Hello
Guest

Sponsored Links


Topic: Twilight Saga  (Read 7302 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

  • *
  • Posts: 712

  • UF College of Vet Med Class of 2010!!
  • Liked: 0
  • Joined: Oct 2007
  • Location: Durham, Co. Durham!
Re: Twilight Saga
« Reply #45 on: July 12, 2010, 04:42:53 PM »
I'm pretty creeped out by the way Edward has a LUST for her blood. Essentially, Edward is just interested in her blooooood and not her brains, because she doesn't have any, yet (who knows, maybe she'll go to an ivy league school if she doesn't DIE for Edward first).

And the whole "mind reading" thing in Twilight - does that EVER come back and play any sort of importance? At least its explained in the Sookie Stackhouse books.

Its funny, when I first started watching True Blood and the whole mind reading stuff came into play, I was like "crap, this is JUST like mother effing Twilight" - I'm glad I held on though, totally worth it :) The books have their shoddy moments, but the TV series does really well with it...

Haha I dunno I guess I am too used to the whole "lusting after your blood" thing in vampire romances to be creeped out by it...I've been at it since I was leetle and into "The Vampire Diaries" I swear there was one Vampire romance novel out there that mentioned how...awesome it was for the vampire half of the romance when his lady love had her "monthly" - I am NOT joking.

Ahem.  

As for the Sookie Stackhouse novels/True Blood, I have loooved the series - except for the most recent book which just didn't do it for me :-(. And I've only seen the first season of True Blood which I was actually kind of disappointed with...

I think they cast it *really, really* well (especially Vampire Eric. RAWR!!!) but I really dislike the way they messed up the plot (WTF Jessica??? WTF to Eric saving Sookie's life and not Eric). Maybe the other seasons get better? I didn't have HBO in the states and I stopped downloading them on my computer because I got a virus. :-(

I know that TV series based off of books generally don't follow the story very well (OMG Legend of the Seeker...Vampire Diaries....etc...) but I was really hoping True Blood would! I'm just a purist I guess...


ETA: Oh, about the mindreading stuff in Twilight - yeah, I don't think it ever has any plot significance beyond "Oh hey, I can't read her mind....ooooh that's interesting I want to hang out with her more" and since the books are really centered around Bella/Edward/Jacob apart from when Edward is all "stop thinking about Bella when I ABANDONED HER IN THE WOODS and she almost died etc..." it doesn't get mentioned much. I mean, he can't read Bella's mind and if they spend most of the time being moody at each other it wouldn't come up right? :-)

It's more use in the Sookie Stackhouse novels - because they are *mystery* novels! Charlaine Harris writes mystery/crime (albeit supernatural mystery/crime! - quite possibly the best kind!) and there is usually something for Sookie to "solve" and her mind-reading abilities thus get more play.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2010, 04:47:40 PM by Reinadeluz »
"Treat for the treatable" - Uncle Mikey's Maxim # 1


  • *
  • Posts: 712

  • UF College of Vet Med Class of 2010!!
  • Liked: 0
  • Joined: Oct 2007
  • Location: Durham, Co. Durham!
Re: Twilight Saga
« Reply #46 on: July 12, 2010, 04:53:10 PM »
If you believe in that theory, it would help to explain why Edward was attracted to a non-interesting, completely dull character like Belle (because teenagers are attracted to other teenagers for the most ridiculous and completely unexplainable reasons anyway).  Maybe that's a part of him that hasn't matured over the years.

Vampires are meant to be "unchanging" "frozen in time" etc...so yeah why not. He is forever 17, literally. I don't find his "age difference" from Bella to be that disturbing.

But I think the whole "attraction" thing has been explained satisfactorily by SMeyer - Edward can't read Bella's mind (attraction point #1) and her blood "calls" to him (sexily? deliciously? whatever.) (attraction point #2). It doesn't matter that Bella is dull or uninteresting to US (although I doubt that's what SMeyer had in mind...) she is interesting to Edward for those other two main reasons.

And of course, there is the other "reason" i.e TWOO WUV. Sometimes, it just *is*.
"Treat for the treatable" - Uncle Mikey's Maxim # 1


Re: Twilight Saga
« Reply #47 on: July 12, 2010, 06:23:21 PM »
Charlie Brooker has written a very entertaining demolition of Twilight in today's Guardian. He is rather scathing...

Quote
Until this week the one thing I knew about the Twilight saga was that it had vampires in it, which was enough to put me off. I didn't realise it was a romantic fantasy aimed at teenage girls. Turns out it's possible to be put off something twice before you've actually seen it.

Quote
Bella is contemplating whether she wants to lose her virginity to a vampire or a werewolf. She's not allowed to try them both out, or get to second base with one and third with the other. And she's certainly not allowed to take them both on at once, although that would clearly make for a far better film.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/12/charlie-booker-twilights-unscary-monsters

As a True Blood fan, I am wondering what I would make of the Twilight series.


  • *
  • Posts: 962

  • Liked: 0
  • Joined: May 2010
  • Location: Berkhamsted
Re: Twilight Saga
« Reply #48 on: July 12, 2010, 08:11:26 PM »
Charlie Brooker has written a very entertaining demolition of Twilight in today's Guardian. He is rather scathing...
I enjoyed his monster debate - it is a bit strange how vampires have become less terrifying!

His article reminded me of this film review of Twilight:
http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/bum-reviews/2741-twilight
Slightly stupid and annoying, but almost on the same lines as Charlie Brooker.
I urge you to please notice when you are happy, and exclaim or murmur or think at some point, 'If this isn't nice, I don't know what is.' Kurt Vonnegut


  • Jewlz
  • is in the house because....
  • *
  • Posts: 8647

  • International Woman of Mystery
  • Liked: 3
  • Joined: Jun 2008
  • Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne
Re: Twilight Saga
« Reply #49 on: July 12, 2010, 08:51:10 PM »
Charlie Brooker has written a very entertaining demolition of Twilight in today's Guardian. He is rather scathing...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/12/charlie-booker-twilights-unscary-monsters

As a True Blood fan, I am wondering what I would make of the Twilight series.


Compared to True Blood, Twilight is very PG-rated and innocent. In True Blood (especially the novels) Sookie might actually take on a vampire and a werewolf at the same time in a bizarre menage a trois. The books focus greatly on her sexual awakening, and it looks like the tv series might head in that direction (hopefully) soon. The trashy sex scenes are the best parts of the books!  ;D

I get Twilight and would've loved it as a teenager, regardless of the quality (or lack of quality) of the writing style. I think at that age, a lot of girls want a hot guy (ok, two hot guys - both of which are so much cooler than the other guys at school that they are even freakin' supernatural) to be totally obsessed with them and make them feel extraordinary. Bella's character is a mousy, clumsy, awkward teenage girl (that describes most teenage girls on some level, so her character is highly identifiable) who finds herself the object of obsessive attraction. I don't really find it predatory at all because it's a fantasy that a lot of young women (and older ones) actually have -- to be desired and lusted after in an extreme sort of way. Of course, when it actually happens, it's creepy and stifling and turns you off, but usually when you are a teenager, you haven't actually figured that out yet, so its romantic.  ;)

And I am all for anything that gets people reading, to be honest, regardless of whether its Booker prize worthy or not. Even books like the DaVinci Code are great because there is so much hype about them that it makes people curious enough to read them, even those who normally wouldn't pick up a book at all. Of course, there are far better YA books out there, and maybe after reading the Twilight series and enjoying it, a teenager might be interested in checking out those other books, too.  :)


  • *
  • Posts: 3550

  • Liked: 2
  • Joined: Jun 2009
Re: Twilight Saga
« Reply #50 on: July 12, 2010, 08:55:23 PM »
I am one of those people too who have read all the Dan Brown books...

I hadn't read The Host yet but now I might but I truely agree with Jewlz on the trashy True Blood books (yum).

Reading is reading...My DSD asked if she could read them and she is 11 I said maybe when you are 12 but at least she WANTS to read ;-)


  • *
  • Posts: 712

  • UF College of Vet Med Class of 2010!!
  • Liked: 0
  • Joined: Oct 2007
  • Location: Durham, Co. Durham!
Re: Twilight Saga
« Reply #51 on: July 12, 2010, 09:47:18 PM »
And I am all for anything that gets people reading, to be honest, regardless of whether its Booker prize worthy or not. Even books like the DaVinci Code are great because there is so much hype about them that it makes people curious enough to read them, even those who normally wouldn't pick up a book at all. Of course, there are far better YA books out there, and maybe after reading the Twilight series and enjoying it, a teenager might be interested in checking out those other books, too.  :)

I totally 100% agree with this! If you can get kids to read something fun and maybe a little trashy...then that opens their mind to other books. I have luckily always been a voracious reader, so I feel zero guilt at having books like The Twilight Saga in my repertoire! I read it ALL! Sci-fi, high fantasy, fiction, non-fiction, biographies you name it :-)
"Treat for the treatable" - Uncle Mikey's Maxim # 1


  • *
  • Posts: 6098

  • Britannicaine
  • Liked: 198
  • Joined: Nov 2008
  • Location: Baku, Azerbaijan
Re: Twilight Saga
« Reply #52 on: July 12, 2010, 10:21:29 PM »
I'm not convinced that it's any better for kids (or adults for that matter) to fill their minds with rubbish via books than to fill them with rubbish via another medium, like television.  I'd rather watch good TV than read a mediocre book, and I'd rather read a good book than do just about anything else.  But reading a bad book is something I'll only do as an act of desperation.  I read a John Grisham once, when I was a student in France and it was the only English book I could get my hands on.  I'll never get those hours back... Oh, and I once read a Danielle Steel in a waiting room, but have done my best to repress the memory.  Not saying Twilight is rubbish, as I've never read it, but I guess I feel that if the quality of the book is low enough it negates any benefit a person might derive from the act of reading. 

However, I completely agree with Jewlz about young girls wanting to be the object of passion and desire.  I used to nick my mom's romance novels as an adolescent, and my favourites were always the ones where the man was jealous and possessive and wanted the woman all to himself.  I thought that was so romantic and wanted so much to have someone feel that way about me. 

I'm torn about Twilight.  On the one hand, I'm dying of curiosity.  On the other, I hate the idea of Mormon propaganda, bad writing and flat characters.  And after reading this thread, the curiosity is stronger than ever  :P
On s'envolera du même quai
Les yeux dans les mêmes reflets,
Pour cette vie et celle d'après
Tu seras mon unique projet.

Je t'aimais, je t'aime, et je t'aimerai.

--Francis Cabrel


  • *
  • Posts: 3550

  • Liked: 2
  • Joined: Jun 2009
Re: Twilight Saga
« Reply #53 on: July 12, 2010, 10:25:33 PM »
Oh, and I once read a Danielle Steel in a waiting room, but have done my best to repress the memory. 
hee hee ya know I owned and read every single one of her books up till 2004 and then I just didnt have time to keep up.  Her books is what made me start reading in HS, I was bored and my mom had Zoya - I starting reading every single one of them so I give her credit for starting this once HS chick on the love of reading lol


Re: Twilight Saga
« Reply #54 on: July 12, 2010, 10:39:45 PM »
I'm not convinced that it's any better for kids (or adults for that matter) to fill their minds with rubbish via books than to fill them with rubbish via another medium, like television. [...] I feel that if the quality of the book is low enough it negates any benefit a person might derive from the act of reading. 

I agree with this one hundred per cent. Trash is trash, whether it is printed or viewed on screen.


  • Jewlz
  • is in the house because....
  • *
  • Posts: 8647

  • International Woman of Mystery
  • Liked: 3
  • Joined: Jun 2008
  • Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne
Re: Twilight Saga
« Reply #55 on: July 13, 2010, 08:56:31 AM »
I'm not convinced that it's any better for kids (or adults for that matter) to fill their minds with rubbish via books than to fill them with rubbish via another medium, like television.  I'd rather watch good TV than read a mediocre book, and I'd rather read a good book than do just about anything else.  But reading a bad book is something I'll only do as an act of desperation.  I read a John Grisham once, when I was a student in France and it was the only English book I could get my hands on.  I'll never get those hours back... Oh, and I once read a Danielle Steel in a waiting room, but have done my best to repress the memory.  Not saying Twilight is rubbish, as I've never read it, but I guess I feel that if the quality of the book is low enough it negates any benefit a person might derive from the act of reading. 

I don't think this is true at all. Even in a so-called "rubbish" book, an inexperienced reader is still likely to be exposed to new vocabulary, themes, symbolism, and other aspects of literature, even if other authors might use these tools more effectively. There are vocabulary books, which I think are study guides for standardized testing, which focus on the Twilight series as examples of how certain words are used in context. They take something that obviously a lot of teenagers are interested in and use it as a learning tool in order to make something somewhat more interesting for them which otherwise wouldn't be. And as I said, maybe the so-called "rubbish" books will also lead them to gain a love of reading and enjoying other literature (the Twilight series mentions Austen and Shakespeare quite a bit, for example, so it may lead the inexperienced readers to check these books out, for example.)

And I never picked up on any Mormon theme at all in the books, but I guess I wasn't looking to make that connection.


  • *
  • Posts: 1952

    • unabridged opinions
  • Liked: 1
  • Joined: Feb 2008
  • Location: Manchester
Re: Twilight Saga
« Reply #56 on: July 13, 2010, 09:48:33 AM »
I'm with Jewlz on this one. As middle school teachers, my dad and I called Twilight-esque books "gateway drugs" because, between the hype and the hysteria, they would get kids in the habit of reading. AND, they would break the "big" book barrier for a lot of lower level readers (another, absolutely splendid, book that does this is the "Invention of Hugo Cabret").  Honestly, it didn't matter that the plotlines were trashy (many of our most popular classics were considered slightly risque in their day) and the importance was the habit and enjoyment of reading.  After Twilight? I'd get them to read the myriad of FANTASTIC YA lit that is out there, and often it would have gotten their parents reading as well--an amazing  bonus.
Plus, most readers are fairly acute--they realize that perhaps these are not the best written books ever, but writing style/propaganda may not be high on their list of things that affect them. (And yes, I totally texted my dad when Bella was sooooooooo reticent to drink caffeine; I grew up in an area with a significant Mormon population and remember the no coca-cola rule quite well...)


  • *
  • Posts: 3344

  • British by descent
  • Liked: 3
  • Joined: Jan 2009
  • Location: London
Re: Twilight Saga
« Reply #57 on: July 13, 2010, 10:04:48 AM »
I agree - yes, reading trashy stuff isn't as good as non-trashy stuff, but either 1) you realize that it's trashy and work your way towards more awesome stuff 2) you don't care, but at least you're still reading. (Like historyenne, I'd rather have good book > good tv > bad book > bad tv, so reading Twilight trumps watching Grey's Anatomy IMO).
Moved to London February 5, 2010


Re: Twilight Saga
« Reply #58 on: July 13, 2010, 10:29:24 AM »
I guess it would depend on whose definition of trash you're basing your judgement.  For instance, my husband is a Whovian, but Dr Who is really escapist TV, some of it very, very k-rap TV (although some is brilliant).  He sort of agrees with my assessment, but some of his friends would try to lynch me if they knew that I held that belief.

Lots of documentaries are really k-rap TV.  Have you ever watched a documentary on something you happen to know a lot about?  It really puts the ones on things you don't know a lot about in perspective.  They are good to watch, and you might be getting correct information, but you should take it with a grain of salt.  Then there's the sort of freak-show masquerading as a documentary or the reality programmes that are meant to be serious and worthwhile (ones on obese people losing weight as opposed to ones on people stuck in a house and voting each other out).  But if you say "I watched an interesting documentary last night..." most people will think that you're likely to be more cerebral than someone who spent the night watching something like "Little people, big world" or whatever it's called.  I can't see how watching bad TV is any worse or better than reading bad books.  Exercising your imagination is great, but some books are so bad that it doesn't happen.  Plus, it's not like you're totally flatlining whilst watching even the worst of programmes, or at least I don't shut down my brain.

However, I agree that getting people reading is important, especially kids.  When I was young, I read everything and anything I got my hands on.  I credit the identity of being a "reader" for my love of books that endures to this day.  And, for the most part, I had unfettered access to any book in the library or in the libraries of the adults around me.  I did have to sometimes sneak things, but not from everyone.  Because I wanted to be like the other readers who appeared smarter, I read and became a reader.  It didn't matter what they or I read.  

When it comes to propaganda, I think it is important that an adult helps a child recognise it for what it is.  If these skills are taught when someone is young enough, you don't really need to worry no matter what they read.

All this said, I think that encouraging kids (and adults) to read good books as well as trash (and to consume higher culture as well as low) is important.  Of course, some of this will be subjective, but even striving for it is a good thing.  Wasn't it someone from this forum who said that their mother made a "forbidden" shelf of books she wanted her daughter to read, thereby ensuring that she read them?  I think that's a brilliant idea.  But more than anything, I think someone has to become a reader.

As far as what I read now, I could care less if someone looks down on it.  I will likely try almost anything, but I give up on a book pretty easily.  I don't think life's too short to read trash. I think life's too short to read stuff you don't like unless there is a larger goal.  I do force myself to get at least one classic out every time I visit the library, and that system sort of works for me.  But I'd much rather see someone reading than not even if it's just something like bodice-rippers.

ETA: I guess I can't see how watching something like "Eastenders" would be seen as a worse use of time than reading something like the Twilight series if I had no interest in the latter but enjoyed the former.  Or that I should feel guilty about watching that rather than reading something lofty (which I do at other times) or to force myself into reading something I have no interest in reading, even though it's a classic (like, say, War and Peace) instead of keeping up on what's going on in Walford.  I might have finished W&P in the time I've devoted to "Eastenders" in the past year, but would that have made my life all that more enriched if I hated every moment of it?  Sure, if I never got any high culture, then I could see curbing my trash intake, but FFS, trash is nice as well.

BTW, when I say I think something is horrible (like The Lovely Bones), it doesn't mean I look down on people who enjoy it.  I know I can't really expect people to behave the same towards me and my love of very low culture things, but I have more respect for people who do manage that distinction.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2010, 12:22:19 PM by Legs Akimbo »


  • *
  • Posts: 6098

  • Britannicaine
  • Liked: 198
  • Joined: Nov 2008
  • Location: Baku, Azerbaijan
Re: Twilight Saga
« Reply #59 on: July 13, 2010, 10:32:30 PM »
I do understand what you're saying, Jewlz and Jennie, but if the value of a bad book is that it leads people to good books, then that doesn't mean that the act itself of reading the bad book has any actual value to offer.  It's still a waste of time and doesn't improve the brain in any significant way.  Plus not everyone graduates from bad books to good ones.  I have a friend who has the kindest heart imaginable, but is not intellectually curious or, truthfully, very smart.  She reads all the time, but never touches anything except romances.  Now, I like a good bodice-ripper as much as anyone, but I'm under no illusion about their quality.  I actually feel stupider after I've read one, because my brain has effectively been put on standby whilst I read it.  Likewise, reading romances doesn't benefit my friend in any noticeable way.  She doesn't learn anything from them, and is not inspired to read anything better.  This is why I'm skeptical about the assertion that getting children to read something is a pure and unequivocal good.  Maybe this is me becoming an old fogey, but I feel that the books I read as a child were better quality than the children's fiction that is churned out today.  Publishing, IMO, is getting more and more like filmmaking in that it's geared towards the lowest common denominator and doesn't trouble itself much about quality as long as something will sell.  How do children really benefit from the time they spend reading mass-produced garbage?  Yes, they may as a consequence read better books later, and if they're fortunate they will have a teacher like Jennie who will lead them to better books, but there's no guarantee that that will happen and meanwhile they are spending their time and their brain cells on material of questionable merit.  Why bother with the bad books at all?  Why not just give kids the good stuff from the start?     
On s'envolera du même quai
Les yeux dans les mêmes reflets,
Pour cette vie et celle d'après
Tu seras mon unique projet.

Je t'aimais, je t'aime, et je t'aimerai.

--Francis Cabrel


Sponsored Links