The main thing is that people love the books and that they get enjoyment out of them!
Printable View
The main thing is that people love the books and that they get enjoyment out of them!
The main thing is that people love the books and that they get enjoyment out of them!
Yes... and do you think that JBI or I read Dante or Shakespeare or Proust or T.S. Eliot for any reason but pleasure? The reality is that with experience (at least in my experience) one no longer finds much pleasure to be had in books that laden with tired plots, weak characters, mediocre use of language, and ridden with cliches. Personally I don't find much pleasure in trashy or fluffy books or music or art because they don't engage my mind and their attempts to manipulate my emotions are far too obvious. I can't imagine wasting my time when there are so many great books (and other works of art) still to be experienced and enjoyed.
And imprinting is also iffy...I think we oughta have a separate thread to discuss the more controversial stuff, as some people may not have read the whole saga. And not so I can say 'Ooh,this is an EVIL book!' just so I can see what other people think of the iffy parts.
The imprinting thing was iffy. At first the concept sounded kind of okay, until the whole think of imprinting on kids and babies... :sick:
This is one of the funniest threads on the board. :)
I see what you mean, but I think it's a very different kind of enjoyment. I take pleasure in reading both Shakespeare and Dante (Haven't read the other two yet, unfortunately) because they do engage my mind, but I also enjoy fluff for its ability to mindlessly distract me. It's a different kind of enjoyment that is just necessary (at least for me) sometimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
I see what you mean, but I think it's a very different kind of enjoyment. I take pleasure in reading both Shakespeare and Dante (Haven't read the other two yet, unfortunately) because they do engage my mind, but I also enjoy fluff for its ability to mindlessly distract me. It's a different kind of enjoyment that is just necessary (at least for me) sometimes.
The thing is... I find that there is enough art... books, paintings, music... that is not overly difficult... that is entertaining and magical and light... yet still never bores me or speaks down to me. There is Italo Calvino, and Mozart, and Puccini, and Monet, and Bonnard, and Paul Verlaine, and Checkoff, and Lewiss Carroll, and Heinrich Heine, etc... etc... so many that I cannot ever bother myself with pure fluff.
I don't mind fluff, as long as it admits it is.
I find myself agreeing both with you and stlukes.Quote:
Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*
Ultimately I'm somewhat of an elitist. I will choose Proust and Shakespeare over Stephen King or Stephanie Meyer in the long run, but occasional distractions are necessary.
Being somewhat of a film buff, I prefer watching classic films like Citizen Kane, 2001: A space odyssey over 300, or Spider-man 3, but occasional exersions into the cliche, weak, popular art is easier on the mind. Occasionally, I enjoy watching plots that are poor, acting peformances that are empty, and direction that is sloppy. This is more psychological than aesthetic.
With literature, I'm slightly different. I have not read a "crap" novel in perhaps about 5 years - I've soley dedicated myself to reading classics and well-recieved literature. This is because the reading of a novel usually takes much longer than watching a movie, and I simply don't have the time to waste reading some penny-dreadful. If I had fantastic mental capabilities and could read a book a day, this might be different, but as it stands, my time is valuable.
When I read literature, granted it is also for the story, but I generally enjoy it for the sense of understanding it gives me about other people.
When I read "fluff" I don't care for the characters, I just want to shut my head off and simply follow a story.
But honestly, thank god everyone is very different and that not everyone enjoys fluff - because it means there's more for me :)
Stephen King isn't crap though.
He shouldn't be listed next to Stephanie Meyer.
Also, I have a taste for horror.
And I find that it's satisfied by more modern day authors who aren't literary greats.
I'm not saying that horror these days is all fluffy stupidity. Most of the horror I read is intelligent and well thought out. Far from fluff.
Kelby that is a great idea I love to hear your idea's - don't always agree:D but love to hear them. In actualy fact you made me look at things a little differently when you pointed out a few points and that is always a great thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
Niamh do you think that we can open up another thread prehaps with a warning (might not be the right word) to discuss the imprinting and the baby for example -we were not sure JBI, Charm and myself is some of the topics may be out of bounds. Kelby has some great points to offer also.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niamh
Thanks
Jo
Welcome to the fun zone pull up a chair and be prepared to be entertained :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by MattG
PS what are your thoughts on the novels by the way - no need to be scared we will play nice - maybe;)
In the long run, I too, will choose to read Shakespeare over Stephenie Meyer. No question, if I had to pick one over the other. No question at all. As you say, it's an occasional distraction. I read the four of them quickly, and now have the reading of them out of my system. That doesn't mean that some other time when I require some fluff again I won't reread them, but for now I'm done. Back to what I was reading before. part of it also comes from what I study at school. As much as I love studying science, I find it really doesn't allow much in the way of creative thinking. With a heavy curriculum that's really destroying my imagination, I need something completely absurd.Quote:
Originally Posted by mayneverhave
That's funny, though, because when it comes to film I'm the opposite. I cannot stand to sit through a bad film.
Oh yeah, we're just a riot.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Joreads
Yeah, I'm surprised the book was, like, accepted because of that lol.
edit: imprinting, I mean.
OK guys I have checked with one of the lovely mods here and we have permission to discuss the baby, the imprinting and anything relating to the books. Lets be careful to keep it about the books I would hate for any of us to get in trouble and end up :bawling:.
haha excellentQuote:
Originally Posted by Joreads
I wish she hadn't had the baby. Straight up. It ruined my happy picture.
Good then! Well, apparently the point is that they're brainwashing teens with pro-life propaganda. Is that it? Sure looks like it anyway.
The birth of the baby didn't worry me so much as the imprinting of the babies did.Quote:
Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*
Why did the baby bother you? Actually it is kind of a Hollywood ending isn't it everyone gets what they want.
Because she and Edward were supposed to have a perfect obsessive teenage romance forever. And now they have responsibilities which ruins the perfection. Obviously, I like this story because of completely impossible it is in real life to have such a romance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joreads
The imprinting didn't bother me, really. There is no sexual desire while the child is that young. It's merely a caring uncle type thing.
Unlike a good number of the critics, I actually did read the first book. It was OK, the characters were a little young for me to really connect with both in literal age and in insight, but I don't have anything against it. I certainly wasn't compelled enough to go get the second book.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joreads
I think it's funny that Raymond Chandler, for example, wrote pulp & 'trash' before his work was considered literature. I'd wager that a lot of folks who find themselves shelved in the 'classics of literature' section would be surprised that their work is featured there were they alive to see it. Ask Harper Lee if you don't believe me. :D
I still think Raymond Chandler wrote pulp and trash, and I don't know many who consider him to be that great a literary mind, perhaps merely a significant developer of a genre that for the most part is pulp and trash.Quote:
Originally Posted by MattG
Well you're obviously much higher minded than I am. I do appreciate your willingness to descend for long enough to put me in my place though.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
OK I see where you are coming from now. I guess I can see that. IQuote:
Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*
Charm remember that Edward told Bella he did not want her to miss out on human things and she said she did not care? I liked the reversal when she found out about the baby she wanted the baby more than her life and Edward was the one that was concerned. That was why I liked that story line.
Matt you little devil you read the first book. They are a little young for me as well but I loved them. You know what I think this is a book for woman maybe can you guess why? Edward of course, He is a dream man - if you can over look one tiny floor he wanted to kill you. Why is it that woman love the bad boys?Quote:
Originally Posted by MattG
I know I promised not to post here, but I couldn't help but jumping in on this comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joreads
Some critics believe that the whole liking the bad boy is a gender role adopted by people because society creates that image. There has been a great deal of scholarship done on gender and sexuality as roles, rather than biological necessities, and for a great many of critics, the "she likes him because" is another way of saying "society makes her like him because," or "she pretends to like him because..."
The notion of women liking someone because of x or y is really societal more than biological or truthful. I think, up until about age 20 that may be so, but after that, when people begin to accept a more solidified sense of self, they kind of drift away from those notions, to the more nuanced.
I can see many critics, if they were writing criticism on these books, which they probably won't, take issue with this notion of female submission and male dominance. I know one poster has already razed the issue, so I am just going to throw it out there, as you know, at this point I could really care less, I just think this would take the book into an interesting angle, in terms of theme, symbol and allegory.
Yes, I do remember that. It wasn't the fact that she suddenly wanted a human experience that bothered me. It really was simply that suddenly she cared about something/someone more than she cared for Edward. :blush: I'm lame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joreads
Interesting point, but I have a hard time blaming everything on society.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Does society reflect the opinions/desires of individuals or does the individual adopt what is shown to him/her by society?
Maybe I'm just not ready to entirely give up my free will to the general opinion of the media and the masses, especially when it comes to attraction, etc.
But there is also evidence that women typically find themselves "attracted" to men who are similar in some way to the male authorities in their lives. Is that biological or societal?Quote:
The notion of women liking someone because of x or y is really societal more than biological or truthful. I think, up until about age 20 that may be so, but after that, when people begin to accept a more solidified sense of self, they kind of drift away from those notions, to the more nuanced.
I do, of course, acknowledge that society does impact what an individual finds attractive about another ("she likes him because"), but I wouldn't attribute the liking of the "bad boy" image to that. I'll admit that yes, that image is portrayed in the media as being attractive, but I think it's the female's reaction the whole "bad boy" thing that's important. What aspect of the "bad boy" is attractive?
I also wonder what you mean by truthful?
Yes, I agree that critics probably would take issue with the male dominance/female submission view. It's interesting though, because while it's typically women who have a problem with being portayed as weaker and submissive, it's the women readers who are so attracted to the idea of being submissive to a dominant male like Edward's character. Apparently, we like being weak and in need of protection.Quote:
I can see many critics, if they were writing criticism on these books, which they probably won't, take issue with this notion of female submission and male dominance. I know one poster has already razed the issue, so I am just going to throw it out there, as you know, at this point I could really care less, I just think this would take the book into an interesting angle, in terms of theme, symbol and allegory.
Well, I did read the first book, and I can tell you that despite the fact that JBI has only read three pages of the actual novels in addition to the Wikipedia pages, he has so far given us far more spot-on analysis of the novels than any of those who have read the whole series.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joreads
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Glad to have you back JBI.
You raise a very valid points there. So I guess the question is do you think Bella is submissive to Edward?. I am not sure I think that she is. In the third book she insists on seeing Jacob even though Edward doesn't want her to. I will admit that Edward is more than a little controlling with Bella but there are reasons for that, so I guess the question is does the "why" justify his actions.
I will admit that it didn't bother me so much but I can see how it would bother some people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*
And there we have it folks the nail has just been hit on the head. We like to feel protected, I am not so sure about weak though Charm. The other thing to consider here is that Bella is weaker than most of the characters in the book that she comes up against, even Jacob (apart from the humans of course). There is no way she could defend herself against James and the others she needs Edward and Alice to help her.
Lets also not forget that Bella walks into the ballet studio on her own to face James not knowing that Edward would be there to save her. I wouldn't call that weak.
Also in Breaking Dawn it is Bella's skill that protects Edward and everyone else in the clearing from Jane and her brother. Bella is in fact the reason she survives.
Haha Jo, actually that last sentence was said with a touch of sarcasm:rolleyes:. Obviously, no one wants to feel weak or in need of protection. I'll not argue with the fact that we do like to feel protected though. Whether or not she could have protected herself is really not of importance though- the point is that she has this guy who will do absolutely anything for her including risk his own life. I'm not saying that Bella is weak (as a person, this is not a commentary on the quality of the written character), just that she's a typical woman- she likes having a big strong man to save her. Who wouldn't?Quote:
Originally Posted by Joreads
Got you sorry about that my fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*
As for the strong man to save you feel free to send a few my way.:lol::lol: Oh can they look like Edward or is that asking for to much. Gee we have one track minds and it is only 12:30 in the afternoon here.
But...Quote:
Originally Posted by Arania
it is.
Yeah, it really is.Quote:
Originally Posted by limajean
And I love it:D
Whoo, I wish I had one for myself, let alone a few to send your way! Haha.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joreads
We really do have one track minds :p
I know there are a lot of Twilight fans out there who aren't necessarily hormone-driven teens, and I say this having read the books myself, but I found the entire "saga" to be nothing more than glorified amateur fiction. Kills your brain cells, to be honest.
See that's the problem - contemporary trends in literature, and I am talking specifically from a Canadian literary viewpoint, have been to go against these notions of damsel in distress, undercut them, and create a new image of independent female, or at least one as capable and strong as the "knight in shining armor" cliché fed out by, it would seem from your description, Twilight, and essentially every romance novel ever written.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joreads
I think the approach of "it's just a silly novel" is not a fair one, given that these novels most definitely have an impact, and perhaps are resetting, feminist notions. I don't think it would be too far a stretch to say the books don't approach, if not support, a patriarchal vision, or at least one with women as subordinate.
The notion of the woman needing rescuing, percieved through the novel as commentary, would connote a meaning of perhaps a necessity of male dominance, or male protectiveness, when really, I would think, especially for teenage women's literature, a viewpoint towards progress, or independence would be more suitable.
Ultimately the book shares many similarities with the Bildungsroman narrative, from what I understand, and for young women, and girls reading these novels, while furnishing their own identities, to be subjected to such close-minded a vision as the one you seem to equate with the book is perhaps a little bit disastrous in terms of progress.
The vision of Twilight, from my understanding, is one of female weakness, or perhaps one female's weakness, where protector men save the day, and good ol' fashion girls seem to be idealized for allowing the men to. It is a patriarchal vision from my understanding, and one agreeing with many religious, and political trends that seem to be heightened by American media, and to a lesser extent, world media.
You are operating under the fallacy that gender roles are interchangeable and that feminism is a striving for masculine equality rather than a liberty to be truly feminine in behavior. Simple sexual dimorphism should tell you that biologically men and women are not the same and should not act as if they were. Furthermore, you are assuming that traditional roles and behaviors are unnatural and the product of repressive societies as a given, instead of proving your underlying premise at the outset of your argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
"How can society be just when genetics are so manifestly unjust?"- Dr. James Watson, winner of the Nobel Prize, discoverer of DNA
Me to.Quote:
Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*
I was wondering what people would say was their favorite book from the series. For me it is Midnight Sun, I know it is not complete but I am including it anyway because well I can. I loved hearing what Edward was think and I love the way he makes fun of himself after he realises that he is in
love with Bella. "Feel the burn" is still my favorite of his saying to himself.
Also not all feminists hold that desiring a man as a life partner or hero figure is necessarily a weakness or bad thing. They should be free to go after whatever man they feel would fulfill their needs, and saying to them: "No man will fulfill your needs" may be true, but it's just imposing another stupid set of laws upon them.
Yes, and I remember a very convincing essay I read about how women shouldn't read books because their brains were smaller, and they may become physically ill and sometimes fatally do to their brains being filled past capacity with information.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Come on, you're smarter than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
I agree 100%. Also it is not about needing protection it is about knowing that someone is there who loves you enough to protect you if you need it. That to someone you are the most important thing in the world even more important than their own life. I don't think that means that I am not a feminist but if it does than so be it, I like being loved and feeling safe. We all need protecting every now and again, even men, be that from ourselves or someone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mopey Droney
Yeah, I was being ironic. I was merely pointing out the silliness of this notion. To quote the Canadian poet Milton Acorn, when asked if he was a Chauvinist, "Absolutely, I believe the feminine sex is vastly superior."Quote:
Originally Posted by Mopey Droney
The notion of female subversiveness is, though not an open shut issue, still not one that can be reduced to "women are biologically weaker, therefore should be dominated/subject to patriarchal control." Such notions are dated, and I think any liberal person, or better yet, any progressive person, can agree that both sexes deserve equal treatment.
Charm
I am listening to the sound track for Twilight at the moment. I didn't realise that the guy that plays Edward - sorry the name escapes me - actually wrote some songs for the movie. He actually does a pretty good job I quite like the song. I will find out the name and post it later. I left the cover at the other end of the house.