|
|
| Louis or Lestat? |
| Louis |
|
25% |
[ 1 ] |
| Lestat |
|
50% |
[ 2 ] |
| Screw them both. Armand. |
|
25% |
[ 1 ] |
| Claudia! That devious little she-devil~! |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 1:23 pm
BEFORE YOU START GUSHING ABOUT HOW GREAT THE BOOKS ARE, READ THIS.
To be quite honest, I don't understand the appeal of the Twilight series. I read the first two books, and, in all honesty, they weren't that great.
Apparently I'm being held responsible for one of my friends not reading the books. To quote a phone conversation I had earlier:
"Are you responsible for Anna not reading them? Because our whole table at lunch the other day got into a huge discussion about them, and she hadn't read them because she said she had a friend who wrote better vampire stories than Stephanie Meyer, but we all told her that they weren't really vampire stories, they were romance stories that happened to have vampires thrown in." I thought that was an interesting -- perhaps more accurate -- perspective. Romance with vampires thrown in.
My mom and I are huge fans of vampire books -- especially Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles series (Interview with the Vampire, The Vampire Lestat, The Queen of the Damned, and so on, for those who don't know), Charlaine Harris's Southern Vampire novels (on which the HBO series True Blood is based), and my mom likes Laurel K. Hamilton's Anita Blake series -- so we've read our share of vampire fiction. So Twilight was far from earth-shattering for me.
Stephanie Meyers's vampires are hardly vampires -- in the traditional sense, they flat out aren't. Yes, writers can take creative liberties. Yes, it's a 'young adult' series aimed at teens, and so some of the more 'adult' aspects of vampires aren't there. But, really.
Vampires choosing to live off of animal blood, rather than human blood? Louis did that in Interview with the Vampire, but got over it.
A vampire being a 70+ year-old virgin? That's hardly believable. Vampires are alluring and sexy; that's part of what makes them so attractive to readers and movie-goers. Yes, Edward was alluring to Bella; I realize that. But still, a vampire that hasn't had sex for 70 or more years, by choice? Yeah, it's a teen series, but -- correct me if I'm wrong, as I haven't actually read past New Moon -- didn't Edward and Bella have sex a lot in Breaking Dawn?
As for the vampires sparkling in the sun.... No. Vampires don't sparkle. Let me rephrase: they shouldn't sparkle. All right, fine, so it's an ability Stephanie Meyers chose to give her vampires, a weakness she didn't want them to have. That's fine. Anne Rice's vampires have immunities against traditional weaknesses, too; but being unable to go out into the sunlight is a traditional element of vampires -- part of the very essence of vampirism.
I have no problem with the vampires having abilities along the lines of telekinesis, flight, all that. A lot of vampires have abilities like that in lots of different stories.
As for Stephanie Meyers's writing style -- I find it absolutely horrid. So do many of my friends, yet they still read and enjoy Twilight for the story.
What I don't understand is what "story" are they enjoying so much? The first half of Twilight is about Edward's cold, hard, marble-esque skin, and how much Bella loves him, but how dangerous he is. There's hardly any plot until the end.
A lot of my friends decided not to go to our school's first (and only, apparently) play-off football game because they were going to see the movie. Despite the fact some of them acknowledged the game would probably have more plot.
Also, how can the Twilight series be considered a saga?Quote: saga - noun 1. a medieval Icelandic or Norse prose narrative of achievements and events in the history of a personage, family, etc. 2. any narrative or legend of heroic exploits. 3. a form of the novel in which the members or generations of a family or social group are chronicled in a long and leisurely narrative.
So what would be considered a saga? Star Wars. Lord of the Rings. Redwall. Hell, maybe even The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, if viewed the right way.
But here's my question: what makes Twilight so appealing? Why are so many people so awed by it? Why do people consider it a saga?
DISCUSS:
The appeal of the Twilight.
The death of the well-written traditional vampire novel.
The incorrect labeling of Twilight as a saga.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 2:51 pm
Personally, (sorry but I didn't read your post completely, Cathartic), I think that Twilight is merely another hugely emphasized fad. Sure, the books came out, what, three years ago or somewhere around there but it's still a fad. To make teens go screaming about a movie, be it Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings, that's what I'd call a fad.
"Oh, you should read the book!" says one person. - Try being a college student that is trying to graduate and has little time to read schoolwork, much less leisure readings.
A girl scout in my sister's troop actually said that she was going to the midnight showing and skipping school the next day (though they are only in middle school). - At that age, I think that the students should be MADE to go to school by their parents. I don't care how biased the parents are towards the child, but the parents should put down a firm standing/base and say that education is more important than watching a da** movie (no matter how good it is). If it's worth it, go see it on the weekend or wait until the movie's out. But then again, that goes into socially acceptable behavior - talking about the newest thing when that thing comes out, not a month (or even two days) later. Also, what ever happened to curfews?!
Anywho, I'm willing to watch the video this December after finals are done or to watch it when it comes out on DVD.
And, dealing with fads like I was talking about, they are not bad. They are just da** annoying and addictive. Those that aren't addicted to the stuff (at that time) usually get annoyed easily by those that are addicted to it but when they get to view it, they might become as easily as addicted to it..... >.> I like the Harry Potter movies, I admit, but to hear so much about how popular it was made me say that I was not going to read the books (though the movies take less energy) - I read the first two books in Spanish this last summer [good stuff]. I could see myself reading the other ones but....
I'm not one of those fad/fashion people.... I'm the opposite, actually, if you couldn't tell from this post. (Sorry to ramble about fads...)
~Margem
[I promise, Cathartic, that I will read your post soon....]
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Bibliophile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:53 pm
I appreciate your response, but I really would rather you have read my post before replying, Margem; I know it's a lot of text (I got so many tl;dr responses in the CB), but your reply didn't address my post at all.
I'm not talking about fads in general, I'm talking about Twilight, specifically.
Yes, Lord of the Rings was a big fad once the movies came out, but the books were at least well-written. (And, really, it was more of an Orlando Bloom 'fad' than a Tolkien one.)
As for Harry Potter, it was popular long before it was a movie, and the book fans -- including me, myself -- will rant and rave until the day's end about how poorly done the more recent movies are done, in regards to being true to the books. But, again, Harry Potter was at least well-written -- if only by children's books' standards. The character at least had some depth to them. There was a plot. They were "the books that got kids reading again."
In my post, I'm not complaining about the Twilight 'fad,' I'm trying to understand it. The books are poorly written and lack any depth; I'm trying to understand why they should have such a vehement fanbase, when other vampire novels are better written -- if, perhaps, more 'adult' -- but didn't manage to get nearly the response Twilight did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:07 pm
I can't give much feedback about the movie or the book as I haven't seen either nor read either. (I was thinking of looking at it this weekend - my sister owns a copy.)
Sorry.... I apologize for my laziness in not reading the post. crying sweatdrop
~Margem
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2008 8:08 pm
mrgreen I read the post, finally. crying I'm sorry. I'm such a bad Captain because I did that. Anywho... I looked up "saga" in Merriam-Webster dictionary. The first two definitions agreed with what you looked up but the third is different. 1 : a prose narrative recorded in Iceland in the 12th and 13th centuries of historic or legendary figures and events of the heroic age of Norway and Iceland 2 : a modern heroic narrative resembling the Icelandic saga 3 : a long detailed account
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/saga"A long detailed account" - couldn't that make all stories sagas? ~Margem
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 8:19 am
ѕ ι η η є я . ѕ ι η η є я . ѕ ι η η є я
No; "a long, detailed account" would not make all stories sagas.
The "long" part implies that it takes place over a course of years. To go along with the example given by Merriam-Webster, "a saga of the Old South" -- the Old South was not a singular event in history. The rise and fall of the South spanned the course of many, many years.
The other key word there is "detailed." Not all stories are detailed, Twilight included in that statement.
η α є ι я σ . ι ѕ ѕ ι м σ . ∂ є к я є ѕ н
η α η σ . м ¢ . 2 0 0 8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Bibliophile
|
Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 5:05 pm
...how long is the time span, therefore, in Twilight and the series?
~Margem
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 4:22 pm
I didn't read the whole post (sorry, I don't have the attention span sweatdrop ), but I think that Twilight gets too much, oh what's the word, grattitude?? I dunno. It's just a book. I really don't see what the big deal is about it. :/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 1:12 pm
It gets too much attention and is too overrated for its own good. I have to agree with Cath, there was no story or plot, and the characters were two-dimensional to the point that I was afraid they were one-dimensional. Bella has no personality. Heck, I have ROCKS in my backyard with more personality than her. Jacob (my favourite character . . . much to my embarrassment) needs to get a life, and stop being a *****. And Edward is an indecisive . . . I'm going to go with "batshit".
And Cath, you're right. A vampire who's been virgin for 70+ years is not at all logical. Actually, in the creation of their kid (yes, Bella and Edward have a kid. Oh the joy. /sarcasm) just throws logic, biology, and Meyer's own laws out the window. Edward should NOT have been able to make kids with Bella. If he's been "suspended in time" as I do believe the book stated, then his sperm should have been like that too. DURR.
I for one didn't bother with the movie. I actually found out they were in the process of making New Moon even before Twilight left theatres, and will you lookit that, the actors for Bella and Edward are getting married. (someone shoot me now.)
To answer your question, Margem, I think the entire time span of the series was . . . about two years. Possibly a little more, or a little less.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:32 pm
I've never read or seen Twilight, but I do have a story to tell. I was at Comic-con International and while walking the swarmed aisles of the exhibit hall I would see shirts that had the likeness of the main vampire dude (I guess). On those shirts was inscribed "Twilight is GAY!". Just thought I'd share that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
