Why all the bashing? And Expanded Universe discussion
I am a Twilighter, and I love the series. I will wait for the rotten tomatoes to stop hurtling in my direction. I don't see why so many people have to bash on the series- it's a freaking series, not a political document! If you don't like it, why ruin it for those of us who do? I can see why Your Mileage May Vary
on this series, but this is my opinion as a person who had a positive experience reading the book.
I am not a big fan of the human characters, Bella included, but I find the supernatural ones (vampires and werewolves) to be far more interesting. The vampires all come from different backgrounds and situations, so that makes them more interesting in the present. Take, for example, the effects of being the son of an Anglican pastor on Carlisle. This upbringing sticks with Carlisle through him believing that being a vampire has not cost him his soul, and that he still has the potential to be good. Rosalie's vanity originates in her beauty being used by her socialite parents to raise their status. In the Twilightverse, Meyer explains this as a part of Our Vampires Are Different
, saying that each vampire's most prominent human quality was amplified in their conversion to a vampire. This helps build the Expanded Universe
of the series by encouraging readers to build backgrounds for each vampire based on their personality.
The werewolves' world, as Edward states in Eclipse, is "like a soap opera." Each one of the pack members is affected by being a werewolf in a different way. Sam, the alpha wolf, is forced to abandon his relationship with Leah as a result of imprinting on Emily. Jacob's transformation into a werewolf instigated the conflict between him and Edward over Bella. Their attempts to reconcile themselves to their respective fates leads to their Expanded Universe
. It gives a lot of insight into Team Jacob's case for their relationship to Bella.
In later books, the Vampire Universe expands into different countries and times as various vampires enter the plot, especially in Breaking Dawn (with vampires from all over the world coming to the aid of the Cullen Clan). It makes for a very interesting read to try and connect all the different characters with their histories and to compare them with other forms of vampires in literature (again, a case of Our Vampires Are Different
21st Apr 09
22nd Apr 09
No real opinion on the series, but: Other people griping about the series in no way 'ruins it' for those who happen to like it, so I really don't get the complaining-about-complaining. (Great, now I'm c-about-c-about-c.)
24th Apr 09
Because the story had no research done on it, the characters are badly characterized (with Mary Sue and Gary Stu as the main characters and worst offenders), badly written romance, and especially the fangirls (Sane fans are alright; Twitards are just plain stupid). Also, considering Meyer said that her romance was better than those written by the likes of Jane Austen and William Goldman, it's no surprise that many bash her for it.
25th Apr 09
6th May 09
Doktor von Eurotrash
6th May 09
22nd May 09
29th May 09
Vampires don't sparkle.
10th Jun 09
Wonderful. I'm glad someone else recognizes Breaking Dawn as an important part of expanding the vampire mythos—most fans (the ones who were only interested in the pulpy romance parts) hated that book because of how different it was from the earlier ones. I am of the opinion that the novels were at their best when they weren't trying (and failing) to be romantic (yes, I agree with Anonymous Apathy; Edward is kind of a creepy stalker type, not to mention a real jerk), and Meyer's supposed lack of talent as a writer is all but non-existent in Breaking Dawn and in her lone non-Twilight novel, The Host (which is actually pretty damn good). So, yeah, Twilight is nothing special, but the Twilight series is great.
3rd Jul 09
10th Jul 09
Personally, I bash the series not because I'm trying to ruin it for you, but because I find it interesting, amusing, and fun to mock it and pull it to pieces. If that has the side effect of ruining it for you, sorry, but that's your problem.
20th Jul 09
19th Aug 09
10th Sep 09
Personally, I don't think ANY of the characters were very interesting, but I loved your review and how you admitted that you liked Twilight, what with the... unreasonable extreme fans and haters. Honestly, I think the extremists are part of the reason why everyone complains (not to mention the Complaining About Shows You Don't Watch aspect).
Thank you for showing people that, yes, there ARE intelligent, non-rabid Twilight fans. Now excuse me while I try to influence my classmates NOT to dress up as Bella and Edward for Halloween.
25th Sep 09
4th Oct 09
6th Oct 09
(edited by: PlusSizeAngel)
I will freely admit that I've never read Twilight. It clearly isn't geared towards my demographic. I have, however, read Dracula
, and Carmilla
, and a wonderful short story called The Room in the Tower
, and even Polidori's The Vampyre: A Tale
, as I went through a brief vampire-lit phase during my teenage years. Nosferatu
remains one of my favourite movies ever, and Rabid
(which is sort of a vampire movie) is another brilliant picture. And I find the fetishization of the vampire, frankly, to be insulting. Oh sure, there was always a sexual aspect, but it was deceptive and/or rapacious, not Romantic.
Normally, I wouldn't take such issue with Twilight
, as it's not the first to do this. However, because there's such a craze over it, and it's constantly shoved in my face, you can't blame me for getting a bit reactionary. And although I've never read the book or any of the sequels, I've read brief excerpts, and from what I could see, the writing was pretty bad.
When Meyer is touted as "the next J.K. Rowling", this bothers me, too. I'm not really a huge Harry Potter
fan. I've read all the books, and I think they're overrated, too, but at least they're consistently pretty decent. What Harry Potter
had was mainstream appeal. Anyone can read it, and most people can get some enjoyment out of it. The Twilight
fandom is pretty much limited to teenage girls and housewives - a sure sign that rather than having quality, what they have is appeal. Also, from what I've heard of it, it reinforces hideously chauvinistic (or even misogynistic) ideals of love. This sounds like a pretty unhealthy, pseudo-hegemonic way of depriving women of their self-worth.
Also, although I've never read Meyer's The Host
, the only Host
I know is a Korean movie about a giant tadpole.
8th Oct 09
11th Feb 10
I prefer Anne Rice novels or the Richelle Mead series. Maybe that's just me, but those books have more what I'm looking for in Vampire Fiction. I went the opposite route and read the partial draft of Midnight Sun before watching the movie or reading the Twilight book. The purple prose got on my nerves after awhile. I think it would have been more interesting if you have the Cullens in a more "impoverished" role—-Beautiful, but not living in a mansion or driving designer automobiles. Why not break the stereotype of wealthy vampire dwellers? Make them run of the mill like everyone else. Edward seems like a narcissistic control freak. Bella doesn't have a spine. While I'm sure it would have weakened Meyer's plot, I wonder what would have happened if Bella didn't chose any of them—-Disregard Jacob. Ignore Edward. Stand strong and move away from them and concentrate on her own life. It shouldn't have taken more than two books to transform/convert/change her into a Sparkly, Beautiful as Diamonds Vampire. Oh yeah, that's right. It wouldn't sell books. I mean, you need a plot where a girl is rendered helpless and pathetic if she doesn't have a man by her side. So Edward uses mind fornication to have her "bedazzled" by his charms. And to think all of this came from Meyer's dream? I weep for this new generation of vampire books. Bram Stoker wouldn't be a happy camper.
24th Apr 10
I just want to say that I am a pretty big fan of this series, not because it's THE BEST ROMANCE EVER!!! (And fyi, Meyer never claimed her books were better than Jane Austen's or other classics - whoever thinks that has taken some comment or something way out of context and twisted it around. In fact, she never claimed to be much of a writer at all - she originally wrote Twilight
for herself.) I'm a fan because the story is fairly engaging, even if it is poorly written and wasn't really aimed at my age-group (I'm over 20 - not
a squealing tween - and, really, most of the Twilight
fandom is very diverse, with many cultures and age groups represented fairly evenly.)
"Personally, I bash the series not because I'm trying to ruin it for you, but because I find it interesting, amusing, and fun to mock it and pull it to pieces."
As far as making fun of Twilight
is concerned, many of us so called Twitards love doing this just as much as haters do. For example, several websites
that I love reading are thoroughly and completely dedicated to the Twi
books and movies, but make fun of them all the time. We can see how ridiculous this obsession is, we can see very clearly how bad the books and movies are, but we love them anyway, because they're a good story (in our opinions, of course
I don't want to be one of those people who complains about people complaing, but bitching about Twilight
is getting to be really annoying, mainly because all the good arguments have already been made (and were usually first seen and made by people that still like the books), but also because most of the people complaing or giving it bad reviews are those who have a very poor idea of either/both the books themselves and the fan base. We are not all immature tweens dreaming of our own Edward, nor are the rest of us Twilght Moms who have nothing better to do all day while their kids are at school. At least know what you are talking about before you go and whine and criticize it.
25th May 10
(edited by: ezzierae)
I want to cosign ezzierae. The fact that most of haters don't even read the books (really reading what a friend says it read and/or reading the first book and resume of the others does not count as reading), is really annoying. We could have a very rational interchange of ideas if they respect us enough to read the books, repeating the same tired points or making up stuff that never happened so the other people get horrified is not the best way to show other people "the light", IMO.
6th Jun 10
10th Jun 10
17th Jun 10
19th Jun 10
"Sparkly Vampires" is something that would be AWESOME in a parody of vampire stories, you know? I just can't believe Meyer developed this as a serious element of a dramatic work (It fits in with some of the other weirdness, I'll say that)!
28th Jun 10
2nd Jul 10
Wait... you had a positive experience reading it? IMPOSSIBLE!!
9th Oct 10
29th Nov 10
25th Jan 11
31st Jan 11
31st Jan 11
6th Jun 11
@18.104.22.168: 6 months late, I know. Only just discovered this thread. It is indeed valid to use a possessive as an attributive, it's just awkward to do this in conjunction with another possessive. "He had an angel's face" would have been fine. "His angel's face" reads as "the face belonging to his angel" at first glance. A phrase can be inelegant without being absolutely wrong and this is one such case.
8th Jun 11
In response to the Expanded Universe section of the review, I actually agree. I'm no big lover of Twilight (though I'd hardly place myself within the hatedom— it's more of a neural position), but the potential for some of the backstories is staggering. I personally found Jasper's retelling of his days in the Civil War highly entertaining, and Rosalie's origins were interesting to read, too, though it seems the character development promptly vanished after that scene (*sigh*). Carlisle's and Alice's stories were underdeveloped but fascinating, while Edward's, Emmett's, and Esme's were left ambiguous. While I'd prefer a panel of different authors take on the backstories, should they ever be expanded— not for hatred of Miss Meyer's writing style, as I find it mediocre at best/worst, but rather because I'd prefer developed voices for each character.
But I'm rambling. In short, interesting idea, though it's unlikely to be expanded upon.
17th Jun 11
@lyricalxenigma - I am going to say, I actually agree with you on this one. I would love to see the characters like that expanded, but not by Meyer. Sorry, but she just isn't good with characterization, end of story.
20th Jun 11
20th Jun 11
(edited by: AgentDragonhunter)
What people get pissed about is less that its bad, more that people think it is a handbook to relationships and the characters are good role models. Because they aren't. The reasons have already been mentioned, so I won't bother repeating. Also, the ridiculous filler, ridiculous form of vampirism (I mean, sparkling...really? How in God's name is that meant to make sense?) and utterly ridiculous rabid fans (ladies, I'm just putting it out there, in my opinion fixating on a creature that thinks of you as a tasty snack (and then angsts about it all the flipping time) is not a healthy idea.)
22nd Aug 11
31st Aug 11
(edited by: drdeathray)
1st Sep 11
(edited by: eveil)
1st Sep 11
There's apparently plenty of people who do like the book. Your opinion =/= Fact.
1st Sep 11
Having the largest army does not equal victory as such be tought in the Art of War.
1st Sep 11
So you're one of those "my tastes are better than everyone else's" kind of person?
1st Sep 11
Actually its more of a "observation of the product's value then mear judging it via commercial earnings." This means I do not judge it by populity: a elitist I am not, just noting the conclusions of the sources.
1st Sep 11
And yet a product's value is subjective, meaning that the closest thing you have to determine whether it's objectively better is by its commercial earnings.
1st Sep 11
There's a very huge difference between "objectively better" and "more people like it" (which I equate to commercial earnings, although they aren't quite the same).
1st Sep 11
^Thanks for completely missing the point.
1st Sep 11
1st Sep 11
2nd Sep 11
In order to post comments, you need to Get Known