Why Does Everyone Hate...

The Twilight books are "Young Adult" novels ("YA" in the trade) specifically designed and written to appeal to teenagers. Despite their popularity, they are not particularly good literature even within their own genre. As an example of good YA literature consider Ursula LeGuin's "Wizard of Earthsea" series. From a literary standpoint it's a much better series. It won its awards because it deserved them. From a technical standpoint Twilight is hack writing. It's simplistic. Compare it to Bram Stoker's "Dracula." There IS no comparison.

This is really not unusual. Most of our entertainment today is very mediocre. Take "Dancing with the Stars" as an example, or ANY of the so-called "reality" TV shows. Why do they make these kind of shows? because they are much less expensive. They don't have to pay writers. they don't have to pay for special effects. They make money more easily.

Twilight has become wildly popular, of course, so this sets up an incongruity. How could something this lame be so popular? Anyone with half a brain can see this, so the natural reaction is to criticize it. I wouldn't call it "hatred," exactly, except in extreme circumstances, but it's exactly the same phenomenon that has people dissing Dancing with the Stars.

Here's a page that lays it out for you:

tvtropes.org...

A few excerpts:

Anti-Sue: Despite the fact that the author frequently stresses Bella being plain, awkward and outwardly unremarkable, everyone she meets instantly adores her, she gets perfect grades while barely trying, she has a cool vehicle, all the guys want her and anyone who doesn't like her is eventually revealed to be ether jealous or evil...sound familiar?

Almost every boy that Bella meets, at least the ones she spends any significant amount of time with, spend at least one conversation (usually more) telling Bella how wonderful and special they think she is, usually when they have not even known her very long and haven't actually heard her say or seen her do anything remarkable or even unexpected.

Despite the fact that Bella acts very socially awkward and off putting, all the other characters react to her as though she were the most dazzling, charismatic, gem of a person they've ever met.

Also, Edward frequently goes on about how good and pure and kind Bella is (Incorruptible Pure Pureness) despite the fact that the majority of her actions are ether selfishly motivated or panicked reactions to external stimuli (she usually just takes her first impulse and goes with it.)In fact one of the justifications for the vampires being so attracted to her is that she possesses an uncommonly pure "essence."


Jerk Sue (or some variation there of): Bella blatantly mistreats the people around her, at best showing no concern for their needs or feelings and at worst manipulating those feelings to her own ends with no thought to how she may be hurting them in the process, and they rarely seem bothered by it, they're usually just happy to be given the opportunity to be in her presence (despite the fact that she's always ether annoyed, angry, or depressed, which can't make being around her all that enjoyable) and when one of them does object to the way she's treating them (which is extremely rare) it is written in such a way as to make the reader believe that they are in the wrong and just don't understand Bella. She also makes little or no attempt to conceal the fact that she doesn't care about other people and is just using them but, again, they don't seem bothered by it because they just adore her so damn much (for reasons that are never specified.)

Basically the only reason Bella is interpreted in a sympathetic light by most of the readers is because the writer works so hard to make her sympathetic (via warped perspective) despite the fact that none of her thoughts or behavior ever indicate that she's a good person by any definition, viewed subjectively, she's a shallow, callous, manipulative, borderline sociopath. The commonly given excuse for the negative aspects of her personality is that she's a teenage girl, but the author lets all the air out of this excuse by making Bella unable to get along with other teenagers because she's (supposedly) more mature, intelligent and down to earth than them.(Not that her behavior ever reflects this.)

Edward would apply as well. All of the girls swoon over him, even though he ignores them and is generally anti-social and unfriendly. He constantly forces Bella to do things she tells him she doesn't want to and throws tantrums if he doesn't get his way. Despite all of this, he is the favorite of the Cullen family and everyone constantly talks about how great he is and how they do anything to please him.

Just a few things.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


EvilSadamClone- what an excellent analysis of the Stella character! I never thought I'd actually bother to login just to post a reply in a 'Twilight' thread, but I feel compelled- so here goes.

"Why I [personally] dislike 'Twilight'"

...Aside from the fact that Stephanie Meyer is a terrible writer- and I mean this in the nicest possible way- but I have honestly seen better prose in the lazily scribbled contents of a 12 year old girl's diary. Now, like I said, I am not faulting 'Twilight' on this alone... J.K. Rowling (author of the Harry Potter series) is not an exceptionally proficient writer either. She is however, an amazing storyteller (which is unfortunately not a quality shared by Meyer) and Rowling's STORIES are what make her books shine.

The story is where the 'Twilight' series falls apart for me. The notion that a century-old vampire would have found nothing better to do with his time than repeat high school over and over just seems a bit, um, thin. Add to this the fact that this same hundred-year-old immortal then finds himself uncontrollably drawn to a girl who is 17 and the plot takes a nosedive.

I have a problem with the idea that young people (especially young females) are being presented with this relationship between Edward (the vampire) and Stella (underage girl) under the guise of 'true yet misunderstood love'. The relationship between Edward and Stella is honestly rather sinister.

Edward spends most of the first two books essentially saying to Stella, "Hey, I can love you like no other guy ever could. I DO love you like no other guy ever could; but there's a part of me that loves you SO MUCH I can barely get near you- because the urge to rip out your throat and end your little mortal life is so strong, I just can't think about anything else. I'm not really a monster though baby, it's just because of your scent! You smell so good I just can't help it! I'm not trying to control you when I tell you that I'm the only one who can protect you from all of the OTHER monsters out there, it's only that I know what's best for you more than you do, or your father for that matter. I mean, I'm twice as old as he is anyway, so obviously you should trust me." This seems like the foundation for a very contolling and abusive relationship- not something our kids should be aspiring to or modeling themselves after.

To sum it up; 'Twilight' is poorly written, sends bad messages to kids about relationships, resulted in a slew of movies that were even more terrible than the books themselves, AND led a large part of a generation to accept (even praise) a mediocre work as something brilliant, simply because it was popular. All of these add up to one giant insult to EVERYONE'S intelligence. We can do better.

That's why I dislike 'Twilight'.

I hope this adds a little perspective. Happy reading!

reply to post by newtotheseeking


Interesting perspective. * Your point about writers vs. story tellers is shared by many publishers. There are people who can write and people who can plot, and rarely do these two skills reside in one individual. Good point on Rowling. The problem with Twilight is the author possesses neither of those skills. So we're left with marketing, the guys who can sell snow to Eskimos.

Before you all get so angry over this series, don't forget that this is a series written for teenagers. It sits in the same section with the Babysitters Club at the library.

Saying it ruined vampires is like saying harry potter ruined wizards. hp does not sit in the same lineup as LOTR.

Secondly, there is freedom of speech. people can write about what they want. vampires have been done for generations, another story of the same characteristics is refreshing. she also has that right. if she wants to make vampires look like Liberache, so be it.

She also put her relgious morals into the story.With shows like 16 and pregnant on mtv, characters showing absitanance until marriage and refraining from violence is not a bad message to send the teens.

There is violence in these books. i thought the birth of the baby in the fourth book was disturbing. And the volturi kill anyone, vampire and human.

That all being said,

i read all the books, even the partially started 5th book, that the author refused to finish after part ofthe manuscript was stolen and released on the web. boohoo
i really think that she made her money and no longer feels obligated to her fans. the fourth book is proof of that.

i watched the first two movies.

like smylee said, the story is interesting, the writing is horrible. The fourth book was so bad in plot adn writing that it ruined the whole series for me.

Every book doesnt have to be a prize winner to be entertaining. I find this concept people harp on to be tiring. i read a romance novel now and then. Anyone can write one,t hey will never be prize winners or cult favorites, sometimes you need just a stupid escape.

Every minute of my life doesnt need to be fulfilling or a learning experience.

I do think the series has some very important lessons to tell.

I do like the indian twist on the shapeshifters.

If you dont like it, you don't like it. But to put so much negative energy into something because it is popular to be anti-trend or anti-pop culture is just tiresome.

please forgive my typos, my caps key is gone and i need a new keyboard.

reply to post by Starchild23


It might have already been said, but here are my two cents.

The vampires in Twilight are not vampires as much as blood sucking fairies. Like the mythical kind before that opens up it's own can.

Alot of us have an image from our childhood of the dark, brooding, scary vampire. Not the gothic teen glowy guy that hits on 15 year olds even though he's centuries old.

All the same, I'll be watching the rest of it in movie form, because the wife enjoys the series enough, and she tolerates my comic-book fan boy status even though I'm a "grown man".

jk rowling didn't have any ideas that she didn't steal from anyone else. Storytellig is her only skill.

i predicted what would happen in the last book, and I nailed it. my friends couldn't figure out how. It was easy, it was a rehash of return of the Jedi.

She even recreated the luke and solo scene with , i don't love her, she is like a sister to me with harry and ron.
how pathetic.

if you have read the lion the witch and the wardrobe, and watched return of the jedi, with parts of the story of the sword in the stone. you have the last book.

looks like wrong thread

I'll take your "Twilight sucks!" and raise you a "So does True Blood!" "True Blood" had potential but went off the deep end with every mythological creature ever dreamed of all living in one small, sleepy town where the only nightlife is the bar where Sookie works and yet nobody human knows about any of the other creatures besides the vampires, and there is a lot more wrong than that. I started to lose interest in the second season and after the opening of the third, completely gave up. Talk about sparkly fairies, "True Blood" has 'em, they just aren't the vampires in that one. There are some good characters, mostly Sookie's brother and her best friend. Other than than, it is following much the same formula as "Twilight", but with additional mythological beings thrown in, more graphic violence, and a lot more sex. There is a love triangle between the girl who everyone loves, a vampire, and a shape shifter, and later a werewolf, plus a twist of an older vampire who has hold over her because she has drunk some of his blood.

Anyway, I am with the Bram Stoker's "Dracula" and Anne Rice's "Interview with the Vampire" series crowd. I think I will have to go check out the ones Smyleegirl mentioned, though.

Originally posted by Starchild23
...Twilight?

Why? Why all the hate?

I'm genuinely curious as to whether there is any intellectual processes going on in this book-bashing bononza that has reduced the series to an ashen pile of ridicule.

I'm genuinely curious as to whether or not you have taken your grade two grammar and vocabulary lessons seriously. Whether this is trolling or not, before you attempt to attack others for their insights on an abysmal waste of trees, run the spell check.

I don't think the Twilight series was written in order to change the paradigm of vampires. Likewise, the movies are the adaption of the book to film.

I don't think associating human nature with the Twilight films is anywhere close to a good comparison.

Human are the most violent species on this planet. We are the result of natual selection and we fought to be where we are today.

This doesn't mean that we don't have a responsibility to take care of our lessers, it just means we are violent by nature.

You don't need vampire movie comparisons to show that.

Originally posted by DragonRain311

Originally posted by Starchild23
...Twilight?

Why? Why all the hate?

I'm genuinely curious as to whether there is any intellectual processes going on in this book-bashing bononza that has reduced the series to an ashen pile of ridicule.

I'm genuinely curious as to whether or not you have taken your grade two grammar and vocabulary lessons seriously. Whether this is trolling or not, before you attempt to attack others for their insights on an abysmal waste of trees, run the spell check.

Relax, friend. Everyone makes mistakes now and then. Starchild's threads and posts are extremely well-written and thought provoking. No need to do the spelling nazi thing.

aww twilight the age old story about a girl's choice between necrophilia and bestiality

the story is a rip off of underworld. The girl isn't pure by any means, and like an other posters stated she seems to not care about other peoples feelings at all. The movie seems to follow a line of reasoning only a teenage girl would understand. i could give multiple reason's why i find this movie/book unbelievable even in a make believe world where werewolves and vampires fight each other. ok after the first movie your wondering why werewolf guy is still talking to bella! Why would he still want to be friends with her?

reply to post by DragonRain311


Attacking grammar is the response of the weak who don't have the intellectual ability to come up with a real response.

reply to post by gwynnhwyfar


Because mythological creatures go to small towns to hide. Then they attract other mythological creatures. Sookie is a rare creature herself, that is going to pull others in.

Easily explained.

And Twilight followed the TB formula. it is basically the teen version of TB.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by DragonRain311

 

Attacking grammar is the response of the weak who don't have the intellectual ability to come up with a real response.

This coming from a keyboard warrior. Right. You assume I am categorized as a weak individual because I attacked this original poster's grammar and spelling. You fail to understand that in order to criticize this horrible waste of time, I read the books just so I have the right to criticize.

You people fail to see the literary blasphemy in front of you. Mary Shelly, Shakespeare and multiple others would have a problem with this series both in content and in length. Stephanie Meyer is a woman who was lucky that she came across at the right place and right time. Had this series been written 30 years ago, it would have bombed horribly.

You chose to read a series of books that not only reduces your intellect, but also provides you with a sense of sympathy for a character that requires none. I could continue, but the amount of groupies in this thread irritate me, as none of you accept logic.

Not to mention there are plenty of unfortunate implications in the books. The biggest problems with writing though is you really can't write anything without somebody imposing or inferring what they think you "meant" to say. Here are a few examples:

tvtropes.org...

Men should not be held accountable for things that they do when they are very angry or otherwise emotionally overwhelmed...but women should.

Both Edward and Jacob "unintentionally" hurt Bella (or at least come close to it), say things to her that basically amount to threats and do various other questionable things throughout the series, but this is usually excused away by the fact that they're men and, therefore, not as in control of their emotions as women.

Most of the other men in the series also do things that could be interpreted in a negative light but usually aren't because they did them in "the heat of" rage/passion/jealousy/lust/etc. But any time a woman steps even the slightest bit out of line she is swiftly and harshly reprimanded for it, usually by the men around her some of whom exhibit the exact same behavior at some point.

Bella herself also judges women far more harshly than men, attributing most reprehensible male behavior as something that must go along with having a Y chromosome and shrugging it off, but developing an instant dislike of any girl who displays any flaws or weaknesses no matter how minor. She is extremely judgmental of other women but seems to be boundlessly forgiving of men.

A running theme in the series seems to be that being physically attractive makes up for being a bad person or automatically makes you a good person regardless of your actions.

A lot of things that the Cullens (The Beautiful Elite) do are considered horrible when anyone else does them.

The only thing keeping Bella from realizing that Edward is controlling and possessive to an unhealthy extreme seems to be the fact that every time she sees him she is struck a-new by how "OMG GORGEOUS!!!" he is; no matter what kind of situation they're in Bella spends at least some small portion of every scene in which they are together reminding the audience of how mindbogglingly physically perfect he is and seems to be distracted and disarmed by his physical attractiveness even when he's done something that she admittedly does not approve of. It's not even as if she forgives his flaws or has rationalized them in her own mind, it's more like she's just so distracted by how pretty he is that she can't be bothered to notice anything else about him for more then a few seconds and then it's back to drooling over his perfect hair, skin, eyes, teeth, voice, breath, etc. (One can't help but wonder how differently she would have felt about him had he been ugly or even just average looking.)

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


So your problem is that it's an old-fashioned romance novel bound in a modern cover?

reply to post by Starchild23


Just read the page.

My problem is Edward is a child molester stalker after jail bait and that is passed off as romance. I've heard some fans say that Edward is just so romantic. Horse twaddle. This is unacceptable in today's' society Yet the Twilight fans will do anything they can to support this and say this is all good and normal.

Sorry, but I'm just not buying it.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


I did read your quote.

What I noticed is how much it describes every preppy cheerleader in America, and every muscle-bound jock. It's so much easier to notice these flaws when they are clearly removed from society and placed in a fictional setting. Visit a high school, however, and you'll find that this stuff happens a lot.

But everyone ignores it. "Kids will be kids".

Oh, and love has no age limit. If people can get married at the age of 14 in the Bible, then why is it wrong here? Additionally, it's only wrong by the law...because there are people who don't have morals.

Which brings us, once again, to the fact that these vampires have morals. Which is just so incredibly wrong, isn't it?