# Reading > General Literature >  Twilight

## Arania

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.

----------


## xIAxEllax

I felt the exact same way. For days i could not concentrate on any one thing in particular as i was hoping if i closed my eyes and wished enough, i could find my self in rainy forks oregon looking into the dangerously seductive eyes of Edward and falling faster and faster into the liquid velvety softness of his voice, i could also relate to the character bella in so many ways, shes shy, a new kid, and has a taste for the dangerous side of life. she wants to live on the edge and be with the one person that could destroy her. It took all i could to pull myself away.

----------


## The Nights Wing

I also agree with everything you said! I reread both Twighlight and New Moon so many times. I read them about six times each in one week-the second I ended I restarted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

----------


## BroadwayBaby

I agree! I read them both about 5 times, and I thought I would hate them at first (my cousin got them for me for christmas) but I read Twilight on a plane trip (we were going to Bermuda) and instantly fell in love...

----------


## soulsistachick

I think eclipse is the best book so far in the series with twilight running a close second.... But New Moon has too much Jacob-Bella times in it!

----------


## browneyedbailey

There is a book called _Twilight_ written by Stephenie Meyer. Has any body read it? What do you think of Edward? 

*NO SPOILERS!!*

----------


## NikolaiI

Is it anything like _Twilight of the Idols_?  :Biggrin: 
hehe, sorry :|

----------


## browneyedbailey

I don't know what that is. Sorry

----------


## Zelly

Yeah. I've read it. And New Moon. And most of Eclipse. I'm good for discussion. PM me. I don't really know how to talk about it without spoilers. 

As to Edward. I honestly like Jakob better at this point. Edwards cool, but he's honestly a pain sometimes.

----------


## browneyedbailey

I have't met him yet. I'm just now to the part where they're looking at the cross Charlise's father carved.

----------


## Bakiryu

> Yeah. I've read it. And New Moon. And most of Eclipse. I'm good for discussion. PM me. I don't really know how to talk about it without spoilers. 
> 
> As to Edward. I honestly like Jakob better at this point. Edwards cool, but he's honestly a pain sometimes.


Yay! someone elese agrees with me!

Edwards is so annoying in the book something, but Jacob's character is so much more interesting.

I won't say anything else, since I don't want to spoil the book for you but........

THEY'RE MAKING A MOVIE ABOUT IT! *[insert ear-splitting, girlish squeal here]*

----------


## browneyedbailey

Ditto! I personally ADODRE Edward! I want to meet my Edward. I have a crush on him.

----------


## Bakiryu

> Ditto! I personally ADODRE Edward! I want to meet my Edward. I have a crush on him.


he sounds too unreal. Jacob is way better, trust me  :Biggrin:

----------


## browneyedbailey

I refuse to belive it! I LOVE EDWARD!! La-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la...

----------


## Zelly

I love Edward too. But Jaccob. (I listened to the books, so I don't know the spelling, *blush*) is soooo awesome. Plus, he's warm. One of my friends made a joke about how you'd want Edward in the summer and Jacob in the winter.

And Baki! YESH! THE MOVIE! EEE! =D

----------


## browneyedbailey

I stand firm with Edward!! I refuse to belive otherwise. Jacob is weird and I don't think he likes Bella as much as Edward LOVES her. Edward would do ANYTHING for Bella. He couldn't live without her. He said that "I would find out some way to kill myself to be with you Bella. I would do anything. I can't live without you. I love you." Jacob wouldn't do OR say that. I don't like his dad Billy either.

----------


## Nightshade

Humm I havent read the book but strange thing ( funny?) about our copy ( I work in a library).
Our copy was accidently misshelved or possibly it was on the just in shelf but anyway this really old lady picked it up and read it and _loved_ it. 
And it just made me think how many people missout on a book they might love because they never see past the classification.

----------


## n_maw

I just could never see what Bella saw in Edward. I didn't think he was that interesting. How could you cuddle up to somebody like that? Now Jacob, I could get into. I loved the scene in the tent. So nice and warm. Warm vs. cold, I'd go warm and cuddly any day.

----------


## Zelly

> I just could never see what Bella saw in Edward. I didn't think he was that interesting. How could you cuddle up to somebody like that? Now Jacob, I could get into. I loved the scene in the tent. So nice and warm. Warm vs. cold, I'd go warm and cuddly any day.


I completely agree, yus yus. 

I like Edward. But he's so... I really can't find any other word... Annoying... I mean... Like when he leaves in New Moon, he just seems like he's being a pain. Almost reacting to his own insecurities. And he's a know-it-all. Blah. I just don't like him as much as I used to. Jacob is so much more snuggly. =)

----------


## browneyedbailey

I HAVEN'T READ NEW MOON! DON'T TALK! la la la la la la............... *annoyingly carries on*

----------


## Bakiryu

*Now guys: DON'T SPOIL THE BOOK FOR BAILEY!*




> I stand firm with Edward!! I refuse to belive otherwise. Jacob is weird and I don't think he likes Bella as much as Edward LOVES her. Edward would do ANYTHING for Bella. He couldn't live without her. He said that "I would find out some way to kill myself to be with you Bella. I would do anything. I can't live without you. I love you." Jacob wouldn't do OR say that. I don't like his dad Billy either.


Yes he would.

Edwards sounds too much like a psycho.

----------


## browneyedbailey

NO!! I refuse to belive what you say!! lalalalalalalalalalalalalala

----------


## n_maw

> I HAVEN'T READ NEW MOON! DON'T TALK! la la la la la la............... *annoyingly carries on*


If you haven't read _New Moon_ than you haven't even gotten into Jacob's character. _New Moon_ and _Eclipse_ is where we truly get into the Edward vs. Jacob debate. Once you read it then you'll get it. 

By the way, they have started casting for the movie and only one more year to go before _Breaking Dawn_ comes out!

----------


## browneyedbailey

I know! I'm reading _New Moon_ now. EDWARD LEAVES!! HOW COULD HE DO THAT!! HE LOVES BELLA!! I'M GONNA FLIP!!


 :Flare:  AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

----------


## Bakiryu

> I know! I'm reading _New Moon_ now. EDWARD LEAVES!! HOW COULD HE DO THAT!! HE LOVES BELLA!! I'M GONNA FLIP!!
> 
> 
>  AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!


*
Ha!*


i told ya so, I told ya so! [insert I told you dance here]  :Biggrin:

----------


## Ocelot

I love Edward, in a way. But I also love Jacob. I've read Twilight and New Moon. I'm waiting for my library to give me Eclipse. =( But yeah, I don't know. I like them both. Jacob is becoming more likeable the further into the series it goes. I'm gonna have to see how that works out. Edward is awesome, but he can also be _such a pain_. So, I don't know yet. We'll see after I've read Eclipse whether he or Jacob is better. For now I just can't wait to see what happens next.

----------


## Zelly

Jacob. <333

----------


## Bakiryu

*Edges away letting the fangirls fight it out while concealing secret fangirlsm for Jasper*

----------


## Zelly

>.< 

Even though he's evil.. I kinda liked Laurent.

----------


## Ocelot

> *Edges away letting the fangirls fight it out while concealing secret fangirlsm for Jasper*


Oooooh, I kinda liked Jasper too.

----------


## browneyedbailey

I do 2, and Emmet. but mostly Edward. now to flip: JAKE IS A WAREWOLF?!?!?!?! HOW DID THIS COME TO PLAY?!?!?! AHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! I knew something was wrong when Bella described his body temperature! I'm just to the part where she finds out what her dream means. I knew Lawrence wouldn't listen to Carlisle.

----------


## Zelly

Did anyone else not see that coming? I guessed from the first book... Even though apparently Stephenie Meyer didn't plan on it... I figured Jake was gonna be a werewolf...

----------


## browneyedbailey

Edward's back!! Yay!!




> I just could never see what Bella saw in Edward. I didn't think he was that interesting. How could you cuddle up to somebody like that? Now Jacob, I could get into. I loved the scene in the tent. So nice and warm. Warm vs. cold, I'd go warm and cuddly any day.


I like the cold :Cold:  . Besides, too much heat  :Flare:  and I act weird. If it were for Edward, it's totally worth it.




> Jacob. <333


motherhubbard didn't know what <333 meant.




> Oooooh, I kinda liked Jasper too.


amen!

I was thinking and I noticed how selfish Jake is, asking Bella who she likes, Forcing her to hold her hand, But Edward doesn't do that at all unless he's really hurting. And Bella understands. I just think that Edward is more respectfull of Bella. Jake is soooo self centered. Just wanted to point that out.

----------


## Zelly

> I was thinking and I noticed how selfish Jake is, asking Bella who she likes, Forcing her to hold her hand, But Edward doesn't do that at all unless he's really hurting. And Bella understands. I just think that Edward is more respectfull of Bella. Jake is soooo self centered. Just wanted to point that out.


I think the Stephenie Meyer is making a point there, Jake is much more human that Edward. I'm just saying, that under normal circumstances, Edward would be like that too. *sigh* I musn't give the books away. >.< I agree, Edward is better about that. But I wouldn't want to go out with someone who was that perfect. I did at one time, and it was too hard for me. When you are the only one who makes mistakes in a relationship, things don't usually work.

----------


## n_maw

> But I wouldn't want to go out with someone who was that perfect. I did at one time, and it was too hard for me. When you are the only one who makes mistakes in a relationship, things don't usually work.


This is exactly why I couldn't get into the whole Edward thing. Too perfect, therefore too boring. Where was any of the fun? Things are way to tense and stressful in their relationship. I mean when could you ever relax if your boyfriend wanted to kill you all the time. 

Sounds like browneyedbailey has an infatuation with Edward. :Wink:  I really like watching your reactions. My mother in law is reading the book right now, can't wait to discuss it with her. We read this series for my book club. I loved the debate over if it was you, who would you choose? I'd still choose Jacob any day. Bella was truly "herself" with Jacob, he brought out her true relaxed, fun character vs. uptight, stressed out character with Edward. She really is two different people with each character.

----------


## browneyedbailey

Zelly, I'm now waiting on Eclpipse. I'm done with New Moon.




> This is exactly why I couldn't get into the whole Edward thing. Too perfect, therefore too boring. Where was any of the fun? Things are way to tense and stressful in their relationship. I mean when could you ever relax if your boyfriend wanted to kill you all the time. 
> 
> Sounds like browneyedbailey has an infatuation with Edward. I really like watching your reactions. My mother in law is reading the book right now, can't wait to discuss it with her. We read this series for my book club. I loved the debate over if it was you, who would you choose? I'd still choose Jacob any day. Bella was truly "herself" with Jacob, he brought out her true relaxed, fun character vs. uptight, stressed out character with Edward. She really is two different people with each character.


sure, we'll debate. Bella doesn't like Jacob but she really likes Edward. Bella loves him and at this point ( because of the Volorti) she can't really stop.

----------


## n_maw

> sure, we'll debate. Bella doesn't like Jacob but she really likes Edward. Bella loves him and at this point ( because of the Volorti) she can't really stop.



Just wait until the next book . . .

----------


## Zelly

*drum roll* =P

I agree with you, N_maw, two different people.

I can see that both Jacob and Edward have they're good qualities. I just think that I would go for Jacob over Edward.. But that's just a personal preference.

----------


## browneyedbailey

You know what I think?
EDWARD!!! :Biggrin: 

I also like Jasper and Emmet




> Just wait until the next book . . .


well that's what I'm forced now. fy friend can't give me his book to read now because we don't see eachother 'till Jan 3rd. *sighs* oh well.

----------


## n_maw

I let my mother in law read Twilight and New Moon over the Christmas holidays. She LOVED them both. Even though I've read Eclipse, I don't own it, so she wasn't able to finish. She's got 90 people ahead of her at the library with only 4 copies. She was so upset!

----------


## Wallnutters

omg! i wish i found this thread earlier! i loooooooooooove the books, the whole series. i cant believe the ending of eclipse, though. the fourth promises to be good. i must say though, i enjoy edward more. the way he's so gentlemanly and kind just makes me and my friends so giddy. i wasnt too happy with new moon, since it wasnt as edward-filled as twilight though by the middle of eclipse, i felt so strongly for him. hes really the kind of guy that any normal girl would fall in love with, in a normal world. i love the act that jake is a werewolf, it really creates opposites for bella to choose from. (and i also love that poem at the beginning of eclipse, "fire and ice".. i would rather choose fire >.<) 
but ever since i had a dream involving jasper, ive been in love with him. though it would suck with his ability to manipulate your feelings. 
anyways, between the two, i would choose edward because hes just overall a great guy. jacob is good because hes the logical, practical choice, but... i have to go withedward, between the two.
(and i looved the scene in the tent in eclipse :P)
KAWAII!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

----------


## Topekachu

I have not read this book, but many of my friends have. Through peer pressure and a large amount of curiosity, I might start reading the series. I've heard its very good...anything I should know before reading?

----------


## n_maw

> I have not read this book, but many of my friends have. Through peer pressure and a large amount of curiosity, I might start reading the series. I've heard its very good...anything I should know before reading?


Nope! It's actually better if you know absolutely nothing about it.

So browneyedbailey, have you finished? I want to know what you thought. Did you like the way it ended?

----------


## browneyedbailey

> omg! i wish i found this thread earlier! i loooooooooooove the books, the whole series. i cant believe the ending of eclipse, though. the fourth promises to be good. i must say though, i enjoy edward more. the way he's so gentlemanly and kind just makes me and my friends so giddy. i wasnt too happy with new moon, since it wasnt as edward-filled as twilight though by the middle of eclipse, i felt so strongly for him. hes really the kind of guy that any normal girl would fall in love with, in a normal world. i love the act that jake is a werewolf, it really creates opposites for bella to choose from. (and i also love that poem at the beginning of eclipse, "fire and ice".. i would rather choose fire >.<) 
> but ever since i had a dream involving jasper, ive been in love with him. though it would suck with his ability to manipulate your feelings. 
> anyways, between the two, i would choose edward because hes just overall a great guy. jacob is good because hes the logical, practical choice, but... i have to go withedward, between the two.
> (and i looved the scene in the tent in eclipse :P)
> KAWAII!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


finally, SOMEONE agrees with me! I looooooooooooove Edward....





> I have not read this book, but many of my friends have. Through peer pressure and a large amount of curiosity, I might start reading the series. I've heard its very good...anything I should know before reading?


It's nothing I had expected.





> Nope! It's actually better if you know absolutely nothing about it.


True





> So browneyedbailey, have you finished? I want to know what you thought. Did you like the way it ended?


Not yet. I like the "trying to seduce a vampire", " yes, you do smell terribly of dog love", and the proposal sceene, the pleading with Alice about the wedding, and finally when Bella punches Jake and breaks her hand.

Now I'm glad Victoria is dead. but why Leah? she's so young. And the Volorti could have been kinder to poor Bree. she didn't know, Riley never told her. I like the WHOLE time [I]anyone[I] is in the tent.

Hey, everybody go to stepheniemeyer.com and look at the cast of characters ant tell me what you think.

Edward: Stephen Strait

Bella: Danielle Panabaker

Emmett: Daniel Cudmore

Alice: Rachel Leigh Cook

one of my own
Jasper: Tom Felton

----------


## Tersely

I loved the First and Second book but the Third just seemed so drawn out and choppy. I wont get detailed since some havent read it yet. It is a good series, and I'm eagerly awaiting for the fourth part to come out. Hopefully it'll wrap up good...I didnt like how the third book ended.  :Frown:  It didnt feel right.

----------


## Wallnutters

hey bailey, those arent the actual cast memebers.. those are just strephenie's picks to play them.... just making sure you knw.(the guy who played cedric diggory in hp4 is edward :P) im sooooo excited for the movie! dec. 12, 2008! only a bit less than a year to go :P stephenies writing a book on the side called "midnight sun" thats written in edwards perspective... can't wait for that one to come out (tho its the next in the series, so itll be a while)
did leah really die? i thought she just got attacked but then jacob saevd her and ended up getting seriously hurt but she survived.. did i miss a whole death scene in the book? dammit. oh wells.

----------


## Tersely

> did leah really die? i thought she just got attacked but then jacob saevd her and ended up getting seriously hurt but she survived.. did i miss a whole death scene in the book? dammit. oh wells.


She didnt die. Someone did get taken out by the Volturi but it wasnt a major character.

----------


## browneyedbailey

> I loved the First and Second book but the Third just seemed so drawn out and choppy. I wont get detailed since some havent read it yet. It is a good series, and I'm eagerly awaiting for the fourth part to come out. Hopefully it'll wrap up good...I didnt like how the third book ended.  It didnt feel right.


It was sad but Jake kinda deserved it. He was sooooooo selfish.




> hey bailey, those arent the actual cast memebers.. those are just strephenie's picks to play them.... just making sure you knw.(the guy who played cedric diggory in hp4 is edward :P) im sooooo excited for the movie! dec. 12, 2008! only a bit less than a year to go :P stephenies writing a book on the side called "midnight sun" thats written in edwards perspective... can't wait for that one to come out (tho its the next in the series, so itll be a while)
> did leah really die? i thought she just got attacked but then jacob saevd her and ended up getting seriously hurt but she survived.. did i miss a whole death scene in the book? dammit. oh wells.


Cedric Diggory IS Edward!! I could't tell who that was!!




> She didnt die. Someone did get taken out by the Volturi but it wasnt a major character.


Poor Bree...




> Sounds like browneyedbailey has an infatuation with Edward.


Very funny. I Just like him (a lot), thats all

----------


## Anza

I have an infatuation with Edward, too! Don't be afraid to admit it, Bailey!! Edward is smexy!! Still, I claim Jasper, instead. The whole story of his human life was kinda cool. Plus he's a lot like I am.

----------


## browneyedbailey

I'm not! and he is smexy. very.

----------


## Bakiryu

:FRlol:

----------


## Tersely

> It was sad but Jake kinda deserved it. He was sooooooo selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Bree...


Haha I feel the same way. It was just weird because in that book he was so forceful. I felt you could tell the intenseness between Edward and Bella...so what was he trying to do? He wasnt really like that in the second book. Actually...he kinda ran for it. 
Yeah she definetely didnt deserve that. makes me wonder how the Volturi will be in the next book. I hope they get more space in the book.

----------


## browneyedbailey

> Haha I feel the same way. It was just weird because in that book he was so forceful. I felt you could tell the intenseness between Edward and Bella...so what was he trying to do? He wasnt really like that in the second book. Actually...he kinda ran for it. 
> Yeah she definetely didnt deserve that. makes me wonder how the Volturi will be in the next book. I hope they get more space in the book.


Jacob got P.O'ed at something and ran out of anger. and I'm scared of the mind-lady. It's terrible! escpecially when she does is to Edward... :Bawling:   :Bawling:   :Bawling:   :Bawling:

----------


## B-Mental

I need more cowbel Bailey..more cowbell...lol

----------


## Tersely

> Jacob got P.O'ed at something and ran out of anger. and I'm scared of the mind-lady. It's terrible! escpecially when she does is to Edward...


Are you talking bout Jane? Yeah, shes scary. Willing people to feel pain on thought it pretty bad. I wonder what her twin brother can do. I bet hes even worse.

----------


## browneyedbailey

> Are you talking bout Jane? Yeah, shes scary. Willing people to feel pain on thought it pretty bad. I wonder what her twin brother can do. I bet hes even worse.


She has a twin? ????????????????? :Eek2:  wow. And B-Mental, what do you mean? :Goof: 

I relize and wanted to point it out:
Edward respects Bella and doesn't push her to do things she doesn't want to do. Jake on the other hand forced Bella into a kiss and holding his hand and such, wich is why I like the Respectable Edward.

Hello?

----------


## Bakiryu

Konichiwa!

----------


## Wallnutters

ello ^^

----------


## Anza

Edward is SMEXY!!! I call Jasper, though.

----------


## browneyedbailey

Jasper'd kill ya. So would Alice for that matter. And Edward is MINE!

I will say it was NOTHING I expected. I can't wait for the 4th

----------


## Tersely

> For days i could not concentrate on any one thing in particular as i was hoping if i closed my eyes and wished enough, i could find my self in rainy forks oregon


**Forks, Washington
Oregon is where they are suppose to be filming the movie.
It was a good book...theres another thread somewhere going on about it too.

----------


## browneyedbailey

I read Midnight Sun on the sight. OMG! that's why Edward left.... I can't wait.....

----------


## Wallnutters

nooooooooooooo!! bailey! way to ruin it.. i know you diint say much, but my stupid imagination runs with it and kills it.... >.>
i had this dream about jasper, and ever since then, ive had an infatuation with him. though of course, only edward makes me giddy. so he wins. ha.
i cant wait for breaking dawn either. its gonna be exciting....my friends and i are trying to figure out what will happen.. its getting pretty crazy, especially with the ending of eclipse. gah! im getting excited just thinking about it :3

----------


## browneyedbailey

sorry.

Hey go to Wikapedia and look up the Twilight series and there's a ton of info about all the characters.

I love Edward!!!!!!!! <3 <3 <3

----------


## mir

This was the first book I read through in Italian. It was so fun that I got through it in 2 weeks even though I'm not so good at the language!!

And Jacob is very awesome as well, in the 2nd one

----------


## browneyedbailey

No Edward is.

----------


## mir

Meh, I would settle for either one  :Tongue:

----------


## browneyedbailey

EDWARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lol!

----------


## Wallnutters

hey, what do you guys think will happen in the fourth book? and who/ what do you think will get cut out of the movie? asking cuz im curious as to others' opinions.
and jacob does grow on you in the second book, though thats becuase there was no edward until the end-ish. lol

----------


## browneyedbailey

Not really. He didn't grow on me. And I don't think they're gonna cut anyone out of the movie. I can feel it'll be an AMAZING movie. And I looked at the cast. That's how I know.

----------


## Tersely

> Not really. He didn't grow on me. And I don't think they're gonna cut anyone out of the movie. I can feel it'll be an AMAZING movie. And I looked at the cast. That's how I know.



That's what we thought bout the last Star Wars too until Hayden Christensen started talking. "NO, I LOVE YOU." "....LIAR!"
Ack.
I just hope they don't screw up the script, or get the details wrong. I'm confident about the acting...but we've all been disappointed when we love a book but the movie just isn't up to par.

----------


## browneyedbailey

They better not. I'll be devestaded if it's bad. Crushed! Smashed into an oblivion! okay so I'm exaggerating but I'll be upset.

----------


## Wallnutters

well, i think that some people/ parts have to be cut because you hav eto admit that the book moves slowly at some parts. and i do have a feeling that it wont be the best, but not like horrible either. though i do have faith/hope. this better be worth the wait!

----------


## browneyedbailey

I hpe they'll keep the meadow sceene.

----------


## Tersely

If they didn't...that's instant death there. The best conversations happen there and in his 'Stupid Shiny Volvo'.

----------


## browneyedbailey

I want a the Volvo and the Porche. "my poor car!"

----------


## Wakaba

i want the porsche. did it ever say anything about alice shifting? i recall wondering why they didnt describe alice shifting invisibly fast....i could be wrong

----------


## Tersely

I dont remember...I just remember her stealing it, then wanting one and getting it in the next book. I'd take that Aston Martin he had for prom. Niice.

----------


## Wakaba

yeah i have the books, im just too lazy to look :/

----------


## browneyedbailey

Who's yor fave character? As one should tell mine are Edward and Emmett.

----------


## Wakaba

alice always appeared to me as a small (5'6 at most) cute, yet beautiful young lady; obviously strong as an ox and uncontrollably magnetic, as the book classifies all the cullens.

----------


## Zelly

Alice is under five feet tall. It's in ze book. =D

Oh yeah, and just a note. JAKE. 

I think Edward was selfish too, saying things on purpose to hurt Jake. Neither of them is perfect. I think this is just a personal preference. 

I don't like how controlling Edward is. It could be taken as him being protective, but I think it's almost diminiutive. For example, when he comes back in New Moon, he seems to want it to be both Bella's fault he left you know, the whole "You believed me so quickly my love" thing, and then he wanted her sympathy too, trying to be like "It was the greatest mistake" or whatever. It seems like he wants her sympathy, but also to be blameless. This is just my take on it. Having had my share of controlling boyfriends, I feel very strongly about this.

----------


## Wallnutters

thats an interesting thought zelly! never thought of it like that, but i do agree with you on edwards aying things on purpose to hurt jake, like in the meadow, when he got bella to say that they were getting married so that jake would know to back off. it was a really mean thing to say and if i was bella i wouldve had such a bigger reaction than "oh no! jake overheard!" evs. im over it. 
i have to say that alice has to be one of my fave characters. shes always so perky and fun. i like jasper too. and edawrd goes without say.

----------


## Bakiryu

> Who's yor fave character? As one should tell mine are Edward and Emmett.


Jacob, Jasper and Alice.

Edward annoys me a little, Bella is too....blah. I like her just not as much as Alice. And I like Jessice, 'cause she's my namesake.  :Banana:

----------


## browneyedbailey

True...

----------


## n_maw

New as of this morning: Breaking Dawn, the fourth book in the Twilight Series will be released on midnight, Saturday August 2nd, 2008. 

Let the hysteria begin.

----------


## Wallnutters

really? that is so sick!!! cant wait to get my hands on it.. ^^

----------


## Zelly

Has anyone read the first chapter of Midnight Sun? =D

----------


## browneyedbailey

> New as of this morning: Breaking Dawn, the fourth book in the Twilight Series will be released on midnight, Saturday August 2nd, 2008. 
> 
> Let the hysteria begin.


YEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!




> really? that is so sick!!! cant wait to get my hands on it.. ^^


Me neither




> Has anyone read the first chapter of Midnight Sun? =D


Me! It's sooooooo cool to get in Edward's head.

----------


## Wallnutters

i cant wait for midnight sun to come out... its so interesting to be inside edwardds head and it makes sense now after reading the first chapter why he was so against bella getting close to him. i find it exciting to be able to feel what he feels, with knowing what everyone is thinking and the vampireness... riiiiight.

----------


## browneyedbailey

couldn't have said it any better.

What do you think _Breaking Dawn's_ going to be like?

----------


## livelaughlove

I'm so excited! I'm a newbie to the Twilight series but I bought Twilight last Saturday and today I'm almost finished with Eclipse. I honestly just could not put them down!! They are so good. 

I like Edward more than Jacob, but I definitely think he gets too controlling at times. I love the element of danger that goes with being with Edward. Meyer constructed Edward perfectly - what girl (little or not) does not want to be protected by the man they are in love with?

Great series! I have a feeling that these will be my travel books (when I travel I like to take a few books with me that I can re-read, kind of like a comfort object)

----------


## browneyedbailey

Yes!!! I'm sooooooooooooooo paranoid that I'm going to read the whole serries all over agian. lol.

Bring this thread to life!!!!! C'mon!!

----------


## Wallnutters

well, the first three had the antagonists in common- those three vamps that i cant remember the name of right now (wow, and i call myself a twilight lover...), but in the last, the last vamp died. so my friend and i have this theory that those vamps from alaska (again names are gone! gah!) will become more prominent, especially that one that was in love with that vamp killed by the wolves (laurel? lauren?). which should be exciting. (was her name tara? something with a t...) 
is this the last book (besides midnight sun)? i hope not... it seems too soon to end it like that. bella cant turn in this one. i refuse to believe that shell turn! my friend thinks she will, but i find that if she turns in this one, it will end the series, even if it is the last book.
question my friend asked a couple days ago: what if they found out bella was pregnant before turning her? what would happen to her unborn kid?

----------


## browneyedbailey

I think it's Leah that you're looking for. And I also think that Bella turns in Breaking Dawn. The fetus would most likely die. Ask why and I'll tell you....

----------


## Bakiryu

I keep waiting for the movie........!

----------


## browneyedbailey

You're not the only one. My friend is going to let me Breaking Dawn when she and her mum get finished with it. *smiles quite proudly*

----------


## Bakiryu

> You're not the only one. My friend is going to let me Breaking Dawn when she and her mum get finished with it. *smiles quite proudly*


is it now? is it? is it? aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! *has nervous breakdown*

----------


## browneyedbailey

Baki, chill.  :Cold:  Feel better?

----------


## Godiva83

I've came across several forums online dedicated specially to this series... so I began reading "Twilight" and at chapter 18 I still don't manage to get what's so alluring about it... It's like a long bad episode of something written by the guy that created "Buffy, the vampire slayer" sorta crap... 

Yikes  :Eek:

----------


## Dark Muse

It does seem to have quite the cult following. I have a blog which deals with vampires becasue such is one of my interests, and on one of my posts someone mentioned that series and sense then, it has just been flooded with replies all about it.

----------


## AdoreroDio

My firend recently threatedened to 'provoke the Volturi' on me if I didn't read the series and I just finished Twilight. I may not be the best writing ever it is descriptive. Also if you notice most of 'the followers' are teenage girls- vampire love stories are very attractive to them for some reason and after reading a couple of them myself I find that Twilight it really good because it's not very cheesy and doesn't stick to the myths. It makes it seem more 'real' so more girls can dream about it actually happening to them. Anyways, I liked the book but not very much, I will read the other books only because the author has an amazing job of making you want to keep reading. Suspense I think is the word.

----------


## Drummergal42

I just finished Twilight and I loved it. Yet honestly, I have no idea what made me like it so much. Maybe it was the vampire plot and romance, the adventure, or even the dangerous events. I can not explain why I like it so much, I just do. Just so you know this is 14yr old girl talking, but on my Winter Percussios trip a 18yr old guy told me he owned the books and enjoyed them.

----------


## huntress4eva

I like the twilight series . Its true that there is nothing special about the books but they are good old fashioned chick lit which dont need much thinking about and the heros dark and mysterious its just one of thoughs things that it good for a mindless read.

----------


## ntropyincarnate

I've only read the first book so far, but i loved it! But like drummergal, i'm not really sure why. When i finished the book, i read it for 8 hours without stopping. I've never had a book keep me up that late before. I think i finished it at 6 am. Which i do not recommend.

----------


## Drummergal42

Now I am almost done with New Moon, it took a while to get into at first but now I really like it. I think that the appeal is definatley the relationship between Bella and the Cullens, and the dangerous situations Bella is always getting into.

Like AdoreroDio says, Stephanie Meyers is really good at keeping you on your toes.

It also depends on who is reading it. Different books appeal to different people. So many people love the Harry Potter books, yet I have never found the appeal, or the same with A Series of Unfortunate Events, I can't stanf them, but that's my opinion. Godiva83, when you say you dislike them, that's your opinion. It you told me some of the books you loved, I might be saying the same thing. That's the great thing about books, there are so many to choose from. If you don't like some theres still more to read.

----------


## livelaughlove

I guess I would consider myself part of the 'cult following' but I don't quite know why I love the books, either. Previously, I had never picked up a book with vampires or anything fantastical - I stuck to my classic literature - but I decided to try Twilight since a friend told me how good they were. The first one was good, the beginning was kind of slow I thought (girl meets boy, etc. etc.) but as the book progressed, it got better and better. I loved the suspense of New Moon though the plot was a bit lacking, I thought. Eclipse is my favorite one out of all the three. I do think what attracts teenage girls to it is of course the relationship between Edward and Bella - there is such a 'danger' aspect to it. Yet, the Cullens are "vegetarian" so that is almost comforting. To think that vampires can have morals and actually want to be good - that is a unique idea, since most vampires that I've heard of or seen on T.V. are the leechlike, blood-sucking types who just want your soul to prolong their life. It's a different kind of vampire novel, one that even people who don't read vampire novels enjoy... so I think that is part of it.

----------


## browneyedbailey

Is anyone here excited about the movie?

----------


## Tiny Dancer

BLOODY HELL 
I AM SO EXCITED ABOUT THE MOVIE ICAN'T EVEN CONVEY THE EMOTION!!!!
i remember when the official trailor came out i almost had an epileptic fit. I was literally dancing crazily around the kitchen. 
here is the official trailor if you haven't seen it yet.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=TenUxQsY7kM

The guy who plays Cedric Diggory in Harry Potter plays Edward *melt*
I love Edward.. how can one not?!?
I have this problem when i get really protective over my books and movies so in some ways i don't want the movie to come out because i will probably scratch peoples eyes out if i find out they haven't read the books but are going to see the movie anyway.. THEY WON'T UNDERSTAND!!!
ahhhhhhh
i am getting all agitated just thinking about it!
I am glad there is a forum on Twilight  :Smile: 
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
even talking about it makes me happy.

----------


## browneyedbailey

I know. I feel the same way. I'm gonna be hacked if they mess up the medow scene or leave it out...

----------


## cipherdecoy

I haven't read that book yet, but I'm intending to this November to see what all the hype is about. Hopefully I'll find something more than an attractive vampire  :Wink:

----------


## browneyedbailey

Read it now!

----------


## Beautifull

Okay, so a lot of you know who Stephenie Meyer is, and her books, this place is where the fans and others can chat about the books, clarify, and ask questions that we have about her books.

Like not even an hour ago, i just bought her latest book _The Host_.
i heard about it from one of my friends who _loves_ her books. i mean,who doesn't she has so much of a way to bring out the imagination! well, i'm on about page 35 and boy is it interesting already!

----------


## Sorceress

Drummergal42, you're right!
The love of Edward and Bella and their romance were too much for me... boring..It was all about forbidden love. But New Moon is interesting... I felt it to be a page turner

----------


## Tersely

I've read it, I admit I love it (to my husbands uptight literature horror) but I draw the line there. I don't get all nuts throwing quotes at people. I just like the simplistic style of writing and the storytelling she creates. A good break for me contemporary wise.

----------


## Beautifull

okay...so i know there are a lot of Stephenie Meyer fans on here, so....where are you?

fine. i'll start the first discussion.
does anyone _not_  agree with me that they got the wrong guy to play Edward in the movie coming out? Robert Pattison is not Edward in the book!

i want to know how others feel, so please, speak back! :Frown:

----------


## toni

Er, well, I haven't read any of the Twilight books because for some reason they are always "sold out" on bookstores but my friend says that he has read it for free online  :Tongue:  I have yet to check it out, though. 
As for Robert Pattinson playing Edward Cullen~

----------


## Beautifull

i understand people like Robert Pattison, but he's _just not Edward Cullen_! 

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

----------


## Guinivere

I don't know about the actor, I didn't even know the were making a film. But I have read the first two twilight books. Not my cup of tea usually, but I quite enjoyed the first one. The second one was rubbish in my eyes, so I didn't continue to read the series.

Something funny, when I bought the first one, the woman in the bookstore went on and on about her love for Edward Cullen. She just couldn't stop yabbering. Amazing, and she told me that her collegue fells the same way about Edward.

----------


## kelby_lake

That woman seems a bit sad (sorry!). I will read it once I manage to get a copy from the library (you would've thought they'd invest in more than 5 copies for the county)

----------


## Beautifull

:FRlol:  i know! i feel there are never enough copies, and [I]every[I]one wants a copy!

well, about edward cullen and people who are so so totally crushed on him...i feel sorry for them!edward is only alive in books...and we're only alive in the real world. but come on! why do people have crushes on fictionary firgures? can someone answer that?

----------


## Guinivere

I don't know why that happens, but for some people (me included) reading a good book, is like living another life, being in a completely different place altogether. It has nothing to do with logic and the fact that of course we live in the real world. I had one hell of a crush on Gabriel Oak and still have I suppose. And there was John Thornton from North & South.  :Smile:  I don't know why, but I love being kind of close to a fictional character and they never dissapoint me. 
I guess it is like having Enid Blyton's children as your friends when you are young.

Have you really never ever had that experience ?

----------


## purelife

I enjoyed reading the first book of the series but i thought that was the best out of the three. I wonder what the fourth one would be like... =]

----------


## Beautifull

> I don't know why that happens, but for some people (me included) reading a good book, is like living another life, being in a completely different place altogether. It has nothing to do with logic and the fact that of course we live in the real world.
> 
> Have you really never ever had that experience ?


i understand _exactly_ what you're talking about!!
every time i read a book, i just don't want to put it down until i finish it, because if i put it down, it seems as if i'm exiting a world, and coming into my own world....maybe that's the reason i want a quiet environment while i read...it gives me a clear mind to imagine how that other world i'm reading about lives, how those other people i'm reading about lives their life.

----------


## curlyqlink

Interesting. I never get involved like that in a book-- personally involved, that is. I'm a detached reader. I appreciate a good phrase, an intriguing idea, an involving plot... but I'm aways aware that I'm reading an artistic construct.

It's the same with movies. I'll sit there absolutely absorbed in a good film, but I'm always conscious of the camera angle, the lighting, and the way actors are interpreting a scene.

And I have can still have direct, intense emotional responses in this mode. I'll actually have tears in my eyes.

----------


## Bakiryu

I love Twilight and Edward ( :FRlol: ) but you guys are right, Robert Pattison is attractive, he's just not, um, how can I put it? Edward-y.

----------


## Beautifull

finally! someone who agrees with me fully! thank you Bakiryu!
they should've waited until they found the right edward to film the movie!

the person they picked for Bella is perfect, but not so much Jacob...that *is not jacob*!!!!!!!!!!!!!

----------


## Bakiryu

Methinks the movie is going to suck. I am almost afraid of going to see it  :Frown:

----------


## Beautifull

me too! i'm scared to even watch it...especially since the last time i watched a movie of one of my fav books...i had nightmares because of how they ruined the book!!!

----------


## SirJazzHands

Haven't read the series and don't intend to, but this Edward Cullen worshipping bull**** among teenagers needs to be put to an end..
It appears my assumptions are correct when at least two people who have read the book have told me, yes, Edward Cullen is just a "mysterious bad boy *******" for lack of a better way to put it.. Girls just fall for any old jerk, don't they? hah. :P

----------


## Beautifull

are you jealous?
just because we talk about him, does NOT mean we *worship* him! we just feel as if we know him, so that means we can put our opinion in as to who we think has and hasnot the part cut out to be Edward Cullen, and i say Robert Pattison _does not_! :Rage:

----------


## Equality72521

I bought the fourth book today, this morning at midnight to be exact. I was one of those idiots. And let me tell you, it was not worth it. It's almost as if her writing style has gone down. By plot I would place them in order, from *best to worst* like this: 1, 3, 2, 4. By writing style: 1, 2, 3, 4. 

Over all, I think that it had potential, but it's kind of gone down. The fourth gets better the farther you read but some of it is just...oh, man, I don't even know how to explain it. It's almost kind of sad. Anyways, I know that many will enjoy this book, but I am dragging through it.  :Frown:  I was certainly hoping for better. I hope you all enjoy it and make your own opinions. 

By the way, I think that Robert Pattinson is a good Edward, really, I do, oddly enough. However, I do not think that Kristen Stewart is a good Bella. I have my concerns more set to her than Robert. I don't know if many agree with me about this, but Bella seems much more...wholesome. But then again, I'll have to judge the movie based upon it's cinematic qualities, because I know, that it's very impossible for them to stick to the book exactly, so I'm over that. I also understand, and I hope more do, that every body has their own images of the Cullens and Bella and Edward and Jake, etc., and it would be impossible for any body to find the true Edward and Bella in our minds, so I look to that optimistically and hope for the best in the movie (even though I made the above comment about my worries for Kristen Stewart).

----------


## SirJazzHands

Er, no? I'm not jealous of an imaginary character. That's pretty ridiculous.
You, on the other hand, need to learn to stop using excessive exclamation points..

----------


## Equality72521

haha, Jazz. too funny.

----------


## Beautifull

> Er, no? I'm not jealous of an imaginary character. That's pretty ridiculous.
> You, on the other hand, need to learn to stop using excessive exclamation points..


was that a hesitation i see?....and if it's so rediculous, then why even bring it up!!

----------


## SirJazzHands

*twitch* More abuse of exclamation, I see.. _*twitch*_

Yes, a hesitation you might call it, because I fail to comprehend how you actually believe a person would be jealous of someone who does not and will not (sorry hun for your little fantasies) exist? A book that is crafted with the sole intent of marketing in mind, catering towards susceptible women of all ages, looking for "true romance" in this world. Tough luck for them, Edward doesn't exist, and Hallelujah for it, because there are down-to-earth, honest, real men living today who could fulfill your wildest dreams. They won't suck your blood, either! (Unless, of course, you're into fetishism..)

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll go read a book that isn't, how shall I put it.. entirely trashy.  :Smile: 
*opens up _Crime and Punishment_*

----------


## Equality72521

*tear* Jazz your little schpiel just brought tears to my eyes.

Don't forget that she's mormon!!!!
(Writing about vampires ^.^)

haha.
Oh man, Jazz, the first book isn't bad. That one is actually my favorite and her best written. The first book alone could pass without a series to follow.

----------


## Beautifull

> *twitch* More abuse of exclamation, I see.. _*twitch*_
> 
> Yes, a hesitation you might call it, because I fail to comprehend how you actually believe a person would be jealous of someone who does not and will not (sorry hun for your little fantasies) exist? A book that is crafted with the sole intent of marketing in mind, catering towards susceptible women of all ages, looking for "true romance" in this world. Tough luck for them, Edward doesn't exist, and Hallelujah for it, because there are down-to-earth, honest, real men living today who could fulfill your wildest dreams. They won't suck your blood, either! (Unless, of course, you're into fetishism..)
> 
> Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll go read a book that isn't, how shall I put it.. entirely trashy. 
> *opens up _Crime and Punishment_*




what's wrong with a little fantacism? every girl is entitled to theirs, just most would find it in a book, at least i don't find it on T.V. and lose a lot of brain cells! :FRlol:  

and who said we were looking for a real,down-to-earth, honest man? :Tongue:  

and for your information...._I'm not one of those people who are obsessed with Edward_ :Flare:  . i just admire the author who writes a book that draws me in, and makes me doubt if anything is impossible to believe. like vampires, i know they don't exist, but the way Stephenie Meyers creates her vampires, it sounds so realistic.

and i'm not really looking for the "romance" from Edward, that i know he can't give me!

and you can be jealous of a fictional character. i've been jealous myself a few times from characters so carefully drawn, that they seem real.

to everyone else: Has anyone read _The Host?_ :Biggrin:

----------


## Ricechex

Beautifull, I have read _The Host_ and I very much enjoyed it - moreso than the Twilight series, as a point of fact.

Edward is probably my least favorite character in the series - I found him to be overly controlling (and having been in that kind of bad relationship, I have no taste for it even in daydreams and book pages). I held out hope for Jacob.  :Wink:  Although Edward did become slightly more pallatable in Breaking Dawn - he finally started letting go a bit.

But getting back to _The Host_, I had heard a rumor that there would be another book or two in that world - I'm intrigued. It was very good as a stand alone, and part of me is concerned about there being more - I don't want it to turn into a "book crafted with the sole intent of marketing" to quote Sir Jazz. But on the other hand, wasn't _every_ book on shelves today crafted with the intent for people everywhere to enjoy them? So really, how can you blame an author for crafting a story that millions of people want to read? Isn't that the point?  :Idea:

----------


## kelby_lake

Well I could guess *SPOILER* Bella would get knocked up and I haven't even read it yet.

----------


## Beautifull

Ricechex,

what's this i hear about a book or two in that world?

so _The Host_ might be book one in a series?

----------


## SirJazzHands

I must admit one thing, if it weren't for the fact that it's more than likely total fan service (aka probably going to be rushed and a bad idea), Midnight Sun is a cool idea. If any of you have ever read or heard of Orson Scott Card's Ender books, he did a similar thing with his books Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow. Same story told through two different perspectives.

I've heard about _The Host_ and I'll also admit it seems a bit intriguing but I'm not sure if I actually want to take the chance in case it's bad.

----------


## curlyqlink

> I've heard about The Host and I'll also admit it seems a bit intriguing


I dipped into _The Host_ but found it not worth reading, IMHO. It's your basic mind-whammy plot, aliens move in and take over, turning folks into pod-people. One brave soul fights back. Stephanie Meyer seems to use an awful lot of verbiage to produce yet one more take on this too-familiar idea.




> i just admire the author who writes a book that draws me in, and makes me doubt if anything is impossible to believe. like vampires, i know they don't exist, but the way Stephenie Meyers creates her vampires, it sounds so realistic.


She makes her vampires _contemporary_. There's a fine, but very important difference. They seem realistic to her target audience, because they appeal to her target audience.

Something intrigues me about the idea of "doubting anything is impossible". This is an idea that I run across all the time in discussions of popular culture; it sounds so hopeful and youthful and optimistic that I hesitate to torpedo it. (But I will anyway <g>!) Should we in fact go about doubting that _anything_ is impossible? Even things that fly in the face of logic, experience, and the wisdom of the ages? It sounds like something from a Nike ad. And like most salesmanship, disillusionment and disappointment lurk not far down the road.

----------


## Ricechex

Beautifull, don't quote me on it, but that is apparently the word that's going around. One of my friends at my local B&N mentioned it, but I haven't seen anything on her [Stephenie Meyer's] site. I want to say I may have seen something in perhaps Entertainment Weekly or some such publication, but I cannot promise it.

Sir Jazz, I must say that _The Host_ is, in my own humble opinion, vastly better than the _Twilight_ series. The writing was definately more adult in tone. I am not much for the Sci-Fi bit (I'm an Urban Fantasy girl at heart) but _The Host_ was excellent.  :Thumbs Up:  Of course, that is my own opinion. I borrowed it from my local library - you might take that route before shelling out the $20+ for it.

Cheers!

----------


## Bakiryu

> to everyone else: Has anyone read _The Host?_


I have, it's one of my favorite books. I tend to identify with Wanda  :Blush:  

I just got Breaking Dawn yesterday, it's so good, I'm almost finished but I don't want it to end.

----------


## Beautifull

> I have, it's one of my favorite books. I tend to identify with Wanda  
> 
> I just got Breaking Dawn yesterday, it's so good, I'm almost finished but I don't want it to end.


man! you're so lucky! i've been dying to read Breaking Dawn...my friend is going to let me borrow it after she finishes, but one minute is too much for me to wait for it! :FRlol:  

i like wanda, but i think i can identify with Melanie better. :Wink: 




> Sir Jazz, I must say that _The Host_ is, in my own humble opinion, vastly better than the _Twilight_ series. The writing was definately more adult in tone. I am not much for the Sci-Fi bit (I'm an Urban Fantasy girl at heart) but _The Host_ was excellent.  Of course, that is my own opinion. I borrowed it from my local library - you might take that route before shelling out the $20+ for it.




i gotta say i agree with you about The Host being better thanthe Twilight series

okay, so i thought about this, but i want other people's thoughts on this first. jacob. is he good guy or bad guy. i know i get that he's a nice guy, but he gets in the way of edward and bella. so is he good? is he bad?

----------


## storywriter101

I love Twilight, and I am currently reading New Moon!! Awesome!!!

----------


## Beautifull

> I must admit one thing, if it weren't for the fact that it's more than likely total fan service (aka probably going to be rushed and a bad idea), Midnight Sun is a cool idea. If any of you have ever read or heard of Orson Scott Card's Ender books, he did a similar thing with his books Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow. Same story told through two different perspectives.
> 
> I've heard about _The Host_ and I'll also admit it seems a bit intriguing but I'm not sure if I actually want to take the chance in case it's bad.


i assure you it is *not* bad.... :Smile:

----------


## Equality72521

I haven't read The Host yet, after reading the Twilight series, I'm kind of scared to, to be honest. She should have left it at the first book. Sigh. Oh well. I might look into it, but there is no way I'm going to buy it.

----------


## Beautifull

Equality...i will tell you, The Host is _nothing_ like the Twilight series, it's a whole 'nother book, comp;letely different. when i first checked it out, i didn't really care for it, but something made me pick up the book at the book store, and buy it. now i'm glad that i bought it...because now i can read it as many times as i want....justas soon as i get it back from who's borrowing it! :Smile: 

so is there anyone who would like to give their opinion of Jacob? :Frown:

----------


## Anza

Jacob is a sweetheart. He goes about everything dead wrong, but he's too impulsive to help it. Breaking Dawn from his point of view is the funniest thing EVER. I love the chapter titles!!
But forget Jacob and Edward... _I_ will take Seth and Jasper, any day.

----------


## kelby_lake

I enjoyed Twilight but Meyer doesn't exactly have a way with words:
'I reassembled my expression'
That line's so bad, it's almost laughable. It's like a 12 year old with a thesaurus.

----------


## mgsn

Twilight is definitely the best out of the four. I enjoyed it so much that I am a bit worried about going and seeing it in the cinema. I only started reading because it is all the craze with my students and have been borrowing the books off them.
I absolutely love the storylines but sometimes Stephanie Meyer's writing annoys me - especially the over the top descriptions in places - ie will take about 300 pages to ramble on about goings ons and then when it comes to the final battle scene etc - it rushes by and finishes so quickly.

and I agree - I think I like Seth and Jasper better than Edward and Jacob - but definitely like Jacob over Edward - at least he is human-ish

----------


## kelby_lake

> Twilight is definitely the best out of the four. I enjoyed it so much that I am a bit worried about going and seeing it in the cinema. I only started reading because it is all the craze with my students and have been borrowing the books off them.
> I absolutely love the storylines but sometimes Stephanie Meyer's writing annoys me - especially the over the top descriptions in places - ie will take about 300 pages to ramble on about goings ons and then when it comes to the final battle scene etc - it rushes by and finishes so quickly.


Indeed- I enjoy the story, it's just that her writing is so awful.

----------


## Beautifull

has anyone read Breaking Dawn yet?

----------


## kelby_lake

Your opinions?




> 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.


1- I wouldn't really call it magnificent. Okay would be better.
2- It didn't have a plot line until page 400!
3- The writing is easy but pretentious: 'The book held no interest for me'
4- I was waiting for something to happen, some big romantic event, but no, not really. Let down.
5- Currently reading New Moon and the writing is even more awful.It destroys your brain a little bit.

----------


## xlxlauraxlx

I haven't read breaking dawn yet butsomebody already told me the ending  :Frown:  now its ruined ohwell. Im reading eclipse now anyways.

----------


## kelby_lake

> has anyone read Breaking Dawn yet?


Half.

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

Has anyone else read the leaked illegal draft of Midnight Sun yet?  :Blush:

----------


## Zee.

Yes i've read the leaked copy - via Meyer's website.

You know, that entire series is good..fluff. I really hate it when i hear people harp on about its wonderful literary content because to me, it's non existant.

She has a wonderful imagination though.




> okay, so i thought about this, but i want other people's thoughts on this first. jacob. is he good guy or bad guy. i know i get that he's a nice guy, but he gets in the way of edward and bella. so is he good? is he bad?


Good or bad? what are you even talking about?...

----------


## Joreads

> Has anyone else read the leaked illegal draft of Midnight Sun yet?


I have read it also. You can obtain a copy from her web site. It is only the first twelve chapters but it is great. I have been told that she is going to finish the book and publish it we can only hope. If you were an Edward fan before reading Midnight Sun you are going to love him after reading it. :Wink:

----------


## Beautifull

> Good or bad? what are you even talking about?...


well...some would argue that Jacob should just get lost, because he just complicates Edward and Bella's relationship, but others would say Jacob is doing the right thing because they think that Bella is much safer with him than it is with Edward.

----------


## Joreads

I think Jacob is good, don't get me wrong I sometimes wish he would get lost and leave Bella and Edward alone (Edward girl here). For me when I was reading the books there were times I wanted to slap both Bella and Jacob I had to remind myself that they were typical 17 year olds. Edward on the other hand has been around a lot longer so he rarely seems like a 17 year old that is what makes him so appealing I think.



Spolier of sorts
Have you read all the books? Breaking Dawn sort of sorts that all out anyway. Jacobs place in Bella and Edwards world and the tie he feels to Bella is explained.

----------


## Beautifull

yes, i have...and you?

----------


## Joreads

> yes, i have...and you?


Sure have and I loved them.

----------


## Beautifull

me too.

i don't know,if i liked Jacob or not before i read Breaking Dawn, then i thought it was cute that he crushed on Renesme(not sure if i spelled it right).
what do you think?

----------


## Zee.

You mean he imprinted. That's a lot different to simply a crush.
Its never a simple, good or bad, not with anything for that matter, but i assume you're quite young so it's understandable - do correct me if i'm wrong.

Jacob adds another dimension to the books, he is able to bring out certain aspects of Bella you might not otherwise see. I'm not going to get all heavy and analyze it much because it's not much to analyze but when Bella falls for Jacob it only confirms that her love for Edward is that much stronger - because she chooses him.

----------


## Joreads

> You mean he imprinted. That's a lot different to simply a crush.
> Its never a simple, good or bad, not with anything for that matter, but i assume you're quite young so it's understandable - do correct me if i'm wrong.
> 
> Jacob adds another dimension to the books, he is able to bring out certain aspects of Bella you might not otherwise see. I'm not going to get all heavy and analyze it much because it's not much to analyze but when Bella falls for Jacob it only confirms that her love for Edward is that much stronger - because she chooses him.


limajean hits the nail right on the head with that one. Bella does love Jacob but it has nothing on her love for Edward and I would goes as far as to say it is not even really love but a deep friendship. I think his character is used to confirm that point for the reader.


Spolier question ahead

Speaking of Breaking Dawn what theories do you have for why Bella was able to control herself so well when she was a new born vampire?

----------


## curlyqlink

> You know, that entire series is good..fluff.


I read Twilight, and "good fluff" is an excellent description. It's entertaining, and if the prose is hit or miss, well, that means that there are hits as well as misses.

I'm way outside this book's target demographic, but even I think it's pretty good storytelling. It leaves me pondering though... what is the deal with romance and vampires? From Bram Stoker's original, so full of repressed Victorian sexuality, through Buffy The Vampire Slayer and her trials and tribulations with Angel and Spike, and now with the Twilight series, why are vampires and romance (okay, sex) so often... well... bedfellows? I understand that in the world of publishing, there is an entire sub-genre, within the Romance genre, of Vampire Romance.

It's a bit odd.

Reading Twilight, I could imagine parents having fits that their daughters were reading this. It's not just the Forbidden Romance angle. It's that Bella is so... subserviant. She practically celebrates her weakness, her helplessness before this moody, dangerous, beautiful older (!) boy. Reading Twilight, I got the distinct impression that Feminism is dead.

----------


## Joreads

curlyqlink I am way outside the demographic also with this book. I actualy read the first book for our bookclub January read. There is no one in our group under 30 and some a quite a bit older than that and everyone that has read the book so far has loved it. many of us have gone on to read the whole series, I should point out we are all women.

Have you read the rest of the books? I would exactly call Bella subserviant, she is quite strong willed when it suits her. As for Edward being older I don't want to give to much away if you haven't read the other books and are planning on but they actually have more in common than you think when it comes to sex. 

The novels are very senual but then most vampire literature is and that is part of their appeal. Really it is the ultimate love story when you think about it you could not get two people more wrong for each other and yet more right for each other if that makes sense. There is one line that sums it up I guess sums it up for me 

Edward to Bella "You have no idea how long I have waited for you"

Romance and yes sex sells and with vampires you have the added element of danger and action.

----------


## LilyPan

I have read all 4 books just this past week. I saw the movie before I read the books and I am glad that I did. Yes the books are way better than the movie but I liked the movie just because it was visual. When our imagination from the books became pictures and we could see them. I have realized that I am in love with Edward Cullen but in a very different way. I am not in love with his because he is cute, I like him because of what he says and does towards Bella.
Anyways, I do recommend that everyone should read the series because it is an easy read, well wrote book, and a wonderful escape from reality.

----------


## twilight661

Okay, I'm a bit of a forum heavy-weight, I've been around, mainly ghosting, forum heavy-weight nevertheless, and a recent pattern that has emerged, is the hatred of the Twilight series. Yes some of the fans are ... well ****s, perhaps it isn't the best book in the world, but I've felt a lot of hostility towards it. I enjoy reading the likes of Poe and Austen, I can appreciate the quality there, but I like Stephanie Meyer there, why the problem?

I don't want to be starting anything, but I'm just curious. How do you feel about the Twilight series?

----------


## Emil Miller

> Okay, I'm a bit of a forum heavy-weight, I've been around, mainly ghosting, forum heavy-weight nevertheless, and a recent pattern that has emerged, is the hatred of the Twilight series. Yes some of the fans are ... well ****s, perhaps it isn't the best book in the world, but I've felt a lot of hostility towards it. I enjoy reading the likes of Poe and Austen, I can appreciate the quality there, but I like Stephanie Meyer there, why the problem?
> 
> I don't want to be starting anything, but I'm just curious. How do you feel about the Twilight series?


It's just that not everybody who contributes to this site are teenagers who have an infantile fixation with vampires, wizards or whatever the current craze happens to be. There have been some interesting threads which have been spoiled by people, some of whom are old enough to know better,who witter on about such irrelevancies as though they had some genuine literary value. Having survived the Harry Potter syndrome, it looks as though we are going to be subjected to posts discussing the love life of a teenage vampire.
The only reason I know anything about Twilight is because posts about it are already beginning to infect the forum.

Perhaps Lit Net should run a junior forum for this kind of stuff.

----------


## Zee.

Because this is a literature website. Whilst Twilight is a nice story, seeing girls drooling over card board cut out vampires at bookstores isn't something i want to see.

And to be honest - there is such great work out there, that it seems a shame most young people aren't exposed to it.

----------


## JBI

I'm not too old to like Twilight, I'm too creative to allow myself to bathe in third-rate drivel. Many of my friends read the books - but [spoiler] when a pregnant woman has to become a vampire to stop her half-breed demonchild fetus from eating its way out of her stomach [/spoiler] I draw the line. That's just silly nonsense, not creativity.

----------


## Zee.

Also, im a big fan of "traditional" Vampire characters.
So reading Twilight kind of annoyed me.

----------


## Mopey Droney

I actually read the first book because I take it upon myself to understand these phenomena. I didn't like it. First of all on a sentence-by-sentence basis the writing is bad. Second of all there is no character development. I don't like books where the main character is so flat and without flavor that the reader just projects herself onto her, which soon becomes an emotional ride when this thing she's projected herself on starts lusting for a vampire. It seems to me just a cheap trick. Third, it's indistinguishable from a soap opera other than all the dressy vampire elements. Really, the way all of the characters behaved was sappily unrealistic and the dialog made me role my eyes. There are too many books that are enjoyable for me to bother with an entire series that makes me cringe.

----------


## mayneverhave

> Okay, I'm a bit of a forum heavy-weight, I've been around, mainly ghosting, forum heavy-weight nevertheless, and a recent pattern that has emerged, is the hatred of the Twilight series. Yes some of the fans are ... well ****s, perhaps it isn't the best book in the world, but I've felt a lot of hostility towards it. I enjoy reading the likes of Poe and Austen, I can appreciate the quality there, but I like Stephanie Meyer there, why the problem?
> 
> I don't want to be starting anything, but I'm just curious. How do you feel about the Twilight series?


I look it as a popular phenomenon, a phase, similiar to high grossing movies like Spider-Man or Transformers, or the constant pop-drivel in music. The majority of these artistic creations (because you can't really just dismiss Twilight as not being an artistic creation), don't stand up to analysis. That's to be expected. The majority of people are not film critics, music critics, or, especially not, literary critics.

My friends and family (especially my parents) often say that I'm too critical in how I view art, but I don't very well understand how I am to appreciate and judge a given work of art without criticizing it.

To me, the claim that books like Twilight aren't meant to be taken that seriously is a cop-out. You can't say something is impervious to critical analysis, and then wonder why no one in the so-called-literary elite doesn't like it.


It is one thing to enjoy a crappy novel. For a fact, I've enjoyed at least one or two genre books that I bought from a grocery store. But this is a literary forum. If you want to know why everyone is panning Twilight, it is because the nature of this forum is to discuss, in earnest, literature. This doesn't mean just a passive "Oh I liked that part" discussion, but involves looking beyond just the picturesque surface.

----------


## Zee.

For awhile, i thought i could escape twilight via these forums.

But here it is...

Ive read and seen interviews with stephanie and it seems like she doesnt even know much about her own characters, as if she never really developed them.
Most of the time it seems like she just pulled her answers from thin air because she had to give an answer.

----------


## MattG

To me it's OK. 

I read Twilight but not any of the sequels because the first book didn't do the elusive 'it' for me. 

If you like it though, go on and like it. I, for one, have plenty of guilty pleasures of my own  :Smile:

----------


## Zee.

Me too...

i have a collection of sci fi books that would make you die laughing..

----------


## Emil Miller

It occurred to me that if I and some like-minded people were to dig up Bram Stoker's body and drive a stake through the heart, we might exorcise the whole vampire thing once and for all but, would you believe it?, he was cremated.

----------


## Joreads

> To me it's OK. 
> 
> I read Twilight but not any of the sequels because the first book didn't do the elusive 'it' for me. 
> 
> If you like it though, go on and like it. I, for one, have plenty of guilty pleasures of my own


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 :Wink:

----------


## *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.

----------


## Zee.

> Okay, I'm a bit of a forum heavy-weight, I've been around, mainly ghosting, forum heavy-weight nevertheless, and a recent pattern that has emerged, is the hatred of the Twilight series. Yes some of the fans are ... well ****s, perhaps it isn't the best book in the world, but I've felt a lot of hostility towards it. I enjoy reading the likes of Poe and Austen, I can appreciate the quality there, but I like Stephanie Meyer there, why the problem?
> 
> I don't want to be starting anything, but I'm just curious. How do you feel about the Twilight series?



I've been sitting here, trying to work out what the * are covering and have not been able to figure it out :[
I'm tired. i'm sunburnt. my brain is fried. I blame it on that.

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.


Austen austen austen austen, enough about austen. Why 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 )


Austen wasn't even that great...

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

> I've been sitting here, trying to work out what the * are covering and have not been able to figure it out :[
> I'm tired. i'm sunburnt. my brain is fried. I blame it on that.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> Austen austen austen austen, enough about austen. Why austen?
> ...


I agree with you in some ways. Jane Austen does tend to be the writer that people claim they read in an attempt to sound impressive, though I think to read her work and to study and interpret it are two different things. That's what makes her work stand apart from something like the Twilight series- Pride and Prejudice holds literary merit because there is something to be learned through it's reading, while Twilight is purely for entertainment. It's the same thing with Shakespeare. Anyone can plough through old english verse and say they've "read" it, but that doesn't mean that they have actually gained or learned from it, as one should from good literature. 

Another novel that people do the same thing with is "Catcher in the Rye". I know so many people who want to give the impression that they are well-read and so claim that this is their favourite work. It just happens to be standard high school fare...Now that doesn't mean that it isn't good, just that it's more widely read. 

I don't think it's fair though to say that by comparing a work to one of Austen's, that person hasn't read anything else.

----------


## Beautifull

don't forget to mention her knack for creating well-developed characters. what's so funny is when i finished reading the first book, i almost thought it was real.  :FRlol: 

i agree with PAM. you should read it. 

but i'm kind of scared to watch the movie.

----------


## Zee.

You're kidding right?

well developed?
please... she couldn't even develop the skills to write, how could she possibly develop characters?

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.

----------


## Beautifull

is there a hater in the house?

----------


## Zee.

It wouldn't be much of a discussion if we all agreed, would it?
And believe me, if you're going to talk about Twilight here - there will be more than just myself, who will have something negative to say about it.
It's a good story, but Stephanie Meyer is a terrible writer.

----------


## Beautifull

why do you say that?

what do you recommend as a good writer if not Stephenie?
(and good point about the discussion. :Wink:  )




> Jacob is a sweetheart. He goes about everything dead wrong, but he's too impulsive to help it. Breaking Dawn from his point of view is the funniest thing EVER. I love the chapter titles!!
> But forget Jacob and Edward... _I_ will take Seth and Jasper, any day.


 :FRlol: yeah, just give me emmett and you got yourself a deal! :FRlol:

----------


## Zee.

Because it's true?

Like i said, good story teller - but not a good writer. Just because someone can do what i'm doing right now "writing", doesn't make them a good writer.

Well, i don't know you as a person, so i can't really answer that.. so i'll just list some of my favourites.

Crime and Punishment 
Watership Down 
The Fountainhead 
Only Revolutions
House of Leaves
The Most Dangerous Game
The Virgin Suicides
In Cold Blood
The Wind up Bird Chronicle
After Dark
Interview with the Vampire

----------


## Joreads

> ugh double post..


We have all been there  :FRlol:

----------


## Beautifull

what do you say writing is then? she decribed her plot pretty well, she had a well developed setting and characters, what is she missing?

twice in a row :FRlol:

----------


## Zee.

> what do you say writing is then? she decribed her plot pretty well, she had a well developed setting and characters, what is she missing?


She rambled, even then that wasn't worth reading. Her use of descriptive language is poor. Her structure is poor. Her characters are flat, predictable, all revealed in the first line of introducing them.


But hey - like i said good story

----------


## Beautifull

have you read her other book(that's not part of the series) yet?

now that's my favorite book. you might say the same thing about this one too, but the first time i read that one, i was surprised in some parts, mad in others, and cried tears of joy and sadness for the last part of the book.

you should read it if you haven't, it's called "the Host"
i couldn't put it down.

well, i gotta go, but i hope to talk with you again, and discuss...topics.

----------


## ChinaRose

I got a chance to read the first two chapters of Twilight,and I should say it attracks my eyeball. :Smile:

----------


## SecretUmbreon

I read some of it but I wasn't very interested. Maybe it's just me...

----------


## 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...

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

> 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.


I see :Smile:  It was still an interesting point to make.

----------


## JBI

> 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.




> 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.

----------


## Niamh

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.

----------


## Remarkable

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

----------


## Mopey Droney

JBI wins thread.

----------


## Zee.

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

----------


## Joreads

> JBI wins thread.


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

----------


## Dori

> JBI wins thread.


 :FRlol:  JBI pwns.  :Biggrin:  

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

----------


## Joreads

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


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. :FRlol:

----------


## Dori

> 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.


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

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

----------


## Joreads

> I merely said I didn't want to waste my time---my precious time. Life is too short to read outside of my interests. 
> 
> (Edit: Okay, I did make other remarks, but I was just having little fun. )


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

----------


## Dori

> 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...  :Biggrin:

----------


## Joreads

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


Well that is good to know. I am smiling to :Wink:

----------


## MattG

> 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).  :Biggrin:

----------


## Joreads

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


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 :FRlol:

----------


## Emil Miller

> 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?

----------


## Joreads

> 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?

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

> 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.

----------


## Emil Miller

> 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?

----------


## JBI

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.

----------


## Emil Miller

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.

----------


## kelby_lake

> 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

----------


## JBI

> 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.

----------


## Niamh

> 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.

----------


## Allannah

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.

----------


## Zee.

> 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.
> ...


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.

----------


## 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.

----------


## Zee.

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.

----------


## 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.

----------


## Zee.

> 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.

----------


## MattG

> 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.

----------


## Zee.

> 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...

----------


## 1n50mn14

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. =/

----------


## Zee.

> 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.

----------


## 1n50mn14

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!)

----------


## curlyqlink

> 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.

----------


## 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 (:

----------


## Niamh

> 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.

----------


## Zee.

haha true. 

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




> 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..

----------


## Joreads

> 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.

----------


## Niamh

> 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.

----------


## Allannah

But apples and oranges are comparable...oh dear ^^ Yes, I'm being deliberately awkward. Anyway, someone was comparing War and Peace to Twilight and that is from where my comment stemmed (:

Actually, what you read does greatly influence how you write. I will present myself as a clear example; I'm Dutch and my family and I moved to England at the time that you'd usually be developing reading/ writing skills. I was never taught to read or write French, as I was learning to speak, read, and write English, but taught myself to when my mother started making me read French books. I have derived more grammar and language from those books than from any French lessons which clearly set out grammar rules and vocabulary. Although I'm sure you didn't really need or want to know that, it is quite well known that if you read voraciously, your grammar will be alike that of the material you read and that your general understanding of language will be different according to the style that you like best.

----------


## Niamh

> Actually, what you read does greatly influence how you write. I will present myself as a clear example; I'm Dutch and my family and I moved to England at the time that you'd usually be developing reading/ writing skills. I was never taught to read or write French, as I was learning to speak, read, and write English, but taught myself to when my mother started making me read French books. I have derived more grammar and language from those books than from any French lessons which clearly set out grammar rules and vocabulary. Although I'm sure you didn't really need or want to know that, it is quite well known that if you read voraciously, your grammar will be alike that of the material you read and that your general understanding of language will be different according to the style that you like best.


you do have a valid point, but it may not have the same effect if its many different types of styles you read. I'm sure if someone only read trashy books and say young adult books, they would write in a similar style and might not use a broad vocab, and someone who mainly read classics might be influenced by them. but for someone who reads a bit of everything, it may not have as much of an effect. but who knows. I'm no expert, i'm only speculating.

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

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


Are you saying that if I have the mental capacity to enjoy Stephanie Meyer, I do not have the capacity to enjoy Tolstoy? Please clarify; I find that a little offensive...




> But apples and oranges are comparable...oh dear ^^ Yes, I'm being deliberately awkward. Anyway, someone was comparing War and Peace to Twilight and that is from where my comment stemmed (:


Actually, the comparison was between Anna Karenina and Twilight, when I was told that if I'm going to read a work such as Tolstoy's I should be reading more appropriate fluff.




> Although I'm sure you didn't really need or want to know that, it is quite well known that if you read voraciously, your grammar will be alike that of the material you read and that your general understanding of language will be different according to the style that you like best.


The difference here is that you have deliberately applied yourself to the improvement of both your written and spoken language, and obviously you take great care when expressing yourself. Not everyone applies him or herself in the same way. Of course, there's the other option- those who speak in their first language and are simply careless, especially while typing. I know that I speak and write far more correctly than I type. 




> 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?


I've read plenty of light fiction as well as the classic literature with which I'm trying to educate myself, but that still has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that I chose to read about teenage vampires. That happened to be what I felt like reading at the time. I have openly admitted that Twilight is not of the same writing quality of other fiction, whether contemporary or classic, original language or translation. It is simply a story in which to immerse oneself, and whether or not others find that credible does not matter in the least. I really don't understand why you would suggest that the fluff I choose to read isn't appropriate..? What would you consider appropriate fluff?

----------


## Zee.

> But apples and oranges are comparable...oh dear ^^ Yes, I'm being deliberately awkward. Anyway, someone was comparing War and Peace to Twilight and that is from where my comment stemmed (:
> 
> Actually, what you read does greatly influence how you write. I will present myself as a clear example; I'm Dutch and my family and I moved to England at the time that you'd usually be developing reading/ writing skills. I was never taught to read or write French, as I was learning to speak, read, and write English, but taught myself to when my mother started making me read French books. I have derived more grammar and language from those books than from any French lessons which clearly set out grammar rules and vocabulary. Although I'm sure you didn't really need or want to know that, it is quite well known that if you read voraciously, your grammar will be alike that of the material you read and that your general understanding of language will be different according to the style that you like best.



Well i've read a whole lot of books in my life time - you pick up different things. Of course the way I speak and my choice of words has changed, but I still use one two many commas.
It doesn't alter the fact I've probably read more books than you - even if you have better grammar than I do.

To be honest, I was quite offended too..

Allannah, maybe you should be a little more careful with what you say. I don't know you and you certainly don't know me.

I am lazy with the way i write. Period. It doesn't mean I cant express myself in the "correct way"

----------


## Allannah

I seem to have made a rather bad introduction to the forum xD

Once again, limajean, I apologise to you- although, I must say, I find your acceptance [or unacceptance] of it somewhat ungracious. I have acknowledged that my criticism of your post was unnecessary, but you seem intent on mantaining your unpleasant view of me ^^ 

How do you know, with such certainty, that you have read so many more books than I? I admit that I was being modest perhaps until the point of untruthfulness when I more or less said that I hadn't read that many books- I actually have read quite a lot, especially in proportion to my age. 

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

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

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

----------


## Zee.

I don't know if you've read more than me - i was being snarky and mean because I was annoyed at your comment on grammar. I also have the terrible habit of arguing, it's almost addictive.

I guess we're even,

you dont need to apologise for anything.

----------


## Allannah

Lol, I'm the most argumentative person I know, and that's saying something x] 

Who's your favourite character out of Twilight? I think mine's Jacob...purely 'cos he's abit fit...but I like Alice too. I liked the bit in the film where they're in the restaurant and Edward tells Bella that he can read minds. It's like "Money. Sex. Sex. Money. Cat" xD

----------


## Zee.

i don't like Twilight, so none of them really :\

The movie I really enjoyed though

----------


## Allannah

Yeah....my friends are making me read Breaking Dawn but I really preferred the film! It would be interesting to read Twilight from Edward's perspective, though; wasn't she going to publish something like that. Ah well. Coincidentally I just discovered that my morbidly obese hamster has eaten his way through page one of New Moon. How appropriate ^^ Lol.

----------


## Zee.

It's already been published, on her website.
Play around with the links and you'll find it.

----------


## Allannah

Okay, thanks (:

----------


## Niamh

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

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

----------


## kelby_lake

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

----------


## Joreads

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

The obsession continues.

----------


## aBIGsheep

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


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

----------


## Dori

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

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

----------


## Joreads

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


Pretty normal than :FRlol:

----------


## hoope

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

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

----------


## Iris dark

Anyway,I feel this book is good.

----------


## 1n50mn14

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


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

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

----------


## Hell girl

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

----------


## Allannah

> However, your grammar certainly doesn't speak well for the type of people who read the book.
> 
> I know that isn't fair and doesn't encompass everybody, and I'm sorry, but I can never resist a dig at bad grammar.


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

----------


## kelby_lake

> Pretty normal than


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

----------


## JBI

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


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

----------


## Joreads

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


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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

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


hahahahaha




> Classic Charm- I don't know why you're talking about mental capacity; I never referred to it whether directly or indirectly. I would appreciate it if you at least tried to interpret what I said correctly! =] I would certainly not say that. My friend Hannah loves the Twilight series, and yet has an IQ of about a billion ^^ You have doubtless not read my former post on the previous page in which I explained why exactly I felt that you could not enjoy both authors both to the same degree. 
> 
> Actually, since I was about eight or nine when I started reading books in French, I doubt that I really had the capacity to conciously "apply" myself- which is why I used myself as an example to support my point. 
> 
> To anyone else that I've inadvertently offended: I'M SORRY! x]


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

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

----------


## JBI

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


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

----------


## Joreads

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



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


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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

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

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

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

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

----------


## JBI

> I still don't see how you can argue one way or the other by piggy backing our thoughts on the novel. Don't get me wrong if people have read the book, or at least given it a good go and didn't like it I am fine with that and more than happy to talk about it. But to simply read what a few people think and than deciding what side of the fence you are on from that doesn't seem to have a lot of merit to me. Does that make sense to you?
> 
> 
> PS as far as I am concerned the central theme is the love story between Edward and Bella not the baby or the choice that was made in regards to it


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

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

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



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

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

----------


## sundays50

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

----------


## Zee.

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

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

----------


## Joreads

> I gave it three pages, more than it deserved. Just because its popular poorly written cliché doesn't mean I should be forced to read it before commenting.
> 
> It's like saying I must read every bad book before being able to say they are bad. As a student of contemporary literature, that puts me in a problem spot - how the hell can one read good books, if they are forced to finish every bad book before they are "allowed to comment". The point is, I saw the thread heading in a direction, and I wanted to approach it from perspective points, but am awaiting a go ahead, as it is rather pushing against some of the forum rules, mainly the no discussing current events, which could or could not include said subjects.
> 
> But yeah, I haven't read the book, so I can't comment on said subjects right? I'm not a Twilight authority, so I can't comment on politics.
> 
> 
> 
> On another note, how the **** am I supposed to comment on the fourth book of a mediocre series, without reading the whole thing. By that notion, every review of that book is naturally biased, given that the readers had first wanted to continue after the first one, therefore rendering the reading relative to other volumes in the series, rather than to literature in general.
> ...



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

Jo, you are so much more diplomatic than I!

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

----------


## Zee.

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

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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

> Yep - at the heart, it's a life style.
> 
> I don't know about everyone else but i love fluffy books. I read them because I don't want to read heavy or thought provoking books all the time. Same reason i watch fluffy movies and fluffy tv.


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

----------


## Joreads

> Jo, you are so much more diplomatic than I!
> 
> And I agree with you completely. I'm sorry JBI, I get ahead of myself sometimes. I'd love to go ahead with this discussion if we get a mod on board, and I promise I'll try to be fair and keep my temper


Years of practice Charm years of practice.

----------


## Zee.

Oh my lord there is something wrong with me.

LIFE STYLE?

I meant love story.

Oh my god i'm deranged.

And thanks Charm  :Smile:

----------


## Joreads

> Oh my lord there is something wrong with me.
> 
> LIFE STYLE?
> 
> I meant love story.
> 
> Oh my god i'm deranged.
> 
> And thanks Charm


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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

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

----------


## Allannah

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

----------


## stlukesguild

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

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

----------


## kelby_lake

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

----------


## Niamh

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

----------


## MattG

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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

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


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

----------


## stlukesguild

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

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

----------


## kelby_lake

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

----------


## mayneverhave

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


I find myself agreeing both with you and stlukes.

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

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

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

----------


## Zee.

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

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


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

Stephen King isn't crap though.

He shouldn't be listed next to Stephanie Meyer.

Also, I have a taste for horror. 

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

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

----------


## Joreads

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


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




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


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

Thanks
Jo




> This is one of the funniest threads on the board.


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

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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

> I find myself agreeing both with you and stlukes.
> 
> Ultimately I'm somewhat of an elitist. I will choose Proust and Shakespeare over Stephen King or Stephanie Meyer in the long run, but occasional distractions are necessary.
> 
> Being somewhat of a film buff, I prefer watching classic films like Citizen Kane, 2001: A space odyssey over 300, or Spider-man 3, but occasional exersions into the cliche, weak, popular art is easier on the mind. Occasionally, I enjoy watching plots that are poor, acting peformances that are empty, and direction that is sloppy. This is more psychological than aesthetic.
> 
> With literature, I'm slightly different. I have not read a "crap" novel in perhaps about 5 years - I've soley dedicated myself to reading classics and well-recieved literature. This is because the reading of a novel usually takes much longer than watching a movie, and I simply don't have the time to waste reading some penny-dreadful. If I had fantastic mental capabilities and could read a book a day, this might be different, but as it stands, my time is valuable.


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

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




> Welcome to the fun zone pull up a chair and be prepared to be entertained 
> 
> PS what are your thoughts on the novels by the way - no need to be scared we will play nice - maybe


Oh yeah, we're just a riot. :Wink:

----------


## Allannah

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

----------


## Joreads

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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

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


haha excellent

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

----------


## kandaurov

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

----------


## Joreads

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


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

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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

> The birth of the baby didn't worry me so much as the imprinting of the babies did. 
> 
> Why did the baby bother you? Actually it is kind of a Hollywood ending isn't it everyone gets what they want.


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

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

----------


## MattG

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


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

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

----------


## JBI

> Unlike a good number of the critics, I actually did read the first book. It was OK, the characters were a little young for me to really connect with both in literal age and in insight, but I don't have anything against it. I certainly wasn't compelled enough to go get the second book. 
> 
> I think it's funny that Raymond Chandler, for example, wrote pulp & 'trash' before his work was considered literature. I'd wager that a lot of folks who find themselves shelved in the 'classics of literature' section would be surprised that their work is featured there were they alive to see it. Ask Harper Lee if you don't believe me.


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

----------


## MattG

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


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

----------


## Joreads

> Because she and Edward were supposed to have a perfect obsessive teenage romance forever. And now they have responsibilities which ruins the perfection. Obviously, I like this story because of completely impossible it is in real life to have such a romance. 
> 
> The imprinting didn't bother me, really. There is no sexual desire while the child is that young. It's merely a caring uncle type thing.


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


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




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


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

----------


## JBI

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


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

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

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

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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

> OK I see where you are coming from now. I guess I can see that. I
> 
> 
> Charm remember that Edward told Bella he did not want her to miss out on human things and she said she did not care? I liked the reversal when she found out about the baby she wanted the baby more than her life and Edward was the one that was concerned. That was why I liked that story line.


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




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


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

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

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




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


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

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

I also wonder what you mean by truthful?




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


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

----------


## Mopey Droney

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


Well, I _did_ read the first book, and I can tell you that despite the fact that JBI has only read three pages of the actual novels in addition to the Wikipedia pages, he has so far given us far more spot-on analysis of the novels than any of those who have read the whole series.

----------


## Joreads

> I know I promised not to post here, but I couldn't help but jumping in on this comment.
> 
> Some critics believe that the whole liking the bad boy is a gender role adopted by people because society creates that image. There has been a great deal of scholarship done on gender and sexuality as roles, rather than biological necessities, and for a great many of critics, the "she likes him because" is another way of saying "society makes her like him because," or "she pretends to like him because..."
> 
> The notion of women liking someone because of x or y is really societal more than biological or truthful. I think, up until about age 20 that may be so, but after that, when people begin to accept a more solidified sense of self, they kind of drift away from those notions, to the more nuanced.
> 
> I can see many critics, if they were writing criticism on these books, which they probably won't, take issue with this notion of female submission and male dominance. I know one poster has already razed the issue, so I am just going to throw it out there, as you know, at this point I could really care less, I just think this would take the book into an interesting angle, in terms of theme, symbol and allegory.



Glad to have you back JBI.

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

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




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



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

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

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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

> And there we have it folks the nail has just been hit on the head. We like to feel protected, I am not so sure about weak though Charm. The other thing to consider here is that Bella is weaker than most of the characters in the book that she comes up against, even Jacob (apart from the humans of course). There is no way she could defend herself against James and the others she needs Edward and Alice to help her.
> 
> Lets also not forget that Bella walks into the ballet studio on her own to face James not knowing that Edward would be there to save her. I wouldn't call that weak.
> 
> Also in Breaking Dawn it is Bella's skill that protects Edward and everyone else in the clearing from Jane and her brother. Bella is in fact the reason she survives.


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

----------


## Joreads

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


Got you sorry about that my fault. 

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

----------


## Zee.

> If you read the synopsis, it sounds like one of those terrible ridiculous teenage books that are all written the same and have proposterous plot lines that make you want to throw up. 
> 
> But it isn't.


But...

it is.

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

> But...
> 
> it is.


Yeah, it really is. 

And I love it :Biggrin: 




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


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

We really do have one track minds  :Tongue:

----------


## Pewnut

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

----------


## JBI

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


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

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

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

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

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

----------


## mortalterror

> See that's the problem - contemporary trends in literature, and I am talking specifically from a Canadian literary viewpoint, have been to go against these notions of damsel in distress, undercut them, and create a new image of independent female, or at least one as capable and strong as the "knight in shining armor" cliché fed out by, it would seem from your description, Twilight, and essentially every romance novel ever written.
> 
> I think the approach of "it's just a silly novel" is not a fair one, given that these novels most definitely have an impact, and perhaps are resetting, feminist notions. I don't think it would be too far a stretch to say the books don't approach, if not support, a patriarchal vision, or at least one with women as subordinate.
> 
> The notion of the woman needing rescuing, percieved through the novel as commentary, would connote a meaning of perhaps a necessity of male dominance, or male protectiveness, when really, I would think, especially for teenage women's literature, a viewpoint towards progress, or independence would be more suitable.
> 
> Ultimately the book shares many similarities with the Bildungsroman narrative, from what I understand, and for young women, and girls reading these novels, while furnishing their own identities, to be subjected to such close-minded a vision as the one you seem to equate with the book is perhaps a little bit disastrous in terms of progress.
> 
> The vision of Twilight, from my understanding, is one of female weakness, or perhaps one female's weakness, where protector men save the day, and good ol' fashion girls seem to be idealized for allowing the men to. It is a patriarchal vision from my understanding, and one agreeing with many religious, and political trends that seem to be heightened by American media, and to a lesser extent, world media.


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

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

----------


## Joreads

> Yeah, it really is. 
> 
> And I love it


Me to.

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

----------


## Mopey Droney

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

----------


## JBI

> You are operating under the fallacy that gender roles are interchangeable and that feminism is a striving for masculine equality rather than a liberty to be truly feminine in behavior. Simple sexual dimorphism should tell you that biologically men and women are not the same and should not act as if they were. Furthermore, you are assuming that traditional roles and behaviors are unnatural and the product of repressive societies as a given, instead of proving your underlying premise at the outset of your argument.
> 
> "How can society be just when genetics are so manifestly unjust?"- Dr. James Watson, winner of the Nobel Prize, discoverer of DNA


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

----------


## Mopey Droney

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


Come on, you're smarter than that.

----------


## Joreads

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


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

----------


## JBI

> Come on, you're smarter than that.


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

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

----------


## Joreads

Charm 

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

----------


## Mopey Droney

> Yeah, I was being ironic. I was merely pointing out the silliness of this notion. To quote the Canadian poet Milton Acorn, when asked if he was a Chauvinist, "Absolutely, I believe the feminine sex is vastly superior."
> 
> The notion of female subversiveness is, though not an open shut issue, still not one that can be reduced to "women are biologically weaker, therefore should be dominated/subject to patriarchal control." Such notions are dated, and I think any liberal person, or better yet, any progressive person, can agree that both sexes deserve equal treatment.


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

----------


## JBI

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


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

----------


## Joreads

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

----------


## Mopey Droney

> But the point is, a work that automatically creates a role as the ideal isn't allowing freedom or liberty, but rather feeds a cultural assumption, and puts additional pressure on society to make that assumption a realization.


I think I agree with you, but would you agree that literature that creates an ideal role based on one author's particular feminist assumptions has at the very least _the potential_ to be just as oppressive as one based on another author's archaic assumptions?

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

> See that's the problem - contemporary trends in literature, and I am talking specifically from a Canadian literary viewpoint, have been to go against these notions of damsel in distress, undercut them, and create a new image of independent female, or at least one as capable and strong as the "knight in shining armor" cliché fed out by, it would seem from your description, Twilight, and essentially every romance novel ever written.
> 
> I think the approach of "it's just a silly novel" is not a fair one, given that these novels most definitely have an impact, and perhaps are resetting, feminist notions. I don't think it would be too far a stretch to say the books don't approach, if not support, a patriarchal vision, or at least one with women as subordinate.
> 
> The notion of the woman needing rescuing, percieved through the novel as commentary, would connote a meaning of perhaps a necessity of male dominance, or male protectiveness, when really, I would think, especially for teenage women's literature, a viewpoint towards progress, or independence would be more suitable.
> 
> Ultimately the book shares many similarities with the Bildungsroman narrative, from what I understand, and for young women, and girls reading these novels, while furnishing their own identities, to be subjected to such close-minded a vision as the one you seem to equate with the book is perhaps a little bit disastrous in terms of progress.
> 
> The vision of Twilight, from my understanding, is one of female weakness, or perhaps one female's weakness, where protector men save the day, and good ol' fashion girls seem to be idealized for allowing the men to. It is a patriarchal vision from my understanding, and one agreeing with many religious, and political trends that seem to be heightened by American media, and to a lesser extent, world media.


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

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

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

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

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

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

----------


## Joreads

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

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


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




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


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




> JBI I think is right in one respect that woman see Bella as weak and that is why they do not like her - I am not one of them by the way. 
> 
> Why do we love Edward? Because he is in so many ways perfect and in one large way imperfect. I think it is in Midnight Sun - Charm correct me if I am wrong, where Edward explains that when you become a vampire you are fixed, your likes your dislikes your character everything and only something amazing, and for a vampire once in a life time, can change that. For Edward his love of Bella is that change. It is in that moment that he decides that even though her blood to him is the most potent on the plant that he will not kill her. That is why in New Moon he can leave her even though he loves her more than life itself, and that is why he comes back. His love of her changes him to his very core. 
> 
> It is at its heart a love story and why does love sell - because everyone wants it!!!
> 
> Midnight Sun actually gives a really great look into Edwards mind and is in fact my favorite of the novels that being said I am clearly an Edward fan.


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

----------


## Joreads

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

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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

> Thanks Charm you are a doll. I don't haev my books they have been borrrowed by friends.
> 
> I see what you mean about her independence I will have to give that some more thought.


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

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

----------


## Joreads

> Ha, how'd I manage to fool you into thinking that? 
> 
> 
> oh, and by the way, I also don't agree with you that her love for Edward gave her the strength to save the baby. I think Rosalie's manipulation had a LOT to do with that.





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

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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

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


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

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

Why Alice for you?

----------


## Joreads

> Yes, I suppose that's true too. Either way, I'm still bitter about the whole baby in the first place. Actually, I was really enjoying the feminism conversation. What happened to J and Mopey??
> 
> Hmm. Favourite other than Edward...that's tough. I think I'm gonna go for a couple of them: Alice, Seth and Emmett. 
> 
> Why Alice for you?


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

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

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

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

Seth and Emmett why?

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

> I know the baby bothers you and I can understand why so in the interest of friendship it is off the table as from now . 
> 
> I have no idea what happened to J and Mopey hopefully they will join us for another round tomorrow it might be late where they are I am not sure. Two guys standing up for women's rights those boys are dolls to as far as I am concerned. maybe I should have said GI Joe's - I am sure they will understand what I mean.
> 
> Alice is so quirky and I love the whole vision thing. She would make a really good best friend. She kind of reminds me of my sister - just so we are clear my sister is not a vampire, my sister is always telling me what to wear and taking me shopping and generally pushing me around. 
> 
> I tell who else I liked Jasper and I would love to know more about his story. I think you could get a stand along book out of that if you wanted to.
> 
> Seth and Emmett why?


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

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

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

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

----------


## Joreads

> No, no, we can talk about it if you'd like. I'm always up for it!
> 
> Haha GI Joes. That's excellent. Do they still make those?
> 
> Emmett's just hilarious. Big, burly, rash, and completely oblivious. He's just good for a laugh.
> 
> I loved Seth's loyalty and innocence. He's really the only truly innocent character in the books, and I think the most lifelike (despite that he's a werewolf, yadda yadda yadda)


GI Joes who needs them we have our own.

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

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

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

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

----------


## Niamh

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

----------


## kelby_lake

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

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

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

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

----------


## Joreads

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



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

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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

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


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

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

----------


## Joreads

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


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

----------


## faithalina

> In some ways, I completely agree with you, JBI. The connotations presented by the novel's presentation of women as subordinates could definitely make an impact on the current generation of female youth. 
> 
> The problem, though, is something that only Jo mentioned in an earlier post but that we haven't really examined yet: The entirety of the series is completely contradictory in it's viewpoint on male dominance and feminist independence. 
> 
> Yes, as we've all stated, there is clearly the tone of the weak, female who wants and needs the comfort and protection of a male counterpart. 
> 
> There is also a middle, more equal ground. The whole second novel (New Moon) revolves around the idea that the two characters are parts of one whole, and cannot live without the other. While it's from the girl's perspective and her agony seems completely preposterous, it is clear that Edward is also not able to properly function without her. 
> 
> Finally, towards the end of the series (Breaking Dawn mostly), we the readers come to realize that Bella is actually the strongest of them all and is actually the only one capable of saving all the other characters. 
> ...



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

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

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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

> I agree with your views on there being a definite equality in degrees of regard between Edward and Bella. While in twilight Bella is definitely obsessed with Edward from the beginning, after reading Midnight Sun (what there is of it) it becomes clear that those feelings are entirely mutual and therefore her devotion seems far less pathetic...almost enviable. The strength of their love is almost a character in itself, that is present throughout the books, and carries the story through to it's conclusion. 
> 
> As a woman, and a fairly liberated one I think, i actually appreciated the strength of Edwards character in the first two books. i do think though, that he wouldn't have needed to be quite so overbearing if Bella didn't make such poor choices...but then...where would the story go without her flawed humanity? 
> 
> Perhaps my biggest frustration in Breaking Dawn (and Eclipse, to some extent) was the fact that, yes as you say, Bella became the 'strength' of the text, however, to allow that, suddenly Edward had no presence at all. I can imagine him shrinking under the weight of his guilt for putting her through such physical trauma etc...it just felt like he'd given up.


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




> Charm I agree with out about the ending of Breaking Dawn. It felt to me like SM realized that the book was already too long and she had to finish it so she hurried up and finished it. I have said previously that it is my least favorite book, partly because of the whole Jacob narration and because of the ending. It was to neat and tidy for my liking and Bella got everything that she wanted she gets to keep both Edwar and Jacob and that peeved me no end. I think that was the reason behind the whole imprinting the baby it was a way for SM to give Bella her happy ending. There wasnt even really a big fight scene with the Voultri (Sorry if that is spelt wrong) nothing beats a good dust up as far as I am concerned. 
> Did anyone else buy that the werewolves were in fact not werewolves but shape shifters that kind of ruined it for me as well.
> 
> 
> By the way why do people think Bella took to being a vampire so well? It was never really explained


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

----------


## faithalina

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


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




> Charm I agree with out about the ending of Breaking Dawn. It felt to me like SM realized that the book was already too long and she had to finish it so she hurried up and finished it. I have said previously that it is my least favorite book, partly because of the whole Jacob narration and because of the ending. It was to neat and tidy for my liking and Bella got everything that she wanted she gets to keep both Edwar and Jacob and that peeved me no end. I think that was the reason behind the whole imprinting the baby it was a way for SM to give Bella her happy ending. There wasnt even really a big fight scene with the Voultri (Sorry if that is spelt wrong) nothing beats a good dust up as far as I am concerned. 
> Did anyone else buy that the werewolves were in fact not werewolves but shape shifters that kind of ruined it for me as well.
> 
> 
> By the way why do people think Bella took to being a vampire so well? It was never really explained


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

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

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

----------


## Joreads

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


Ah but Bella asked him to kiss her!

----------


## faithalina

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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

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

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

----------


## Joreads

> It didn't bother me that she asked him to kiss her to save his life, but it bothered me when he was kissing her and then she just decided that she was in love with him too and started kissing him back. I hated that. Poor Edward...
> 
> I was pretty happy when he started howling because he overheard them talking about their marriage.


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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

> We really are Edward girls aren't we


To a fault, I think.  :Blush: 

He's pretty much perfect.

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

----------


## faithalina

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


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




> It didn't bother me that she asked him to kiss her to save his life, but it bothered me when he was kissing her and then she just decided that she was in love with him too and started kissing him back. I hated that. Poor Edward...
> 
> I was pretty happy when he started howling because he overheard them talking about their marriage.


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

jacob is just a tenacious fool...

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

> confession...i literally threw the book across the room when i realised she was going to kiss him back. edward deserves better...sigh...
> 
> jacob is just a tenacious fool...


I concur...

----------


## Joreads

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

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

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

So what is your favorite Edward moment?

That is not really a topic though.

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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

> Wow we are going to turn this into an Edward loving thread
> 
> The guy that plays Edward is only 22 I keep telling myself that there is nothing wrong with that but I am far from 22 oh well
> 
> I could have screamed when she kissed Jacob as well. That whole thing annoyed me.
> 
> So what is your favorite Edward moment?


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

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

----------


## faithalina

> Wow we are going to turn this into an Edward loving thread
> 
> The guy that plays Edward is only 22 I keep telling myself that there is nothing wrong with that but I am far from 22 oh well
> 
> I could have screamed when she kissed Jacob as well. That whole thing annoyed me.
> 
> So what is your favorite Edward moment?


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

considering fave moment...

----------


## Joreads

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


Yes but he will do. No so for me but it is legal :Wink: 




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


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

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

----------


## faithalina

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


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




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


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

----------


## Joreads

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

----------


## faithalina

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


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

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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

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

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

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

----------


## Joreads

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

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

OK hat do you think time for the next question?

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


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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

> Mine is also Midnight Sun Edward is talking to Bella about being friends. Part of him wants her to understand how bad he is for her and part of him does not. It is the one line on the whole series that makes me laugh out loud
> I waited for her response torn in two  wishing she would finally hear and understand, thinking I might die if she did. How Melodramatic. I was turning into such a human.  Funny stuff 
> 
> Charm your posts made sense to me at least and I see exactly where you are coming from. 
> 
> OK hat do you think time for the next question?
> 
> Given some of the discussion in the other threads and the very valid points raised by JBI and others what is it about these novels that has touched so many people in fact let me change that to women.
> 
> ...


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

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

----------


## Joreads

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




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


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

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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

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


Suuurrrreee.... :Wink:  :Biggrin: 

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

----------


## faithalina

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


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

----------


## kelby_lake

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

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

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

----------


## faithalina

> ha, ha, let's dig deeper now girlies...
> 
> Imprinting. Did you find that a bit...creepy?...
> 
> Reading the series was sort of voyeuristic. I really couldn't imagine myself as bella, and that basically is key to liking the books.



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

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

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

----------


## Joreads

I am with Kelby let’s start digging.

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




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


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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

Yes, digging is always good. 

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

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

----------


## Joreads

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

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

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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

> Guys does anyone know if Imprinting is actually part of the werewolves canon or is it something that SM made up?
> 
> Charm we should compare bruises one day if there is something to run into I am bound to find it. You are far from pathetic by the way.
> 
> Kelby would you mind telling us what is it about Bella that most annoyed you ? Sorry if you have answered that somewhere else. So we can discuss


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

Ha! Yes, I have a lot of scars too :Sick:  Why thank you :Smile: 

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

----------


## Joreads

> I never really thought of there being a werewolf canon...
> 
> Ha! Yes, I have a lot of scars too Why thank you
> 
> Yes, I'm curious too, though I think it's fairly common amongst the readers.


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

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

----------


## faithalina

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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

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


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

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

----------


## Joreads

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

----------


## faithalina

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


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

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

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

----------


## Joreads

> I agree, and was thinking along the same lines also. I did not really like her, even at the end in Breaking Dawn, when she and Bella joined forces, so to speak, but I appreciated the contrast she provided, which ultimately equated to balance. 
> 
> You are right, the perfect partnerings within the Cullen family, definitely emphasised just how lonely Edward was, which further explains the rest of the family being so supportive of Edward and Bella's 'impossible' relationship and their willingness to include her in their family. Certainly highlights the whole idea of family being more than just 'blood'...no pun intended.


More than Blood I like it. :FRlol: 




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


Feel free to add it to the spoiler thread

http://www.twilightteez.com/


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

BITE ME

----------


## skasian

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

----------


## Niamh

Some new moon movie news

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

----------


## kelby_lake

> Guys does anyone know if Imprinting is actually part of the werewolves canon or is it something that SM made up?
> 
> Kelby would you mind telling us what is it about Bella that most annoyed you ? Sorry if you have answered that somewhere else. So we can discuss


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

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

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

----------


## Joreads

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


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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

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


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




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


Yep, that's exactly right!

Any news on the werewolf front, Jo?

----------


## Joreads

> Any news on the werewolf front, Jo?


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

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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

> It seems, as far as I can tell that SM made imprinting up herself. I could find no other reference to it anywhere but I will keep digging.
> 
> The werewolf as a enemy of the vampire has been a long standing accepted "fact" so there is nothing new there. Strange then that Jacob could imprint on a 1/2 vampire?


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

----------


## Zee.

Imprinting was made up, yes.

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

> Imprinting was made up, yes.


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

----------


## Joreads

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


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

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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

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


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

----------


## Zee.

To add dimension to the werewolves.

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

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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

> To add dimension to the werewolves.


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

----------


## Joreads

> Certain things in the story are put there only to benefit something else. Or, highlight a point.
> 
> E.g When Bella falls for Jacob.
> This was a device used to show how much she is in love with Edward because she CHOOSES Edward, at the end of it.


Yep spot on with that one Lim




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


That sat really poorly with me

----------


## Zee.

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


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

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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

> Certain things in the story are put there only to benefit something else. Or, highlight a point.
> 
> E.g When Bella falls for Jacob.
> This was a device used to show how much she is in love with Edward because she CHOOSES Edward, at the end of it.


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




> That sat really poorly with me



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




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


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

----------


## Joreads

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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

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


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

----------


## Zee.

Yeah he wrote that Let Me Sign song too. 


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

----------


## Joreads

> Damn...can't resist men with musical talent!


Me tooooo

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

> Yeah he wrote that Let Me Sign song too. 
> 
> 
> Yeah but CC, I think the book would be boring if it lacked certain details like Imprinting.


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

----------


## Zee.

See you later guys,

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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

> See you later guys,
> 
> if I stay any longer CC will make fun of my pathetic logging out attempts.


Check!

----------


## Joreads

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

http://twilightnovelnovice.com/exclu...lomon-trimble/

Interesting article by the guy that plays Sam

----------


## kelby_lake

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


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

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

----------


## Joreads

> Meyer wanted to portray a normal lovely relationship. Meet- get attracted- kiss- date- marriage (because Meyer believe in the whole abstinance til your married thing)- sex-baby.
> 
> Jacob and Renesmee was just wrong. He was in love with her mother. Next we'll find out that he's actually in love with Renee...
> Or maybe it's the Eddie part of the baby he's imprinted on :P


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

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

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

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

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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

> That is an interesting point about imprinting on Eddie's part of the baby. If they are enemies can that be possible.
> 
> I heard an interview with her somewhere on line and I wouldn't be surprised if we get another installment of the book - Midnight sun first I hope first.
> 
> I for one would really like to have a book on Jaspers story.
> 
> Kelby I didn't know Meyers church of choice until last night - interesting - if you guys aren't sure let me know - is that breaking the rules? I can PM you anyway.
> 
> Saw the movie for the 5th time last night - it is growing on me.


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

----------


## kelby_lake

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

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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

> Excuse might be a better one. (and by the way I don't mean to offend people with those beliefs, it's just relevant).
> 
> The books are pretty much Meyer's dreams, so I guess she has weird dreams...


Really? That I didn't know

----------


## kelby_lake

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

----------


## Joreads

> Excuse might be a better one. (and by the way I don't mean to offend people with those beliefs, it's just relevant).
> 
> The books are pretty much Meyer's dreams, so I guess she has weird dreams...


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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

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

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

----------


## melissa martin

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

----------


## Joreads

> Yeah, there's no offense taken on my end either. 
> 
> Jo, did you say she was doing more novels other than Midnight Sun, or did I make that up?


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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

So here's my next question:


If vampires have no blood...


and no bodily fluids...




How did this all happen? 

please tell me this does not require clarification

----------


## Joreads

> So here's my next question:
> 
> 
> If vampires have no blood...
> 
> 
> and no bodily fluids...
> 
> 
> ...


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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

even before that...

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

----------


## Joreads

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


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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

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

----------


## Joreads

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

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

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

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

Apparently I'm not very flexible.  :Sick:

----------


## Joreads

> AHA!! Now we have it! All the fluids he stored up before he became a vampire. I think that's our only explanation...though, even still...
> 
> I'm a student of science, my brain is just not allowing me to grasp the concept of impregnating without blood or fluids...I'm trying, but I just don't get it!
> 
> I suppose I'll have to take me roommate's advise:
> "They're vampires! Just bend your mind!"
> 
> Apparently I'm not very flexible.


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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

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


 :FRlol:  :FRlol:  :FRlol:  :FRlol:  :FRlol:  :FRlol:  :FRlol:  :FRlol:  :FRlol:  :FRlol: 

Actually laughing out loud right now

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

----------


## Equality72521

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


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Totally love that....

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

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

Are you a fan?

----------


## kelby_lake

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

----------


## Joreads

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

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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

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

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

----------


## kelby_lake

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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

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


hahahahahahahahaha

----------


## Joreads

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

----------


## faithalina

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

----------


## kelby_lake

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

It's like Mills and Boon.

----------


## faithalina

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


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

----------


## Tyler Self

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

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

----------


## seanlol

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

----------


## kelby_lake

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


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

----------


## Tyler Self

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

----------


## wishiwasausten

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

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

----------


## Adelheid

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

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

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

----------


## kelby_lake

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

----------


## TurquoiseSunset

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

----------


## wat??

Twilight is bad and the fanbase is even worse.




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


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

----------


## Beautifull

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

----------


## Lynnwood

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

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

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

----------


## Seraphina

> i understand people like Robert Pattison, but he's _just not Edward Cullen_! 
> 
> if you read the books, you'd understand why. he's just not cut out to be like Edward.he doesn't even _look_ like him.




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

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

----------


## JBI

> hmm, I read the books (what I thought of them is another matter), and I have to say I thought Robert Pattinson played Edward to perfection. I'm usually ultra critical on actor's portrayals of characters, but I thought Pattinson was perfect. 
> 
> As for the book itself....mostly, it was a good idea. I...didn't exactly enjoy them, but I didn't hate reading them. However, I'll never pick them up again. I have a major personal ick over the whole idea of vampires not going out in the sun because they're _too sparkley and pretty_, though...honestly. Best way I'd describe it, is as literary candyfloss; no nutritional value, but most people enjoy it once in a while.


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

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

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

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

----------


## Beautifull

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

----------


## mystery_spell

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

-shrugs- Each to his own I suppose.

----------


## Beautifull

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

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

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

----------


## wat??

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

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

----------


## rozreads

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

----------


## JBI

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


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

----------


## Joreads

> but Stephenie Meyer is a pretty good author...that's why we are tired of her, because we hear her name so much it's sickening...
> 
> BTW, has anyone read her other book? Talking about Twilight is getting boring, what about _The Host_ ?



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

----------


## Dr. Hill

> i understand where you're coming from Mystery, but i think most just don't like her because all this fuss over her book and crap... i mean there's movies out for her book, there candy coming out with that Twilight crap, and there might even be a new kind of ice cream for it or something...
> 
> but Stephenie Meyer is a pretty good author...that's why we are tired of her, because we hear her name so much it's sickening...
> 
> BTW, has anyone read her other book? Talking about Twilight is getting boring, what about _The Host_ ?


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

----------


## Lynne50

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


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

----------


## JBI

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


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

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

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

----------


## Lynne50

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

----------


## Beautifull

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




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


HAVE YOU READ ANY OF HER OTHER BOOKS BESIDES THOSE VAMP BOOKS?!! :Flare:  :Rage: 

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

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

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

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

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




> hmm, I read the books (what I thought of them is another matter), and I have to say I thought Robert Pattinson played Edward to perfection. I'm usually ultra critical on actor's portrayals of characters, but I thought Pattinson was perfect. 
> 
> As for the book itself....mostly, it was a good idea. I...didn't exactly enjoy them, but I didn't hate reading them. However, I'll never pick them up again. I have a major personal ick over the whole idea of vampires not going out in the sun because they're _too sparkley and pretty_, though...honestly. Best way I'd describe it, is as literary candyfloss; no nutritional value, but most people enjoy it once in a while.


to each their own, right?

----------


## Homers_child

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


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

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




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


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

And for the record, I do write frequently.  :Wink:

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

My goodness this discussion just keeps going in circles. 




> But see, the thing is, the 'story' is the only thing that got her famous. The quality of the writing when you actually evaluate it is not that good. 
> 
> I read Twilight the first time and I was intrigued by it. But when I tried to read it again, all I noticed was how sucky it was written. Without the mystery/love story, the book has nothing. )


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

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

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

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

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

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

----------


## Dr. Hill

> HAVE YOU READ ANY OF HER OTHER BOOKS BESIDES THOSE VAMP BOOKS?!!


Don't care to.




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


The way she put it together is rather simple, and without any originality.




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


So can any other book.



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


You're right, but I'm giving you my opinion, as that is what you ask for in this thread.




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


I've written on my own and it was rubbish. So is what Stephenie Meyers writes. I could probably get the junk I write published if I aimed it at a drooling audience; it's all business--Stephenie Meyers is a businesswoman, a capitalist. She knows how to advertise and she knows how to strike the hearts of pubescent girls.




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


All right.

----------


## Bakiryu

> HAVE YOU READ ANY OF HER OTHER BOOKS BESIDES THOSE VAMP BOOKS?!!
> 
> jeez, can't you understand that its not what the book is about but the quality of how she put it together?
> 
> yeah i understand you don't like the story...but the book was made to bring an escape to fantasy world,in a manner of speaking...
> 
> yeah i understand you didn't like guy-perfect and nerdy girl-laid thing, but to each his own.
> 
> have you even tried to write a story of your own..maybe then you'll see what i'm talking about, it's not so easy to make your characters come to life.
> ...


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

Her fantasy world is unrealistic.

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

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

----------


## amarna

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


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

----------


## kevinthediltz

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


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

----------


## amarna

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


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

----------


## kevinthediltz

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

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

----------


## Zee.

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

----------


## Joreads

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


Could not agree more. 

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

----------


## kilted exile

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

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

----------


## Dr. Hill

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

----------


## Joreads

> what happened to reading books cos you enjoy the story? The majority of the world doesnt give a {expletive deleted} about literary form & technique. It doesnt really matter. People read for enjoyment, the same way they listen to music for enjoyment, or do any past-time for enjoyment, relaxation or escapism from the mundanity of life for a while. If you enjoy picking apart the bones and examining why a writer does such and such a thing thats fine, whatever floats your boat, but there is no need to belittle & deride people for having no interest in doing so.
> 
> I for one cant stand joyce & would far rather pick up grisham. Have no time for mozart & want del amitri & the beautiful south instead. I would frankly kill myself if i woke up one day & everyone was poring over milton & listening to beethoven.



here here

----------


## kevinthediltz

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

----------


## DrkAngL

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


i disagree.

----------


## Joreads

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


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

----------


## kevinthediltz

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


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

----------


## Joreads

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



Hey we agree on that :FRlol:

----------


## JBI

> Hey we agree on that


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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

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


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

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

----------


## Joreads

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


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

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

----------


## Akeldama

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


That's certainly debatable.

----------


## Zee.

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

Also, to address the comments about escaping "life"

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

----------


## Joreads

> That's certainly debatable.


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

----------


## Dark Lady

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

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

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

----------


## kelby_lake

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

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

----------


## MarkBastable

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


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

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

Crap is not in the least relaxing.

----------


## pgwodehousefan

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

----------


## Zee.

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


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

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

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

I for example, read books for different things.

----------


## Dr. Hill

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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

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


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

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

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

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

----------


## Dr. Hill

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

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

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


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

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

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

----------


## MarkBastable

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


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

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

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

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

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

----------


## amarna

It is a difference between _enjoying a high-quality wine_ and _claiming cultural superiority by enjoying a high-quality wine_.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## Bluebeard

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


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

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

----------


## Dr. Hill

> It is a difference between _enjoying a high-quality wine_ and _claiming cultural superiority by enjoying a high-quality wine_.


Nobody claimed superiority here.

----------


## Countess

Stephanie Meyers? This is what I think of her:

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

----------


## Joreads

> I think that he meant it was debatable that, as the original post asserted, 'we all' need to turn the mind off. We all don't. Some of us do.
> 
> However, I don't understand why the defence for crap is that it allows us to turn our minds off. It doesn't for me. It sends my mind into overdrive. I am astonished, frustrated, appalled, irritated, offended and generally wound up.
> 
> Crap is not in the least relaxing.


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

----------


## kelby_lake

> So a 13yr old girl is going to remain in the mindset of a "13yr old" girl her entire life?
> 
> I mean, i evolved as a reader from trashy books at 12/13 to classic literature. Do you still listen to the same music you did years back? watch the same movies? have the same views?
> 
> Progression. We are constantly moving forward and growing thus your theory and complete generalised belief that "uber" Twilight fans will never enjoy proper reading is incorrect.


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

----------


## Scheherazade

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


False analogy. A wine connoisseur can still enjoy a can of cold beer or coke or Sprite.


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


So many generalisations. I have not read and probably will not read _Twilight_ because I do not like the fantasy as a genre but I don't see how we can pass such judgements about other people because they happen to like a certain book.

----------


## Beautifull

ouch dr H!!!

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

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

----------


## Dr. Hill

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

----------


## Beautifull

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

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

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

----------


## kevinthediltz

> but if you don't think that Stephenie Meyer creates almost realistic characters, then _who do_ you think creates believable characters?


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

I couldnt resist.  :Blush:

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

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


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  :Wink:

----------


## Beautifull

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




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


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

----------


## 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!  :FRlol:  I tried.




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


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.  :FRlol:

----------


## 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 :FRlol:

----------


## 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  :Smile: 
I have a friend who is "fanatic" about Twillight series.She has birthday and I want to give her a book.Any suggestions? :Smile:  
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..._Twilight_ish?

----------


## *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.
> ...



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  :Smile:  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'm wary of saying too much on this thread because of the age-group likely to read a discussion about Twilight. Please, anyone who thinks I go too far tell me and I will edit my post accordingly.]

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 _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'm wary of saying too much on this thread because of the age-group likely to read a discussion about Twilight. Please, anyone who thinks I go too far tell me and I will edit my post accordingly.]
> 
> 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 _is_ the story.
> ...


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?  :Tongue: 




> 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

:FRlol:  :FRlol:

----------


## 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? 
> 
> 
> 
> 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  :Wink:  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 :Wink: . 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  :Frown:

----------


## 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/Rober...g_Balance.html

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

> This is a really interesting article on why Twilight works
> 
> http://vampirefilmfestival.com/Rober...g_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~ ( :FRlol: )

~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.  :Biggrin: ). 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!!!!!! :Biggrin:

----------


## 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  :Wink:

----------


## 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.  :FRlol: 

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


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??_
> 
> (...)
> ...


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  :Smile: 

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  :Biggrin:

----------


## 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  :FRlol:

----------


## 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


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. 

 :Wink:

----------


## 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  :Wink:

----------


## 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  :Tongue:

----------


## formality hater

The series can be read when you seriously want to kill time! :Wink:

----------


## 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.
> 
> 
> ...


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  :Smile: 




> 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  :Smile:  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  :Biggrin:

----------


## 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


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.


 :FRlol:  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 :Wink: 



> 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.  What do people who only read profound literature do when they run out of Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Nabokov....


Watch films  :Biggrin:  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. :Wink:

----------


## 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.  :Wink: 

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.  :Biggrin: 

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.  :Tongue: 

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  :Biggrin: , 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.  :Wink: 

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...  :Tongue:

----------


## 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.

----------

