Twilight

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limajean

No i didnt mean to make it sound like that, i'm making reference to the people i personally have spoken to.
I wasnt meaning anyone on this board, it just made me think of people i know who refer to austen frequently, when she was mentioned.

---

Maybe me, as I generally esteem Austen as the mother of all English novelists, and the best one of the lot. In truth though, Austen is often misunderstood, or simply not understood, and in truth, many only read Pride and Prejudice, and skip her other works.

Austen relies primarily on Irony as her trope of choice for conveying meanings, and many people, especially now when our society has been so desensitized to irony, easily miss this. There are those that read the books purely for their plot, and see what romance authors see - a love story. But when it comes down to it, and you read Northanger Abbey, you may notice that Austen may say they get married and live happily ever after, but the ending itself can easily be interpreted, and with some cause, as a large irony, mocking the reader herself, and meaning no such thing.

On that notion, to what extent does Twilight bend. If we were to try and analyze it, we would need first to consider its major devices. First, the book seems reliant on allegory. We must question what the vampire represents, what it represents in relation to our culture, and what it represents in relation to the tradition. From there we must see how Meyer handles the concept, and how original its execution is. The notion of the vegetarian vampire, though I cannot verify it, I believe originates with the terribly repetitive Anne Rice, in Interview with a Vampire. On that level, that concept isn't new, but what of the romance of the vampire?

I think that to is established, though generally not at a teen level, which I think is what is the appeal. Perhaps that is the most significant feature of the work, but on the whole it is a cliché allegory for the sexual prowess of the vampire to his victim, the innocent girl.

But don't worry kids, they get married first, so despite the indulgence, it's all legal. If that isn't typically American - and I mean that in the sense of the religiousness and in the teenage culture sense - I don't know what is. You wonder why it sells - all that is repressed sexually within primitive society justified within a legal Christian frame to allow the pregnant teenager to become a heroine, and the attractive jock a knight in shining armor, with oh you guessed it! Wings! - oh, how wonderful - I see why it is so much fun.

Seriously I'm kind of fooling around here, as I have only read reviews, and seen the chimerical commercials, and read the Wikipedia articles quickly, as well as talked to some friends (mind the polysyndeton), so I guess I cannot comment, other than say the first 3 or so pages that I read had detestable prose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Remarkable

Is the movie "Twilight" just about the first book,or is it the whole thing?In the library here I have found only "Breaking Dawn" but I'm not really sure if it's any good.I also found "The Host" but I'm not sure for that either.Since my finances are a bit low for the moment and I'm trying to save,I'm thinking about making some arrangements like reading classics online and buyng only what really catches my eye...

---

The movie, I believe, is based on the first book.

The Movie is based on the first book of the same title. Breaking Dawn is the fourth book and The Host is a seperate one altogether, completely unrelated.

Yeah,I know about "Breaking Dawn" and "The Host",I simply cannot make up my mind on which to get...

JBI wins thread.

well.. you dont get breaking dawn unless you read the three that come before that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mopey Droney

JBI wins thread.

---

Why because he is commenting on something that he hasn't read?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mopey Droney

JBI wins thread.

---

:lol: JBI pwns. :D

Personally, I'd rather not waste the time in reading this book...I have some Dostoevsky yet to read (perhaps some Austen :lol:).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dori

:
Personally, I'd rather not waste the time in reading this book...I have some Dostoevsky yet to read (perhaps some Austen :lol:).

---

Dori there is nothing wrong with that if you don't feel that Twilight would be to your liking. But how can you review or critise something that you have not fully read or only read three pages or reviews on. You are right it is not a master piece and will it still be read in 50 years time probably not but that does not mean that some of us can not read the book now, enjoy it and take something away from it.

If people are going to dump on the book and those of us that have read it and liked it at least read it first so you have some basis for doing so.

Now I am getting down of my soap box and packing it away.:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joreads

Dori there is nothing wrong with that if you don't feel that Twilight would be to your liking. But how can you review or critise something that you have not fully read or only read three pages or reviews on. You are right it is not a master piece and will it still be read in 50 years time probably not but that does not mean that some of us can not read the book now, enjoy it and take something away from it.

If people are going to dump on the book and those of us that have read it and liked it at least read it first so you have some basis for doing so.

Now I am getting down of my soap box and packing it away.:lol:

---

I merely said I didn't want to waste my time---my precious time. Life is too short to read outside of my interests. :D

(Edit: Okay, I did make other remarks, but I was just having little fun. :D)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dori

I merely said I didn't want to waste my time---my precious time. Life is too short to read outside of my interests. :D

(Edit: Okay, I did make other remarks, but I was just having little fun. :D)

---

That is OK you are still one of my favorites. Is this our first Lit Nit fight my friend?;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joreads

That is OK you are still one of my favorites. Is this our first Lit Nit fight my friend?;)

---

I'm not sure. I was smiling the whole time so... :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dori

I'm not sure. I was smiling the whole time so... :D

---

Well that is good to know. I am smiling to;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joreads

Thanks MattG. I love the twilight series actually and I am by no means a teenager and they are not my only guilty pleasures either;)

---

Well you left yourself wide open for an innuendo attack but I'll let you off the hook (this time). :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MattG

Well you left yourself wide open for an innuendo attack but I'll let you off the hook (this time). :D

---

I am getting into more trouble in this thread than the whole time I have been here. Maybe it is time to bow out gracefully - oh who am I kidding:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*

I won't go so far as to say the writing is good. There is some really terrible sentence structure and a TON of grammatical errors, but for some reason I was completely sucked in by them.

Sadly, I put Anna Karenina aside to read them haha. I wanted some fluff for my Christmas break, and I thoroughly enjoyed them.

---

If you thoroughly enjoyed them, why not forget Anna Karenina altogether and dedidcate your life to reading trash?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

If you thoroughly enjoyed them, why not forget Anna Karenina altogether and dedidcate your life to reading trash?

---

Because we can read both and enjoy both or at least I can. Not that I am admitting that they are trash either, one mans trash is anothers treasure is it not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

If you thoroughly enjoyed them, why not forget Anna Karenina altogether and dedidcate your life to reading trash?

---

You're kidding me, right?

I was entertained by them, sure, but I have no intention of reading fluff for the rest of my life. I'm not saying I'm not enjoying Anna Karenina, just that I felt like reading something I didn't have to think about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*

You're kidding me, right?

I was entertained by them, sure, but I have no intention of reading fluff for the rest of my life. I'm not saying I'm not enjoying Anna Karenina, just that I felt like reading something I didn't have to think about.

---

I am not suggesting that anyone spend all of their time reading heavyweight novels such as Anna Karenina; there is plenty of lighter fiction to choose from as an alternative and, of course, it's entirely up to you what you choose to read. But teenage vampires! You're kidding me right?

Meh, novels for the most part are lightweight trash. It is almost accidental that they were taken seriously to begin with. As it is though, there are ones worth reading, but for the most part to find good novels requires digging, and I don't mean good, as in the it one a Pulitzer therefore it is good, I mean truly good, worth remembering.

It's a shame that people here seem to read only novels, and for half of the posters, only classic ones, and even further, only English language classic ones. Reading Twilight is just taking it to the next level - indulging in condensed cliché damasked with traditional American values. Though, I hear the last one has a birthing scene gory enough to turn most teenage girls abstinent.

Hooray! What a wonderful way to start the New Year. I just took the Twilight IQ test and qualified for the Twilight Ringtones.
What more could anybody want? I will have to get a mobile phone after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limajean

I find it interesting ( and funny ) that people , and i see this a lot, will say something like..
Oh i read "such and such" i mean i KNOW it doesn't compare to an author like AUSTEN.

It's almost becoming to the point where anyone can call themselves part of the "literature culture" because they've read Pride and Prejudice.
Sadly, the same has come of Shakespeare.

It really shows that you haven't read a whole lot of literature when people use Austen to constantly compare novels too, ( from what i have discovered anyway )

---

I entirely agree! You ask your average teen to name a classic female author, they say Austen, maybe Charlotte Bronte because they think she wrote all the Bronte novels. Ask them to name a male one, they say Dickens. Ask them to name a playwright, they say Shakespeare.

They like to use it as some excuse to show that Twilight is obviously well-written as they like it and they like Austen. I like to remind them that the only classics the 'intelligent' people have read are the obvious ones- I'm not even sure if they enjoyed them, though they claim to.

You couldn't tolerate Breaking Dawn if you hadn't read the previous three

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

You couldn't tolerate Breaking Dawn if you hadn't read the previous three

---

I heard most fans and trash-critics were disappointed as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

If you thoroughly enjoyed them, why not forget Anna Karenina altogether and dedidcate your life to reading trash?

---

Just because a lot of us have enjoyed the Twilight series, does not mean that entertaining novels are all we should read. I read an awful lot of books a year and they are across a very broad spectrum. And its not just novels, its Drama as well and poetry. If i am in the mood for something light i'll read something light, if i'm in the mood for a classic i'll read a classic.
I will openly admit there are some "classics" out there that i personal found boring and droll, and someone else might think it was great. In saying that some people are going to enjoy what you consider as trash, and yet i for one would not criticise someone else for liking what i dont, and i for one would not insinuate that because they do like that book, they should stick to that type of book as they are obviously not worthy to read anything else.
We are all individual, so therefore we all have individual tastes and needs and what one person sees as a literary nourishment, someone else doesnt. We do not all eat and like the same food, clothes, music, so why should we be criticised for not liking the same books? What a boring existance we would have if we all liked the same things.

I seriously hate Twilight.

I am also probably the only person that hates Twilight.


Not altogether because it's badly written. Its writing is mediocre. Not bad, not great. The plot is okay, but the book is very bare [I actually enjoyed the film more than the book- which seemed full because it included everything in the book, plainly because they had to since the plot was so bare] and the hype portrayed it as, like, another Harry Potter so you expected it to be fantastic and it...wasn't.
The cumulation of being disappointed, the thin plot, and the mediocre writing just put it off for me. Okay, maybe I should use the world "hate". I don't hate it. But I'm not a fan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Maybe me, as I generally esteem Austen as the mother of all English novelists, and the best one of the lot. In truth though, Austen is often misunderstood, or simply not understood, and in truth, many only read Pride and Prejudice, and skip her other works.

Austen relies primarily on Irony as her trope of choice for conveying meanings, and many people, especially now when our society has been so desensitized to irony, easily miss this. There are those that read the books purely for their plot, and see what romance authors see - a love story. But when it comes down to it, and you read Northanger Abbey, you may notice that Austen may say they get married and live happily ever after, but the ending itself can easily be interpreted, and with some cause, as a large irony, mocking the reader herself, and meaning no such thing.

On that notion, to what extent does Twilight bend. If we were to try and analyze it, we would need first to consider its major devices. First, the book seems reliant on allegory. We must question what the vampire represents, what it represents in relation to our culture, and what it represents in relation to the tradition. From there we must see how Meyer handles the concept, and how original its execution is. The notion of the vegetarian vampire, though I cannot verify it, I believe originates with the terribly repetitive Anne Rice, in Interview with a Vampire. On that level, that concept isn't new, but what of the romance of the vampire?

I think that to is established, though generally not at a teen level, which I think is what is the appeal. Perhaps that is the most significant feature of the work, but on the whole it is a cliché allegory for the sexual prowess of the vampire to his victim, the innocent girl.

But don't worry kids, they get married first, so despite the indulgence, it's all legal. If that isn't typically American - and I mean that in the sense of the religiousness and in the teenage culture sense - I don't know what is. You wonder why it sells - all that is repressed sexually within primitive society justified within a legal Christian frame to allow the pregnant teenager to become a heroine, and the attractive jock a knight in shining armor, with oh you guessed it! Wings! - oh, how wonderful - I see why it is so much fun.

Seriously I'm kind of fooling around here, as I have only read reviews, and seen the chimerical commercials, and read the Wikipedia articles quickly, as well as talked to some friends (mind the polysyndeton), so I guess I cannot comment, other than say the first 3 or so pages that I read had detestable prose.

---

I know exactly how Austen writes, and would never dare to say she is a "romantic writer".
I've read all of her works so yes, i know

You say you haven't read twilight? to be honest, there is no need to analyze it. Its clear that Meyer wrote it simply to tell a story. Not to make a statement, not to present us with an idea - but to tell a story. At least, that's how i interpret it. I mean, to me its like asking what the meaning of Harry Potter is. You just cant go into it that deep.

I doubt that you could truly enjoy both Tolstoy and Stephene Meyer. They are of such different levels and you cannot appreciate both equally.

I also think that, if one boasts of reading an awful lot of books, one should model their grammar on that of the many books of which they are so proud of having read.

It really depends on the type of person you are.
Me? i absolutely love classics, i love all forms of literature, but fluff.. i mean come on, there's room for that in everybody's life.

For some, older readers, it's Twilight. Your fluff might not be my fluff - and vice versa, but its fluff for all i care.
And i LIKE, fluff.

Also - think about how many different age groups are probably posting on this board..
of course a 50yr old male isn't going to like a book like Twilight.

Hell, if you look at my bookcase you'll see it lined with hundreds of great books, look a little closer behind those books and you'll find sci fi novels with titles like "spooksville"..

Trash, is good.

Meyer has a great talent for entertaining. She can tell a story, and she tells it well. She doesn't need to be a literary great.

Lol, no way was Austen a romanticist. She was actually very much alike to Ann Bronte, whose sisters were definately romantic novelists, but who wrote in a very 'to the point' style which encapsulated quiet wit and a certain dignity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allannah

I doubt that you could truly enjoy both Tolstoy and Stephene Meyer. They are of such different levels and you cannot appreciate both equally.

I also think that, if one boasts of reading an awful lot of books, one should model their grammar on that of the many books of which they are so proud of having read.

---

I think one should pull that gigantic stick out of their *** - before they start talking trash about people they don't even know.

I don't know if the grammar comment was aimed at me or not, but it was quite ridiculous regardless. My best friend can't spell very well and she has read more books than anyone else I know.

You don't think one can enjoy Tolstoy and Meyer?
You're joking, right?
They serve different purposes - it doesn't mean they can't be enjoyable.

It's like a movie - do you only watch one kind of movie?
No, probably not, same goes for books. And honestly, you can't have read that much or enjoy that many if you think two different types of writers can't be enjoyed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limajean

You say you haven't read twilight? to be honest, there is no need to analyze it. Its clear that Meyer wrote it simply to tell a story. Not to make a statement, not to present us with an idea - but to tell a story. At least, that's how i interpret it. I mean, to me its like asking what the meaning of Harry Potter is. You just cant go into it that deep.

---

Well, teens tend toward thinking that they are immortal as a general matter of course. Any insurance agent who has to insure one to drive will tell you that.

I sort of took it as a play on perceived immortality vs literal immortality. I think folks who are of the younger ilk (generally speaking of course) will perhaps identify with immortality a bit more than an older person who has perhaps been exposed to a greater amount of mortality in life. Speaking for myself, I KNOW I used to think I was indestructible until life stepped in and proved to me that I was far from it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allannah

Lol, no way was Austen a romanticist. She was actually very much alike to Ann Bronte, whose sisters were definately romantic novelists, but who wrote in a very 'to the point' style which encapsulated quiet wit and a certain dignity.

---

That's what I meant. She isn't a romanticist, and she is often misunderstood.
People write her off as Chick - Lit. I don't enjoy her work that much, but it's clear from a mile away she isn't a romantic writer. She uses satire and irony.

Also Allannah, saying you have read a lot of books in my opinion, isn't boasting.

Especially on a literature website...

I thought the books themselves were poop. The story was redundant, and there was nothing new or interesting to them. The writing style wasn't spectacular. And the only reason this has become as big as it has is not because it is particularily epic, but because it has something teen can identify with (you tell me what, I'm 17 but I've never been a big 'teen literature' person), and because the 'goth-vampire-werewolve-lovestory' genre has become much more marketable and fad.

>.<

Too many people don't give the books a chance because they're snobs. I read Twilight when it first came out, hoping for something along the lines of Anne Rice's work and was sorely disappointed. True romanticism lies in oh, The Vampire Lestat, vs... Edward and Bella... I gave the book a chance and was disappointed.

Blarg. It also doesn't bode well for anybody arguing against the fact that the series is a teen fad that there is a conversation in this thread with regards to who is the better partner for Bella. =/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MattG

Well, teens tend toward thinking that they are immortal as a general matter of course. Any insurance agent who has to insure one to drive will tell you that.

I sort of took it as a play on perceived immortality vs literal immortality. I think folks who are of the younger ilk (generally speaking of course) will perhaps identify with immortality a bit more than an older person who has perhaps been exposed to a greater amount of mortality in life. Speaking for myself, I KNOW I used to think I was indestructible until life stepped in and proved to me that I was far from it.

---

Look - i don't know, i think some people are really looking to deep in to it.
I don't think on it too much. To me it was a good story, not a fantastic read, but i'm glad it was to the liking of a lot of other people.

Reading back further in the thread and seeing 'fluff' comments.

We're all allowed to read trash sometimes.

Twilight. Is. Trash.

(That's okay!! We're allowed trash! I'm just saying, it certainly isn't an up and coming literary classic!)

Quote:

---

You say you haven't read twilight? to be honest, there is no need to analyze it. Its clear that Meyer wrote it simply to tell a story. Not to make a statement, not to present us with an idea - but to tell a story. At least, that's how i interpret it. I mean, to me its like asking what the meaning of Harry Potter is. You just cant go into it that deep.

---

Ah, but sadly, you can go that deep. Even a book like Twilight is open to interpretation... in fact, like any work of writing, it must be interpreted, at some level, merely to be comprehensible.

And JBI, I'd say you pretty much hit the mark pretty closely with your analysis. I have read Twilight, and the book can be summed up as a kind of literary safe sex for the Young Adult crowd. Twilight is basically only about sex, all of the repressed kind.

I'm not sure if Edward the vampire qualifies as "allegory". It's too obvious for that... he doesn't represent the dangerous, attractive bad boy, he is the dangerous attractive bad boy. It's Bram Stoker, updated and sanitized. Instead of representing a dark, Eastern, threatening kind of male sexuality, predatory and deadly, the vampire in Meyer's book is a pretty and politically corrected boy. You can practically smell the hair gel and the Axe body spray.

Problem is, the book is only superficially politically correct. And this is where the perils of unavoidable analysis come in-- at least they did for me. Read superficially, it's a fun story, full of romance and the bubbly enthusiasm of youth. But there's a bad smell underlying it all.

Because Bella is a girl attracted to a beautiful, dangerous, moody, unstable and unpredictable boy who can break her in half. And she is attracted to him precisely because he can break her in half. She doesn't know this of course, and I suspect that I, the reader, am not supposed to notice this either.

Problem is, I did.

To limajean;
Okay, okay. I hereby remove the stick and formally offer you my apologies. I was being unnecessarily picky. All better now? (:

Yes, I'm being serious. I think that you're misinterpreting me or choosing not to understand the obvious. When you read two books of such different levels, you, if not conciously, subconciously compare both- in this case, Twilight unfavourably, because it's so evidently lacking. You can enjoy them both- but you will not enjoy them to the same degree; I think that this is how I should have made it clearer. And appreciation, of course, contributes to enjoyment..
You're actually right- I haven't read half as many books as I should have- but you wouldn't have been able to deduce that from the opinion that I expressed in the post to which you were referring, for I think we were thinking in different contexts (:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allannah

I doubt that you could truly enjoy both Tolstoy and Stephene Meyer. They are of such different levels and you cannot appreciate both equally.

---

In what sense do you believe that? I think it is very easy for someone to enjoy both. It is for me and for many others here on litnet. But then again a lot of people do tend to stick to mainly one genre or just classics. But as i've said many times here over the last few years, each to their own.

haha true.

That book is ah.. pulsing?
with sexual tension :\

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allannah

To limajean;
Okay, okay. I hereby remove the stick and formally offer you my apologies. I was being unnecessarily picky. All better now? (:

Yes, I'm being serious. I think that you're misinterpreting me or choosing not to understand the obvious. When you read two books of such different levels, you, if not conciously, subconciously compare both- in this case, Twilight unfavourably, because it's so evidently lacking. You can enjoy them both- but you will not enjoy them to the same degree; I think that this is how I should have made it clearer. And appreciation, of course, contributes to enjoyment..
You're actually right- I haven't read half as many books as I should have- but you wouldn't have been able to deduce that from the opinion that I expressed in the post to which you were referring, for I think we were thinking in different contexts (:

---

Really? it's been removed? Good, because you were looking a little out of place there...


Yes i agree with that.
However, comparing Tolstoy and Meyer is like comparing apples and oranges..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limajean

I think one should pull that gigantic stick out of their *** - before they start talking trash about people they don't even know.

I don't know if the grammar comment was aimed at me or not, but it was quite ridiculous regardless. My best friend can't spell very well and she has read more books than anyone else I know.

You don't think one can enjoy Tolstoy and Meyer?
You're joking, right?
They serve different purposes - it doesn't mean they can't be enjoyable.

It's like a movie - do you only watch one kind of movie?
No, probably not, same goes for books. And honestly, you can't have read that much or enjoy that many if you think two different types of writers can't be enjoyed.

---

imajean I agree with you I am a terrible speller always have been and I read a lot also. My grammar is not much better I am sure, it has nothing to do with how many books you read believe me.

I have read both Tolstoy and Meyer and I enjoyed them both but for very different reasons. Lets not forget that they are very different books and is it really fair to compare them? What purpose is there to reading the same type of books all the time regardless of what they are. I read books for many different reasons but one of them is to escape and another is to extend myself and they require very different types of books.

By the way JBI the birthing scene is pretty bad but it is a small part of the book and quickly forgotten when the action between Bella and Edwards heats up. For the record birthing doesn't always go well for us non vampires if that was enough to turn women off the population would be in a lot of trouble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limajean

comparing Tolstoy and Meyer is like comparing apples and oranges..

---

Now that is a very true statement. Its almost like trying to compare an epic fantasy book to chick lit.