What's with the new Twilight Craze?

TalkAwful Lit.

Join LibraryThing to post.

What's with the new Twilight Craze?

This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.

Dec 21, 2008, 10:50pm

Twilight has caused my whole school to go bananas for vampires and nuts for werewolves. I personally find the book to be very predictable and cliche.
Bella has to be the most annoying character I have ever imagined. Please don't tell me that I'm not the only one whose gotton irritated at Bella's "Edward" this and "Jacob" that and the complaning on every page about how horrible her life is.
The first book was okay; it inspired me to read the sequel if anthing.
On a scale of one to ten, I'd say Twilight gets a 4.5 since it is captivating but very cliche.
I'm sorry Twlight fans if I have offended you but it is only the truth. Why do you like the book? Do you like the movie comparably?
For anyone else who doesn't like the book, whats you reasoning?

Dec 22, 2008, 12:43am

I hate the books because Bella has no personality, Edward is a creepy borderline abusive stalker and Jacob is a manipulative crybaby who tries to twist Bella's emotions to get what he wants.

On top of all of this there is a very bizarre "marry young, be subservient, children are the pinnacle of your existence" vibe going on that creeps me out.

Dec 22, 2008, 12:47am

For me, captivating is enough. Yes, Bella is annoying, but it's not easy to find books that are so absorbing. I also thought the sequels were less cliche than the first book.

Dec 22, 2008, 7:06am

These were "potato chip" books for me - You find yourself reading chapter after chapter like mindlessly popping chips into your mouth while watching tv... And afterwards you wonder - why in the world did I do that? Wasn't there something more substantive I could have consumed? It was enjoyable, but in a thoughtless kind of way...

To be specific - the books really needed an editor - too long, too repetitive.... YES, I get how gorgeous Edward is....YES, I understand how torn you are about Jacob.... and there was virtually no "world-building". So many basic questions were left unanswered, the environment was rather 2D to me.

That being said....I devoured all four books in about two weeks! (Time to read a classic!)


Dec 22, 2008, 7:13am

I read all 4 and enjoyed them in a light-weight way. I do want to see the movie and will drag along my 15-year old daughter. Interestingly, she has only read the first two. She thinks Bella is a whining OCD crybaby. She'll probably take the last two books to camp next summer and read them in about 3 or 4 days each, but she's not planning on spending any of her Christmas holiday reading them.

Dec 22, 2008, 1:31pm

What bothers me about the Twilight craze, aside from teen girls idealizing obsessive, borderline abusive behavior as "romantic", are the accolades Stephanie Meyer is being showered with. There's nothing wrong with guilty pleasure/escapist reading, but sale numbers don't equal "masterpiece" or "magnificent author". Adult reviewers ought to know better.

Ugh, it irritates me just to think about it. "Next J.K. Rowling" my ass.

Dec 22, 2008, 2:42pm

I don't think "next J.K. Rowling" implies that Stephenie Meyer writes great literature. I'm pretty sure that the comparison is about sales numbers anyway, but besides that, J.K. Rowling isn't a magnificent author and didn't write masterpieces. Especially once she was hugely popular, it seems like her editors became afraid to make much-needed cuts. I'd say the comparison is pretty apt overall.

Dec 22, 2008, 3:01pm

#7: Oh, re: quality of writing, certainly. I meant more that the cultural impact the Harry Potter series had overall is far greater than that of the Twilight series.

Dec 23, 2008, 3:30am

I agree, kabrahamson. HP is a much more widespread phenomenon; much more clever and creative.

I don't think they are comparable. I think they were written for different reasons by two very different people.

HP's not just limited to teenage girls and.... the rest of us. Do any men read the Twilight series? (besides Barack Obama reading it to his daughter). Do any teenage boys read it?

Dec 23, 2008, 8:38am

I don't think anything can fully compare to Harry Potter just because it came first, but I'm not convinced that that has anything to do with the books themselves.

My 60-year-old father read Twilight and New Moon. I think the movie will make a big difference; it certainly did with Harry Potter. When I came to visit for Christmas, my sister and I planned to go see the movie, and my father likes any movies, so he said he'd come along--but we made him read the book first.

Dec 23, 2008, 8:40am

It's SO STUPID. It's also badly written, fairly offensive, cliched, trite, and pretentious. But the most unforgivable sin is the stupidity.

Dec 23, 2008, 8:46am

You know what I don't understand? People who absolutely hate a book so much, and then go on to read the sequel (unless you rated New Moon without even reading it). Obviously there's something that makes people read on.

Dec 23, 2008, 9:32am

On the one hand, our culture isn't kind to things that teenage girls like. They're always seen as more trivial and mockable than things teenage boys, or other people, like.

That said, the Twilight series is really pretty awful.

I did read the entire series. I thought the first book had some things going for it, so I went on to the second. The series deteriorated so rapidly from book to book, by the end I was reading just to see what the fuss was about, and to see how much more awful it could get, like watching a train wreck.

I think Twilight is the beneficiary of extremely effective marketing and lucky timing. It's certainly not a better product. I was just raving about the Mortal Instruments books by Cassandra Clare the other day, which cover a lot of the same ground as Twilight but which are vastly superior. It's disappointing that Mortal Instruments isn't as popular.

Dec 23, 2008, 9:46am

I don't know, I still think Twilight is gripping in a way that many other books aren't. No matter how annoying Bella was and how offensive her relationship with Edward was, I always wanted to read on.

I really don't think marketing is the main factor here; the girls I know who are most obsessed with Twilight heard about it by word of mouth. I'm a Girl Guide leader, and when we went to camp these books were everywhere. There was at least one girl who was stealing every minute she could to get a few pages read, in the middle of other fun activities. This is not typical.

Just because a book doesn't satisfy the typical requirements of "good literature" doesn't mean it's undeserving of popularity. I think there's a lot to be said for writing a book that compels people to keep reading.

Dec 23, 2008, 11:04am

Certainly most people heard about Twilight by word of mouth. But what made the first people who read it get into it, so that they could recommend it?

First, the covers are arresting. Let's not underestimate the power of good cover artwork.

Second, every bookstore I go into has the books displayed prominently on stand-alone racks. This was true even before the books hit the highest point of their popularity. The publisher sank a ton of money into that marketing, more than most authors will ever see.

Third, the books' morality is popular with adults. How many people have I read on this site defending the books because the violence happens mostly off-stage and there's no sex? The fact that the sexlessness is due not to modesty but to a negative view of women's sexuality goes overlooked by most people, particularly by adults who don't read the books, but who might just skim them lightly to make sure they're fit for children.

Fourth, the politics surrounding the author play into the books' favor. Meyer's personal story is more interesting because of her religious background, just as Rowling was more compelling because of her rise from poverty or Paolini gets more attention for being young and home-schooled. Meyer gets more interviews and free press because of who she is, and she's also good-looking, which helps, too.

Fifth, since the success of Harry Potter, adults have been pushing to maintain the momentum toward reading that those books generated. There's a kind of uncritical idea that reading is a better activity for kids than anything else, no matter what the quality of what's being read. I'm not convinced, however, that Twilight is a gateway drug to literature or that reading it is better for kids than watching a really clever television show. Heretical, I know, but I'm just glad my daughter is too young to read Twilight and thus I won't be put to the trouble of trying to undo its pernicious retrograde values once they're inside her head.

The book that the girls passed around to each other when I was in middle school was "Forever" by Judy Blume. We had one copy, with the dirty parts helpfully highlighted in yellow and orange marker. I have a difficult time imagining that book getting the cultural sanction that Twilight enjoys.

If you've read The Tipping Point, you know that the most successful marketing doesn't reach every interested person -- it reaches the tastemakers, the people who set trends and whom others want to emulate. Then it spreads out from there. I think that's what's happened with Twilight.

Dec 23, 2008, 1:53pm

Really interesting post! Lots to think about there, though I don't know enough about marketing to do much more than accept what you say.

But I do think there's of necessity some balance between marketing and quality--if the books weren't interesting, a massive marketing campaign couldn't do that much, and presumably the publishers try to choose appealing books to pour all their money into.

The morality issue is sort of weird. I do hear people praising the books because the sex isn't graphic (or even described at all), and I'm always surprised because there's still lots of sex that figures prominently in the plot. The first 100 or 150 pages of Breaking Dawn are all about Bella trying to get sex and then thinking about how great the sex was and trying to get more sex. Are people still saying how harmless the books are after the last one came out?

I think the politics are pretty irrelevant by this point, though maybe they made a difference earlier.

I do think that reading is better than watching television and that Twilight is a gateway drug to literature. I think it makes a huge difference to realize that books can be really interesting. I read hundreds of Sweet Valley books when I was about 10, and I turned out okay--by the time I was 14 I was reading "real" literature (Austen, Hardy, Conrad). I certainly think Twilight is better than Sweet Valley; at least Stephenie Meyer writes her own books.

Edited: Dec 24, 2008, 9:35am

>4 callen610:, Corrina, That is a fantastic description of these books! "Potato chip" books.... I may actually start using that as a tag, although probably no one else will know what it means.

>16 _Zoe_:, Zoe, I too read a million Sweet Valley High books and somehow turned out ok. I read some excerpts from them recently on a blog and I was horrified by them. Seems like every single one either has an attempted rape, someone accusing someone else of rape to get back at them, etc. At least Twilight didn't have (too much) of that....

Dec 24, 2008, 11:44am

You may be surprised, Fannyprice ... I've been using the term "potato chip books" for about 25 years, and most people have understood it. Especially readers who like chips!

Jan 28, 2009, 3:20pm

I agree with the "potato chip books" idea. Let me say I LOVE these books. Not because they're a masterpiece; not because there's an epic romance or plot; but because they remind me of the things I went through in school (with some vampires and werewolves thrown in for good measure.)

We do stupid things when we're growing up. We date people and then wonder if maybe we made the wrong decision. We have close friends (Jacob) that want more than we're willing to give.

The writing wasn't superb (and there were quite a few sentences that made me groan) but the storytelling was what held me. I felt like I was sitting around a campfire hearing a story. Or hearing what happened to my friend in study hall!

I read Twilight when it first came out. I picked it up at a school book fair (I'm a teacher.) The first thing that gripped me was the cover. (It's beautiful, imho, as are the latter books, as well.) From the back of the book when I picked it up, I was expecting more of a traditional fairytale set in modern times. The thing that gripped me the most was the back stories of the vampires and the lore of both the werewolves and vampires.

And, when it comes to comparing her to JK Rowling...I've always deemed it to mean the sales of her books. (I adore the stories of HP, but it's not a literary masterpiece, especially the final book!) There are plenty of boys who read Twilight. (Again, I work in a school....) Twilight is also not geared towards children of as young an age as HP is acceptable for, even though a good deal of Elementary aged students are reading it.

Anyway, those are my thoughts and humble opinions. (There's nothing wrong with "potato chip books" you just need to be aware of that's what they are! And there's nothing wrong with reading for fun. If nothing else it expands your vocabulary.)

(And thinking of vocabulary....Stephenie really needs to get away from the loping. LOL. There were a couple of words I felt that way about. Okay, we get it!) But I still love the books. Oh, and the movies...well, it's a high expectation and they really rushed the production. I feel that in order to understand the movie, you need to read the book. (That was made clear when the movie ended and my husband asked..."what just happened here?")

Jan 31, 2009, 3:15pm

I enjoyed the first book as an easy-read. I tried to read it a second time and there was just too much mindless dribble. Also I attempted to read the rest of the series but it was too much work. The last book I only spent a half an hour skimming at the library, the whole imprinting on Bella's demon child was perverted and odd. I'm attending college and there are a lot of girls who "LOVE" Twilight; but they mostly seem to be people who don't read much, so I don't think they realize how poorly written it is (or the fact that there is much better stuff out there!)

Anyway that's just my take on Twilight.

Jan 31, 2009, 4:22pm

Chyristabel1, you may be amused by a conversation my 12 year old daughter had with her (Twilight obsessed) friend.

Daughter: I'm reading Wuthering Heights. It's good, but the language is really difficult to read.

Friend: Yeah, you should try Twilight, It's really hard!

Jan 31, 2009, 4:45pm

I'm not really impressed by the argument that people who love Twilight just haven't read enough books to know what good writing is; besides the fact that it's insulting, it doesn't do anything to explain why the books are so popular. There are plenty of badly written books, and they're not all bestsellers.

A more interesting question to me is, if the book is so terrible, what was it that led you to attempt a second read of it? Why did you try to read the rest of the series as well?

Feb 1, 2009, 12:49pm

Nickelini, your daughter reminds me of myself at that age. (Although, you should remember that not all children are on the same reading level.)

Zoe, I agree with your post (22). Why does a book need to be "well-written" for me to enjoy it? I've read many books that have good writing and many books that have poor writing. A well-written book does not necessarily have a good plot or catchy story. Likewise, a poorly written book can be very catchy and really pull you in.

If you deem the writing of Twilight as poorly written I wonder how you would find the work of Frank McCourt, since it is rather non-traditional.

Edited: Feb 3, 2009, 12:11am

I think it needs to be explained what these people mean when they say the books are poorly written.

I received Twilight in a swap recently, but haven't read it yet. Admittedly, I'm a little afraid to give it a go, and the echoes of "poorly written" definitely contribute to scaring me away.

She bravely ran away, away...

(Edited to add touchstones, which don't appear to be working anyway.)

Feb 3, 2009, 8:48am

Strangely, I'm a fan of the Twilight series even though I don't really like the books. I would have never read any of them if it were not for a coworker who was struggling with her reading. She is an older lady, who after years of working in low-paying jobs and feeling like she deserved nothing better, decided to take the GED. She told me she was taking classes, but made me promise not to tell the other women she worked with in the cafeteria. They would laugh at her, she said. So I kept her secret while trying to help her achieve her goal.

Reading was a big problem for her. She just never read many books. So I picked up that damn Twilight book and read it to see if it was something that might be readable for her. I found the story a bit disturbing, but fairly well written in an easy-to-read kind of way so I passed it on to my co-worker. Needless to say, she LOVED it. She also passed it on to her sister who had just had a stroke and was certain that she would never be able to read a book again. But she did read it--and LOVED it too.

So, I'm a fan of the books because they have helped some people I know read and become better readers. We all have to start somewhere. No one is going to read unless they find something that is worth reading.

The Twilight series has done this for a lot of people I know. Not just children, but adults who, for whatever reason, never got hooked on reading. Now their world has changed forever--and for the better, I think.

Now, saying all that, I'm glad that Twilight was not the first book I ever read. Edward is too possessive, Bella too obsessed. Even the author admits to this as the series goes on. Her way of making up for it though, Edward suddenly trying to change his ways, does not seem believable. And the last book was in need or some serious editing. I kept reading because there were some humorous parts. Once Bella became a vampire though, all the humor was gone. I was really hoping they would all die at the end.

Feb 3, 2009, 12:15pm

24> It's hard to say what you'll think. Most people I've found either love it or hate it. With a few in the middle.

25> I think part of the love hate depends on your purpose for reading it. Obviously, it's a fiction book. Which is typically where I go for an escape or to hear a story. But other people like deep writing from their fiction.

For me, this book was just an escape from reality. Nothing more nothing less. I became emotionally attached to some of the characters and want to know their backgrounds and more about them and what happened "after" the books end. (Surprisingly, as much as I enjoy the characters I kinda wanted to see a less than happy ending for Bella & Edward.)

Feb 7, 2009, 8:53pm

I'm not sure, either. "Poor writing" can make a book hell to get through no matter how good the story is. (And sometimes, it just refers to the story.) I think that's what's bugging me.

My sister just finished reading it. She went into it hating every sentence she read, and continued hating sentences right up until the end of the book. She took the time to finish it because the story had her attention. Finally she admitted it wasn't as bad as she thought it was going to be.

Mixed opinions, indeed!

I'm going to give it a read at some point in time. But meanwhile, I'm caught up in a few other books.

Feb 8, 2009, 9:05am

I don't know how you feel about movie versions of books, but just a suggestion that if you're interested in seeing the movie you really need to read the book first. The movie lacks the cohesiveness that the book provides.

Feb 8, 2009, 1:00pm

I have tried to read the first book twice, but it just doesn't appeal to me. As others have said the storyline is too predictable and the characters are generally annoying.

From what I have seen these books appeal to people who aren't usually big readers.

Feb 8, 2009, 7:07pm

I'd have to disagree with that last statement. Many avid readers that I know highly enjoy the books as a bit of fluff.

I find very few books and movies that aren't predictable because of the amount I read.

Feb 28, 2009, 3:38pm

I would also have to disagree with you Quembel. I am a very avid reader. By the time i reached age six, i was reading 300 paged books in one night. And even so, i have read the entire twilight series seventeen times....and have not bored away from it. And as in responce to the whiney Bella statements; this book is technically Bella's diary. She has a very hard life considering her true love is a vampire dying to suck her blood....and her best friend is a werewolf. To top that off vampires and werewolves are mortal enemies. She has a hard life. I would be complaining as well.....though i would still DIE to be in the place of Bella, and to be with Edward Cullen every day of forever


Feb 28, 2009, 4:48pm

>31 Mrs.EdwardCullen: re: (Bella) has a very hard life...

But why, then, does she start whining before she gets to Washington? From the very beginning of the book, she's complaining about leaving Arizona and having to move to small town Forks, but she's the one who made that choice. No one told her she had to go live with her dad or even leave Arizona: Bella came up with that idea on her own, and insisted on it. Yet she complains about everything to do with it. I also have to disagree about her having a "very hard life." She gets just about everything she wants and things she doesn't even know she wants.

But your statement here pretty much encapsulates why I think the series is so popular with so many people: i would still DIE to be in the place of Bella, and to be with Edward Cullen every day of forever. Bella is a marysue character with no real personality or interests of her own, so it is easy for the reader to imagine him or herself in her place. I believe this is one reason that the $2 Harlequins available at Wal-Mart are as popular that they are, from those that I have read.

Personally, when I read Twilight the first time, I thought it was a pretty good YA romance novel. It was a quick read with a promising story. But then I read New Moon and was horrified by some of the things Meyer treats as being okay or even good - the one werewolf who beat up his wife, but everyone knows he loves her and he couldn't help it; or the pages where Bella was literally nothing without her man (and note that it wasn't until a new man became a strong force in the story that it picked up again). I tried to reread Twilight a few months after that, and I couldn't get back into the potato chip reading, because now that I was familiar with the basic story, I was noticing all these really awful things, like the way Bella plays martyr, or how she treats her dad shittily.

Also, most people I know who are huge Twilight fans fall into two categories: those who don't read much non-popcorn lit, and those who do read a lot and like it despite its badness (and they will readily admit how awful it is). And then there are those who love to hate it, or who would love it if it were dressed up as a horror story instead of a romance. The plot wouldn't even need much changing, especially in Breaking Dawn. ;)

Feb 28, 2009, 4:52pm

I'm a bit entangled by Bella's "hard life."

Part of me wants to ask questions. What, exactly, makes her life so hard? What's making her act so obsessively? Is unrequited teen love really the end of the world? Is this the pseudo-drama that's drawing so many teens in? How difficult can her life really be if people still claim they would die to be in her place? (Mrs.EdwardCullen isn't the only person I've heard this from.)

Another part of me is well aware that some teens go as far as to attempt suicide over perceived heartaches. Obviously, these situations are very real and hurt the young people who are experiencing them. After considering how relatively inexperienced most teens are, it's easy for me to see how enduring a difficult situation makes it seem to them like they have an impossible life.

I know how valuable it is to have someone or something to relate to when you feel like your back is in a corner. But now that I'm older (and hopefully a little wiser), I cringe at the idea of such selfish and ignorant thinking.

What about teens who really do have hard lives? (Speculate on whatever circumstances you will.) I wonder what they'd think of Bella.

Mar 2, 2009, 1:18pm

32> When Bella decided to move to Forks, she was acting selflessly. She wanted her mom to be happy with her new man. Bella wanted the best for her mom and knew that she wouldn't go be with her travelling baseball boyfriend.

Also, the werewolf didn't "beat up" his wife. She was too close to his transformation. The Quileutes don't have control over their change. You say beat up like it was a conscious decision to do so.

33> I have some teens with very hard lives. (Example: homeless) They actually love Twilight. From our discussions it seems that they see that Bella could be any of them and she's got emotional problems but in the end she gets what she wants and has something to live/die for. They don't consider her whiny. Although, the teenage brain always seems to be wired slightly differently as you've mentioned in your post. I wonder what they'd think of it looking back in a few years.

Mar 2, 2009, 1:21pm

This message has been deleted by its author.

Mar 2, 2009, 3:50pm

>34 Joles:

Bella's choice to move to Forks does not read to me as a selfless act. It came across as extremely selfish, and even the first time I read the book, I wondered why she couldn't have a trusted neighbor or friend keep an eye on her when her mom and stepdad are on the road - it's not like they'd be gone every single day of the year. And Bella's 16, so she should be somewhat self-sufficient. (But maybe I'm biased by the fact that this is what happened in my household: my dad had to travel for business a lot and he was our only parent at the time. The only difference to when he wasn't traveling was that there were no adults in the house at night, so either a relative would stay the night and make sure we had someone to call in emergencies, or we'd sleep at the neighbor's house. We were all in high school at the time, and I could drive, just like Bella.)

And even then, if she was committing such a selfless act, and she chose it because she believed it was the best for everyone, why does she have to whine about it? It was her decision, and she's the one who thought of it in the first place, so she has no place to complain. I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone who goes on and on about their own martyrdom.

I also can't agree with your statement about the werewolf. It may not have been a conscious decision to attack her, but the whole scene read to me like something from an article about a battered woman. Any excuses made for that scene sound like excuses made for people who beat their spouses (or even their children). I mean, Sam attacked Emily because he loved her, but she inadvertently made him angry, wasn't it? And I didn't get the impression that she was happy in the relationship, so much as resigned to it because he can't help it, and everyone else insists that it's the best thing to do. In any other relationship, I would insist that she find someone who can take her in and get her out of the toxic environment. The fact that Sam's a werewolf shouldn't be an excuse for his actions - lack of control doesn't equate to lack of responsibility.

Mar 3, 2009, 7:44am

There are plenty of decisions people make willingly and selflessly that they whine about. If you were only in the classroom on a daily basis!!!

And as for Sam and Emily. It made "read" like a batter woman issue but it was made very clear in the book not to be near a werewolf when they are changing because it is dangerous. Yes, she made him angry and that caused his transformation but what happens during the transformation is not just a "lack of control" or "lack of responsibility" so much as it is something else possessing your body.

Also, it seemed to me that she wasn't happy moreso because of what it did to her friend, Sam's former girl.

Mar 8, 2009, 5:39pm

I really really hate to admit that I do like the story. Although I think the writing is poor. I cannot stand it when people compare it to Harry Potter. Harry Potter is so much better and J.K. Rowling has so much more talent than Stephenie Meyer.

Mar 8, 2009, 7:48pm

>38 audreyfan21: Actually, I think the Harry Potter comparison is apt. I consider J.K. Rowling a pretty poor writer, at least once her editors gave up on cutting out any of her precious words (i.e., books 4-7).

Also, as I said earlier in the thread, the comparison is more about popularity than writing anyway.

Mar 8, 2009, 8:26pm

I feel the comparison is fitting also because each of the stories is "YA" and both books have an epic, life or death feel to them. And, obviously, they're both extremely popular as Zoe mentioned. (And I agree with the editors bit. Although, I really rather enjoyed all the information in Book 5. I understand that it was too philosophical for some.)

While I'm semi-ranting can I also say that I hate when an author is finishing a book or series and you get the feeling like they just want to tie it up and finish it, and just write to do that, rather than actually "finish" telling the story.

Mar 9, 2009, 4:01pm

39: I wonder, would the Twilight series be as popular without the Harry Potter series as its predecessor?

Mar 10, 2009, 11:37am

41> That's a very intriguing question! (I know it wasn't directed toward me, but I'd like to throw something out there.) I know many readers of Twilight that haven't read or couldn't get into Harry Potter. What exactly that means for the argument either way I'm not quite sure. HP did open many people back up to reading again. I wonder what the percentages would be. (HP readers that read Twilight, Twilight readers that read HP, who read all of both, readers who enjoyed/hated, etc.)

Mar 10, 2009, 2:02pm

I don't think Twilight could even have existed without HP. YA books just weren't allowed to be that long before.

But, assuming that the books had somehow been published without HP, I think they would still have been popular, but less so. I think HP provided some important examples of how to hype a book: midnight release parties, etc.

Mar 11, 2009, 10:47am

I don't know that we'd even have midnight release parties for books if it hadn't been for HP. Does anyone remember having any before HP? I get so excited when I see a place is having a midnight release for any book. (I always used to hang out at a 24 hr Walmart and beg at midnight for them to bring out the new book for whatever I was waiting on.)

Mar 11, 2009, 12:49pm

Twilight wasn't originally written as a YA book; it would almost certainly have been marketed differently with the Harry Potter craze, which showed the world that YA can have a much broader appeal and actually do quite well.

For those interested, my favorite Twilight review is here: http://stoney321.livejournal.com/317176.html

Mar 12, 2009, 1:38am

Funny you mention that. I've heard the Harry Potter series wasn't originally meant as YA Lit, either. :)

Mar 12, 2009, 11:16am

That was my thought too allthesepieces. LOL

Twilight was written more for Stephenie herself than for anyone else. She let her friends read it, who told her that she should try to get it published. I've always wanted to make a novel out of some of my dreams, like she did. But after reading Twilight, I can't imagine elaborating on what short nocturnal experience I had.

Mar 12, 2009, 1:48pm

Man, my dreams would make for an awesome book. Or at least for some interesting Gilmore Girls/24 crossover fanfiction. Jess Mariano saves a Mary Sue character from certain death and a conspiracy plot...

Okay. I'm done now. As you were.

Mar 16, 2009, 12:12am

47 & 48: I'd love to jump on the bandwagon, but I'm afraid my dreams might make a Hieronymus Bosch painting look like Disneyland. ;)

Mar 16, 2009, 3:52am

49: I'd like to see how Bosch could go to Disney... can't quite picture it myself :)

As for Twilight, I was always mixed. I liked the world and back stories, but did get really annoyed with the prevalent characters. My faves ended up being Emmet and Jasper, but I think more because they were only there when needed. And I think my favorite parts of the books were the history parts, how they became vampires, what the Volturi did, and the wars in the south. But that way, I just make my own stories that don't annoy me. I get too lost with my own imagination for the good of any author.

Edited: Mar 26, 2009, 5:41pm

Yes, Yes, Yes! After reading about three pages of reviews here on LT I thought, "Edward sounds like Heathcliff!" I have not read the books, but I think I might die laughing. I can say I have read a little of it from the quotes in the reviews and the writing was just so bad.

However all these girls who are obsessed with Twlight might really dig Heathcliff! It might be the way into some good literature for them!

Mar 27, 2009, 8:17am

Anyone who wants to know what the books are about without actually reading them - or people who have read them who want a laugh - can check out cleolinda's discussions/summaries. Really, I just reread them for kicks and they're so funny (and, I admit, disturbing at times, but that's the books).

Apr 16, 2009, 8:27pm

I think they are very cliche also. My personal reasons for disliking the book however stem from seeing the characters motivations through the author's religious background. I can't get past the ideologies she imposes through her characters. ugh

Jun 3, 2009, 2:13am

J.K. Rowling proved that you can write 500-page YA novels and people will read them.
I'm pretty sure that Stephanie Meyer proved that it doesn't mean you should.

Sorry fans, but as someone who read tons of fanfiction in their early teens, this book read like something I could read on FanFiction.Net. Since people LOVE FF.Net, on a get-rich scale? It's genius. On a scale of actual literature? not so much.

Bella feels like a cut-and-paste Mary-Sue to me. "Horrible" life until she meets the hero? Check. They fall desperately in love? Check. Another man becomes jealous? Check. He swears not to do something she wants for her own protection?...and so on and so forth.
At the same time, I'd be lying if I didn't say it was entertaining. I just feel a little cheated because hell, I could have read the same story for free with different names.

(Apologies to anyone who posts anything GOOD on FF.Net, but if you do, you know exactly what kind of stories I'm really talking about.)

Jun 3, 2009, 6:01am

54: "J.K. Rowling proved that you can write 500-page YA novels and people will read them.
I'm pretty sure that Stephanie Meyer proved that it doesn't mean you should." is priceless, and sums it up well!

Edited: Jun 7, 2009, 11:36pm

Should we really be dissing a book because it isn't a masterpiece of literature?

No offense, but reading would be boring if all books were written the same way! Variety is the spice of life.

Jun 8, 2009, 6:07am

There are lots of books I enjoy that aren't "masterpieces of literature". In fact, pretty much all of the books I enjoy do not fall into that category.

Twilight is well beyond "not a masterpiece", both in content and in quality of writing (or lack thereof).

Jun 8, 2009, 3:35pm

Apparently I have been living under a rock as I only became aware of the Twilight phenomenon a few months ago. The tag 'teenage vampire romance' did not tempt me but the sheer volume of publicity made me think I was missing out so I read all 4 books in quick succession last month.

I have to say I did enjoy them: it's a pretty good story and the books really did evoke my memories of being a teenage girl - obsessional about some boy or other without whom life could not continue. It reminded me of Jane Eyre in that respect and I would have loved to have read these books when I was 12. I agree that the writing is cringe-worthy but the story kept me engaged.

I do not find Bella annoying (in fact are those who do just jealous because they want to be with Edward forever? he he) or Edward's relationship with her abusive - I'm afraid I took it all at face value: vampire and human fall in love, chaos ensues, and it was all enjoyable froth. I think Meyer has written Bella cleverly so that readers can believe they ARE Bella. I did not notice Bella complaining about her life - maybe too taken up with the romance thing. I thought the lack of sex was weird until I reflected that I would not be too happy about lots of sex in a book for 12 year olds.

I think the sheer number of posters on the internet now calling themselves 'Mrs Edward Cullen' or the like are indicative of how Stephanie Meyer has touched something deep within many people (women) which they probably wish to keep secret - that Edward Cullen is exactly the type of man they fantasise about. This is definitely the most interesting thing about the Twilight series.

I just watched the movie and I loved it! Can't wait for New Moon.

Jun 8, 2009, 11:36pm

Iamseagoat, you hit it on the head, at least for non-teenage / women readers, when you mentioned that it evoked memories of being a teenage girl. That's exactly it for some fans (the ones not lusting after Edward, but remembering their own versions). For me the books (badly written, addictive fluff that hit a nerve with me) also triggered memories of reading books that I remembered for the rest of my life. Meyer scatters hints of Austen & Bronte throughout some of the books and sure, these are stereotypical chick-classics, but they brought up fond memories as well - and I ended up rereading Wuthering Heights after reading the four Twilight books (in three days or something similarly fast, which says something about the difficulty of the read (not at all) and the addictive popcorn factor to them).

Lastly, and speaking for myself, even though I liked the books for the above few reasons, there is a LOT of satire and bashing on the net concerning these books and some of it is highly entertaining.

Jun 9, 2009, 5:55am

58, 59: You're right: Meyer's touched audiences by creating a blank character they can impose themselves on as well as a dream guy they've all fallen in love with.

It's not so much a touch as brain damage though, not to mention a complete dismissal of sexual equality.

What struck me when I read Twilight was what an arrogant bastard Edward was. I know the bad boy thing has a lot of appeal, but it's not long lasting for anyone with any independence or self-esteem. I couldn't believe that most readers weren't disgusted by some of the things Edward does: dragging Bella to his car by the collar of her jacket; eavesdropping unapologetically on her private conversations; constantly 'commanding' (Meyer's word) her to do things; breaking into her home. How is this sexy or even acceptable? This is the kind of behaviour you expect from rapists, domestic abusers and paedophiles.

It disturbs me that audiences fell in love with Edward. It suggests that women still harbour the fantasy that a strong man will come along and save them from their weaknesses. All they have to do is stay weak and submit to the man.

And that's exactly what Bella does - exactly what she's told by Edward. She doesn't have the strength to demand that he treat her with respect. Instead, it's always assumed that he simply knows better and just wants to take care of her.

I know Bella embodies the insecurities most girls suffer as well as the obsession with a boy, but Meyer handles it very poorly. Bella never gets over her insecurities, and in fact Edward's beauty just makes her feel uglier. She's so infatuated with his looks I can't imagine that she would be able to love him if he weren't beautiful. I'm not even sure if she does love him or if she's just drugged by his beauty.

And I really hate the way Meyer handles sex. She takes normal teenage lust and twists it into this grotesque thing where even a kiss makes Bella faint and for them to have sex could kill her. the whole issue is avoided by making it extremely dangerous. I don't expect them to have sex, but this is an almost misogynistic way of handling the issue.

On the whole, this book wouldn't bother me if it really was just a badly-written but fun fluff. But it glorifies a relationship that no woman or girl should ever hope to have and yet its fans think it's the most romantic thing they've ever read.

Jun 10, 2009, 5:11pm

60: Hmm... 'dismissal of sexual equality' ? Edward is not a MAN, he is a VAMPIRE. He's an incredibly dangerous predator, a monster. This is a fantasy tale of LOVE that blossoms between a Killer and his (potential) lunch.

If you read Midnight Sun (Twilight from Edward's point of view) you may see things in a different light. (It's available on Stephanie Meyer's website). I would say Edward's behaviour was obsessional in a kind of thrilling way, he did not make me think of rapists/domestic abusers/paedophiles.

I really didn't see Bella as 'weak'. I thought she was quite independant and brave. And Edward did not come to save her, he did the opposite surely. She met him and was doomed. Bella fell in love with exactly the wrong 'person'. And Edward's over protectivness is charming, no?

And does Meyer take 'normal teenage lust' and twist it? We have here a vampire and a girl who fall in love at first sight, which is in quite a different league. Edward believes he could easily lose control and kill Bella if they kiss etc - that's because he's a monster who lusts after her blood. So not your everyday normal situation I would say.

I guess the fans who find it romantic just dont read it the way you do. ps I'm one of them! :)

Jun 10, 2009, 5:23pm

61 iamseagoat

Edward is not a MAN, he is a VAMPIRE

That doesn't fly. He is a male person and behaves exactly the same way a human obsessive stalker would (plus superpowers and immortality).

His over-protectiveness is not charming, it's condescending.

If he really believed that she would be better off without him, then he should have actually stayed away from her, not told her that he was dangerous one minute and that he couldn't live without her the next. He is emotionally manipulative, which is abuse in a way that can be difficult to recognize and can feel like love but in the end makes the object (e.g. Bella) entirely dependent on the abuser (in the end, what friends and family did she have besides Edward? Pretty much him and his vampire family. Her human friends were tossed aside, her real family was dismissed. Classic domestic abuse.).

Jun 10, 2009, 5:29pm

#61 -
Or possibly, the people that don't find it romantic have actually been in or know someone who was in a relationship with a man that was actually *like* Edward (in all his actions toward Bella)... and not only was it not 'charming', they have the scars to prove that in reality, it was actually horrifying.

You can say that he's a vampire and not a man, but unless there are real vampires out there, the author only has a knowledge of humans and human behaviour as the starting point for writing about a 'male' humanoid.

In a lot of ways, Edward is all too human.

Jun 10, 2009, 6:11pm

62 bluesalamanders

I think Edward acts the way many teens do or want to act once they are obsessed with someone. That's what makes it compelling, he's able to take it that bit further (mind reading), and wouldnt it be great if you could..- did you not follow someone you really liked on their way home from school or the like? oops maybe I'm revealing myself as a 'human obsessive stalker'

I didn't get the condescending vibe, is it because I'm a romantic not a cynic?

Unfortunately for Edward he fell in love with Bella, it's not as simple as thinking she'd be better off without him - check out Midnight Sun - so 'actually staying away from her' is a difficult thing to do.

I love the bit at the end of your post 'Classic domestic abuse' Like it's case closed! How is Edward emotionally manipulative? I missed that bit. It's quite common for a person falling in love to push friends and family into the background for a while. And in the end Bella had Alice and Jacob as close friends, she was never really close friends with any of the humans (who mostly seemed jealous of her or wanted to go out with her) and was still close to her mum and dad. Case reopened! ;)

Jun 10, 2009, 6:21pm

63: kassetra

Interesting thought: at what point would Bella find Edward horrifying? Does she never get to that point because she's in love with him to the same level of intensity that he is in love with her? Or is there just something wrong with her (as Edward believes - see Midnight Sun!)

Jun 10, 2009, 6:36pm

64 iamseagoat

No, I never followed anyone I liked on the way home from school. And even if I had, I certainly wouldn't have broken into their bedroom without their knowledge and started at them while they were asleep in their own bed. Without their knowledge. How is that not incredibly creepy?

He is condescending because he refuses to allow Bella to make her own choices. Everything is about what he thinks is best for her, and her opinions are brushed aside, glossed over, or trampled. He wants her to have a birthday party, he wants her to go to prom, he wants her to have a new car, and she has no choice. That is both condescending - assuming he knows what is best for her, despite what she says - and manipulative, especially things like the car, where he ruins her truck so she's forced to take the car he wants to give her.

it's not as simple as thinking she'd be better off without him

Except that that's what he says. Repeatedly. That she would be better off without him. Over and over again, he says that. Does he not mean it? If he doesn't mean it, why does he say it? It's a cruel thing to say. And if he really loves her and thinks that she would be better off without him, then he should just stay away from her. Otherwise, again, it's all about him and what he wants and not about her at all.

Distancing someone from their friends and family is classic domestic abuse, no matter how amusing you think it might be. And it happens in the books, too. She never had a chance to make better friends with any of the other students - which she was starting to at the beginning. And her parents barely existed in the books. What happened to her mom being "her best friend"? Once Bella moved, she hardly ever spoke to her at all.

re msg 65 -
kassetra was talking about when real live people act the way Edward acted in the books. Controlling their actions, watching their every move, saying the sorts of things he said (to paraphrase from memory: "I'm a monster, you have to stay away from me..." and "I can't live without you!", mixed messages much?). In real life, it is horrifying, even if you can't see it on the page.

Jun 11, 2009, 12:50am

re 60: "And I really hate the way Meyer handles sex" is a very very funny comment - because Meyer doesn't handle sex! At all! The heavy handed Mormon undertones in these books are so over the top in places that you (well I) can't help but laugh (at Meyer, and her life). Seriously, go search for Twilight satire, people blogging their comments alongside reading the books, reviews, skits, etc.

66: re: classic domestic abuse... that's a bit much, unless you're implying that Bella had no choice in this and it was forced on her. A lot of the things you mentioned (mom being written out, etc) I actually brushed off as "Meyer is a horrendous writer and forgets what she's writing about," which she really does.

Re: manipulation - Edward's definitely not the only one that is being controlling; Jacob's not much better, and even Bella's father says some pretty awful things (way to go, Jacob, for accosting my daughter!). Laughably bad, and definitely requires putting your brain on the back burner.

This is the strange part: plot holes, bad writing, egotistical and shallow characters drive me crazy - in other works. I nitpick books, movies, TV shows to -death- and I'm very critical when stuff isn't realistic. I'm in my early 30s, not married, without children, yet these books engrossed me. Why?

Well, Meyer manages to do one thing (the only thing) right in these books: constructs a very very very slow seduction of the main character/her own proxy/the reader. In fact, this seduction never gets consummated, and gets drawn out for thousands of pages (years if you followed along, I didn't). I don't read romance books (but checked a bunch out, esp re: vampire romance, after reading Twilight) but nothing in that genre (sadly, a lot of it is written as badly, or worse!) has come close to this sort of naivete and sexual buildup. That's pretty much -all- there is to these books, and is the major explanation for their popularity. Women aren't in love with the characters, the books, Edward, or anything. They either wish to experience this sort of slow seduction, either initiated by someone else or in their own head, or are reliving their younger years when they did have this sort of relationship (" "). That and oh, probably biting/rape fantasies. XD

Edited: Jun 11, 2009, 2:21pm

re 60: "And I really hate the way Meyer handles sex" is a very very funny comment - because Meyer doesn't handle sex! At all! The heavy handed Mormon undertones in these books are so over the top in places that you (well I) can't help but laugh (at Meyer, and her life). Seriously, go search for Twilight satire, people blogging their comments alongside reading the books, reviews, skits, etc.

Jun 11, 2009, 4:06am

66: bluesalamanders

I was followed by an 'admirer' once on the way home from school and I hid whilst said admirer delivered chocolates through my front door (it was valentines day). I was creeped out no mistake, but, if I had been in love with him in that teenagey way I think I would have been ecstatic. The being in love bit makes a huge difference to how behaviour is experienced. The normal social conventions dont apply.
I followed someone home from school once - I was infatuated with him. So I guess one person's infatuated fool is another person's creep. If a boy I really loved crept into my room at night...well...it's the stuff of teenage fantasy isnt it? You're starting to make me think I was a really weird teenager btw!:)

I did not think Edward was being condescending, I thought it was part of his overpowering and intoxicating nature. I put Edward's actions down to his being 108 years old so his manners and treatment of women are from a different age, and his preciousness about human-ness is because he missed out on lots himself and really values it. I agree his lack of knowledge about himself does translate into arrogance but he is on as much of a learning curve as Bella and I thought he was doing quite well considering this is his first ever relationship and he's not sure of the rules.

" ' it's not as simple as thinking she'd be better off without him' If he doesn't mean it, why does he say it?
And if he really loves her and thinks that she would be better off without him, then he should just stay away from her"

Oh if only it were that simple! but life really isn't. The tug of war between what we know to be the right thing to do and our desires is the basis for all the wars all the literature all the poems all the great stuff about being human...? And what about Bella's feelings? Isnt she in love/falling in love with him?

'Distancing someone from their friends and family is classic domestic abuse, no matter how amusing you think it might be.'

Are you implying that I find domestic abuse amusing? please re read my post - I did not mention finding anything amusing and I certainly dont think domestic abuse is amusing. However it seems we will disagree about whether Edward's treatment of Bella is domestic abuse; I do not see her as a victim, I see her as someone who makes a positive choice to be with Edward and as part of the 'obsessive teen relationship' her relationships with others fade into the background. Edward is a vampire, and he doesn't/can't hang out with humans so Bella is by necessity drawn into his family and away from friends and family. And his family is way more interesting than Mike or Jessica. In Eclipse Bella has the choice to be human and have a relationship with Jacob - she turns that down in favour of being with Edward.

'kassetra was talking about when real live people act the way Edward acted in the book'
But isnt that missing the vital fact: Edward is a vampire so he IS a monster. You cant really translate his actions into real life because that would omit this fact and without this fact, you are right he would be pretty horrifying

68: arxes
Sorry, being a pedant now: 'this seduction never gets consummated' yes it does, in Breaking Dawn.

Jun 11, 2009, 5:10am

69: Even if we take the fact that Edward is a vampire as a 'vital fact' that makes comparisons with real people irrelevant (although you still compare their relationship to real life), Twilight is still a story about a young girl who falls into an obsessive relationship with a being who controls her, who is emotionally unstable (swinging from one intense mood to the next within any conversation), and is more powerful than her in almost every way. Bella's weakness isn't just about being human and clumsy, but also the fact that her preferences are disregarded, her family and potential friends are shoved aside, and she is almost always the one in danger. And all this is portrayed as being utterly romantic.

Yes, Edward's never been in a real relationship before and his ideas about women may be old-fashioned, but that doesn't mean he can't learn, or that he can't give Bella the respect a person deserves. Loving and respecting someone means taking their wants and opinions seriously, discussing your preferences with them, and reaching a compromise if possible. Even if Edward really does know what's best, he should have the courtesy to discuss this with Bella, and concede if she still wants to do her own thing. Forcing his preferences on her is wrong. Bella is a young adult, not a small child, and Edward is not her parent.

You talk about Bella making a choice, but I don't think she's really able to. From the start she's completely dazzled by Edward, and is eventually addicted to him, to the point where she wants to die when she loses him. To say she chooses to be with him is like saying a herion addict is choosing to take another hit rather than quitting cold turkey. And in the same way drug addictions can change your perspectives, Bella glosses over Edward's unacceptable behaviour and doesn't see anything wrong with it.

You're right about romantic obsession fading other people out but 1) Edward's family isn't faded out like Bella's is and 2) their obsession with each other doesn't seem to end. Edward is beautiful and Bella smells good - that's how their relationship began. Not because they enjoyed each other's conversation, not because they had the same interests, not because they had fun together, but because of their bodies.

Don't get me wrong, I think intense physical attraction is great, but it can't last forever and it can't form the basis of a healthy relationship. But Meyer pretends that this works, and that it's a romantic fantasy for a teenager.

Edited: Jun 11, 2009, 5:18am

68: The fact that Edward isn't the only one being controlling doesn't help that Edward is, or that Bella is a weak female character being controlled by multiple men in her life. It might even make it worse by normalizing that controlling behavior.

69: The idea that Edward knows better than Bella what is good for her is inherently condescending.

The idea that Edward somehow isn't required to treat Bella with the same respect one would hope a human male would doesn't fly for me. Edward may be a vampire, but Bella is human; she should require better treatment for herself. And as 68 pointed out, she also receives poor treatment from the other men in her life, so the fact that she receives poor treatment from Edward who happens to be a vampire misses the point.

Here is a link to domestic abuse red flags:

Edward fits:
-Controlling behavior
-Quick involvment
-Unrealistic expectations
-Rigid roles for men/women
-Dr Jeckyll and Mr Hyde
-Breaks or discards personal property (think of Bella's truck)
-Does not respect privacy

That's a LOT of abusive red flags.

Jun 11, 2009, 6:45am

69 iamseagoat

You're justifying these things in the oddest ways.

The being in love bit makes a huge difference to how behaviour is experienced.

It may change how the behaviour is experienced, but it doesn't change what the behavior is. Following someone home without their knowledge, breaking into their bedroom at night, these are creepy, period. It doesn't matter if the person being followed is in love or not. And even if you think it does, Edward did it before Bella knew him, much less loved him. There is absolutely no way that anyone can convincingly say that that is not unbelievably creepy, stalkerish behavior.

I put Edward's actions down to his being 108 years old so his manners and treatment of women are from a different age

So, he hadn't realized that in the last hundred years, treatment of women has changed? So, Carslile treated Esme like a delicate flower who could barely dress herself, right, so that's the example he had to learn from? Alice would allow Jasper to control her every movement? He's been with them for a hundred years. He's a bright kid ("kid"), he ought to have picked up a few bits and pieces of how relationships work.

Oh if only it were that simple! / And what about Bella's feelings?

But he's the one with all the power. If he wanted to leave her behind, he could (as there is clear evidence). And regardless of whether or not he's going to do it, that doesn't change the fact that he constantly says such cruel things to her (that she would be better off without him, that he should just go so she could live a normal life, etc etc). He's manipulating her feelings by saying those things.

Edward is a vampire, and he doesn't/can't hang out with humans so Bella is by necessity drawn into his family and away from friends and family.

Bull. She could have had human friends and had a relationship with Edward. She could have kept in touch with her family and had a relationship with Edward. There is absolutely nothing "necessary" about it. If he could stand to be around her, he could stand to be around other humans, and if he couldn't, then you know what? She could be around them without him!

But isnt that missing the vital fact: Edward is a vampire so he IS a monster.

No, it's not missing that fact at all. It doesn't matter if the person acting that way is a human or a vampire or a werewolf (Jacob had his own issues), they're still people and treating other people in this manipulative, condescending, controlling fashion and calling it "love" is twisted and wrong.

Jun 11, 2009, 10:39am

70: Lauren

I did not say that Edward's being a vampire means you cannot compare him to real life, I think it is an extra factor that you need to take into account in order to put his behaviour into perspective.

I get what you're saying about Edward, that he should respect Bella's preferences etc but... then the story would lose that dangerous edge, and he would not be the character he is. And it seems that's what some women like - see post 68. It's really interesting how we know how we should act/think, but something in (some of) us (I'm talking about women/girls here) responds to this tale with delight/anticipation rather than horror.

Re Bella being dazzled, yes, that is what falling in love at first sight is but I dont understand why you think this means she cannot choose for herself. Arent you falling into the trap of treating Bella as you describe Edward treating her, like she's a child. Later, after Edward left her and she spent time with Jacob, she knows she can make a choice between Jacob and human life, and immortality and Edward. She chooses Edward. Re falling in love: I fell in love at first sight with someone, we did not have conversations/discussion about our interests - we just looked at each other and said WOW for about 6 months. ps we're still together 6 years later and have a 9 month old son. So let's hope intense physical attraction can form the basis of a healthy long term relationship.

71: solestria
I really dont see the weakness in Bella that you describe. She's pretty easy going at times ie letting Alice dress her for the prom and organise her birthday etc, maybe a bit overwhelmed by Edward and his family but essentially she came over as quite mature and reasonably strong to me. Confronted with a vampire who wants to kill her, she does not scream, her love for Edward is so strong she doesnt care if her life is in danger just by being near him (cos he's a vampire by the way, not an abusive man).

You talk about Bella deserving respect same as post 70 - in an ideal world, yes, Edward would consult Bella about things but he's not like that - and I think this is a part of his charm ,kind of like a James Bond unreconstructed male type and believe me, they are still out there and women find them charming.

I read the last bit of your post with concern -are there really so many women and girls out there who could be so mistaken about a character that they are in danger of thinking an abusive, controlling man (vampire) is both desirable and romantic? Let's take each point in turn:
jealousy- not really and later when he should be jealous of Jacob's relationship with Bella he is not and stands aside for that to continue when actually it's a bit out of order
controlling behaviour - yes he is dominant in the relationship (vampire trait i think)
quick involvement - does that mean all cases of love at first sight should be monitored for abuse? (see my experience above)
unrealistic expectations - I love that, erm we're talking vampires and Bella choosing to become immortal, doesnt get any more unrealistic... oh yes, it's a fantasy tale
isolation - vampires cannot mingle easily in society; Edward monopolises Bella but that is 'normal' in an obsessive teen relationship and this story is a step beyond normal
rigid roles for men/women - do you mean Edward's manners (opening car doors) ? He does not expect her to cook and clean;)
Dr Jeckyll and Mr Hyde - finally we're getting somewhere - he was a monster of the same era, Edward is a vampire
breaks or discards personal property - I agree with you here, Edward breaking Bella's truck was a bit much.
does not respect privacy - again, I agree - but I think the way it's written makes that seem a really exciting, isnt that sick!

So maybe I'll give you 3 out of 9.

Jun 11, 2009, 11:56am

72: bluesalamanders
I am not justifying anything, I am giving a different perspective. I think it's relevant as I have some personal experience of creepy stalkerish behaviour :)

Edward's behaviour may be creepy and stalkerish but that does not mean it is not exciting in this context and a good way of intensifying the relationship. I do not have a problem with it because we have here a vampire in love with a human and I expect it to get weird. I think Edward and Bella were in the process of falling in love as soon as they set eyes on each other. The first time Edward visits Bella's room at night she mumbles his name in her sleep (see Midnight Sun). And what has knowing someone got to do with loving them? Most obsessive teen relationships are based on fantasies about the other person rather than any reality. And when you do fall in love with someone quickly as I did, you do not know anything about them and gradually learn what they are like, I speak from personal experience.

'She could have had human friends and had a relationship with Edward. ' Yes, but speaking purely from my own personal experience, I did not want to see other people - for about a year. I am not saying falling in love at first sight was a healthy experience, just that I can relate to the 'I dont need any one but you' feelings. I dont recall reading that Edward tried to steer her away from her friends or family, I thought Bella chose to spend time with him.

'He's manipulating her feelings by saying those things' - isnt he just verbalising his own torn feelings, he's the monster who will destroy Bella and he knows it; he wants her to not want him for her own good, he does not believe she loves him the intense way he loves her. The thing is, Bella's the narrator so he's got to say these things out loud otherwise we wont know what he's thinking or feeling.

'treating other people in this manipulative, condescending, controlling fashion and calling it "love" is twisted and wrong' - I just didnt experience the story that way at all. I'm guessing you didnt like the books, huh?

Jun 11, 2009, 1:55pm

69: "'this seduction never gets consummated' yes it does, in Breaking Dawn"

As a fade out; that was very poor :)

Jun 12, 2009, 3:10am

73: I got the impression you were saying that because Edward is a vampire you can't hold him to the same standards as you would a human male. I don't agree with this - if Edward's being a vampire excuses his behaviour, Bella shouldn't be with him, or their relationship should not be so romanticised.

I realise that many women clearly find domineering men sexy - Twilight made that obvious and it's something that bothers me. Why is it that so many women like the idea of being a sexualised child, where a man tells them what to do and will 'protect' them for the price of their continued weakness and submission? My guess would be is that remaining child-like has it's appeal - you're released from responsibility, you don't have to think for yourself as much, you can rest assured someone else will take care of you. It certainly isn't an idea we should encourage for teenagers.

Re infatuation: I'm not saying it can't start a relationship, but it can't remain the main or only factor keeping the relationship going. And if it is, I wouldn't doubt that that relationship would be beset by problems - personality clashes, or a distancing of people who have little interest in each other beyond sex. Surely you and your partner went on to develop a relationship that wasn't purely physical?

Re Bella being dazzled. I think the effect Edward has on Bella locks her in a kind of childish state. She doesn't get over he insecurities, she allows him to make decisions for her, she clings to him like a small anxious child would to a parent. Which of course allows Edward to treat her the way he does, rather than as an adult with a mind of her own. As much as I dislike Edward's behaviour, I couldn't stand how pathetic Bella was and the fact that she allows herself to be treated badly. What you see as her being strong and mature, I see as her giving in without resistance. If she's choosing anything it's to allow other people to choose for her.

On the whole, my problem with the story is not simply how Edward and Bella behave, but the way it is portrayed - as good, as romantic, as something to wish for. If Meyer had the skill to show both the intense excitement and expose the dysfunction of Bella and Edward's relationship, these books could have been good. But even the danger is all just part of the thrill.

Jun 12, 2009, 6:48am

76: LaurenSeraph

What's interesting is that although I did not think the books were that great, what I think is great is all the discussions about the books - they seem to really bring out the passionate side of people. Is there anyone out there who does not either love them or hate them?

I think you can hold Edward up to the same standards as a human but beware that if you do you will find him wanting and the explanation for lots of the 'wrong' bits can be explained by his being a vampire. People fall for all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons. Bella has fortunately/unfortunately fallen in love with a vampire: I would not say 'Bella shouldn't be with him, or their relationship should not be so romanticised' because it's a great story like it is. Maybe all the talk for and against Edward is just what teens need to start a debate - then they can make up their own minds if it's good or bad to be like Bella or Edward.

Re infatuation: sorry if I mislead you but although I dont want to talk about myself here, I see I've given you the wrong impression, can I put it right? I can relate to the falling in love bit of the story because it happened to me and it was not 'purely physical'. In fact the physical bit was a side issue. What I'm talking about here is 'true love' ie our souls recognised each other, we knew we were meant to be together - I looked at him and he was the most beautiful thing I'd ever seen and I'm not talking here about lust.

'the way it is portrayed - as good, as romantic, as something to wish for' is it? Lots of people have thought it romantic (I think that's a lot to do with the lack of the relationship being consummated) but I dont know about good. I think it's more that people think it's bad in a kind of tantilising bad for you obsessional way that makes it popular. As for something to wish for - well, lots of people do wish for true love and when it comes along you are kind of stuck with whoever the fates picked out for you, good or bad. The history of the world would be very different if people had more control over their emotions.

'expose the dysfunction of Bella and Edward's relationship' should an author give a balanced view? You're saying that Edward comes across as a domineering control freak anyway but maybe the intended YA readership need a bit of hand holding...?

Edited: Jun 12, 2009, 6:55am

Is there anyone out there who does not either love them or hate them?

Yes. Until so many people started going on and on and on about how fantastic and amazing and teh bestest books EVA the series was, I didn't hate them. And I certainly never love them. I dislike them as much because of the fan response as because of how stunningly mediocre I think the books themselves are.

Jun 12, 2009, 7:58am

I have to admit I do enjoy some of the discussion around the book, even if I'm dismayed by the opinions of some fans and disgusted by the books and their popularity. It's nice to encounter Twilight fans who can conduct a decent conversation rather than just squeal and gush all over the place :)

"the explanation for lots of the 'wrong' bits can be explained by his being a vampire"

Perhaps, but it doesn't make his behaviour any less wrong or imply that he cannot change. Some of the things I dislike about Edward:
- He's extremely arrogant
- he's a control freak
- he's emotionally unstable and emotionally immature

Yes, this is probably all because he's a vampire. Because of his strength, he's used to having power over everyone. Having lived for a century and being able to read minds has resulted in him being completely bored with humanity if not disgusted by them. And he's emotionally unstable and immature because he only ever hangs out with his family.

So he's still an asshole! Being a vampire explains but does not excuse his behaviour. What does seem to excuse everything he does is that he's so incredibly hot (so Meyer/Bella tells us. I thought he sounded gross). The type of attraction you mentioned is not really what I was talking about - Bella and Edward are drawn to each other's bodies. He looks good, she smells good. She wants to be dazzled by him, he wants to eat her (I wonder if Meyer knows that the vampire's bite is a metaphor for sex?). I don't buy the 'true love' between them - without her smell or his beauty neither would care about the other.

"maybe the intended YA readership need a bit of hand holding...?"
Whoa, no, no no. Guidance yes, but not hand-holding. Teens are on the verge of adulthood, they should learn to think and act for themselves, not just wait around to be passed from parent to husband.

About the author being balanced: I think Meyer naively ignores all the bad things about the relationship. She's not just favouring one side of an issue, she's being unrealistic. And i'm not talking about it being a fantasy novel, I'm saying elements of her story are ridiculously improbable and she ignores problems that would arise for her characters. Just a few:
Why the hell does Edward go to high school? He hates everyone.
Edward says the vampires try to remain inconspicuous, but again, why go to high school where they'll be noticed by everyone for being beautiful and really weird?
What happens when Bella gets her period?
Edward's still a virgin? 17 years old for a century and he ever had the urge? Yeah right.
He's got a body like a pair of giant cold feet. Who wants that in their bed?
(Just thought of another question about his cold body, but I don't want to offend anyone)

Jun 12, 2009, 2:04pm

I liked the books, but I do see some questionable things between the lines:

* Bella can stand up for herself, a few times she does disagree with Edward. However: she is a bit naive and it seems his reasons, excuses etc. changes her opinion rather quickly (eg.: agreeing with hem after all)
* Edward is quite demanding indeed.

But there was one thing that really raised my eyebrows: I was re-reading Breaking Dawn, and was at the part of the honeymoon. In the night before, their marriage was consummated. Edward hates himself for it, Bella doesn't understand it; she liked it. When she tells him she liked, she also states she likes to be human longer because she is afraid she won't feel that way ever again. Edward is a bit taken aback, asking her if 'sex was the key all along'.

It worried me a bit Bella got married so she could have the ability to have sex, than that loving Edward was the main reason. Especially since she was already negotiating with him about sex in the second and the third book of the series.

While I do think it is good to be not easy in giving your body, I think it is wrong to marry young so you can have sex. While sex is not all of a relationship, it is an important part.
So yeah, I didn't liked Meyers message in that scene.

Jun 12, 2009, 3:50pm

I can't stand Bella, her name is technically "Beautiful Swan" (Bella being Italian for beautiful) but also because she has NO FLAWS, she's supposed to be beautiful but supposedly doesn't have enough confidence to see it herself, in fact the only bad thing about her is that she is "clumsy" which if anything makes her more likeable and makes her seem cute or whatever.

With the villains, however, ONYL the flaws are mentioned. Like people are either completely bad or completely good

Jun 12, 2009, 5:38pm

79: LaurenSeraph

'squeal and gush' - do you mean stuff like this: oh Edward is so hot; no Jacob is so hot, OMG have you seen the movie? Rob is so hot, no Taylor is so hot ...?

'without her smell or his beauty neither would care about the other' - interesting idea. According to the scientists we are attracted to each other because of our pheromones which we detect though our sense of smell. Bella often mentions Edward's scent too. So in the case of real people falling in love/lust/being attracted to each other, smell is one of the most important factors. And when you are in love, your beloved does look really beautiful to you. So I'm still in the 'true love' camp.

'why go to high school' I suppose the vampires go to high school to fit in. Carlisle seems to have a vocation hence he's working at the hospital and his family need to do something and are of the age to go to high school. I guess if you've got all eternity and never sleep that's a lot of time to fill.

'What happens when Bella gets her period?' I think we'll pass over discussing that if you dont mind

'Edward's still a virgin? 17 years old for a century and he ever had the urge? Yeah right.' Meyer explains that when people become vampires, they turn to stone and are frozen in time at the age at which they change. Edward explains it himself in Midnight Sun: he was a soldier in a war and all his thoughts as a boy and teen were of bravery and heroism, and he'd never had a girlfriend because of that. Sounds plausible to me (well as plausible as things can be when discussing the habits of vampires). The vampire Tania was interested in Edward but he turned her down.

'He's got a body like a pair of giant cold feet. Who wants that in their bed?' Bella

'(Just thought of another question about his cold body, but I don't want to offend anyone)' perish the thought

Jun 12, 2009, 5:57pm

80: sophies_choice

'sex was the key all along' - they way I read this, Edward is talking about sex being the key to keeping Bella human. He's found a reason she wants to stay human whereas up to now, she's been adamant she wants to die and become and vampire.

'It worried me a bit Bella got married so she could have the ability to have sex, than that loving Edward was the main reason'
I think this is a good point. In reality, she does marry him to have sex but the whole saga leading up to the marriage should convince you that Edward and Bella are properly in love; in modern times, people who want to have sex with each other tend to just go ahead and do it, but Edward's from a different time and to him, you need to be married first. I dont think you need doubt their commitment to each other.

Edited: Jun 12, 2009, 6:14pm

The craze about twilight hit my high school. just before the movie came out it seemed like every girl was reading the book any time they could spare.

One good thing about the books is that they have gotten more people, specifically girls, to read even if it isn't a great literary work.

That being said they books themselves are overrated, they're addicting but not in the same league as other books I've read.

Also Bella is one of the (insert negative adjetive) leading character i think i've ever read. Though I guess writing is suppose to protray people and i know some girls that would act like that. Still she not exactly the greatest role model.

I don't like edward and bella's relationship, he's like a drug to her and she's severely addicted. And the romeo and juliet status relationship made me want to stop reading. which is probably why i haven't read the 4th one yet.

Jun 12, 2009, 7:25pm

82 iamseagoat

I realize that this is a series that you love and adore, but think about these answers you're giving. For every difficult question, you've either avoided answering it, given a flip response, or said "he's a vampire, that explains it".

What about when she has her period? Don't they date for a year or something? That's a week out of every month where she's covered in blood scent, and it's never addressed. I had a friend who had her period when she was out camping and she had to worry about bears.

'He's got a body like a pair of giant cold feet. Who wants that in their bed?' Bella

Be serious. Would you really want to kiss a marble statue? Cleolinda, who did fabulous, hilarious play-by-plays of each book as she read them, was quoted as asking "was it like {screwing} a popsicle?"

So in the case of real people falling in love/lust/being attracted to each other, smell is one of the most important factors.

As a beginning. But nothing else ever happens in their relationship. She smells good. He's beautiful. What else do they have in common? What do they talk about besides him being a vampire and her being clumsy?

And when you are in love, your beloved does look really beautiful to you.

Yes, but this generally happens as you get to know someone better or as you fall in love. It doesn't matter in Bella and Edward's case, since it's all already there.

Jun 13, 2009, 4:20am

84: VetaTorres

'he's like a drug to her and she's severely addicted' and I would add, vice versa, Bella is like a drug to Edward and he's severely addicted. It's Edward who says "you're like my own personal brand of heroin". Edward knows he will likely kill Bella thus breaking his own and Carlisles personal standards, not to mention breaking the treaty with the Quileutes, plus destroying the only being he's ever been in love with, yet he cannot stay away. The story is narrated by Bella and I think this authorial device makes some readers feel as if events are happening to a powerless heroine. In fact, thinking over the books, there are few passages where we are inside Bella's head hearing her thoughts, the story is told through characters speaking or acting. This is good for the pace of the story but maybe omits the reasoning that would help readers understand Bella's motives...?

I wonder why did the Romeo and Juliet status relationship make you want to stop reading? It's interesting that although many people think the books are badly written they have been compared to Romeo and Juliet - it's quite a feat to have your book compared to Shakespeare I think.

Jun 13, 2009, 4:57am

85: bluesalamanders

'I realize that this is a series that you love and adore' no, just like a good debate, and I do think some of the criticisms of the books are reactionery and dont stand up to proper scrutiny. It's too easy to shoot something down in flames because at first glance you think it's putting a certain view across but on closer examination you may find the books are showing you that the world is not so black and white. I like exploring other peoples views of the world because then I find out more about mine.

'That's a week out of every month where she's covered in blood scent, and it's never addressed' Edward starts out intoxicated by the smell of Bella and the thought of her blood. But... then he overcomes his desire to drink her blood because he realises that this overwhelming desire is not thirst but love. Then he knows he must keep her alive at all costs, she is the meaning of his life now. At the ballet studio, Bella is bleeding and Edward must suck the venom from her arm and does so and does not keep going thus killing her because keeping Bella alive is the most important thing.

'Would you really want to kiss a marble statue?' Personally I cant think of anything worse but I'm pretty much a live and let live kind of person and would not prevent other people from kissing marble statues if it made them happy.

'What do they talk about besides him being a vampire and her being clumsy?' Edward and Bella have lengthy conversations about the same stuff anybody does. Edward tells Bella about himself, Bella tells Edward about herself. Pretty standard stuff in most relationships.

'Yes, but this generally happens as you get to know someone better or as you fall in love. It doesn't matter in Bella and Edward's case, since it's all already there.' Yes it's there from pretty much the start. That's because they fall in love at pretty much the start although it takes a while for them to realise that's what has happened to them. Are you saying that the falling in love process has pre determined timings at which certain events occur ie day 1: I see X, day 3: I like X, day 5: wow X looks good...? it's more complicated and individual than that surely?

Jun 13, 2009, 2:43pm


Though compared to romeo and juliet it is not meant as a compliment, the writing is not Shakespeare and if anything Meyer does not have an original plot. I read romeo and juliet in the 9th grade as most freshman do and instead of finding it utterly romantic i thought that its was melodramatic, as i find bella and edward's relationship.

Edited: Jun 14, 2009, 10:34am

Ah so true so true. I'm surprised these haters haven't woken up to an eleven year old girl standing over them with a pitchfork and a lit torch.

Anyways...I read all the books like every other teenage girl on here and sure i liked them. Even loved them for maybe...two months?

Now, in retrospect I see how stupid I was. Sure, the books are a fun read (like Meg Cabot's books All-American Girl and Ready or Not) But still, its very annoying (and very unhealthy if I may say so myself) that these girls-and guys-are obsessing over this. I've heard people who have read ONLY the Twilight Saga and have claimed that they "love to read." Yeah, all right.

As stated previously, it is very cliché and one of those phenomenons and fads that has popped out of nowhere. Can we hope it won't last too long?

Okay, I have one more point. Am I the only one who has noticed how much nicer Harry Potter fans are than Twilight fans? They get vicious! Beware.

Jun 14, 2009, 1:25pm

82 iamseagoat: Yeah, that's the kind of Twilight fan I'm talking about, and it doesn't do well for he series' image.

About highschool: the vampires don't fit in at all. They stand out. They're too beautiful, they look too old, they don't mix with anyone, they take food but never eat it, they are seldom seen to be talking to each other. They sit and stare. If they wanted to 'fill the time' going to highschool would probably be one of the worst options. Why not go to varsity and study, read the many great books out there or write some themselves, find a vocation like Carlisle, explore the world. With all his degrees Edward could do something useful, but Meyer has him wasting his time in highschool so he can meet Bella.

Re Bella's period: She was bleeding to death in the gym, true, but that was an extreme situation. What if she were just hanging out with Edward, kissing him, while she had her period? Can the other Cullens handle it? In fact, how do they go to school when there must be several girls having their periods at any one time? Even a blush poses a potential threat for Jasper.

Edward's sexuality: if he was frozen as a boy unconcerned with women, why is he interested in Bella? Perhaps because she's so weak he can save her all the time and be a perpetual hero? As with high school and Bella's period, this is an example of why Meyer is a bad writer: she doesn't think through her plot points, so sometimes they make no sense, and she writes conveniently, ignoring conflict. Her dream guy is asexual because she wants him to be a virgin with no rival girlfriends. But he can fall in love with the Mary Sue, which is that much more romantic as a result, but completely ridiculous.

Considering Sophie's post:this is one of the reasons I hate Meyer's perspective on sex. It's life-threatening, but also unbelievably amazing. But it's not normal. Why should Edward be upset that Bella enjoys sex? That's a sexist viewpoint and doesn't imply she married him to sleep with him. But if she did, well I wouldn't be surprised because she's addicted to him. But it makes a mockery of marriage.

85: "was it like screwing a popsicle?" Hahaha, yeah, I wondered that as well.

Jun 20, 2009, 6:35pm

>89 ray2009:

i agree twilight fan can be scary, i mean i told one girl that the series was just ok and she then gave me dirty looks for a couple weeks!

Jul 10, 2009, 1:35pm

This message has been deleted by its author.

Aug 12, 2009, 10:53am

It also totally ruined the much loved Vampire tale. Meyer turned them into simple pieces of generalised eye-candy, she never mentions "fangs" ONCE, for instance, and simply goes ON about Edward's pale skin, like this is the only thing in his appearence to suggest vampirism.

Apparently, the old vampires had blue or purple faces, and weren't at all handsome or sexy. The fact that meyer claimed that Twilight was based on Jane Eyre shocked me. Jane Eyre had strength and spirit, could take care of herself, she's basically zapped all the feminist message out of it, which was a key point in Jane Eyre.

Aug 13, 2009, 10:10pm

hey did anyone hear about the writer that claims Meyer stole parts of her book for breaking dawn she said her book was called like The Nocturne or something like that. and she's filed a lawsuit apparently.
type "stephenie meyer stole idea for 'breaking dawn'" and u'll find articles

Aug 16, 2009, 1:37am

i too agree, i thought bella was a whine bag, and a klutz, everytime i turned around, she was fainting or almost fainting, i just wanted to say, woman up!!! The first book was good, and yes, it inspired me to read the next one. The 2nd and 3rd books were sooooo drawn out and boring, the last one was ok, i was just so glad to be at the end of the series that anything would have been good at that point just to finish it. I also saw the movie, and i thought just like the book, the movie was good. I don't know how the next one will be, hopefully better than the book.

Dec 29, 2009, 5:34pm

>>What's with the new Twilight Craze?

Dec 29, 2009, 9:04pm

Is there a new one? Maybe because of the movie?

Dec 30, 2009, 2:48pm

i think it's just extended...

Dec 30, 2009, 4:52pm

Ah, where do I start? I hate Twilight with a passion. The series, the movies, and all the garbage that has come with it including:
Edward posters everywhere- honestly?
Stacks of copycat vampire books piled around stacks of Twilight books.
Edward and Bella merchandise in all forms- it's all about the money...

I'm sick of the reliant Bella. Contrary to popular belief, she is NOT a heroine. She is winy, wimpy, and she doesn't do anything for herself. She constantly looking for someone, anyone to solve all her problems, from Edward to Jacob to Edward. Stop it already, girl! Come on! I'm not a feminist, but really, women aren't useless...if you know what I mean. It's called- stand up for yourself. It's not fair to teach girls that they have to rely on someone all their lives for everything.
And does it not creep anyone out that Edward climbs into her room, at night, and just...watches her? Does this ring of stalker to anyone at all? What is romantic about this? Do girls nowadays WANT to have a guy watch them, follow them, and sneak into their house? Weird.

Honestly, the books aren't that great. It's like being inside a teen girl's head during, well, her teen years. Which means it's obsessive. (As you can tell when you see all these groups of Twilight/Edward crazed teen girls...hmm.)
Ok, Bella, you think Edward is gorgeous and handsome, yeah. I got it. I got after the what...20 pages? If a book needs THAT much filler...well...it's not worth all the paper.

Dec 31, 2009, 2:56pm

>99 jcsoblonde: bravo! well said

Jan 1, 2010, 5:31pm

# 99 - I can sort of understand the teen girls, but my mind boggles over the "TwiMoms"!

Jan 2, 2010, 12:21am


I understand that you believe some of the percieved problems are not really problems at all, because Edward is a vampire. He's a monster, by nature, and thus the rules should be bent.

But, in that train of thought: Had Edward been a bodybuilder on steriods, and a raging alcoholic, would you think the same way? After all, the traits wouldn't have changed, and he still would have been a 'monster' who *some* find extremely attractive. Would you condone their relationship on these grounds?

Jan 2, 2010, 6:45pm

i was rereading Twilight a month or two ago and i couldn't finish because it seemed like every other line was talking about how gorgeous Edward was and the plot was virtually nonexistant. Perhaps because I read more books of substance since the first time i read it, i can now see how ridiculous the plot is...

Feb 23, 2010, 7:21pm

Here is a comment from my best friend who does not have a librarything account:

I was disapointed that Meyer didn't mention anything about garlic.Wouldn't it have been cool if the Quilete area was surrounded with garlic? Also, why does Bella have no interests? Not in school, not in sports, not in the arts, not even in "valley girl" interests like being popular and clothes! BOOOORING!!!! Maybe she could make it be interesting if Bella was emo and hated the world, but she doesn't! I also hated Edward. I mean, going into her bedroom? Creepy! It doesn't matter if you're in love with the guy or not, that's just stalkerish!

All that said, I did enjoy some parts of the Twilight series. The back stories were quite interesting, and the small characters were definitely more interesting than Bella.

Overall, I think the 1st book was not that bad. The 2nd book, however, was waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too long. Yes! I get it! You miss Edward! I still read the 3rd book and would have not continued the series, but a friend reading the 4th book let slip that Bella was about to die. I wanted to read that, so I went to the library and borrowed it. Unfortunately, she was wrong about Bella.

What I hate is when people compare Twilight to Romeo and Juliet. The only thing they have in common is the whole "forbidden love thing". Do you know how many books have the whole "forbidden love thing"? And yet, you don't see people raving on and on and on about how Summer of my German Soldier is like Romeo and Juliet. ( In case you have not read it, Jewish girl in America and Nazi prisoner of war fall in love. Very good, in my opinion. But let's not start a Twilight catfight over that...)

For all of you out there who enjoy these Twilight catfits, go to your library and see if they have Nightlight. It's a parody to Twilight and pretty funny.

Feb 28, 2010, 12:14am

I've read the books and they were okay, but I HATE them now that there a movie. No one knew about till Robert Patterson started sparkling. People that haven't even read the books come to school with Twilight T- shirts and bags, it's crazy. A girl came up to and started raving about it and I asked her if she had read the book and she was like "it's a book?". Let's just say I likes it SO much better whenit was a book.

Mar 23, 2010, 11:40pm

I definitely think they are potato chip books. I picked the first two up before there was a craze because I thought the covers were neat looking and I was in high school and wanted a break from serious literature. I got what I wanted out of them. They were enjoyable and I liked that Meyer mentioned Jane Eyre and Austen and Shakespeare.

Then my friends read them and took them WAY too seriously. They were weeping during the second book and all this nonsense. So I recently reread them. Ugh! Once I was able to read them without wondering what would happen, I was appalled! Bella is a spineless idiot who relies on men for everything and can't function when her abusive boyfriend skips town for no good reason. This cannot be good for future generations of young women!

That being said, they were fun to read and daydream about a well read man with good taste in music actually existing...

Mar 24, 2010, 12:30am

And another thing, I was annoyed that the ending of the series tied up so neatly! How absurd and disturbing that Bella's friend falls in love with her newborn. REALLY??? Where is the angst? Where's the tragic death? I really don't mean to seem dark and twisty, but this is bizarre. How can you have a horror/love story where everyone is happy at the end? That makes NO sense!

Mar 24, 2010, 6:32pm

>marjorie823 That's exactly how I felt when I attempted (key word being, attempted) to reread Twilight and New Moon. I feel like Meyer has good ideas for like the back stories and the Volturi but she doesn't focus on the character development, which is really too bad...

May 9, 2010, 3:35am

Twilight is a train wreck. It's awful, you know it's going to get worse, but you just can't stop yourself from seeing it through to the end. I had no intention of touching it with a ten foot pole, but my husband bought me the series because he knows I like vampire fiction, so I figured what the heck? I have the books, so I might as well read them.

That's a week of my life I'll never get back.

You know, if I'd stopped at the third book, I might have been able to consider them 'potato chip' reading. Breaking Dawn sort of broke my brain, though. This sums things up nicely: http://shinga.deviantart.com/art/Head-Trip-Breaking-Dawn-98016573

Jul 7, 2010, 7:11pm

I was actually quite offended that Meyer mentioned classics, I'm kind of a literary snob which has something to do with it, but these books had themes which said something or commented on human condition, womens' conditions etc, whereas Twilight says nothing.
The idea that young girls should allow potential lovers to stalk them, damage their property, bruise them during sex etc is being celebrated as "intense" and "romantic", being a left-wing hardcore feminist, I'm appaled and angry!

Jul 9, 2010, 2:58am

>110 RedRightHand94: right there with ya...

Jul 9, 2010, 2:04pm

>111 VetaTorres:, I'm relieved, I appear to be one of the only ones in my school

Jul 30, 2010, 8:56am

Definitely. I don't understand AT ALL how that is attractive! People like that always gave me the creeps. Dating a crazy stalker can be a death wish. It is dangerous to make it look like a true romance, because it's not- it is one sided almost all of the time.

Plus, Bella didn't do anything. She had to be rescued...again...and again...and again. Nothing wrong with a bit of rescuing, but come on girl. Stand on your own two feet for once. Stop relying on everyone else to fix your problems.

Sep 26, 2010, 11:18am

#93 - It also totally ruined the much loved Vampire tale. Meyer turned them into simple pieces of generalised eye-candy

I think Anne Rice did that decades ago...