buy her work if you disagree with who it profits from.

(By the way, when it first came out I borrowed "Twilight" from a friend of mine to see what the fuss was about. I got through almost 20 pages before I just couldnt stand to read another word. And that was my experiance with Meyer.)

[Zee.]

Why don't we all ban and burn comedy movies while we're at it? chick flicks, trashy horrors? and just leave the masterpieces. WE NEED TRASH. I don't like Twilight very much but it is extremely imaginitive and at least it gets kids reading. When i was younger i used to read trash, it took some growing up and time for my taste to evolve but at least it got me reading in the first place.

[Joreads]

Why don't we all ban and burn comedy movies while we're at it? chick flicks, trashy horrors? and just leave the masterpieces. WE NEED TRASH. I don't like Twilight very much but it is extremely imaginitive and at least it gets kids reading. When i was younger i used to read trash, it took some growing up and time for my taste to evolve but at least it got me reading in the first place.

Could not agree more.

It seems that you can not win. If you don't read look out. Oh and if you do read it better be the right sort of books or else. Let people read and enjoy what they like. There is nothing wrong with reading Twilight and loving it (I did) and there is nothing wrong with reading it and not liking it.

[kilted exile]

What happened to reading books cos you enjoy the story? The majority of the world doesnt give a {expletive deleted} about literary form & technique. It doesnt really matter. People read for enjoyment, the same way they listen to music for enjoyment, or do any past-time for enjoyment, relaxation or escapism from the mundanity of life for a while. If you enjoy picking apart the bones and examining why a writer does such and such a thing thats fine, whatever floats your boat, but there is no need to belittle & deride people for having no interest in doing so.

I for one cant stand Joyce & would far rather pick up grisham. Have no time for mozart & want Del Amitri & the beautiful south instead. I would frankly kill myself if I woke up one day & everyone was poring over Milton & listening to Beethoven.

[Dr. Hill]

It's one thing to read what you enjoy, but to say that Stephenie Meyer is a good writer is simply false.

[Joreads]

what happened to reading books cos you enjoy the story? The majority of the world doesnt give a {expletive deleted} about literary form & technique. It doesnt really matter. People read for enjoyment, the same way they listen to music for enjoyment, or do any past-time for enjoyment, relaxation or escapism from the mundanity of life for a while. If you enjoy picking apart the bones and examining why a writer does such and such a thing thats fine, whatever floats your boat, but there is no need to belittle & deride people for having no interest in doing so.

I for one cant stand joyce & would far rather pick up grisham. Have no time for mozart & want del amitri & the beautiful south instead. I would frankly kill myself if i woke up one day & everyone was poring over milton & listening to beethoven.


here here

[kevinthediltz]

I am not trying to get Meyer banned. I just think that if you dont like the books she writes, dont read them. If you do. Thats fine by me. Just please dont call her a good writer. She writes an enjoyable story yes, but its just not skilled writing.
Read it if you like it. Dont if you dont.

[DrkAngL]

It's one thing to read what you enjoy, but to say that Stephenie Meyer is a good writer is simply false.

i disagree.

[Joreads]

I am not trying to get Meyer banned. I just think that if you dont like the books she writes, dont read them. If you do. Thats fine by me. Just please dont call her a good writer. She writes an enjoyable story yes, but its just not skilled writing.
Read it if you like it. Dont if you dont.

Surley if you like her books you are allowed to call her a good writer is that not a matter of Opinion. For the record you are right she is not a great writer but she makes my good list.

[kevinthediltz]

Surley if you like her books you are allowed to call her a good writer is that not a matter of Opinion. For the record you are right she is not a great writer but she makes my good list.

I can agree with that. If someone enjoys her writing and wants to compliment it thats fine by me.
Just no comparing her to Steinbeck or Orwell ok? :lol:

[Joreads]

I can agree with that. If someone enjoys her writing and wants to compliment it thats fine by me.
Just no comparing her to Steinbeck or Orwell ok? :lol:


Hey we agree on that:lol:

[JBI]

Hey we agree on that:lol:

In a sense I agree with you, and sympathize with your perspective, as you realize it isn't great, but it is good fun, except that Twilight is so god awful (I tried reading it in French, and it was just dreadful) that I can't seem to understand any case for it. Generally speaking, popular literature is often rubbish, but this one in particular seems everything I loathe wrapped up in one bundle. At least Harry Potter tried to be clever at certain moments (tried, it seems never to be very clever at all, and more preoccupied with British style humor some 50 years dead), this text just comes out way too didactic - perhaps I may try it in English some day, but I doubt it.

[*Classic*Charm*]

In a sense I agree with you, and sympathize with your perspective, as you realize it isn't great, but it is good fun, except that Twilight is so god awful (I tried reading it in French, and it was just dreadful) that I can't seem to understand any case for it. Generally speaking, popular literature is often rubbish, but this one in particular seems everything I loathe wrapped up in one bundle. At least Harry Potter tried to be clever at certain moments (tried, it seems never to be very clever at all, and more preoccupied with British style humor some 50 years dead), this text just comes out way too didactic - perhaps I may try it in English some day, but I doubt it.

A fair assessment, and I think the most reasonable position you've stated on the issue so far :) It seems to be the type of thing that has to strike you immediately or some reason or other, otherwise it's not going to be worthwhile for you. If you didn't have an interest in it as soon as you started, it's not going to get any better. I think the majority of readers around here will agree- it's poor quality writing but it still manages to hold some sort of attraction for many readers, and that something is what gives the work it's sole legitimacy in the world of fiction.

I do have to turn off my brain when I read it though- the grammar drives me INSANE.

[Joreads]

In a sense I agree with you, and sympathize with your perspective, as you realize it isn't great, but it is good fun, except that Twilight is so god awful (I tried reading it in French, and it was just dreadful) that I can't seem to understand any case for it. Generally speaking, popular literature is often rubbish, but this one in particular seems everything I loathe wrapped up in one bundle. At least Harry Potter tried to be clever at certain moments (tried, it seems never to be very clever at all, and more preoccupied with British style humor some 50 years dead), this text just comes out way too didactic - perhaps I may try it in English some day, but I doubt it.

I agree with JBI and I think that this is the point people who have enjoyed the book have been trying to make. It is not nor will it ever be a classic it is just good fun or at least it was for me. I can understand why you didn't like it and I respect that but respect is a two way street we should also respect people right to read them and like them.

Charm I also agree with you the grammer is aweful but we all need to turn the mind off every now and again.

[Akeldama]

we all need to turn the mind off every now and again.

That's certainly debatable.

[Zee.]

I don't think there is much to argue. Twilight may be an enjoyable read but yes, it is poorly written, and could never be compared to faulkner, steinbeck etc, those who argue that it is are, most of the time, 13 - 15 yr old girls who haven't read too much outside of books like twilight. So really, there is no argument.

Also, to address the comments about escaping "life"

I don't read books to escape life. In my opinion, there's something very wrong if you need to read a book to do that. To open up your mind to "other places" of course, I do that a lot - and books allow me to do that. But books are more than just a means of "escape", to me anyway.

[Joreads]

That's certainly debatable.

Not it is more a personal preference like the authors we read

[Dark Lady]

I haven't read this whole thread through properly but I find what I have read vaguely amusing. I read the Twilight 'Saga' as I believe it is now being called. I liked it but obviously it has no real literary merit. I was going to compare it to junk food. No nutritous value but good to indulge in once in a while etc. but I've thought of something more accurate.

I'm sorry if I offend anyone by saying this but I think it's the female equivelant of soft-core porn. Obviously some girls do like your regular visual porn but I do think for a lot of women/girls sex is quite a different thing than it is for guys. It is less visual and more emotional/mental. I'm generalising horrendously here, of course, and like I said I apologise for any offence caused. However, I do think that Twilight functions for teenage girls in a similar way that 'lads' mags' function for teenage boys (people who are not teens can enjoy these too, like I said I liked the books...at least the first three...but since I'm already generalising anyway).

So, no, not great classics but functional none the less. And I also think it is overreacting to say these novels are dangerous because of the anti-feminism sentiments. I don't think most girls are looking to these books for advice on their lives just for cheap thrills and a little escapism. Just like so many people say guys watching porn instills the mysongynist attitude that women are purely sexual objects there for their pleasure etc. I think you either have these issues or you don't and porn/novels will not give you these attitudes unless you already had them to begin with.

[kelby_lake]

I think there are some people that are more susceptible to Twilight than others. I'd read many classics and all sorts of books before I read it, but there are some people who have only read Twilight and other trashy books and devour that sort of thing. It's bad in that it purports to be on an equal with great literature when it is merely trash.

Let's face it, the uber-fans of Twilight will never enjoy 'proper' reading. They develop a taste only for that sort of simplistic soft-core pornography and if you showed them any classic they would probably dismiss it.

[MarkBastable]

Not it is more a personal preference like the authors we read

I think that he meant it was debatable that, as the original post asserted, 'we all' need to turn the mind off. We all don't. Some of us do.

However, I don't understand why the defence for crap is that it allows us to turn our minds off. It doesn't for me. It sends my mind into overdrive. I am astonished, frustrated, appalled, irritated, offended and generally wound up.

Crap is not in the least relaxing.

[pgwodehousefan]

Please..that ***** cannot write. If there was ever a case of over rating..it's her

[Zee.]

Let's face it, the uber-fans of Twilight will never enjoy 'proper' reading. They develop a taste only for that sort of simplistic soft-core pornography and if you showed them any classic they would probably dismiss it.

So a 13yr old girl is going to remain in the mindset of a "13yr old" girl her entire life?

I mean, i evolved as a reader from trashy books at 12/13 to classic literature. Do you still listen to the same music you did years back? watch the same movies? have the same views?

Progression. We are constantly moving forward and growing thus your theory and complete generalised belief that "uber" Twilight fans will never enjoy proper reading is incorrect.

I for example, read books for different things.

[Dr. Hill]

There are plenty of Twilight fans who are much older than 13, but to enjoy the book it's almost a requirement to think like a 13-year-old girl--it's just the demographic it's very blatantly aimed at.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Let's face it, the uber-fans of Twilight will never enjoy 'proper' reading. They develop a taste only for that sort of simplistic soft-core pornography and if you showed them any classic they would probably dismiss it.

Just to clarify- are you saying that people who really enjoy Twilight aren't capable of enjoying classics to their fullest?

Assumptions like that reeeaally bother me. Earlier in this discussion or one of the others in the pile surrounding this series, a comment suggested that if a reader is capable of enjoying Twilight, he/she is not capable of enjoying a much greater and renowned work. It's ridiculously offensive. The fact that I find the Twilight story entertaining in it's "teenage love dynamics" sort of way does not mean that I can't enjoy a thorough, active, and "proper" reading of something better.

Call me an uber fan if you want- I've read them all more than once, including the unfinished draft of the fifth book online, can't put them down while I read them, have seen the movie a gross number of times, and I'm anxiously awaiting the next movie.

It's the same with film though! I'm not going to start saying that the Twilight movie was some 'holy deliverance' to the film world. There's nothing new or innovative about it, none of Hitchcock's brilliant camera perspectives and lighting techniques. Twilight keeps me amused for a couple hours, but it doesn't mean that I can't examine great works of film for the art that they truly are.

[Dr. Hill]

I just think if you appreciate literature of a higher value, then Twilight would normally disgust you. It's like a wine connoisseur drinking boxed Sangria because he "enjoys" turning off his tastebuds. It just doesn't normally happen.

[*Classic*Charm*]

I just think if you appreciate literature of a higher value, then Twilight would normally disgust you. It's like a wine connoisseur drinking boxed Sangria because he "enjoys" turning off his tastebuds. It just doesn't normally happen.

Certain aspects of Twilight do disgust me. Like I said, I'm perfectly aware that the quality of the writing is crappy and the grammar is absolutely atrocious. It's not as though I don't see these things when I read it. To a point, the writing is basic and bare-bones enough that I can develop the characters in my own way and explore their relationship in any way I choose. It's simply the impossible nature of the characters' relationship that I find interesting.

Maybe it doesn't normally happen, but I'm not going to start thinking "Oh no. I enjoyed Twilight. Maybe I really don't understand the other books I'm reading." Twilight is just a way to fill an afternoon. I don't read it to escape or because I think it's better than other books. There's absolutely no comparison between Twilight and the classics, and being aware of this distinction allows me to enjoy it for what it is.

Just because a person is a connoisseur of wine doesn't mean that wine is all he/she drinks. What's wrong with some fruit punch every once in a while? ;) You don't drink it expecting it to be wine, or be disgusted with the fact that it's not. It doesn't change how you feel about the wine. You don't think "I like Fruit punch. That must mean I don't appreciate good wine."

[MarkBastable]

I just think if you appreciate literature of a higher value, then Twilight would normally disgust you. It's like a wine connoisseur drinking boxed Sangria because he "enjoys" turning off his tastebuds. It just doesn't normally happen.

Unadulterated rubbish though I think that Twilight is, I don't sign up to the analogy here. And I speak as one who enjoys a high-quality wine. I also enjoy a cheap plonk. If the argument is that Twilight is plonk, then I can't see any reason not to knock it back once in a while. As my mother the nutritionist always used to say, "There's no such thing as junk food, dear; only junk diet."

However, my argument is that Twilight isn't wine at all. It's yellow food-colouring in sugar-water - and even if it's not harmful, it's certainly not beneficial, though kids seem to like it.

People often say, "Well, at least my children are reading. I'd rather they read Meyers than wasted their time playing video games."

I wouldn't. I'd much rather my kids played an intelligent and well-thought out video game, or watched a well-written and imaginative movie, or just goofed about making stuff up, than read Meyers.

I mean, if you really pushed me, I suppose I'd rather they read Meyers than formed a vicious infant gang that controlled the playground supply of Fruit Pastilles by the application of merciless Chinese burns and ritual name-calling. But only just.

[amarna]

It is a difference between enjoying a high-quality wine and claiming cultural superiority by enjoying a high-quality wine. :rolleyes:

[Bluebeard]

Just to clarify- are you saying that people who really enjoy Twilight aren't capable of enjoying classics to their fullest?


I don't think that's at all the assumption being thrown around. The argument is whether or not reading Twilight will be useful to the reading career of young people. The anti-Twilight argument assumes that those who do read Twilight could be reading better literature and enjoying it. So I don't think you should be offended by that side of the debate.

As far as I'm concerned, there is a small possibility that a reader of Twilight will go on to read other bad YA series until he or she realizes that there's higher literature out there and that it's worth reading. That's good. The probability of that happening, however, is very small and could be done with any text (even some valuable texts).

[Dr. Hill]

It is a difference between enjoying a high-quality wine and claiming cultural superiority by enjoying a high-quality wine. :rolleyes:

Nobody claimed superiority here.

[Countess]

Stephanie Meyers? This is what I think of her:

The next evening Phoenix and Byron caught the direct red eye to Los Angeles, with the intentions of spending the following day soporifically languishing about the various airport shops or - if they could steal away from the hordes that pressed around them - furtively clinging to the ceiling of some abandoned baggage compartment, or other secluded spot. Byron had made his initial travel to America in the romantic tradition of Count Dracula, although his aristocrat taste would not condescend to endure a cargo vessel, and so he had chosen for himself one of the elite cruise lines. He was therefore a flight virgin, and approached the experience with all the excitement and frenzy of a child on his first trip abroad, talking constantly like an over-pressurized hot air balloon.
“Did I ever tell you about Madame Stefanie Meyers?”
Startled, Phoenix, who was brooding upon the loss of her parents and son, turned to regard Byron. “Who?”
“Your mention of Grub Street reminded me of her. It was during the time of Mademoiselle Guillotine’s reign - that wicked hour called “la Grande Terreur” when the people’ lust for blood grew to unprecedented heights. Madame Stefanie was born a peasant, and like most peasants, was jealous of those noblesse whose education and intelligence far exceeded her own. She found in the violent disposition of the people an opportunity to advance her own interests, and published a kitschy novella entitled L’heure Bleue, a substandard tale concerning a brood of vampires whose only relation to us was an aversion to sunlight and a need to drink the red juice. She enjoyed the benefits of success for a time, and then one day abruptly disappeared, never to be seen or heard from again.”
When he finished the story, Phoenix noticed an impish twinkling in his eyes, and smiled. “So where did you bury the body?”
Byron’s face brightened, and then he burst out laughing. “I thought you might like that story.”

[Joreads]

I think that he meant it was debatable that, as the original post asserted, 'we all' need to turn the mind off. We all don't. Some of us do.

However, I don't understand why the defence for crap is that it allows us to turn our minds off. It doesn't for me. It sends my mind into overdrive. I am astonished, frustrated, appalled, irritated, offended and generally wound up.

Crap is not in the least relaxing.

Ang again not everyone agrees with you that it is crap. Is it a classic no did I enjoy it yes. Can I read classics and enjoy them yes and I do.

[kelby_lake]

So a 13yr old girl is going to remain in the mindset of a "13yr old" girl her entire life?

I mean, i evolved as a reader from trashy books at 12/13 to classic literature. Do you still listen to the same music you did years back? watch the same movies? have the same views?

Progression. We are constantly moving forward and growing thus your theory and complete generalised belief that "uber" Twilight fans will never enjoy proper reading is incorrect.

The people who like 'reading' will soon move on from Twilight. They might have a passing like for it, or even be quite fond of it, but they will not be rabidly in love with it because likelihood is that the next book they get given will be something of a better quality. A lot of the readers of Twilight (and by no means all) aren't really 'readers'- they don't read much beyond Twilight. They're not into reading, but into the whole 'craze'.

[Scheherazade]

I just think if you appreciate literature of a higher value, then Twilight would normally disgust you. It's like a wine connoisseur drinking boxed Sangria because he "enjoys" turning off his tastebuds. It just doesn't normally happen.False analogy. A wine connoisseur can still enjoy a can of cold beer or coke or Sprite.
The people who like 'reading' will soon move on from Twilight. They might have a passing like for it, or even be quite fond of it, but they will not be rabidly in love with it because likelihood is that the next book they get given will be something of a better quality. A lot of the readers of Twilight (and by no means all) aren't really 'readers'- they don't read much beyond Twilight. They're not into reading, but into the whole 'craze'.So many generalisations. I have not read and probably will not read Twilight because I do not like the fantasy as a genre but I don't see how we can pass such judgements about other people because they happen to like a certain book.

[Beautifull]

ouch dr H!!!

*sigh* i guess i deserved that tho...

but if you don't think that Stephenie Meyer creates almost realistic characters, then who do you think creates believable characters?

[Dr. Hill]

Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, James, Flaubert, Faulkner, even Dickens sometimes. Beyond the classics Stephen King does a wonderful job and Cormac MacCarthy is disturbingly real.

[Beautifull]

for some reason, not to criticise you, i can never finish a Stephen King book...don't get me wrong, he does have a knack for creating good cahracters...

as for the rest....i don't know any of the others, except for Faulkner due to English class discussions....

but! have you started a thread about other authors like the ones you mentioned^?

[kevinthediltz]

but if you don't think that Stephenie Meyer creates almost realistic characters, then who do you think creates believable characters?

I have to say that in the 20 pages of "Twilight" that I read. The characters had about as much definition as "Edward" would when he looks in a mirror. :lol:

I couldnt resist. :blush:

[*Classic*Charm*]

I have to say that in the 20 pages of "Twilight" that I read. The characters had about as much definition as "Edward" would when he looks in a mirror. :lol:

I couldnt resist. :blush:

HAHAHA Oh Kevin. I know you tried really hard there, but the Edward's character would appear if he looked in a mirror. The book actually talks about that. Valiant effort though ;)

[Beautifull]

:lol:at first Kevin was making no sense!!but you gotta admit tho, it was a good joke!


I have to say that in the 20 pages of "Twilight" that I read. The characters had about as much definition as "Edward" would when he looks in a mirror. :lol:

I couldnt resist. :blush:

c'mon kevin, 20 pages? that's seriously not enough to get to know the characters...you diltz!:p