Twilight

[Zee.]

I'm not entirely too sure who said it but someone a bit further back in this thread said something about Twilight playing on the sexual fantasies of girls. You have to be very, very careful when making a comment like that and of which i'm about to support and add to, but I think it's bang on.

Twilight, in my opinion, does not simply appeal to girls because of its "storyline" or the characters of which are, I must add, poorly crafted and pathetically executed, it plays on the desires of young girls. I'm gonna be treading on egg shells with this so I have to be careful but the sexual energy in that book is insane. It's almost as though Meyer is writing out her own fantasies in a book. The comments Edward makes about "breaking" Bella in half if he's not careful, the constant emphasis on his strength and how fragile she is, SCREAMS sex. The whole, "oh Edward take control of me with your dominant ways" is highlighted, page after page in that book.

Ask most people who read that book, the thing they are most interested in is Edward and Bella's relationship. Most of them picture themselves in place of Bella and the thought of being "controlled" and in the hands of someone who could break them in half appeals to them.

Deny it as much as they want, but Meyer knew what her selling point would be.

Sex. sex. sex.



p.s hello CC!

[cynara]

Ok guys there is no comparing Twilight or Harry Potter to classics but come on, take them for what they are: kid books. For all the people who diss Harry potter and call it trash ypu have to realize that it has always been aimed at younger children and teenagers. As for Twilight, while it is aimed for a teenage audience as oppose to preteen, it's still in all fairness a kids book. Albeit I'm in that age group and have been hooked on classics since i was about twelve but you can't completely discount a book because your out of the age group. Anouther thing about Harry Potter is that it has a good story and moral to it. I'm not at all ashamed to say I've read all seven of the books and highly enjoyed them, I also read the first one at 10, so it's all about age appropriateness.

A note to my other post, I read Twilight because my friends wouldn't stop talking about it and didn't enjoy it. I personally found it to be bad writing with bland and rather sexist characters. But my point still remains.

[Bluebeard]

Ok guys there is no comparing Twilight or Harry Potter to classics but come on, take them for what they are: kid books. For all the people who diss Harry potter and call it trash ypu have to realize that it has always been aimed at younger children and teenagers. As for Twilight, while it is aimed for a teenage audience as oppose to preteen, it's still in all fairness a kids book. Albeit I'm in that age group and have been hooked on classics since i was about twelve but you can't completely discount a book because your out of the age group. Anouther thing about Harry Potter is that it has a good story and moral to it. I'm not at all ashamed to say I've read all seven of the books and highly enjoyed them, I also read the first one at 10, so it's all about age appropriateness.

I don't understand what "age appropriateness" has to do with quality.

[Beautifull]

yeah yeah....i think the last book was the only one that really did that, lima.

[Zee.]

Ohkay, come on kids, Harry Potter is in a whole different league than the Twilight series.

[kevinthediltz]

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 ;)
DAMN! I thought I was being cheeky and original! :lol: I tried.


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

It was as long as I could put up with. And I disagree. Dostoyevski can make me obsessed with the characters in less than ten pages. But thats Dostoyevski. Steinbeck can do that for me too. Enough to grip me. I read twenty pages of "Twilight" and couldnt remember a thing about it after I was finished. :lol:

[Joreads]

Ok guys there is no comparing Twilight or Harry Potter to classics but come on, take them for what they are: kid books. For all the people who diss Harry potter and call it trash ypu have to realize that it has always been aimed at younger children and teenagers. As for Twilight, while it is aimed for a teenage audience as oppose to preteen, it's still in all fairness a kids book. Albeit I'm in that age group and have been hooked on classics since i was about twelve but you can't completely discount a book because your out of the age group. Anouther thing about Harry Potter is that it has a good story and moral to it. I'm not at all ashamed to say I've read all seven of the books and highly enjoyed them, I also read the first one at 10, so it's all about age appropriateness.

If you read all of the posts I think you will find that Twilight fans have said time and time again there is no comparing it to the classic. I am no kid and I enjoyed the books both HP and Twilight. The fact is books either appeal to you or they do not. But to say that people that read them are not serious readers is rubbish.

Kevin I admire your effort by the way. You just cannot rely on the vampire lore being the same anymore:lol:

[kelby_lake]

Hmm, 'Your blood tastes so good...but we musn't...' Big glaring metaphor, anyone? It's a bit creepy how much detail she goes into...

[Dark Lady]

yeah yeah....i think the last book was the only one that really did that, lima.

Do you mean you think the last book was the only one that was playing on teenage girls' sexual fantasies? Because it was the one that did it the least.

[Dimitra]

hello everyone :)
I have a friend who is "fanatic" about Twillight series.She has birthday and I want to give her a book.Any suggestions?:)
She likes vampires and stuff but what I suspect she loved the most of Twillight is that ehmm..romantic element.It's really not my cup of tea,so I can't think of any book she might enjoy.:/

[kelby_lake]

Do you mean you think the last book was the only one that was playing on teenage girls' sexual fantasies? Because it was the one that did it the least.

It was creepio! Fetish too far.

[teashi]

Haven't read the books or seen the movie. The fact that this is so popular seems to be a big reason people want to criticize it. It's kind of like the people who accuse the Potter books of being Satanic, (nevermind that the lesser-known His Dark Materials books are obviously anti-religious and also 'kids' books).
Twilight is a romance, and from what it sounds like, a pretty shallow romance. That's just a popular genre. Nothing new about it, or sensuality in a romance for that matter. Not that I don't understand people's frustrations that these kinds of books are more read than their oh-so-beloved classics.
But I'm getting sick of people complaining about Twilight, and making nasty insults about Meyer like they know the lady. It's one thing to say she's a crappy writer, it's another to call her a b**** or worse.
For all we know, Twilight may actually become a classic in the future. Weren't some classics considered trashy when they came out? But I'm in no rush to read it, I've got enough to read right now. Think I'll just pass.

[MarkBastable]

Haven't read the books or seen the movie. The fact that this is so popular seems to be a big reason people want to criticize it. It's kind of like the people who accuse the Potter books of being Satanic, (nevermind that the lesser-known His Dark Materials books are obviously anti-religious and also 'kids' books).
Twilight is a romance, and from what it sounds like, a pretty shallow romance. That's just a popular genre. Nothing new about it, or sensuality in a romance for that matter. Not that I don't understand people's frustrations that these kinds of books are more read than their oh-so-beloved classics.
But I'm getting sick of people complaining about Twilight, and making nasty insults about Meyer like they know the lady. It's one thing to say she's a crappy writer, it's another to call her a b**** or worse.
For all we know, Twilight may actually become a classic in the future. Weren't some classics considered trashy when they came out? But I'm in no rush to read it, I've got enough to read right now. Think I'll just pass.

The problem is not that it's a romance, not that it's popular, not that it makes vampirism a metaphor for teenage sexuality, not even that it has a predictable but surefire plot. All those are fine, and I'm sure we can come up with a list of books to which one or more of the above apply, but which don't attract the kind of dismissive weariness that's been seen in this thread. So - to be clear - none of those attributes cause a problem.

The problem is that it's so badly written. One might not mind that, or one might mind it so much that one feels like putting out one's own eyes with a newly-sharpened 2HB. But it remains the case - it's so badly written.

All together now, nice and loud - it's so badly written.

And that, if you ask me, is justification enough for expressing a low opinion of the woman responsible.

[Zee.]

hello everyone :)
I have a friend who is "fanatic" about Twillight series.She has birthday and I want to give her a book.Any suggestions?:)
She likes vampires and stuff but what I suspect she loved the most of Twillight is that ehmm..romantic element.It's really not my cup of tea,so I can't think of any book she might enjoy.:/



Err...

wrong thread?

{edit}

[Beautifull]

er...Dimitria....maybe something...Twilightish?

[*Classic*Charm*]

I'm not entirely too sure who said it but someone a bit further back in this thread said something about Twilight playing on the sexual fantasies of girls. You have to be very, very careful when making a comment like that and of which i'm about to support and add to, but I think it's bang on.

Twilight, in my opinion, does not simply appeal to girls because of its "storyline" or the characters of which are, I must add, poorly crafted and pathetically executed, it plays on the desires of young girls. I'm gonna be treading on egg shells with this so I have to be careful but the sexual energy in that book is insane. It's almost as though Meyer is writing out her own fantasies in a book. The comments Edward makes about "breaking" Bella in half if he's not careful, the constant emphasis on his strength and how fragile she is, SCREAMS sex. The whole, "oh Edward take control of me with your dominant ways" is highlighted, page after page in that book.

Ask most people who read that book, the thing they are most interested in is Edward and Bella's relationship. Most of them picture themselves in place of Bella and the thought of being "controlled" and in the hands of someone who could break them in half appeals to them.

Deny it as much as they want, but Meyer knew what her selling point would be.

Sex. sex. sex.



p.s hello CC!


hello LJ midear!

Now on to the good stuff..

Can't argue with the fact that sex plays a giant part in the novels. I was actually really surprised by the blatant sexual undertones of the first two novels (they're not even undertones by the time you get to the last two) because of the age group towards which these books are geared. I wasn't reading stuff like that when I was twelve haha. But it's the dominance dynamics that make the whole relationship interesting because while Edward is clearly physically dominant and Bella's all fragile and whatnot, the author makes a point of expressing that Bella is meant to be the dominant person in their relationship. The characters are both meant to be such passionate people but there are physical barriers (at least for a while :rolleyes:) and that throws the dominance/ submission dynamics all over the place. The first book was obviously sexual in its descriptions, but it was the sensuality without the physical relationship that I found kind of interesting.

And this is why the fourth book was by far the worst- the author let go of all these interesting dynamics and just had the characters go at it the whole time. :sick:

[teashi]

The problem is not that it's a romance, not that it's popular, not that it makes vampirism a metaphor for teenage sexuality, not even that it has a predictable but surefire plot. All those are fine, and I'm sure we can come up with a list of books to which one or more of the above apply, but which don't attract the kind of dismissive weariness that's been seen in this thread. So - to be clear - none of those attributes cause a problem.

The problem is that it's so badly written. One might not mind that, or one might mind it so much that one feels like putting out one's own eyes with a newly-sharpened 2HB. But it remains the case - it's so badly written.

All together now, nice and loud - it's so badly written.

And that, if you ask me, is justification enough for expressing a low opinion of the woman responsible.
Yeah, I know 'it's badly written' is a big complaint too. But the things I mentioned also seem to be reasons people dislike the books, or they seem to add to their disliking of it. It's understandable people want to blame someone for something they think is so grossly undeserving of success, but calling the writer a b****? That just seems low. And it hardly proves the person saying it is above her 'trashy' work.
People can say what they want, but I don't think reading a crappy book is a good reason to make personal insults about the writer. It's the work itself you hate, so attack that.

[Dimitra]

Err...

wrong thread?

{edit}

sorry I just thought because many of you were big fans here could give me some suggestions..I didn't mean to interrupt your discussions.:/

[*Classic*Charm*]

sorry I just thought because many of you were big fans here could give me some suggestions..I didn't mean to interrupt your discussions.:/

You didn't interrupt, Dimitra! We just don't want you to get jumped on by people telling you that similar work isn't worth reading either, or something like that :) Welcome aboard!

I'm a fan of Twilight, but I don't read anything else for this age demographic or relating to the subject matter, so I couldn't recommend anything similar to you!

Feel free to join the discussion though!

[MarkBastable]

People can say what they want, but I don't think reading a crappy book is a good reason to make personal insults about the writer. It's the work itself you hate, so attack that.

Now I think about it, it occurs to me that I can forgive a good writer anything - from an ugly beard (Dickens) to casual racism (Pound). But I will mercilessly cajole and insult bad writers, even if they're quite nice people and really kind to kittens.

[Zee.]

sorry I just thought because many of you were big fans here could give me some suggestions..I didn't mean to interrupt your discussions.:/

Don't be sorry.


Now I think about it, it occurs to me that I can forgive a good writer anything - from an ugly beard (Dickens) to casual racism (Pound). But I will mercilessly cajole and insult bad writers, even if they're quite nice people and really kind to kittens.


You're quite funny, i must say

[Joreads]

sorry I just thought because many of you were big fans here could give me some suggestions..I didn't mean to interrupt your discussions.:/

Hey don't be silly and actually you raise a great point here. How much of Stephenie Meyers work is orginal? I am currently making my way through Dead Until Dark the Sookie Stackhouse mysteries which was published before Twilight and I am stunned at some of the things that are repeated in the Twilight novels. Vampire/human romance - tick. Someone that can read minds - tick. There are other elements as well but I don't want to give away to many spoliers. Has anyone else found that with SM books?

Dimitra I am not sure of your age but these are adult only novel there is no attempt at all to keep sex as an undertone.

[Zee.]

Hey don't be silly and actually you raise a great point here. How much of Stephenie Meyers work is orginal? I am currently making my way through Dead Until Dark the Sookie Stackhouse mysteries which was published before Twilight and I am stunned at some of the things that are repeated in the Twilight novels. Vampire/human romance - tick. Someone that can read minds - tick. There are other elements as well but I don't want to give away to many spoliers. Has anyone else found that with SM books?

Dimitra I am not sure of your age but these are adult only novel there is no attempt at all to keep sex as an undertone.



Yeah but those are themes that are found in most, if not all, vampire novels.


Tell your friend to read Interview with a Vampire

[Beautifull]

Yeah but those are themes that are found in most, if not all, vampire novels.


Tell your friend to read Interview with a Vampire

Hey!
The movie's pretty good to! maybe only because Brad's in it, but who cares?


Do you mean you think the last book was the only one that was playing on teenage girls' sexual fantasies? Because it was the one that did it the least.

i disagree....c'mon, Breaking Dawn is the only one that talked about Bella sleeping with Edward...and it's also the same one in which she gets pregnant...! Yeah, it's the least...yeah..not what you'd call a PG rating...

[Dark Lady]

i disagree....c'mon, Breaking Dawn is the only one that talked about Bella sleeping with Edward...and it's also the same one in which she gets pregnant...! Yeah, it's the least...yeah..not what you'd call a PG rating...

Characters having sex is not necessarily sensual. In fact it is just plain annoying in Breaking Dawn. All of the sexual tension built up in the other novels is ruined by them actually having sex (although it was starting to get a bit old before then anyway). It is naive to think that overtly talking about sex is the only way something can be sexual. In fact most of the time it is the opposite.

[Beautifull]

It is naive to think that overtly talking about sex is the only way something can be sexual. In fact most of the time it is the opposite.

sorry...i'm not getting it...explain it a little clearly

[Zee.]

I think Dark Lady is making the point that the books before Breaking Dawn were filled with a very high level of sexual tension. It got to the point where the author seemed to be subconsciously writing about sex in almost every part of that series.
Breaking Dawn - yeah, they had sex, but it wasn't like the demonstration of passion and lust, depicted in her previous novels. The whole " I want you but i can't yet have you " build up is remarkably stronger than the actual act of sex itself, especially in her novels.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Characters having sex is not necessarily sensual. In fact it is just plain annoying in Breaking Dawn. All of the sexual tension built up in the other novels is ruined by them actually having sex (although it was starting to get a bit old before then anyway). It is naive to think that overtly talking about sex is the only way something can be sexual. In fact most of the time it is the opposite.

AGREED. That's what ruined the Breaking Dawn. The sensuality because physical contact was painful for Edward was partially what made the first couple interesting. It was ruined when they actually had sex. Gaudy almost. The author just let her story and her characters get away from her. I was disappointed.


I think Dark Lady is making the point that the books before Breaking Dawn were filled with a very high level of sexual tension. It got to the point where the author seemed to be subconsciously writing about sex in almost every part of that series.
Breaking Dawn - yeah, they had sex, but it wasn't like the demonstration of passion and lust, depicted in her previous novels. The whole " I want you but i can't yet have you " build up is remarkably stronger than the actual act of sex itself, especially in her novels.

Exactly.

[Dark Lady]

I think Dark Lady is making the point that the books before Breaking Dawn were filled with a very high level of sexual tension. It got to the point where the author seemed to be subconsciously writing about sex in almost every part of that series.
Breaking Dawn - yeah, they had sex, but it wasn't like the demonstration of passion and lust, depicted in her previous novels. The whole " I want you but i can't yet have you " build up is remarkably stronger than the actual act of sex itself, especially in her novels.

Yes. This is the point I was making.

I said in an earlier post that I think Twilight is basically a soft core porn for girls. I said that I thought girls would respond more to this than an equevilant 'lads' mag' type thing (a magazine full of naked men) because girls tend to experience sexual enjoyment in a different way (as I said before I am generalising and I apologise for any offence caused). It is more of a psychological thing than a visual thing. More subtle.

I hope this is not getting too off-topic but I have a friend who tells me that she watches porn but what she likes is the build - the foreplay - before the actual 'action'. Once it gets to actual sex she is turned off. I think this is very common in women and explains a lot.



I have heard discussions about 'fantasies' before. Typical scenario is a couple talking about their sexual fantasies in order to recreate them for each other. The man will typically have a fantasy along the lines of 'I'm having sex with a nurse/secretary/Catwoman' etc. The woman will have something much more elaborate that involves some sort of story-line. The sexual act is important but it is the end of the story - for men it [I]is the story.

So, when it comes to books and sexual tension the excitement is in the build, the before. The first three Twilight books are extremely highly sexually charged. The fourth one is not because there is no tension any more, no build.

Hope that helped explain what I meant?

[kelby_lake]

It's creepy! He's 108- and dead! Why is she not totally creeped out by that?!

[Zee.]

Yes. This is the point I was making.

I said in an earlier post that I think Twilight is basically a soft core porn for girls. I said that I thought girls would respond more to this than an equevilant 'lads' mag' type thing (a magazine full of naked men) because girls tend to experience sexual enjoyment in a different way (as I said before I am generalising and I apologise for any offence caused). It is more of a psychological thing than a visual thing. More subtle.

I hope this is not getting too off-topic but I have a friend who tells me that she watches porn but what she likes is the build - the foreplay - before the actual 'action'. Once it gets to actual sex she is turned off. I think this is very common in women and explains a lot.



I have heard discussions about 'fantasies' before. Typical scenario is a couple talking about their sexual fantasies in order to recreate them for each other. The man will typically have a fantasy along the lines of 'I'm having sex with a nurse/secretary/Catwoman' etc. The woman will have something much more elaborate that involves some sort of story-line. The sexual act is important but it is the end of the story - for men it [I]is the story.

So, when it comes to books and sexual tension the excitement is in the build, the before. The first three Twilight books are extremely highly sexually charged. The fourth one is not because there is no tension any more, no build.

Hope that helped explain what I meant?

This is exactly like the point I made earlier where i made reference to your post of which I agree completely about. I want to tread carefully here but .. the whole, "dominance" factor plays a very large roll in the Twilight series. And rings true, i'm sure, of many female sexual fantasies.

I also think that many girls, the younger ones of course, are unaware of what they're reading. I mean to say, going back to my point about Meyer subconsciously writing about sex, I think that a lot of girls read the series and are a little unsure of why they are attracted to the novels. The romance factor, sure, the entertainment value of the story line, sure, and although i'm not suggesting that the book is just about sex/sexual fantasies etc, I think the author really tapped in to that whole concept. Therefore, I think that many girls are attracted to the series because of the sexual tension it holds - whether they are aware of it or not.

[*Classic*Charm*]

This is exactly like the point I made earlier where i made reference to your post of which I agree completely about. I want to tread carefully here but .. the whole, "dominance" factor plays a very large roll in the Twilight series. And rings true, i'm sure, of many female sexual fantasies.

I also think that many girls, the younger ones of course, are unaware of what they're reading. I mean to say, going back to my point about Meyer subconsciously writing about sex, I think that a lot of girls read the series and are a little unsure of why they are attracted to the novels. The romance factor, sure, the entertainment value of the story line, sure, and although i'm not suggesting that the book is just about sex/sexual fantasies etc, I think the author really tapped in to that whole concept. Therefore, I think that many girls are attracted to the series because of the sexual tension it holds - whether they are aware of it or not.

So we're all agreeing here that the books are extremely sexually-charged, the actual act of sex in the fourth book is anti-climactic, readers like the romance, sexual tension, perhaps the physical dominance factor.

What are we arguing about again? :p


It's creepy! He's 108- and dead! Why is she not totally creeped out by that?!

He's not dead though. I mean, he's not alive either, but he's not dead. And he's not 108. He's seventeen. He's just been that way for a long time.

My question is...how did Edward get Bella pregnant if he has no *cough* bodily fluids?

[Joreads]

My question is...how did Edward get Bella pregnant if he has no *cough* bodily fluids?


This is not the first time that this has happend Angel anyone (if anyone needs that explained PM me and I will I). There is some literature that states that vampires have some fluid tears for example and of course what you need to make a baby. The vampire lore states that two vampires can not have children it does mention vampire/human couples. Maybe this is a play on that Charm I am not sure.

[Beautifull]

:lol::lol:

[Zee.]

Pretty sure vampires aren't meant to reproduce

[Beautifull]

yeah...bella proved that with her pregnancy hardships!

[*Classic*Charm*]

Pretty sure vampires aren't meant to reproduce

Hear hear. The baby ruined the series for me haha

[Beautifull]

yeah it ruined it for me too... i didn't know what to expect in the last book, but it wasn't the baby! come on! Bella was only a eighteen-year-old planning her life. she was gonna go to college! for the sake of mankind! what the ....

[Joreads]

Hear hear. The baby ruined the series for me haha

I have to say that I agrere with that it was a poor choice to make.

[kelby_lake]

So we're all agreeing here that the books are extremely sexually-charged, the actual act of sex in the fourth book is anti-climactic, readers like the romance, sexual tension, perhaps the physical dominance factor.

What are we arguing about again? :p



He's not dead though. I mean, he's not alive either, but he's not dead. And he's not 108. He's seventeen. He's just been that way for a long time.

My question is...how did Edward get Bella pregnant if he has no *cough* bodily fluids?

He's still lived far longer than her! And Eddie has this super all-purpose venom. Cross-breeding is still creepy though.

[Zee.]

I'm not creeped out by the 108 thing at all.

[kelby_lake]

And the fact that he's cold and like a rock? Creepy much?

[*Classic*Charm*]

Haha sorry Kelby, I really don't find him creepy at all. Just the reproduction bit. That was just wrong.

[Zee.]

And the fact that he's cold and like a rock? Creepy much?

Well, I have terrible circulation so my hands and feet are like icebergs.
But i'm not creepy ;) haha

[*Classic*Charm*]

Well, I have terrible circulation so my hands and feet are like icebergs.
But i'm not creepy ;) haha

Me too!

[Beautifull]

here's a random question: would bella have been better if she stayed human, or is she better as a human?

[kelby_lake]

You mean is she better as a vampire?

[Joreads]

here's a random question: would bella have been better if she stayed human, or is she better as a human?

That is the whole point of the novel from the very first page she was going to become a vampire and we all knew it - didn't we;). Now it could have been one of two ways because she wanted to or she had to become one to "live" of course you get more miles out of the had to become one to "live".

[*Classic*Charm*]

The only way it could have been perfect was if she stayed 17 and human forever. Clearly, not possible. So there had to be some sort of let down at the end :(

[My name is red]

All people i know who have the habit of reading are reading the same serie of Stephanie Meyer right now.I'll just go crazy,they all talk about it and It's like this book haunting me but i guess everyone has similar problems these days.Or is it only me who is not interested in trashy literature?

[*Classic*Charm*]

All people i know who have the habit of reading are reading the same serie of Stephanie Meyer right now.I'll just go crazy,they all talk about it and It's like this book haunting me but i guess everyone has similar problems these days.Or is it only me who is not interested in trashy literature?

Check out the last 13 pages of this thread and you'll see that you are in the majority on this forum.

[Beautifull]

okay, question of the day: Should Bella have gone with Edward or with Jacob?

one of my friends who have read the books and said that she thought Bella should've stayed with Jacob. she says that when Edward left, Jacob was there to love her...

so what do you think?

[Joreads]

okay, question of the day: Should Bella have gone with Edward or with Jacob?

one of my friends who have read the books and said that she thought Bella should've stayed with Jacob. she says that when Edward left, Jacob was there to love her...

so what do you think?

There is no choice here it is Edward

[*Classic*Charm*]

There is no choice here it is Edward

Agreed. Jacob was a tool who never respected her decision that Bella wanted to be with Edward.

[wat??]

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

Dostoyevsky's characters aren't so much real people as they are embodiments of his ideas. Tolstoy's characters however...

[Joreads]

This is a really interesting article on why Twilight works

http://vampirefilmfestival.com/Robert_Pattinson_Striking_Balance.html

[*Classic*Charm*]

This is a really interesting article on why Twilight works

http://vampirefilmfestival.com/Robert_Pattinson_Striking_Balance.html

That is interesting. It really bothers me that they spelt the author's name wrong though.

[kelby_lake]

The vampires in Twilight aren't scary.

[Joreads]

The vampires in Twilight aren't scary.

They are not meant to be scary. The vampire in this sense is a metaphor for dangerous sexual atttraction. Edward could kill Bella at any time should his inner beast take over that is what the article meant. Whether we admit it or not we all like a little bit of danger every now and again. Edward is in fact so handsome that Bella cannot resist him even though she knows he may in fact ine day kill her.

[Beautifull]

They are not meant to be scary. The vampire in this sense is a metaphor for dangerous sexual atttraction. Edward could kill Bella at any time should his inner beast take over that is what the article meant. Whether we admit it or not we all like a little bit of danger every now and again. Edward is in fact so handsome that Bella cannot resist him even though she knows he may in fact ine day kill her.

agreed.

[wat??]

This discussion is amusing. Most of the people arguing can be categorized into these groups;

Group A. Vehemently opposed to the Twilight series. Members of this group frequently make incredibly condescending remarks, either implied, or directly, to the members of group C. Likely none, or few, members of this distinguished bunch have actually read the series. After all, they have more important things to read.

Group B. Takes offense at group A's condescending manner. However members of this group are also quick to point out that "they don't really like Twilight,", thereby being equally condescending (implying that they are too intelligent for that sort of fluff).

Group C. Twilight loving teenage girl(s).

Did I miss anyone? Oh don't even mention me. I know I'm a condescending hypocrite and don't need any of you to point that out.

[Joreads]

This discussion is amusing. Most of the people arguing can be categorized into these groups;

Group A. Vehemently opposed to the Twilight series. Members of this group frequently make incredibly condescending remarks, either implied, or directly, to the members of group C. Likely none, or few, members of this distinguished bunch have actually read the series. After all, they have more important things to read.

Group B. Takes offense at group A's condescending manner. However members of this group are also quick to point out that "they don't really like Twilight,", thereby being equally condescending (implying that they are too intelligent for that sort of fluff).

Group C. Twilight loving teenage girl(s).

Did I miss anyone? Oh don't even mention me. I know I'm a condescending hypocrite and don't need any of you to point that out.


Group C applies to me I am a girl but hardly a teenager.

[kelby_lake]

They are not meant to be scary. The vampire in this sense is a metaphor for dangerous sexual atttraction. Edward could kill Bella at any time should his inner beast take over that is what the article meant. Whether we admit it or not we all like a little bit of danger every now and again. Edward is in fact so handsome that Bella cannot resist him even though she knows he may in fact ine day kill her.

I felt a bit voyeuristic reading it. Edward was wet and martyrish. I do like some aspects of the books, but they are often tedious and unintentionally hilarious. I like books with 'dangerous love' but Twilight series was too fetishy.

[Joreads]

I felt a bit voyeuristic reading it. Edward was wet and martyrish. I do like some aspects of the books, but they are often tedious and unintentionally hilarious. I like books with 'dangerous love' but Twilight series was too fetishy.

I can see where you are coming from. There were parts of the series that I really disliked but not enough to hate it.

[JBI]

I felt a bit voyeuristic reading it. Edward was wet and martyrish. I do like some aspects of the books, but they are often tedious and unintentionally hilarious. I like books with 'dangerous love' but Twilight series was too fetishy.

Read the novella Bear by Marian Engel, or Elle by Douglas Glover - those are fetishy - and hilarious, albeit, extremely political texts - this one is merely conventional.

That being said, it is characteristically part of a tradition, there is no denying that - I think Anne Rice is more Fetishistic, since she at least embraces, to an extent, the original myth of vampire (to a slim extent), which is based on strong erotic symbols, whereas Myer, whilst acknowledging them to an extent, seems to have reformed the allegory into one that can fit a rather silly political agenda - the whole myth is turned upside down, and in its place, the vampire of passionate, young sexual intercourse has become the loving husband/protector/master figure, whose libido is only to be satisfied after marriage, when the woman can successfully change from curious adolescent into a good (in the religious sense) mother.

Meyer is not Angela Carter - at least Carter had the brains to show the stories, and to invert them by granting a female presence open to sexuality, thereby destroying the victim/predator binary - Meyer, in contrast, works to reinforce the binary, but to, instead of giving the female sexual control over her own destiny, and thereby turning her into both predator and victim, merely condones the actions under the sanctions of religious marriage - there is no problem with the female being the weaker, less experienced, victim in the relationship, as longs as they love each other, and are married - the sexual awakening of the heroine it can be argued, only serves as a sign that she is ready to be handed over to the conventions of marriage, and motherhood, as apposed to being ready to pursue a sexual discovery which would lead her to an understanding of herself, and those around her, and how her body ultimately reacts - such an adventure is best suited for tales where liberal discourse is discussed, as apposed to strong patriarchy-enforcing statements are masked through highly romanticized bouts on artificial love, and unrealistic adventure.

[Joreads]

That is interesting. It really bothers me that they spelt the author's name wrong though.

Gee I never picked up on that.

Thanks to charm we have a link to the new moon trailer. Like her or not this is going to be a blockbuster. I for one hope they do a better job with this than they did with Twilight. Does anyone know if SM was involved in this one:?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJ9afRgToxE

[a_little_wisp]

~SPOILERS~

~LENGTHINESS WILL FOLLOW~ (:lol:)

~SO WILL PERSONAL OPINIONS~

Now, onto the real stuff.

I wrote a review some time ago about Twilight (it's still there, over with the book reviews). It wasn't exactly... nice. But as for Stephenie Meyer...

Stephenie Meyer is brave. My biggest dream is to write a book. Between classes and work I could certainly find time, I'm sure, but every time I sit down at the computer and brace myself to go, I get...skittish. And I play Tetris instead. Stephenie Meyer sat down and wrote. She had kids crawling all over her, probably, and a husband who was probably constantly asking silly questions like "DO WE HAVE ANY JELLY?" (If you get the reference, 10 pts. for you) and "WHAT ARE YOU WRITING? A ROMANCE NOVEL? WILL IT MAKE MONEY?" 60% of the time. She was not wealthy. This is admirable, to me.

And then, likely just to see what this book could do, she sent it to a publisher who probably saw big bucks in the story and decided to slide it through an editor and get it on the shelves quickly. I'm just guessing. My point here is, she didn't get a chance to let it stew - at least, I don't think. Most authors give it a chance to stew! (Unless your name is Neil Gaiman and you burp brilliance) After you keep it in the crockpot overnight it becomes rich and tasty - like another young adult series, The Dark Is Rising Sequence. Rich. and Tasty. If Twilight had been given some time to grow, who knows what the series may have been like, or if it may have made it up there. I, for one, would like to know what happened to Leah. It's one of the biggest grievances I hold towards Meyer, leaving that poor character out in the dust after all she'd been through (Why didn't she just hook her up with Jacob? Would that have been so bad?) - although I've heard rumors of a maybe-Leah-story-next?

The Twilight Series came out like Irish quadruplets- wham, bam, thank you ma'am.

To say I detest the Twilight series would be a lie. I read each book, after all. I even went to the Breaking Dawn release, although my friends and I painted lightning bolt scars on our foreheads and pretended to look confused the whole time (well, WE thought it was funny). Though the members of the Cullen family lacked depth and originality, they were a wonderfully fun creation - though I felt too little time was given to their personal stories - and if it weren't for them I doubt I could have finished even the first book, because Bella was, in my personal opinion, an absolutely terrible character. I realize entirely that these are young adult books (TwiMoms will protest, but the section doesn't lie), and must be relatively easy reads (so we can't have Ivans and Alyoshas), but even for that genre, Bella was a terrible character (cares more about being with the pretty people than college, lives only for a boy, and he's dangerous, and she hurts another boy in the process of trying to get over 1st boy, and she wants to die, and she doesn't like grass or average people, or music - except Muse and Edward's Song of Beauteous Bella - and nevermind, I said all this in my review, I think).


I do like some aspects of the books, but they are often tedious and unintentionally hilarious. I like books with 'dangerous love' but Twilight series was too fetishy.

"Unintentionally hilarious." Yes, by the way. http://otahyoni.livejournal.com/130432.html#cutid1

I don't know Stephenie Meyer. I do feel as if Bella is a Mary Sue character. She is definitely Meyer's idea of a heroine, and that makes me sad, because it says so much about Meyer herself.

Her writing is not to my liking either. Maybe, if she had more time to work on the books (andathesaurus) she could've written something better. Twilight was her first go and has done very well, so I can't say she's downright terrible, but I cannot even put her up next to Susan Cooper or C.S. Lewis or Madeleine L'Engle. I get the Edward Cullen appeal - sexy/dangerous, got it. I've been reading romance novels since I was eleven, however, and I've read of bitter dukes and fallen barons that seem just as, if not more, sexy/dangerous than Edward, and so I was not impressed (my little sister was, of course). I also remember hiding in the corner of my room with a flashlight when I was fourteen, well after everyone had gone to bed, staring wide-eyed down at the pages of The Vampire Lestat - talk about being afraid of vampires, people.

But I'm gonna end this very messy post with this, because I feel like a lot of ladies (and men, perhaps) felt this way about Twilight. This is from www.cleolinda.com - Cleo's a fabulous blogger, and her thoughts of Twilight are not only hilarious, but completely understandable:

"A lot of people are really passionate about these books. Some of them love and defend them passionately; others... well. I'm not going to defend them any more than I'm going to defend Twinkies--you go and get yourself a Twinkie when you have a very specific kind of craving (SUGARRRRR!). If you want gourmet pastry, or even a homemade cake, you know where to get that. If you're eating a Twinkie, you clearly know what you want and why you're eating it, and you know that it's not good to eat very many of them, but... you know... sometimes you just want one. (And then when you're done you read it all over again). Apparently there are people who think that Twinkies count as fine dining, but... well, live and let live, I guess." -Cleolinda Jones

[Beautifull]

WOW! That's a MOUTHFULL!
so, are you neutral,Wisp?

[a_little_wisp]

Hiya, sugar! Yea, generally if I say something, it's bound to be long-winded. My curse, I think.

I'm neutral on Stephenie Meyer. She gets points because she writes (which I think is brave) -even if I don't think she writes well. However, I feel very negatively towards WHAT she writes- I would say I'm an anti-Twilight girl who's read the series (so I guess I'm group A, subsection 1. :D). But that's another topic altogether.

[Beautifull]

i think it was a good read for the fun of it but i'm not feeling it so much after i finished the series!

hay, have you read her other book, The Host? I think that's a real good one...better than Twilight...my opinion, i'd like other people's info, but all of them seems stuck on Twilight!

[Joreads]

i think it was a good read for the fun of it but i'm not feeling it so much after i finished the series!

hay, have you read her other book, The Host? I think that's a real good one...better than Twilight...my opinion, i'd like other people's info, but all of them seems stuck on Twilight!

I have to say that I am a little over the Twilight thing now. There is a little too much of it everywhere you go. I still enjoyed the books (the movie was terrible) though.
I haven't read the other book (Beautiful you know what I have been reading.) It doesn't really appeal to me but who knows I may change my mind

[Beautifull]

i still enjoyed the books (the movie was terrible) though.


I agree I AGREE I AGREE!!!!!!:D

[Joreads]

i agree i agree i agree!!!!!!!:d

Wow you are the first to agree with me on that. I am still planning on giving New Moon ago if it is as bad as Twilight a naked RP would not even make me watch any more ,although ;)

[Beautifull]

idk if i want to watch it...it's like the harry potter movies!

[Stargazer86]

{edit}

Though there's nothing wrong with just reading some good, fun entertaining crap once in awhile. And hell, if it gets people to read (especially pre teens and teens) who don't normally read, then that's a good thing for sure

[MarkBastable]

.... if it gets people to read (especially pre teens and teens) who don't normally read, then that's a good thing for sure


I never understand this argument - that it's better kids should read crap than not read at all. Or that they might start off reading crap, but that'll lead them on to the good stuff.

People rarely say that it's better that kids play crap video games than no video games at all; or that playing crap video games might lead them on to the good video games. No one believes that kids should eat crap food because they'll end up eating good food. The argument is never put that kids should listen to crap music rather than no music at all, and anyway, they might end up listening to Verdi.

So the position seems to be that reading is a Good Thing regardless of what's being read.

I don't agree with that. As it happens, I don't think it matters much that kids read crap from time to time. But, frankly, I'd rather my daughters played a clever and challenging video game than read a badly-written and vapid book.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I never understand this argument - that it's better kids should read crap than not read at all. Or that they might start off reading crap, but that'll lead them on to the good stuff.

People rarely say that it's better that kids play crap video games than no video games at all; or that playing crap video games might lead them on to the good video games. No one believes that kids should eat crap food because they'll end up eating good food. The argument is never put that kids should listen to crap music rather than no music at all, and anyway, they might end up listening to Verdi.

So the position seems to be that reading is a Good Thing regardless of what's being read.

I don't agree with that. As it happens, I don't think it matters much that kids read crap from time to time. But, frankly, I'd rather my daughters played a clever and challenging video game than read a badly-written and vapid book.

That's an interesting and strong argument, however it is often such a struggle to get younger people to read at all, so that in the end it is perhaps better to get young people to read something, anything, just so that they can actually develop their own reading skills. It is probably more about gaining reading skills than literary appreciation. I would rather see kids reading good books over crap ones, but I would rather see kids reading crap or so/so books than nothing at all, and with it poor rates of literacy that would follow.

[mystery_spell]

UGH. Twilight. >_<

[*Classic*Charm*]

People rarely say that it's better that kids play crap video games than no video games at all; or that playing crap video games might lead them on to the good video games. No one believes that kids should eat crap food because they'll end up eating good food. The argument is never put that kids should listen to crap music rather than no music at all, and anyway, they might end up listening to Verdi.

So the position seems to be that reading is a Good Thing regardless of what's being read.

I don't agree with that. As it happens, I don't think it matters much that kids read crap from time to time. But, frankly, I'd rather my daughters played a clever and challenging video game than read a badly-written and vapid book.

Sorry, Mark, but I think this is a false analogy. For the most-part, I don't believe people think of there being good video games, and by good I mean educational and insightful in the same way we think of books being good. You cannot equate books and video games because while there is a difference between a good book and a crap book, most people don't think of there being the same scale in video games. And even if we do consider that some video games are meant to be educational, the number of those and the frequency of their being played does not compare to the number of good books and the frequency of their being read.

The food analogy doesn't work out either. Eating is not something we do recreationally or for education or entertainment. The purpose of eating cannot evolve such as the purpose for reading can. And if it comes down to it, I'm sure you'd rather eat crap than starve.

I really don't think the issue is so much what children are reading but how they read it. That changes as people get older, but I think teaching a child or young adult to think see and and analyze what they read is the most important thing, and this can be taught even in a weaker, less academic novel.

[Stargazer86]

I never understand this argument - that it's better kids should read crap than not read at all. Or that they might start off reading crap, but that'll lead them on to the good stuff.

People rarely say that it's better that kids play crap video games than no video games at all; or that playing crap video games might lead them on to the good video games. No one believes that kids should eat crap food because they'll end up eating good food. The argument is never put that kids should listen to crap music rather than no music at all, and anyway, they might end up listening to Verdi.

So the position seems to be that reading is a Good Thing regardless of what's being read.

I don't agree with that. As it happens, I don't think it matters much that kids read crap from time to time. But, frankly, I'd rather my daughters played a clever and challenging video game than read a badly-written and vapid book.

It is a good argument, but I would rather my kid read some crap for awhile (as long as it wasn't inappropriate) until they are more comfortable with thier reading skills. And sometimes, when they find crap that they like, they will move on to something more substantial in a similar genre. One of my friends at the bookstore says that more kids are reading/buying classics such as dracula ever since Twilight came out. Sometimes kids just need something to get them into the habit of reading in the first place.
Comparing video games to books is like comparing apples to oranges.
I do believe, and have seen first hand, that a lot of crap books are like a gateway into something more substantial

[islandclimber]

Sorry, Mark, but I think this is a false analogy. For the most-part, I don't believe people think of there being good video games, and by good I mean educational and insightful in the same way we think of books being good. You cannot equate books and video games because while there is a difference between a good book and a crap book, most people don't think of there being the same scale in video games. And even if we do consider that some video games are meant to be educational, the number of those and the frequency of their being played does not compare to the number of good books and the frequency of their being read.

The food analogy doesn't work out either. Eating is not something we do recreationally or for education or entertainment. The purpose of eating cannot evolve such as the purpose for reading can. And if it comes down to it, I'm sure you'd rather eat crap than starve.

I really don't think the issue is so much what children are reading but how they read it. That changes as people get older, but I think teaching a child or young adult to think see and and analyze what they read is the most important thing, and this can be taught even in a weaker, less academic novel.

But books like Twilight, Harry Potter, Dark Materials, etc. are not geared towards children but towards youth/young adults, that 14-18 age range... and by the age of 14 or 15 if one is living in a modern country with a decent education system, one has read things far beyond any of those books in English (or whatever language) class... so to say that they get one reading, expand on reading skills, help develop literacy as one person has suggested, is ridiculous.. personally I think any of these works, besides being read for mindless entertainment, which has no other benefits than being entertaining like a movie or a video game, well they are age appropriate for challenging an 8-10 year old if that... they are all extremely safe, as they don't challenge in any way shape or form...

also if you turn reading into analysing, challenging, really thinking about what you're reading, well most of those people reading these kinds of books are no longer going to want to read them.. they are read for escapism, and entertainment, nothing more... if you make one analyse, think critically, change how they read, they are going to realize how mediocre the work really is... and no one can honestly say that any of these works challenge a 16 year old? the way say, Twain does, or Dickens, or Salinger? or even Le Guin in the fantasy realm?

so reading in and of itself can't really be regarded as any different than watching tv, or playing a video game... for the very idea of changing how young people read to be more analytical, would change the very books they read, as when looking closely and thinking critically as you suggest, no one would feel satisfied with such mediocrity... so Mark is right when he said the benefit of reading depends on what you are reading... for if you change the how, you will necessarily change the what in my opinion...


It is a good argument, but I would rather my kid read some crap for awhile (as long as it wasn't inappropriate) until they are more comfortable with thier reading skills. And sometimes, when they find crap that they like, they will move on to something more substantial in a similar genre. One of my friends at the bookstore says that more kids are reading/buying classics such as dracula ever since Twilight came out. Sometimes kids just need something to get them into the habit of reading in the first place.
Comparing video games to books is like comparing apples to oranges.
I do believe, and have seen first hand, that a lot of crap books are like a gateway into something more substantial

the point here is that people are singling out single authors for contributing so much to getting people reading, when in point of fact those who go on to read more substantial works would have done so regardless of what they began with... why does JK Rowling get such acclaim for getting people reading, yet during my generation when kids read RL Stine and several others no one mentioned them as starting people onto better works.. I don't think more children read now that Harry Potter and Twilight are around, what I think is that readership has been consolidated into one or two books and disregards all other options.. is that a good thing? not in my opinion..

and as I said, those who go on to read more substantial works, would have gone on to do so regardless of what mediocre garbage they began with.. but now that these authors are around it hasn't upped the numbers on who has gone on to read more substantial things as illustrated by the fact reading rates are still in decline...

[Mathor]

the point here is that people are singling out single authors for contributing so much to getting people reading, when in point of fact those who go on to read more substantial works would have done so regardless of what they began with... why does JK Rowling get such acclaim for getting people reading, yet during my generation when kids read RL Stine and several others no one mentioned them as starting people onto better works.. I don't think more children read now that Harry Potter and Twilight are around, what I think is that readership has been consolidated into one or two books and disregards all other options.. is that a good thing? not in my opinion..

and as I said, those who go on to read more substantial works, would have gone on to do so regardless of what mediocre garbage they began with.. but now that these authors are around it hasn't upped the numbers on who has gone on to read more substantial things as illustrated by the fact reading rates are still in decline...

I read R.L Stine when I was 6 or 7. I owned every single one of his books (like 72), and I very much think he is part of the reason I developed a love for reading.

[kilted exile]

I can understand (not necessarilly agree, but understand) the issue with HP & Twilight but the inclusion of Pullman's Dark Materials I have an issue with. Pullman's work has depth and comparing him to Rowling is like comparing Le Carre to Grisham.

[islandclimber]

I read R.L Stine when I was 6 or 7. I owned every single one of his books (like 72), and I very much think he is part of the reason I developed a love for reading.

and would you claim that RL Stine is a good writer?

the point here being that everyone had to start somewhere. I began with some junk alongside the classics I read as a kid, when I was 15 or 16 I even slipped back and read some Tom Clancy and other such rubbish for a time...

but what I'm saying is that giving Meyer and Rowlings credit for getting people on their way to loving literature is absurd, as the vast majority of readers will never pick up a more substantial work, and those who do would have done so anyways no matter what rubbish they began with... so why don't we hear about how RL Stine, and Tom Clancy, and Dan Brown, and whatever other authors are gateways to great literature? instead we always hear arguments about how Rowling is getting everyone reading the classics... which is ridiculous...

or contemporary literature? I know people who read the classics just for the fact they seem to feel they should as they are the "classics" but it seems that very few people read good contemporary literature, and I wonder if part of this is that it is obscured by the garbage being put out now... I mean, everyone knows the classics and has heard about them, but unless you subscribe to lit journals, etc. you never hear about new works of literature.. at least not the good ones.. they are hard to find in bookstores unless you go in with knowledge of the author you're looking for... is this a result of the explosion of mass market paperback fiction?

[Scheherazade]

W a r n i n g

Please note that some posts have been edited/deleted due to their offensive nature and/or because they made references to such posts.

Such posts will continue to be deleted in future as well.

You do not have to like/dislike the books that are being discussed on the Forum but please respect others' rights to do so.

[Zee.]

I can understand (not necessarilly agree, but understand) the issue with HP & Twilight but the inclusion of Pullman's Dark Materials I have an issue with. Pullman's work has depth and comparing him to Rowling is like comparing Le Carre to Grisham.



This.

I agree with Kilted.

If you haven't read His Dark Materials then i don't think it is right to comment on it. Not a lot of people are aware of how clever it is. On the surface it appeals to children but the issues it deals with, as I have stated in another post, are for adults

[MarkBastable]

Sorry, Mark, but I think this is a false analogy. For the most-part, I don't believe people think of there being good video games, and by good I mean educational and insightful in the same way we think of books being good.


Then people should do a bit more research. There may not be games that have the depth and sustainability of Roth or Solzhenitsyn, but there are many that have more depth, intelligence, creative invention and imaginative challenge than anything written by Meyers or Cussler.

And those are the games I was referring to when I said that I'd rather my daughters played a good game than read a crap book. I didn't say I'd rather they played any video game than read any book.

The analogy, incidentally, concerned the notion of 'gateway' pastimes, rather than the purpose of the pastimes. But if you don't like it, ditch the analogy. The argument about books stands - I don't think that any reading is better than not reading. I think content matters.

[Mathor]

Then people should do a bit more research. There may not be games that have the depth and sustainability of Roth or Solzhenitsyn, but there are many that have more depth, intelligence, creative invention and imaginative challenge than anything written by Meyers or Cussler.

And those are the games I was referring to when I said that I'd rather my daughters played a good game than read a crap book. I didn't say I'd rather they played any video game than read any book.

The analogy, incidentally, concerned the notion of 'gateway' pastimes, rather than the purpose of the pastimes. But if you don't like it, ditch the analogy. The argument about books stands - I don't think that any reading is better than no reading. I think content matters.

I feel like any book is better than any video game. That's judgemental of me, perhaps, as an artist, as a film lover, as a bibliophile; however, there is no art in video games, whether or not they are enjoyable. That is the "shutting down the mind" that was spoken of in another thread. I feel that the strong proponents of said video games are simply trying to make excuses for their bad habits. I like video games, but I'm not going to try to argue that they are in any way as important as film or literature.

[MarkBastable]

I feel like any book is better than any video game. That's judgemental of me, perhaps, as an artist, as a film lover, as a bibliophile; however, there is no art in video games, whether or not they are enjoyable.

What are the ten video games you most recently played?

[Mathor]

What are the ten video games you most recently played?

Nerdy crap. Probably the entire Final Fantasy series, Super Mario 3, Donkey Kong Country 3, just a bunch of SNES games that get out stress. :lol:

EDIT: And yes, there is reading involved in Final Fantasy. It is like a book, or a movie. But why bother, when you could do the real thing? Read a real book, watch a real movie. Metal Gear Solid was another favorite of mine, much like a movie as well. I remember hearing Hideo Kojima had wanted to be a film director but directed Metal Gear Solid instead. Whatever you're argument, if you want to argue that all this crap is better for kids, I don't think you're argument is a very good one.

[kilted exile]

I feel like any book is better than any video game. That's judgemental of me, perhaps, as an artist, as a film lover, as a bibliophile; however, there is no art in video games, whether or not they are enjoyable. That is the "shutting down the mind" that was spoken of in another thread. I feel that the strong proponents of said video games are simply trying to make excuses for their bad habits. I like video games, but I'm not going to try to argue that they are in any way as important as film or literature.

Seeing as we are all going off topic anyway............

What about spin-off films from computer games? Is the film of Resident Evil more important than the game?

[*Classic*Charm*]

I'll start by saying that I'm not arguing with the fact that it's ridiculous to say that reading Twilight leads to reading better things. What I don't agree with is saying that one is better off not reading at all than reading twilight.


But books like Twilight, Harry Potter, Dark Materials, etc. are not geared towards children but towards youth/young adults, that 14-18 age range... and by the age of 14 or 15 if one is living in a modern country with a decent education system, one has read things far beyond any of those books in English (or whatever language) class... so to say that they get one reading, expand on reading skills, help develop literacy as one person has suggested, is ridiculous..

But this is where my argument comes into play: just because a person has read words does not mean that they have gathered any useful knowledge through the reading. Everyone reads Shakespeare in school when they're 14 or 15, but how many of them actually bother to first of all figure out what's being said, and second of all to interpret it? There are a lot of people who go through good education systems and come out the other side barely speaking their own language correctly, let alone being really literate. For example, the Ontario Literacy test is a test all students take in the tenth grade (roughly 15-16 years old) and must pass to graduate high school.

Sample question: The dog went to the store. Where did the dog go?

If you answered in a complete sentence, you got the mark. People fail this.

If a person is taking some sort of interest in what he or she is reading, there is something to be gained, and that is better than nothing.


personally I think any of these works, besides being read for mindless entertainment, which has no other benefits than being entertaining like a movie or a video game, well they are age appropriate for challenging an 8-10 year old if that... they are all extremely safe, as they don't challenge in any way shape or form...

I don't know about that. I think I'd be rather unhappy about an 8 year old reading the Twilight sex scenes, no matter how challenging the novel is.

Aside from that, if an 8-10 year old is not willing to be challenged by what you would consider an appropriate work (as many aren't), what is wrong with having his or her mind at least opened to the possibility of being entertained by a book? At the very least being entertained by a book is worth slightly more than being entertained by a video game- while reading Twilight more than likely won't lead to the reading of better books, it at least opens up the possibility of the person being able to form a complete sentence which is an accomplishment in itself these days.


also if you turn reading into analysing, challenging, really thinking about what you're reading, well most of those people reading these kinds of books are no longer going to want to read them..

Isn't this the goal though? Or do you think that it would be enough to make them stop reading altogether?


they are read for escapism, and entertainment, nothing more... if you make one analyse, think critically, change how they read, they are going to realize how mediocre the work really is... and no one can honestly say that any of these works challenge a 16 year old? the way say, Twain does, or Dickens, or Salinger? or even Le Guin in the fantasy realm?

That's my point though. If one is taught to read critically, one will look for something better. No, these books aren't challenging to a 16 year old. There's always something to examine though. Even if it's the most basic thing in the world. Even if they say they like Twilight because the relationship is impossible, they have looked a little bit. They didn't set out to analyze, but they did in the most minute degree. And if that's as far as their reading career goes, at least there was something. Maybe "better" readers would only get that much out of Romeo and Juliet as well, despite the fact that they are reading better works.



so reading in and of itself can't really be regarded as any different than watching tv, or playing a video game... for the very idea of changing how young people read to be more analytical, would change the very books they read, as when looking closely and thinking critically as you suggest, no one would feel satisfied with such mediocrity... so Mark is right when he said the benefit of reading depends on what you are reading... for if you change the how, you will necessarily change the what in my opinion...

I disagree. That's saying that as long as a kid is reading Shakespeare, that's good. That is clearly not true. There is more to it than that, and if a person is not willing to put in the effort to learn old english and figure out what it means, at least he or she can get something out of reading Twilight.


the point here is that people are singling out single authors for contributing so much to getting people reading, when in point of fact those who go on to read more substantial works would have done so regardless of what they began with... why does JK Rowling get such acclaim for getting people reading, yet during my generation when kids read RL Stine and several others no one mentioned them as starting people onto better works.. I don't think more children read now that Harry Potter and Twilight are around, what I think is that readership has been consolidated into one or two books and disregards all other options.. is that a good thing? not in my opinion..

I agree with you. These authors don't deserve any more credit for getting kids to read than R.L. Stein. Again, I'm not arguing with the belief that reading these books doesn't lead to reading better books. Reading Twilight won't lead most readers past trashy romance novels. I still think a person is better off reading a trashy romance novel than nothing. If they gain something from it, they do, if they don't then they're no worse off then before they started.


and as I said, those who go on to read more substantial works, would have gone on to do so regardless of what mediocre garbage they began with.. but now that these authors are around it hasn't upped the numbers on who has gone on to read more substantial things as illustrated by the fact reading rates are still in decline...

That doesn't refute my argument either.


Well that was a marathon. :yawnb:

[MarkBastable]

Whatever you're argument, if you want to argue that all this crap is better for kids, I don't think you're argument is a very good one.


I didn't say it was better for kids. I said that I'd rather they played a good game - which requires intelligence, problem solving, immersion in an imaginary world, an understanding of plot structure, identification with fictional characters, concentration, dexterity and perseverance - than read a badly-written book.

As it happens, I do think that's better for them - but I'd prefer they did it mainly because I think it's more fun for them.

[islandclimber]

but this is fine with what I am saying, reading has no benefit if one takes nothing from it, and there is nothing to take from trash.. so in my opinion it is all the same whether one reads or not if one is reading trash...

why is someone better off reading trash then nothing at all? I have no problem with people reading trash, but to say it is beneficial seems wrong?

and like you say, just the act of reading Shakespeare is not what is good... it is how you read it.. but you are referring here to people being forced to read books in school, and all that does is develop functional literacy, besides that, it is not really beneficial.. but if someone is making the conscious choice to read Shakespeare or any other good literature for that matter, that is a good thing... whereas if someone is making the conscious choice to read trash I can't see how that is at all beneficial?

[*Classic*Charm*]

And I'm saying that just because you don't find that there's anything to take anything away from trash does not mean that others are the same.

If a person isn't willing/ capable of reading good lit, what is wrong with them reading a book for a good story or because they like the characters? Liking or identifying with a character is still something.

[Joreads]

And I'm saying that just because you don't find that there's anything to take anything away from trash does not mean that others are the same.

If a person isn't willing/ capable of reading good lit, what is wrong with them reading a book for a good story or because they like the characters? Liking or identifying with a character is still something.

Charm I agree one mans trash is anothers treasure.

JBI pointed out that reading in general seems to be declining (might not be in this thread) ever thought that maybe kids stop reading because everytime they read a book and enjoy it there people all to willing to point out why it is crap and they shouldn't be reading it - just a crazy thought:crash:

[*Classic*Charm*]

ever thought that maybe kids stop reading because everytime they read a book and enjoy it there people all to willing to point out why it is crap and they shouldn't be reading it - just a crazy thought:crash:

Good point. Never thought of that.

Maybe that's why people never get past reading Harry Potter and Twilight- if they enjoy it but everyone else says they're terrible, those other books must be pretty tough. It would scare me off if I was young and insecure in my reading, as I remember a lot of kids being.

[LitNetIsGreat]

But books like Twilight, Harry Potter, Dark Materials, etc. are not geared towards children but towards youth/young adults, that 14-18 age range... and by the age of 14 or 15 if one is living in a modern country with a decent education system, one has read things far beyond any of those books in English (or whatever language) class... so to say that they get one reading, expand on reading skills, help develop literacy as one person has suggested, is ridiculous.. personally I think any of these works, besides being read for mindless entertainment, which has no other benefits than being entertaining like a movie or a video game, well they are age appropriate for challenging an 8-10 year old if that... they are all extremely safe, as they don't challenge in any way shape or form...


Yes in an ideal world students of such age would, and should, be able to read things more advanced than these books, but we don't live in an ideal age.

Speaking as a person who sees extremely poor literacy levels in my day-to-day job, I personally welcome any book which creates a buzz around reading. Let me tell you there are whole sections of society which are well under the expected levels of literacy in the UK. I regularly meet 13-14 year olds with reading ages of 8-9, this is quite common in fact, there are even plenty of students around the 15-16 age who hold reading ages of 5-6. I think we should give these kids a break if they happen to catch an interest in any book, though most don't anyway.

I still also believe that a lot of people develop in their reading habits going from lesser works, to better works, as I personally did a long time ago.

[LilyPan]

Okay so I was really bored and found this thread and decided to give it a shot since i have read all of the twilight books many many times, love Eclipse and Twilight the most, and own the movie, while looking forward to New Moon coming out, and I realized something...
People have so much...tension, I think is the word i want to use...built up that they completely go off topic.
This thread was started because someone wanted to discuss the book Twilight. Simple as that. They wanted to know what others thought, what they felt, which is their favorite, and so on while being respectful to others and not spoiling everything.
After reading the 1st page I decided that I'll just skip to the very end and see where this has ended up.
I was shocked... you all became so carried away with deciding if you could or could not take something away from reading twilight or harry potter books, or if you read twilight books then you are just stuck with reading trashy/romance novels, and I even saw a comment made about if you read books like Twilight then you could never succeed in reading anything more enhanced such as Shakespeare. Then someone followed that with this generation not being that ideal to gain such knowledge.
really???? Then you try to give this generation sympathy for realizing that people who read books like Twilight get picked on for reading it which is why they don't read anything else.
how dare you all??
here is my story...
I am 18 years old. I read books all the time because I like to. simple as that. When harry potter books and twilight books first came out I did not want to read them because I thought they would have been terrible. Then I read them and fell in love simply because it took me away from reality. Now, im going to leave harry potter out of this because mainly this thread was about twilight. I began reading Twilight this past december and I read all four books in a week. It did drain me because I became so sucked into it. I have become a big twilight fan and I am aware that it is an easy read but I did take something out of it. I gained more hope for finding true love someday, I gained the idea of thinking of life, about the way I write essays for school, in more detail. I gained most of all... a week away from reality. I got to relax for the first time since august.
Now that you all know that I am a Twilight fan here are some other books I love to read...
Dear America, clubhouse books, mitch albom books, ICE, night, of mice and men, etc.
most of those are simple 6th grade books but i read those because I choose to and they help me relax.
But I have read Shakespeare, for a class to graduate, in my own time, and I have understood the meaning to his stories and the depth that he goes into. I love his work to no end.
What you all need to understand about this generation is that yes we get picked on because of what we read but this generation doesn't let that stop us from doing what we want to do. We ignore it and read whatever we want to no matter what.
It's what I did and I definitely know that its hard to step out of my comfort zone and read beyond what others think I can read. But I don't need anyone's sympathy.

I wasn't trying to make anyone feel bad about what has been said in this thread. I just wanted to make a point that maybe you shouldn't assume what people are capable of doing. If someone makes a thread about something and it looks like a new conversation is about to go somewhere else, make the stand and move that new conversation somewhere else.

I want to end this on a little note.

I am apart of this simple-trashy-reading-can't-read-anything-advanced-peer-pressured-generation, I read and completely understand Shakespeare, while being different from everyone else and doing what I want to do because it makes me happy. Doesn't that contradict your assumption?

[kelby_lake]

It wouldn't be fair to say that everyone who reads Twilight has no brain or anything. But do those who only read it really appreciate it (not just in a literary sense)? They might as well watch a decent film.

And I wouldn't trust Twilight for writing your essays.

[Annamariah]

Okay so I was really bored and found this thread and decided to give it a shot since i have read all of the twilight books many many times, love Eclipse and Twilight the most, and own the movie, while looking forward to New Moon coming out, and I realized something...
People have so much...tension, I think is the word i want to use...built up that they completely go off topic.
This thread was started because someone wanted to discuss the book Twilight. Simple as that. They wanted to know what others thought, what they felt, which is their favorite, and so on while being respectful to others and not spoiling everything.
After reading the 1st page I decided that I'll just skip to the very end and see where this has ended up.
I was shocked... you all became so carried away with deciding if you could or could not take something away from reading twilight or harry potter books, or if you read twilight books then you are just stuck with reading trashy/romance novels, and I even saw a comment made about if you read books like Twilight then you could never succeed in reading anything more enhanced such as Shakespeare. Then someone followed that with this generation not being that ideal to gain such knowledge.
really???? Then you try to give this generation sympathy for realizing that people who read books like Twilight get picked on for reading it which is why they don't read anything else.
how dare you all??

(...)

I want to end this on a little note.

I am apart of this simple-trashy-reading-can't-read-anything-advanced-peer-pressured-generation, I read and completely understand Shakespeare, while being different from everyone else and doing what I want to do because it makes me happy. Doesn't that contradict your assumption?

You are absolutely right. I love Twilight books too, I have them all on my bookshelf (I also happen to love Harry Potters which I own both in English and Finnish) and I'm not ashamed of it. I also do like many books that even the people here who call Twilight trash would approve of. I don't want to read books simply because someone tells me that this is something a sophisticated person should read - I want to read books because I enjoy reading them.

I know I probably shouldn't admit I am a twentysomething who enjoys reading books targeted for children and teenagers (L. M. Montgomery is one of my all-time-favourite authors), but why should I pretend not to simply to make myself look better in the eyes of those who can't understand why anyone in their right minds should like such literature? (Or was it wrong to call it "literature" at all?) The reason why I do so is that I happen to like the world they describe more than the one that is in many "real" books, especially the contemporary ones. I prefer a world more innocent like that in Jane Austen's work - though it's far from perfect, there's still something that is missing in our world today. So I guess I'm an escapist - but if I read to escape from this depressing reality, does it mean that I read for all the wrong reasons and thus my reading is worthless?

I don't think so, and I hope you don't either :)

P.S. Just yesterday I went and bought four books as a late birthday present for myself - I've had such a crappy week. They're all from the young adults' section :D

[higley]

I don't read Twilight but I have enjoyed other books that wouldn't necessarily fall into the realm of respected literature--most recently, World War Z, actually very thoughtful and well written--and I do think it's important to allow oneself to have fun reading what they like regardless of how it might be looked at by literature aficionados. Sure, I kind of snorted when the tween girls in front of me at Target began going crazy over a magazine with the Twilight guy on it, but I remember the pre-teen/early teen I once was and it's not like I was devouring Poe or Dickens or anything.

[Annamariah]

Sure, I kind of snorted when the tween girls in front of me at Target began going crazy over a magazine with the Twilight guy on it, but I remember the pre-teen/early teen I once was and it's not like I was devouring Poe or Dickens or anything.

Well, drooling after Robert Pattinson doesn't necessarily have anything to do with loving the Twilight books... I know several girls (of my age and older, not teenagers anymore) who do that, and not all of them have even read the series :lol:

[Three Sparrows]

I loved Twilight the first five times I read it, then grew sick of it.:rolleyes: I'll still go see New Moon though. Even though I do read Twilight, I also read Shakespeare, Dickens, Poe, etc. and its not like I'm really old, either. Twilight is a book easy to criticize, but even the most devout classic fans need a little break. Heck, I don't even care if you read Brown or bad sci-fi as your 'break book', we all need a little nonsense entertainment sometimes. Be happy, even if it means reading Best Sellers.:banana:

[higley]

Well, drooling after Robert Pattinson doesn't necessarily have anything to do with loving the Twilight books... I know several girls (of my age and older, not teenagers anymore) who do that, and not all of them have even read the series :lol:

I suppose you're right!

[LilyPan]

And I wouldn't trust Twilight for writing your essays.

Kelby, I have read your threads too and I am just appalled with some of the things you say. Why not trust the Twilight books to write essays? The Twilight books are very detailed and when writing essays you have to be well detailed to make a point.


It wouldn't be fair to say that everyone who reads Twilight has no brain or anything.

You say comments like this then go to your own threads and say the complete opposite! You are so contradicting and rude with some of the things you say.

[kelby_lake]

Kelby, I have read your threads too and I am just appalled with some of the things you say. Why not trust the Twilight books to write essays? The Twilight books are very detailed and when writing essays you have to be well detailed to make a point.



You say comments like this then go to your own threads and say the complete opposite! You are so contradicting and rude with some of the things you say.

? I don't believe I've said that reading Twilight makes you stupid. Perhaps you could give some quotes? I probably do contradict myself- I am human.

You entirely miss the point with the essay thing. Whilst you might be able to make an essay out of Twilight, the fact that the description is detailed has nothing to do with essays. A lot of the detail isn't even needed in the novel, it's just self-indulgent.

In essays, you do need to be detailed but you also need to be selective. You can make a lot out of a tiny quote. Essays also call for an awareness of background, which Twilight does not show.

But hell, you might write a good informative essay on Twilight and prove me wrong.

[Nietzsche]

I just finished a book called Twilight by Stephenie Meyer. It was her first book and although it started out poorly written, it evolved into something magnificent.

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.

500 and something pages and I made it through in two days. It's not that the writing is so advanced, rather that the author pulls you so deeply into the story that it's impossible not to experience the emotions of all of the characters. I don't think I've ever been so involved in a story.

Afterwards, I was emotionally drained and unresponsive/antisocial because it somehow took so much out of me. You will find yourself wanting desperately to go back into that world.

I've never bothered to read Twilight and don't really care to. My sister likes it though, and thankfully she ISN'T one of those vampire obsessed hot topic dwelling teeny boppers.

I'd have to say the same thing of Dan Brown, his writing is cliché filled and there is some redundancy, but the story itself pulls you into the books' world. Literary criticism aside, some books just pull you in.

[Aoife]

''Afterwards, I was emotionally drained and unresponsive/antisocial because it somehow took so much out of me. You will find yourself wanting desperately to go back into that world.''

I felt completely the same. The contrast between how well-written the first and last book is very different. They have the capacity to draw you in and get you hooked .. thus explains the ''vampire obsessed hot topic dwelling teeny boppers'' (hahaha).

Also the film does no justice for the book. What is that about!?

[Bakiryu]

I just feel that Twilight it's very anti-feminist and reinforcing of traditional, patriarchal societal values.

[LilyPan]

? I don't believe I've said that reading Twilight makes you stupid.

I never said that you did but you have made comments that people who do read the books or try to put themselves in bella's shoes are in your words "pathetic".

If ordinary people are that pathetic, I worry for them. I did try to fit myself into her shoes but then I realised I'd have to re-write the book.

And just an fyi I would never write an essay on Twilight, im not that obsessed. My point was that in essays no matter what style it is you need to have details and detailed support. Twilight is detailed. It paints a great picture in the readers mind which helps the reader to escape into the book which is also why it seems like such an easy read, not just because there is a lack of great vocabulary.

[Homers_child]

I just feel that Twilight it's very anti-feminist and reinforcing of traditional, patriarchal societal values.

I could never understand this view. Twilight is a fantasy, a romantic fantasy, targeted at women. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but a fantasy of a strong, in-control man taking care of the weak little damsel-in-distress has always been a popular fantasy with the women. It doesn't necessarily mean it's 'anti-feminist'... it means its a woman's fantasy world.

;)

[Annamariah]

I could never understand this view. Twilight is a fantasy, a romantic fantasy, targeted at women. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but a fantasy of a strong, in-control man taking care of the weak little damsel-in-distress has always been a popular fantasy with the women. It doesn't necessarily mean it's 'anti-feminist'... it means its a woman's fantasy world.

;)

Besides, Bella is rather headstrong and makes her own decisions, and in the last book she's not such a weak little damsel anymore anyway ;)

[kelby_lake]

I could never understand this view. Twilight is a fantasy, a romantic fantasy, targeted at women. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but a fantasy of a strong, in-control man taking care of the weak little damsel-in-distress has always been a popular fantasy with the women. It doesn't necessarily mean it's 'anti-feminist'... it means its a woman's fantasy world. ;)

That's a bit sexist. Yes, it's a popular view, but that is not the sole purpose of every woman's life. At times the book can come across as 'You are only complete once you've got married'. At least 'New Moon' embraced the swooning melodrama and didn't try to make Bella sound like your 'average' teen girl.

And I felt like a bit of a voyeur reading it- especially Breaking Dawn.

[KryStaLitsa]

Oh,I've read the whole Twilight series and I simply loved it.!!!
If you liked twilight,the first book,try reading Midnight Sun,too.It's the exact same story with Twilight by it's now Edward narrating...It's just wonderful...You can find the first ten chapters in Stephenie Meyer's page.

[Homers_child]

That's a bit sexist. Yes, it's a popular view, but that is not the sole purpose of every woman's life. At times the book can come across as 'You are only complete once you've got married'. At least 'New Moon' embraced the swooning melodrama and didn't try to make Bella sound like your 'average' teen girl.

And I felt like a bit of a voyeur reading it- especially Breaking Dawn.

Oh, I didn't mean for it to be sexist. I can see how it would sound like that. I didn't mean to say that it was a fantasy for all women. Just that there are a lot of women that would be attracted by that. That's all.

Fantasy is not meant to be applied to reality alot of the time. Just because I find Edward attractive in the books, doesn't mean that in real life I would want someone sneaking into my bedroom to watch me sleep. Because in real life, that would mean, he's just a creep that will probably rape me.

And the marriage thing... why does it have to be taken as S. Meyer making a statement about marriage? What if Edward was just supposed to be a hopeless romantic who wanted to get married? I've seen quite a few kids that wanted to get married to the boyfriends/girlfriends right after high school, and did, too. I don't agree with their decisions, but it doesn't stop the fact that its their personal decisions and wants. The same with Bella and Edward. Plus, Edward was supposedly from an era that valued people getting married young and before they had sex. So, that should be kept in mind as well.

Now, I think Twilight is a crappy teen read, but I did enjoy the series. (Well, not Breaking Dawn) But I feel that people just try to pull it apart when it wasn't meant to be seen that deeply or in that light.

What if Bella was a super tomboy and Edward didn't want to get married before getting it on? That's not every woman's fantasy, its not what every woman wants in their life. But, would you still make an argument against it? Or would you just accept that thats the way the characters were written? That it's just a book. Not every book is supposed to make a statement. Not every book is supposed define every woman's fantasy. It's really just one woman's fantasy, the author's.


Sorry if I ranted, and keep in mind none of that was said in anger. Just saying what I think on the subject.

[Scheherazade]

So, I have borrowed a copy of Twilight and will be reading it next week sometime.

Should I expect sudden hair loss, outbreak of spots accompanied with temporary hearing/visual loss?

Will I grow horns and a tail?

Just kidding! I have already got those, of course.

[Bakiryu]

Sorry I'm so late. I just think Twilight reinforces the "traditional" view of the "weak" female archetype and the "strong" man who takes care of her. Keep in mind that this is aimed at teen and preteen girls who might not have so much experience of the world and not know anything else, would it not influence them to believe this is their role in a relationship and the world as females?

At early ages girls are looking for role models, people to identify with, what if the identify with Bella?

[kelby_lake]

It's really just one woman's fantasy, the author's.

That's really the core of the whole book. I feel voyeuristic reading it. The woman has not heard of distance.

[Annamariah]

Sorry I'm so late. I just think Twilight reinforces the "traditional" view of the "weak" female archetype and the "strong" man who takes care of her. Keep in mind that this is aimed at teen and preteen girls who might not have so much experience of the world and not know anything else, would it not influence them to believe this is their role in a relationship and the world as females?

At early ages girls are looking for role models, people to identify with, what if the identify with Bella?

At first Bella is of course physically much weaker than the vampires (as any human would be), but (SPOILER ALERT!)





she always has her own will and in the last book she's actually the one protecting others.





And as far as role models go, I think those girls could do a lot worse than to identify with Bella :p

[formality hater]

The series can be read when you seriously want to kill time!;)

[caspian]

So, I have borrowed a copy of Twilight and will be reading it next week sometime.

Should I expect sudden hair loss, outbreak of spots accompanied with temporary hearing/visual loss?

Will I grow horns and a tail?

Just kidding! I have already got those, of course.

Oh, Sher, reading it such a waste of time. Take my advice and borrow the audio one. Narrating is ok. Quite interesting story (starting with New Moon, not the Twilight itself), but awfully poor writing. Cheesy love talks are the hardest. I skipped most of them.

And it's more like a fairy tale than a horror story. :yawnb:

[Bakiryu]

At first Bella is of course physically much weaker than the vampires (as any human would be), but (SPOILER ALERT!)





she always has her own will and in the last book she's actually the one protecting others.





And as far as role models go, I think those girls could do a lot worse than to identify with Bella :p

True. but who IS Bella? Beyond her overpowering love for Edward and her role as a daughter, what else defines her?

[Annamariah]

True. but who IS Bella? Beyond her overpowering love for Edward and her role as a daughter, what else defines her?

Bella is Bella. She's a good person who often puts other people's needs before her own, but she can also be stubborn about certain things. She loves books and likes cooking and has a sense of humour. She doesn't like being the centre of attention and isn't very interested about clothes and make-up.

What else should there be? I don't think there's anything special to define me either. I'm just a lonely girl with an awful skin who studies translation and that's basically it.

[JBI]

Bella is Bella. She's a good person who often puts other people's needs before her own, but she can also be stubborn about certain things. She loves books and likes cooking and has a sense of humour. She doesn't like being the centre of attention and isn't very interested about clothes and make-up.

What else should there be? I don't think there's anything special to define me either. I'm just a lonely girl with an awful skin who studies translation and that's basically it.

I dunno - you seem to be far more complex than "just a lonely girl..." but that isn't the point - in terms of the fantastical, and role models, if we consider Bella as an "idealized" female, in the sense that we would want girls to emulate her, it says a lot of things.

For instance, from your description, it kind of implies she is more background than anything else - she doesn't seem to have a desire to be "present" - she is ultimately, an observer, from what I gather, than a partaker, until, as someone above mentioned, in the fourth book, where she becomes a mother figure, rather than a damsel in distress.

Ultimately, compared with Alanna from Tamora Pierce's Song of the Lioness, or Jaele from Caitlin Sweet's A Telling of Stars, or even popular icons, like Sailor Moon, who is both an abnoxious brat, yet at the same time ennobled by the fact that she remains true to herself, and her friends, and does the right thing to save the day, or Xena Warrior Princess, who ultimately takes the front line, and is assertive - or perhaps something like Leslie Burke from Bridge to Terabithia, who acts as a very strong character - next to those, ultimately, I feel as if Twilight kind of lacks.


Even a romantic icon like Elizabeth Bennett - the witty, assertive, ironic type, or Tatiana from Eugene Onegin - someone who is both emotionally sensible, yet at the same time, remains true to what she believes in and herself, seem to me to be far stronger "role model" characters, in that they allow a sort of assertive admiration - we don't, for instance, laugh when Tatiana sends Eugene the love letter - we feel sorry for her, because we understand that she was true to her feelings - with Bella though, ultimately, I think the role of the female is sideswiped.

It's similar across the board pretty much in much literature - ultimately, the assertive, strong female characters seem, in popular fiction, to be sidelined. The character of the "whore" is ultimately rejected, and the character of the "virgin" secures herself a nice marriage to an agreeably rich, assertive, sexuallized male - the female then is ultimately pushed toward the house, domesticated, and unseen outside the frame of the male, who acts as a sort of savior/hero role by choosing her over the outspoken, assertive "whore".



Why is this? ultimately the texts just reinforce a kind of patriarchy - that's why, I think, Tamora Pierce is such a good author for the Young Adult bracket - she certainly realizes the potential of the fantastical as a means of empowerment - by providing a female who is not portrayed as a "whore", yet isn't submissive or suppressed, she is able to create a female role model outside of the role of "damsel in distress" - something in which I think Twilight is unable to do.

Like I have said before, the 90s seems to have been a decade of change within the lower age brackets, featuring, in popular culture at any rate, a new sort of heroine who is empowering - I think, with the emergence of various strands of thought in American culture, such steps forward are rebounding - I can't help but feel Bella as hero is a bit digressive.

It is one thing to be shy, or feel unnoticed, or not beautiful, and to associate with a character, but to repress the self, and then call that the makings of a role model to me seems ridiculous. Literature shouldn't tell you that feeling alone is what is expected of one, and being ignored is what femininity is, and not being in the centre of attention is preferable - it should inspire, at least in this age bracket, some sort of realization that, either one is special, and people need not feel saddened by such things, as, ultimately, they are perfectly fine people, or, on the other hand, or perhaps in addition, should also empower, and show that such repression is unhealthy.

It's not about being a good or bad person - ultimately a heroic figure will be a good figure - but even someone who has perhaps a bit of a cruel side, or fits the character of "the *****", is preferable to portraying the heroic as the ignored, or suppressed. People are more round than that - to use Sailor Moon as an example (alright, you caught me, it's perhaps the best example I can think of, since the show resonates so well in memory after all these years (about 14 or so)) - though Sailor Moon, as a character, is both nosy, obnoxious, lazy, indulgent, and childish, ultimately, in terms of heroism, she justifies herself as far more powerful a role model than a smart, quiet, unspoken, unspoken for, repressed, shadowed person - the merits of being able to, in the end, realize what is right and wrong, and to act accordingly, in fitting with morals, and in approaching themes, such as friendship, love, and truth (to the self), the makers of that show (or at least the dubbers) managed to create a much more powerful image, and a much more respectable character than Twilight's Bella, who, ultimately, fits in with a pretty patriarchal pattern.

[soundofmusic]

:nod: I sometimes feel as if I am falling into the abyss of the authors complex desires: to shake off the shackles of her faith, her morals, her children and indulge herself with a beautiful partner that she has total control over, a child that she has a true connection with, power without the consequences.:brow:

[kelby_lake]

Bella is Bella. She's a good person who often puts other people's needs before her own, but she can also be stubborn about certain things. She loves books and likes cooking and has a sense of humour. She doesn't like being the centre of attention and isn't very interested about clothes and make-up.

Those are all really banal traits that every female YA protagonist has. They're a tiny bit of a misfit but that's because they are so good to their family (she moved out so her mother and new hubby could...bond...).

[soundofmusic]

Bella is Bella. She's a good person who often puts other people's needs before her own, but she can also be stubborn about certain things. She loves books and likes cooking and has a sense of humour. She doesn't like being the centre of attention and isn't very interested about clothes and make-up.

What else should there be? I don't think there's anything special to define me either. I'm just a lonely girl with an awful skin who studies translation and that's basically it.

You are quite lovely, my dear, and bad skin clears; And now, you are here with us, so you don't have to be lonely. There are also alot of chat sites for people interested in languages. Bella does seem very fortunate, doesn't she, to have someone who loves her as much as she loves him; and yet, that love has almost killed her several times.
As far as the book, I didn't like the part (what was it, in Eclipse) where she finds out that her great power is her resistance to things. She envelopes all of her family and friends and saves them from the ancient vampires. I liked Bella simple, and she just became stronger and more significant than her husband and all of his family members and friends.
In a normal relationship, that could destroy the balance of the husband/wife child relationship.

[Scheherazade]

Must... read... Twilight...

All this talk is making me want to read it even more!

[drakemortuare13]

As much as I love vampire stories, I have never read the Twilight series.

[Annamariah]

I like Bella the way she is, and I don't think she's too weak or too anti-feminist or too good or anything. There are all kinds of people in the world, so why should all protagonists be such "strong" characters? I think Bella has her strenghts and weaknesses just like anyone else, she's not perfect, and I don't feel Twilight books pose any threat for the status of women in the world (or if it does, then there's seriously something wrong in the society). I'm not saying all protagonists should be like her, no. I think it's good that we have different kinds of people portrayed in books :)


You are quite lovely, my dear, and bad skin clears; And now, you are here with us, so you don't have to be lonely. There are also alot of chat sites for people interested in languages.

Thank you, soundofmusic :) The doctor said my skin might get better in about five or ten years, so I guess I'll just have to keep waiting. (I have an atopic skin which means it's very dry and highly irritable - it looks bad, and the constant itch makes it difficult to concentrate on anything or even to get sleep.) I'm really glad for this forum, at least I've got some human contact, even if it's just online :D

[soundofmusic]

Thank you, soundofmusic :) The doctor said my skin might get better in about five or ten years, so I guess I'll just have to keep waiting. (I have an atopic skin which means it's very dry and highly irritable - it looks bad, and the constant itch makes it difficult to concentrate on anything or even to get sleep.) I'm really glad for this forum, at least I've got some human contact, even if it's just online :D

I feel so bad for you; I can imagine slightly how you feel, I have to constantly change gloves when I'm working and after several 12 hour days, my right thumb and first finger look like hamburger (I have psoriasis and a number of allergies; and like you, I am fair) I wrap the areas in topical medications when I am sleeping, keep down my stress levels and take motrin for pain. I also constantly check all the forums and studies to find out if any new medications are out. Perhaps you can check out some of the studies as well. I hate to see a lovely young girl miss out on the most wonderful years of her life. :angel:

[Saleh]

I'm agreed with you Arania. Since the author combined between two things are extremely unlike. Stephenie Meyer combined between "Romance" and " Violence" at the same time. This is what I loved in her work. I'm suggesting you to read other parts of that work. The next three parts are "New Moon", "Eclipse", "Break Down".

God keeps you Arania everywhere you go.

Saleh Alyamani

Note: This is my e-mail if you wanna contact me :

[email protected]

[Patrick_Bateman]

This is a dirty dirty word

[IceM]

I forget that this is a literature forum, not a serious literature forum.

I don't mean to condescend anyone at all, so please don't think that I am. I just consider Twilight an overhyped farce. It's poorly written, the plot is monotonous, and it's unoriginal.

I've read all of the books available, so I'm not just some idle observer looking to bash Twilight.

But seriously, it's crap. I'd rather read Candide again and again than be force to read Stephanie Meyer's junk (I mean Twilight).

[JuniperWoolf]

You sound pretty condescending for someone who doesn't mean to be. This is one of the reasons why I often don't like this forum at all. The same things are said over and over again, and those things are always negative. "Twilight sucks, Harry Potter sucks, I'm above such childish rot. Look at how smart I am!" It's pretty funny to see so-called "scholars" bashing children's (and teen) stories.

It sucks too, because it's not always childrens stories. I hate it when people bash books that made a huge impact on me. I can't see a reason for it. "Shakespeare's over-rated, The Grapes of Wrath is boring, Catcher in the Rye was pointless, ect." I'm starting to think that people here don't really like books at all.

[SpyridonMoon]

I sort of agree with you Juniper, I notice that a lot of people bash books, even children's books, and even I sometimes fall to that.

I think it's sad that people will just say they don't like a book without giving a valid reason. I'm not going to deny it, i really don't like Stephanie Meyer's work, but people seem to forget that it was written for preteens. For older women or older teens who prefer a more mature reading experience, the probablity is that they won't like it.

I constantly tell everybody that Twilight is a stupid book and badly written, but i forget to mention that I'm a junior in high school and I like to read classics. If i were 12 or 13 years old again, chances are I probably would have enjoyed reading Twilight.

I learned the hard way, to not waste your energy over getting upset about other people's opinions, even if they express it in an immature, childish fashion.

[soundofmusic]

I had found it curious that anyone would read all four books of Twilight if they really hated it. I am old enough to be Ices grandmother; and personally, I like the Twilight movie and the first two books; the only reason I am not partial to the 3rd book is that I don't care for Bellas new role. I am more interested in Edward and his family; I prefer Bella human, and I wasn't as interested in the family unit with a baby later in the series. So, I only read part of the 3rd book and stopped.
I find as an older adult, that there are nuances in childrens and teens books that only an older persons experience can appreciate. Sometimes when people are young, they are afraid to do anything that makes them seem immature; at 55, I have no such problem.
I like Stephanie Meyers writing style; it is more like a diary of a growing girl. So what if it isn't Shakespeare; what did people think of Shakespeare in his day. Not all of his works are superior!
I also like the Harry Potter series; though once again, I prefered the relationships in the first five books to the later ones.
To each his own!

[MarkBastable]

I hate it when people bash books that made a huge impact on me. I can't see a reason for it. "Shakespeare's over-rated, The Grapes of Wrath is boring, Catcher in the Rye was pointless, ect." I'm starting to think that people here don't really like books at all.

If you'd like to post a list of all the books that have had a huge impact on you, we'll all promise not to be horrid about them, ever, ever.

[JuniperWoolf]

If you'd like to post a list of all the books that have had a huge impact on you, we'll all promise not to be horrid about them, ever, ever.

That's all I ask.

[kelby_lake]

I like Stephanie Meyers writing style; it is more like a diary of a growing girl. So what if it isn't Shakespeare; what did people think of Shakespeare in his day. Not all of his works are superior!

They are to Twilight, lol.

For what Twilight is, it's okay. The thing that really bugs me though is that some people don't read anything else.

[IceM]

You sound pretty condescending for someone who doesn't mean to be. This is one of the reasons why I often don't like this forum at all. The same things are said over and over again, and those things are always negative. "Twilight sucks, Harry Potter sucks, I'm above such childish rot. Look at how smart I am!" It's pretty funny to see so-called "scholars" bashing children's (and teen) stories.

It sucks too, because it's not always childrens stories. I hate it when people bash books that made a huge impact on me. I can't see a reason for it. "Shakespeare's over-rated, The Grapes of Wrath is boring, Catcher in the Rye was pointless, ect." I'm starting to think that people here don't really like books at all.

First off, I'm not some highly-paid literary scholar attacking a poorly written series of books. I'm a 16 year old kid who thought they were crap. And, for the record, Harry Potter wasn't all that bad.

And, I'm not attacking YOUR taste in books, just the books in general. But if you choose to take my derogatory comments on a series and misinterpret that as me attacking you, who am I to stop you?



I don't know how to quote multiple users, so, for the person who is hold enough to be my grandmother, I read the entire Twilight series because it was a Christmas gift, and the uncle who bought me them was an English teacher. How that is significant: every time he'd swing by to hang around with the family, he'd ask how i like the books (once every 2 or so weeks). He'd tell if I was BS'ing.
I don't want to insult him by wasting money on the books.

[ScottyOhara]

Reading some of theses posts, shows that Meyer has a way to pull the reader in and give her readers the idea that these characters are real people. She makes you go through and feel what her character is going through and feeling. I've read all of her books, including "The Host" and have liked all of them. I'm available for discussing the books with anyone who wants to, so pm me.

[ScottyOhara]

They are to Twilight, lol.

For what Twilight is, it's okay. The thing that really bugs me though is that some people don't read anything else.

I completely agree with your closing statement. Once every five years or so, it seems that there is a trendy series that comes along. First it was "A Series of Unfortunate Events" then along came "Harry Potter" Finally we wind up with "The Twilight Saga." All of these are good books; however, that is all most people want to read. People want to follow that trend. However, there is more to Literature than these trendy books. How many people actually take the time to read and interpret a classic, or for that matter, how many people actually interpreted "Twilight" and the meaning behind it and how Meyers beliefs and what not were put into the novels? People just read it because it is popular.

[kelby_lake]

I marvel at how they have the patience to get through 4 bricks but they can't finish pretty short classics.

[DanielBenoit]

I marvel at how they have the patience to get through 4 bricks but they can't finish pretty short classics.

I know right?

My experience with Twilight: I remember being in the bookstore and constantly seeing this particular book everywhere. It had the most elegant cover of two hands holding out an apple. I would be standing at one section, and I would hear people talking about it at some stand and how great it was. Eventually I came to the decision that I must figure out what this is. So I picked up a copy one day, entranced by the wonderful front cover which was quite sublte. As opposed to a huge logo of the book's title, there was just a subtle "twilight" as well as the authors name. I was quite impressed and wondered eagerly what this book was about. Once I opened the pages, I could not believe what dribble I found! Urgghh! Wtf is this? "I wasn't interesting. And he was. Interesting...and brilliant...and mysterious...and perfect...and beautiful...and possibly able to lift full-sized vans with one hand." and this? " 'It would be more...prudent for you not to be my friend,' he explained. 'But I'm tired of trying to stay away from you, Bella.' "

How about putting the name of whoever designed the title cover on the front instead of Stephine Meyers and giving her all of that money, because the front cover is really the only thing of any value.

[soundofmusic]

They are to Twilight, lol.

For what Twilight is, it's okay. The thing that really bugs me though is that some people don't read anything else.

:lol: Okay, Kelby, Shakespeare may impress me; but it doesn't give me that warm, fuzzy, wish I was young and at the soda shop with some hot vampire feel;)

First off, I'm not some highly-paid literary scholar attacking a poorly written series of books. I'm a 16 year old kid who thought they were crap. And, for the record, Harry Potter wasn't all that bad.

And, I'm not attacking YOUR taste in books, just the books in general. But if you choose to take my derogatory comments on a series and misinterpret that as me attacking you, who am I to stop you?

I don't know how to quote multiple users, so, for the person who is hold enough to be my grandmother, I read the entire Twilight series because it was a Christmas gift, and the uncle who bought me them was an English teacher. How that is significant: every time he'd swing by to hang around with the family, he'd ask how i like the books (once every 2 or so weeks). He'd tell if I was BS'ing.
I don't want to insult him by wasting money on the books.

:bawling: I must apologize to IceM publicly; to read the entire Twilight series because they were a gift shows a great deal of kindness and character. Most young people would stick them on the shelf or file 13 them and read the synopsis.


I completely agree with your closing statement. Once every five years or so, it seems that there is a trendy series that comes along. First it was "A Series of Unfortunate Events" then along came "Harry Potter" Finally we wind up with "The Twilight Saga." All of these are good books; however, that is all most people want to read. People want to follow that trend. However, there is more to Literature than these trendy books. How many people actually take the time to read and interpret a classic, or for that matter, how many people actually interpreted "Twilight" and the meaning behind it and how Meyers beliefs and what not were put into the novels? People just read it because it is popular.

I don't read the novels because they are trendy; I read them because they bring out "my inner child". I'm old, I deal with death all the time and I like to come home to something that is not profound, that doesn't make me think.
I actually liked several of the Series of Unfortunate, the author was very witty; I just got a little stuck when the kids plight didn't alter.


I marvel at how they have the patience to get through 4 bricks but they can't finish pretty short classics.

Actually, I read 2 bricks, a few chapters here and there. :idea: What do people who only read profound literature do when they run out of Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Nabacov....

I know right?

My experience with Twilight: I remember being in the bookstore and constantly seeing this particular book everywhere. It had the most elegant cover of two hands holding out an apple. I would be standing at one section, and I would hear people talking about it at some stand and how great it was. Eventually I came to the decision that I must figure out what this is. So I picked up a copy one day, entranced by the wonderful front cover which was quite sublte. As opposed to a huge logo of the book's title, there was just a subtle "twilight" as well as the authors name. I was quite impressed and wondered eagerly what this book was about. Once I opened the pages, I could not believe what dribble I found! Urgghh! Wtf is this? "I wasn't interesting. And he was. Interesting...and brilliant...and mysterious...and perfect...and beautiful...and possibly able to lift full-sized vans with one hand." and this? " 'It would be more...prudent for you not to be my friend,' he explained. 'But I'm tired of trying to stay away from you, Bella.' "

How about putting the name of whoever designed the title cover on the front instead of Stephine Meyers and giving her all of that money, because the front cover is really the only thing of any value.

You're right, Daniel, the covers are wonderful. I dont Know, Daniel, when I read about Edward (always imagining him as Robert Pattinson) hanging out by my bed, adoring me while I sleep and a big, fluffy wolf man outside in the rain; well...:brow:

[chaneybean]

im not a big fan o twilight

[kelby_lake]

Actually, I read 2 bricks, a few chapters here and there. :idea: What do people who only read profound literature do when they run out of Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Nabokov....


Watch films :D I'm in love with Powell and Pressburger colour films.

[*Classic*Charm*]

AGAIN. This is back AGAIN.

[Niamh]

It wont die until all the movies have been done... bit like Harry Potter. can be garunteed that will be revived with the next movie...

[Gadget Girl]

Honestly, I don't like Twilight. I don't know why teens my age are so head-over-heels addicted to it. I really don't see the point of the story at all. I'm always discussing this to my friends, but they will always find a lame comeback and say I'm weird for not liking it. What? So, does that mean that I'm an alien or something? Twilight has become so popular worldwide that it's scary.

[Zee.]

Each to their own...


Someone mentioned A Series of Unfortunate Events before - i loved that series.

I would not read, if every book i read required me to decipher the 'values' of the author. I read for enjoyment. Entertainment.
i want to enjoy and indulge in as much books as i can - from good literature to absolute trash. People like Twilight for the story - they find it entertaining, some may like the supernatural side to it, others the love story because they themselves are seeking a similar thing. If it fulfills people and makes them happy - why should it matter?

People limit themselves too much. When i get home and i'm really tired but can't sleep - i read some 'trash', harry potter, weird sci fis, lemony snicket - because i like the story. I find them exciting.


Most 'trash' novels are page turners, and do a much better job at engaging me than say.. shakespeare, or steinbeck ever could.

[Jeremydav]

There are better page turners than Twilight. I couldn't put down No Country for Old Men. It was somewhat deep, but nothing that required an annotated text with a scholarly introduction. It was a good page turner and it WASN'T trash. There's plenty out there.

[Zee.]

There are better page turners than Twilight. I couldn't put down No Country for Old Men. It was somewhat deep, but nothing that required an annotated text with a scholarly introduction. It was a good page turner and it WASN'T trash. There's plenty out there.



There are MUCH better page turners than Twilight, in both yours and MY view. But you spoke for yourself, and i can speak for only myself. If someone were to say to me, "In my experience, there are no better page turners than Twilight" who am i to say their opinion is wrong and contradict THEIR experience??

Point is, you can say whatever you like about books, look down your nose at some and praise others but our views and opinions and experiences with books are all individual. You can't be selfish about it. Let people enjoy what they enjoy, you can argue all day that it's 'wrong' but it is what it is.

[kelby_lake]

Most 'trash' novels are page turners, and do a much better job at engaging me than say.. shakespeare, or steinbeck ever could.

Shakespeare can be a very engaging read, once you get used to the language, and far more interesting than 'trash' novels, which on the whole I find vapid and ridiculous. The idea that because something is intellectual it is inherently boring is a total myth.

I don't care that people read and enjoy Twilight; it's their life after all. What I do care about is the fact that we should be promoting a variety of books and not just trash.

[Gadget Girl]

What I do care about is the fact that we should be promoting a variety of books and not just trash.

I'd be happy when that happens. :nod:

[rebyrory]

Hi, I'm Rebecca. This is my first post but I really need your help. I'm making a research about the Twilight phenomenon for my final exam and I ask myself: Why Twilight is so popular and Why does it like to so many people?
I need above all personal justification and opinion, and I hope you'll find some time to write me an answer. Thanks a lot

[soundofmusic]

Hello and welcome, I am actually very fond of the twilight series.
I am an old lady; not typical of the 14 - 22 year old fans the series usually attracts. I like it because I am a romantic and am rather fond of the concept of self sacrifice for love (which is throughout the book). I also have always been a great fan of vampires; but this new vampire that only eats animals and is happy to stay around with his girlfriend is very appealing.

When I first read the book, I thought Stephanie Meyer was a bit of an egoist and it seemed to come out in the later books; but I have since changed my opinion. I do think that the later books are not quite as well written as the first two.

[Annamariah]

I love Twilight series because of the story. For me the books were real page-turners that I didn't want to put down until I was finished. There is something magical about the world described in the books and I also like the fact that the characters have some "old-fashioned" values.

[Il Dante]

Twilight? ......What's Twilight? Isn't that a book about some cannibal guy named Hannibal? I think it's called... Twilight of the Lambs, or something like that.;)

[sugarcrash56]

To me it's the relationship in the book that wins people over. Twilight is not very well written, but the connection between Bella and Edward is so perfect for any romantic. Let's be honest, it's super cheesy, almost like a "I would do anything to be with you" kind of thing. I don't even think the author paints amazing descriptive pictures of Forks; I just think she does an amazing job of drawing in hopeless romantics with the Bella/Edward relationship.

[dfloyd]

It's teenage hokum, but if you are lucky you'll grow out of it.

[ben.!]

In my studies of creative writing at uni, we see Twilight as one of the worst series plaguing mainstream readers. I agree with sugarcash56, the books are horribly written.

But I think people like that idea of the perfect man. It's why Mills + Boon sells so well. Romance is best when it is that heavenly-like attraction to a heavenly-like person. So unlike reality, the romantics of which are mostly seldom and would depress us. That's my opinion of why it's a phenomenon. I believe though that it has nowhere near the shelf life of the Harry Potter series, and is more like a fad than anything else.

Another problem I found with the books is the role-model Bella puts out to girls. She acts like an absolute pain in the behind to everyone - whiny, complaining, arrogant. She palms aside the Michael character in the first book who is trying to be nice to her and friendly, trying to settle her into school. She refers to him as an annoying Golden Retriever.

No, instead, Bella goes for a person who gets visibly angry (seemingly at her) and leaves the room, as soon as she enters it. Completely silly. And Bella's attitude to guys is I believe a bad attitude to put forth to young girls. She seems to (and this might be a little extreme of a distinction) have quite a bit in common with Patrick Bateman of American Psycho actually, and I don't mean homicidal tendencies. I mean those same sociopathic judgements of people that comes across in her narration.

So yeah, as you can see I have a lot of misgivings about the 'Twilight' series.

[Nikhar]

Note:- I am sorry if we have already a thread on the series. I searched for it but couldn't find it.


I recently picked up twilight from the book shop, partly due to past recommendations and partly due to my hunger to read something, anything.

I read Twilight and New Moon and I cant wait to read Eclipse. Also, I can't wait to discuss the first two books. And what better place than my favourite online spot, Litnet. ;)

Firstly, it's a great change to read fantasy fiction that explores a world beyond dwarfs and elves.

Now, to be completely honest, I was terribly disappointed with the first novel. Firstly, I thought there was a lot of love story in it. Had I been a girl, I think it would have fascinated me. But love stories, I don't think is a 'guy thing'. But that opinion may be purely subjective. :D

Or well, maybe I might like other love stories but Twilight definitely did not do it for me. Firstly, I don't think the first book was a complete love story in itself. The majority of the book only explored Edward's hesitancy and Bella's determination towards her fearless love. And in the rest of the book, we just learn how beautiful Edwards was and so many pages were wasted describing their 'incomplete kisses'.

Well, really the real book for me began with the entry of the hunter 'James' and the hunt for Bella. I usually pic a fantasy fic for such sort of things and not to get bored on such a repetitive love story. Now, even the 'hunt' wasn't given much scope. The thrills and the suspense were scarce. It did not intrigue me the way I had expected.

All in all, I felt the first part was a huge disappointment. What are your views on the first part?

Nonetheless, I read 'New Moon', partly because I had a lot of time left and well, I had already bought it. :p

I really liked the second book for a number of reasons and there were a few points that I did not like at all. I'll be covering them one by one.


I guess my favourite character in the 'Twilight' series is Jake Black. I liked him immensely. I could connect with him so easily (No, I'm not a werewolf :D, but for entirely different reasons). I really liked the way the friendship between Jake and Bella developed. Surprisingly, I also liked the bit of the love angle in it. ;)

I felt the story was going perfect till Edward returned. From there on, I have a few very serious complaints. Again, as in the first book, the thrills were scarce. The suspense is built but it never reaches the peak. When you spend so many pages searching for Victoria, the reader expects that by the end we'd have some definite conclusions regarding Victoria. I thought the entry of the Volturi was very sudden and abrupt. It came into the book from nowhere. Basically, as far as the suspense factor goes, I think New Moon is incomplete. Maybe, the author planned it to be so and plans to complete these ends in the rest of the novels. I haven't read Eclipse and Breaking Dawn yet, so I can't be sure.

There's one thing I did not like about Bella at all. Can you be so blind in love so as to give your best friend such little appreciation? As a reader, I would have been much happier if she had maintained a better balance between love and friendship.

Also, in the end, I think it's very uncharacteristic of Jake to reveal Bella's motorcycle secret.

But anyways, I am really very interested to see how the relationship between Bella and Jake turns out. That's the main reason I'm so keyed up to read Eclipse.

The following two lines that I read in some review echoes my complaints with both the books exactly:-

a lot of build-up and little action.

"unwavering passion for Edward" and having no other goals

[Beautifull]

lol. I agree. Hey Nikhar, have you read her latest book, "the second short life of Bree Tanner"? I just picked it up from the store, and I pretty excited to read it...although I never heard about it. I think It'll be interesting, but unlike her previous books, this one is very short...I wonder if that will be a problem...

[Mr.lucifer]

Despite its popularity, its the most hated book series of the previous decade and a favorite target of snark.

[Beautifull]

Despite its popularity, its the most hated book series of the previous decade and a favorite target of snark.

Because it is so popular.

[Nikhar]

No, I havent read the second short life of Bree Tanner yet. Don't get me wrong but I don't think I'm going to read it either. I'm not even going to read breaking dawn. I have heard that Bella turns vampire in the fourth novel. And that sort of takes away the whole point of reading the book. As I said, the character of Jake made it possible for me to complete the third book. Reading the fourth book seems pointless to me.

[Beautifull]

No, I havent read the second short life of Bree Tanner yet. Don't get me wrong but I don't think I'm going to read it either. I'm not even going to read breaking dawn. I have heard that Bella turns vampire in the fourth novel. And that sort of takes away the whole point of reading the book. As I said, the character of Jake made it possible for me to complete the third book. Reading the fourth book seems pointless to me.

So far, I've read the beginning, and believe it or not, it's not like any of the other Twilight books. Actually, I think Bree was the girl who was terminated by the Volturi. But this grop is different. They actually burn in the sun, not twinkle and sparkle.
Yes, Bella turns vampy, and I lost interest in the Twilight series. I bought this book without knowing this was part of the Series, and it was cheap, being first print and all.
So you know what happens with Jacob at the end?
And to be completely honest, I didn't expect the end to be all happily ever after and crap. All the problems were easy peasy to solve.

[Astromaxis]

Despite its popularity and seemingly good potentials Twilight turned out to be a disaster. The movies were entertaining granted and sometimes you do read interested to find out what happens next but on the whole does Twilight strike you?

To me it doesn't. It just gropes around teenage hormones and creates an unbelievable romance between two people (I cannot insult the term "individual")who utterly possess not a microscopic touch of romance. It's vampire Mills and Boon as a male friend put it - you read, get entertained for a bit and then throw it out.

Many people give these lame argument that as it is fiction it does not need to be true. Ummm fiction is somewhat based on reality and if a relationship is based on hormones, immaturity, looks and bodily odours then we cannot even define it as romance; it is what is popularly called a fling - in this case it's even a badly computed sexual one, a chemical cross that fails to breed any sympathy, empathy or even sensuous excitement unless you are a hardcore sadomasochist. But, even if you are you might get numbed by the lack of diversity.

Bella does nothing but worships Edward and he, in turn, like some pompous oarasite, drinks of her blood in the spiritual sense. It's like this: I don't bite into your neck but I bite into your soul because drying your innermost intelligence and personality feeds me. After all, dominating you physically can begin and end so quickly that I won't enjoy the meal and as you are a one of a kind meal I'm gonna dry you up so bad that you'll be my food for eternity.

Yup - cannibalism course anyone?

Bella is not beautiful. She is dumb and not because she was given bad hands to play by the Fates. Her mind's poverty is an insult to a declared class of people in the States who can afford an education and good living standards. In fact, she is the worst kind of stupid. The proclaiming academic one - she read so many books but other than that what else does she do? If she were a literature student she would be punched - I mean analysis is the name of the game but she's too stupid that she reads as though she will digest intelligence only for egotistical sustenance. Never eating for ATP.

The only good sort of Twilight book was it recently released one with that Bree Tanner person. I actually wanted to read it and read the subsequent events. Bree looked like someone you could care about. But then again I don't know. I tried reading Twilight and despite some momentary satisfactions words and sentences like "my forehead dewed with sweat" made by the so-called intellectual Bella Swan made me laugh out hard.

Well, please tell me your reactions to this book.

[spookymulder93]

That trash literature has made millions of dollars so somebody obviously doesn't agree with you.

How many of us here have written anything that has made millions of dollars?

Maybe I'll write a campy zombie love story between a zombie dude and a alive chick. In the end the chick will cut out her own brain to save the zombie dudes life.

Does a zombie have a life?

I think this might turn out to be the best love story of all time.

[Ein]

I cannot stand the books or the movies. I loathe the creature who authored them, and think the she will meet a horrible life in any world that is after this one(if there is any).

There is the sentence structure for one thing; they bounce back and forth from short and choppy, to long and verbose, and to me, this is very uncomfortable to read. Not to mention all the adverbs, her sentence structure is weak, and once again not an enjoyable read for anyone whose reading level is over "Pat the Dog".

I dislike the excuse that it is children's literature, and that's the reason it can be so slipshod. For one thing, I won't/will never let any child of mine read such drivel, not only does it showcase very dangerous habits (Edward stalking Bella, Edward emotionally abusing Bella, I could really go on forever), it also takes the worst kind of person as Astromaxis said and allows this creature to be held up as role model for young girls. It flirts with pedophilia, and in general takes the worse kind of behaviors in young adults, and says, "Do this and you will live happily ever after". This book is hardly childrens' lit, and even less young adult.

The other thing that bothers me to no end about the excuse of it being childrens' lit; is the fact that great works of fiction have come from childrens' literature, and even young adult lit. I have a very old copy of a book called "Tiger Eyes" which is considered young adult, and in it the female protaganist witnesses her father's death in a brutal manner, and has to cope with it. The timing is nice, the content while mature, is nothing that all young girls at her age aren't going through. Of course it's writen by Judy Blume, who is awesome at young adult fiction.

Maybe Twilight is a reflection of our times. Where once upon a time we demanded children and young adults think, and take responsiblity for their actions, we now just spoon feed them some trite romance, and tell them that if they whine like a baby for months on end they'll get what they want, no matter if it's healthy for them or not. Of course that's just my opinion; I could be wrong...

[Babak Movahed]

Man finally someone speaking the truth. Twilight is God awful and for reasons inexplicable to me no one on this forum seemed to say anything about it.

[kiki1982]

Of course not. It's a literature forum. However, what is literature is still being debated... :p

[Dekarto]

That trash literature has made millions of dollars so somebody obviously doesn't agree with you.

There is a difference between producing good literature and producing mainstream trash that teenage girls will adore. Twilight is successful because it touches the hearts of millions of stupid teenagers that wants to sleep with Edward. It doesn't have to be good to sell, because the audience obviously has no judgemental power when it comes to literature. Does the average 13 years old girl notice if what she is reading is bad literature or not? No. Therefore the Twilight series sells to people that are oblivious that the crappy **** that they are reading, really is crappy ****.

If you consider that the most genious writers of all time have not at all been appriciated before after their death, it becomes obvious that if we reverse this fact, writers that are popular during their lifetime, may not be great writers at all. This is the case for Stephenie Meyer.

[Ein]

The thing that throws me off is the adults reading it. Are they just reading it because of the spank bank material that the cast of the movie has provided, or do they truly think this is the next best thing since, "War and Peace"? I dunno it bothers me to think that grown people can be that illiterate to think this is a good book...

[dicer]

I wonder, would the writers among you write a Twilightesque (speaking of quality and audience) series if you could? I most definitely would, although I would do it under a pen name so no one in my daily life would recognise it as my work. Alas, I could not write it even such a story even if I tried. Somehow it is beyond me.

I have to say I did get quite wrapped up in the first two novels, even though I think you're constantly aware of how terrible the quality of writing is. I don't know how many times she described Edward or his features as 'perfect' or 'marble like' or some other such thing. And how he feels frequent need to lift Bella off the floor and carry her from the car to the door, from the door to the car. Yes, it is immensely stupid, but I cannot deny I liked it. But when you get to the third novel, I don't know whether the drug wore off or the quality got worse, but I didn't care anymore and it got quite boring. I can see why people enjoy the books, but I think they are only enjoyable when you are, as I say, totally into it, because as soon as you step away the entire thing just seems absurd. It's just like eating junk food really, because it tastes good but it doesn't really offer you anything and you're hungry right after.

[Astromaxis]

There is a difference between producing good literature and producing mainstream trash that teenage girls will adore. Twilight is successful because it touches the hearts of millions of stupid teenagers that wants to sleep with Edward. It doesn't have to be good to sell, because the audience obviously has no judgemental power when it comes to literature. Does the average 13 years old girl notice if what she is reading is bad literature or not? No. Therefore the Twilight series sells to people that are oblivious that the crappy **** that they are reading, really is crappy ****.

If you consider that the most genious writers of all time have not at all been appriciated before after their death, it becomes obvious that if we reverse this fact, writers that are popular during their lifetime, may not be great writers at all. This is the case for Stephenie Meyer.

Wise Words. Only a few writers have been popular during their lifetimes. Meyers is just wasting time. She has potential. So, she should write better stuff. In the opening of her book Host she said that her mother has said that the best stories or thing of life (sth like that) was love. Host started better but I heard it's the same Twilighty thing only with UFOs Or in this USBs (Unidentified Switching bodies) the concept was great! She made it stink I guess.