PDA

View Full Version : Twilight Saga- the good version



Sunken Valley
2011-11-22, 01:00 PM
Hello, its Sunken, the biggest twihard in the playground

Saw Breaking Dawn, it was faithful but bad. So I propose we try to work out how to make either

A-an adaption of the twilight books which diverges from the story to make it better but still close enough for Meyer to approve (She's a lot more sane than you think).

B-a total re-write of both books and films which still keeps the core elements of the story (vampire boy goes to school and meets girl, the werewolves, volturi, Renesme, Bella becomes vampire at the end, sparkling) etc.

Can it be done? Can you tell me how.

Yora
2011-11-22, 01:25 PM
So what do you think about Twilight, that is worth being told?

RabbitHoleLost
2011-11-22, 11:10 PM
I challenge you for self-awarded title of Biggest Twihard in the Playground.
Because I don't think anything needs to be changed at all.
For what it is- a personal fantasy for woman- it does what its supposed to. My opinions are mostly outlined and explained better by this (http://ideas.time.com/2011/11/21/the-harsh-bigotry-of-twilight-haters/) article, but, in short, Twilight wasn't meant to be a standing point of literature.
It was (and is) a kooky romantic fantasy. Escapism.
And it does it well enough.

Coidzor
2011-11-22, 11:15 PM
Indeed, what messages does Twilight convey that aren't indirect and non-board safe to discuss, let alone refine that are essential to it?

Lord Seth
2011-11-23, 02:26 AM
There's already a good version of Twilight. It's called The Vampire Diaries.

Krazzman
2011-11-23, 06:57 AM
There's already a good version of Twilight. It's called The Vampire Diaries True Blood.

B2T:
Change the word Vampire with Fairy and everything would be alright.

Psyren
2011-11-23, 10:06 AM
B2T:
Change the word Vampire with Fairy and everything would be alright.

Fix werewolves too plox :smallfrown:

The Glyphstone
2011-11-23, 10:16 AM
Fix werewolves too plox :smallfrown:

Just give them jetpacks. Problem solved.

H Birchgrove
2011-11-23, 10:28 AM
There's already a good version of Twilight. It's called The Vampire Diaries. True Blood. I Am Legend (novel). Or Bram Stoker's Dracula (film).

That's just counting sympathetic descriptions of vamps. :smallamused:

Now, I wouldn't mind seeing adaptations of the pulp novels featuring The Spider (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider_(pulp_fiction)) and G-8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-8_(character)). (Gotta love a villain team called "The Vampire Staffel".) Because Blade and Abraham van Helsing are just too damn soft. :smalltongue:

Tyndmyr
2011-11-23, 10:34 AM
I plan to see the latest twilight movie with all my friends this saturday. We all intend on being entirely smashed. I promise a review afterward, assuming I can recall the night.

H Birchgrove
2011-11-23, 10:43 AM
Indeed, what messages does Twilight convey that aren't indirect and non-board safe to discuss, let alone refine that are essential to it?

The whole "Nice Guy" thing?

Forum Explorer
2011-11-23, 12:48 PM
I plan to see the latest twilight movie with all my friends this saturday. We all intend on being entirely smashed. I promise a review afterward, assuming I can recall the night.

just write the review smashed :smallamused:


Now how to make it good? Don't make it a movie. Or if you must, actually run it from Bella's prespective with her narrating the film and her thoughts.

Lord Seth
2011-11-23, 01:15 PM
B2T:
Change the word Vampire with Fairy and everything would be alright.I don't see how that would change anything. At most it would appease the people who claim the goofy "vampires don't sparkle," which I maintain to this day is the single worst reason to dislike Twilight I've ever heard. All of the plot holes and all of the character problems--that is, the actual reasons Twilight isn't very good--would remain.
That's just counting sympathetic descriptions of vamps. :smallamused:Which was my point. I was pointing to something that shared a number of concepts with Twilight but thanks to different execution, managed to be legitimately good.

H Birchgrove
2011-11-23, 04:11 PM
Which was my point. I was pointing to something that shared a number of concepts with Twilight but thanks to different execution, managed to be legitimately good.

I liked aspects of True Blood, the first season anyway, but later I got tired of the characters, the Masquerade (seriously, what are FBI, DEA and IRS doing?) and the general narrative. It's one of the reasons I was skeptical to Grimm, BTW.

Coidzor
2011-11-23, 05:06 PM
The whole "Nice Guy" thing?

Who is a "nice guy?"

Other than the forgettable male humans.

TheCountAlucard
2011-11-23, 06:50 PM
At most it would appease the people who claim the goofy "vampires don't sparkle," which I maintain to this day is the single worst reason to dislike Twilight I've ever heard. All of the plot holes and all of the character problems--that is, the actual reasons Twilight isn't very good--would remain.Excuse me? The alleged "vampires'" sparkling is a plot hole.

There is no mundane quality about direct sunlight that would cause a vampire to sparkle in it that indirect sunlight also wouldn't cause (let alone artificial light), yet Meyer continually insists that magic is not an element present in her thrice-damned series.

The vampires' sparkling led to her flimsy "crystal body" justification, which is also problematic, because if every cell of their body was reflective, they would just be shiny, not sparkling.

It's also ridiculously hard to take Edward seriously when he says, "This is the skin of a KILLER!" while glittering in the sunlight.

There's a bunch more things I'd like to say on the subject, but I feel that saying much more would deploy a level of vitriol on this forum that is unallowed.

H Birchgrove
2011-11-23, 06:56 PM
Count Alucard* is a real vampire though. He also has the decency to save the female police officer he shot through to get the bad guy...

... because she has "nice boobs". :smallamused:

What, I saw the abridged version. :tongue:

*The anime character, not the poster.


Who is a "nice guy?"

Other than the forgettable male humans.

Edward, for example when he looks at Bella sleeping?

Or when he goes on about being dangerous and how she should avoid her and yet they start dating... wait, that makes him a "bad boy"... A good bad boy? Oy, so very confusing...

Lord Seth
2011-11-23, 09:57 PM
I liked aspects of True Blood, the first season anyway, but later I got tired of the characters, the Masquerade (seriously, what are FBI, DEA and IRS doing?) and the general narrative. It's one of the reasons I was skeptical to Grimm, BTW.I didn't say anything about True Blood, so you replying to my message with this confuses me.
Excuse me? The alleged "vampires'" sparkling is a plot hole.Er...how? At no point in your entire message do you ever actually explain how it's a plot hole. To paraphrase Mr. Plinkett: "That's not a plot hole, it's just something stupid."

At any rate, though, I never said the sparkling wasn't a plot hole nor that it wasn't stupid. All I said was--and this is something I stand by--that the idea that it's bad because of some "vampires don't sparkle" idea is dumb and one of the worst reasons to dislike the series.

TheCountAlucard
2011-11-23, 10:16 PM
Er...how?Oops, yeah, didn't actually mean "plot hole." Blargh.

Though in retrospect, the idea that in a world in which vampires both exist and sparkle, that vampire-sparkling isn't ever featured in any mythos seems rather farfetched... even assuming vampires helped shape those perceptions as a Masquerade of sorts.

At least in Vampire: the Masquerade, most of the popular vampiric myths and whatnot have some basis in fact in-universe.

The idea that the whole Cullen family can just skip school, work, and responsibilities on every sunny day in Forks to preserve his secret is likewise laughable. Note that Forks has an average of just over 200 days a year with any precipitation at all...

So I guess their sparkling, while not a plot hole in and of itself, does cause quite a bit of Fridge Logic.


At any rate, though, I never said the sparkling wasn't a plot hole nor that it wasn't stupid. All I said was--and this is something I stand by--that the idea that it's dumb because of some "vampires don't sparkle" idea is dumb and one of the worst reasons to dislike the series.Eh, people are going to have their preferences, and a person's choice of words is inevitably going to invoke quite a few expectations.

I don't use the word "elephant" when I'm describing a mythological beast with leonine and aquiline features, I use the word "griffin."

The fact is, she's deviating rather far from what a person's perception of a "vampire" is supposed to be, and the explanations she gives for it are so anemic (pardon the pun) that it's no wonder people get upset over it.

I don't think people dislike the books just because the vampires sparkle, either, but not liking the vampires therein is an easy thing to justify, and if one had to take all the features of the Twilight vampires, and pick one feature that could be used to explain that they don't fit in with one's perceptions, sparkling would almost certainly be at the top of the list one would use.

Herpestidae
2011-11-23, 10:29 PM
Now how to make it good? Don't make it a movie. Or if you must, actually run it from Bella's prespective with her narrating the film and her thoughts.

No. No. No. No. A million times no. It's Bella's narration that makes the books so unbearable to a lot of us. I was actually able to enjoy the movies for what they were far more than I liked the books. I mean, I totally loved the Breaking Dawn movie. Not because it was good, either. But because there was just so much I could laugh at without being reminded of how chagrined Bella is whenever she looks into the topaz eyes of her marble Adonis.

Lord Seth
2011-11-23, 11:00 PM
Oops, yeah, didn't actually mean "plot hole." Blargh.

Though in retrospect, the idea that in a world in which vampires both exist and sparkle, that vampire-sparkling isn't ever featured in any mythos seems rather farfetched... even assuming vampires helped shape those perceptions as a Masquerade of sorts.The problem is that that's true of quite a number of modern ideas about vampires. Great example: Vampires being killed by sunlight. As far as I know, that didn't exist before the film Nosferatu. In fact, if the vampires in Twilight were harmed by sunlight, the exact same problem exists. After all, if there's a world where vampires both exist and are burned by the sun, it seems farfetched that it never showed up in any mythos either.
Eh, people are going to have their preferences, and a person's choice of words is inevitably going to invoke quite a few expectations.

I don't use the word "elephant" when I'm describing a mythological beast with leonine and aquiline features, I use the word "griffin."Considering the vampires in Twilight are immortal, feed on blood, have fangs, can turn other people into them, and are much faster and stronger than a human...yeah, that seems very vampire-ish. Sure, some things are different than the "typical" vampire (if such a thing even exists), but older vampires like Dracula or Varney differed from modern perceptions of a "typical" vampire in a number of ways themselves. So I'm really not seeing how the Twilight vampires don't fit even the general modern perceptions of a vampire.

TheCountAlucard
2011-11-23, 11:33 PM
Considering the vampires in Twilight are immortal...As are a number of other things, several of which would be vastly more appropriate. Mythological gods, for instance. Or aliens.


...feed on blood...As are a number of other things, several of which would be vastly more appropriate. Mythological gods, for instance. Or aliens.


...have fangs...The Twilight vampires explicitly do not have fangs. That, in turn, makes the fact that Edward gives Bella a C-section with his teeth all the more disturbing. :smallsigh:


...can turn other people into them...As are a number of other things, several of which would be vastly more appropriate. Mythological gods, for instance. Or aliens.


...and are much faster and stronger than a human...I can keep going with this...

And while older stories may not have featured vampires burning up in the sunlight, they often were weaker, or even lifeless come sunup.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-11-23, 11:41 PM
As are a number of other things, several of which would be vastly more appropriate. Mythological gods, for instance. Or aliens.
...
As are a number of other things, several of which would be vastly more appropriate. Mythological gods, for instance. Or aliens.
...
As are a number of other things, several of which would be vastly more appropriate. Mythological gods, for instance. Or aliens.

Whenever someone gets the idea they should watch or read Twilight, tell them to read Percy Jackson and the Olympians (and not take the easy way and watch the movie) and the sequel series, The Heroes of Olympus.

Although I don't think Greek and Roman gods feed on blood. Ares, maybe... :smalltongue: And there are vampire-type creatures.

Coidzor
2011-11-24, 12:02 AM
Or toss them Carpe Jugulum instead.

Then proceed to slowly increase the number of Pratchett books in their house so that their suspicions are not aroused...

Then, with the final book, the seal is complete and they are forever trapped within the Pratchett Zone.

But, I digress.

More seriously, make the books more comfortable about sexuality rather than one more thing that prolongs the sexual repression of women by women and take out the whole physical abuse/rape subtext to Edward's sexuality and you'd probably have done some actual good there.

Then again, the whole repression of women by women thing suggests that doing such might have just made it impossible for said women to actually accept it.

Oh, catch-22s.

Lord Seth
2011-11-24, 12:10 AM
As are a number of other things, several of which would be vastly more appropriate. Mythological gods, for instance. Or aliens.
As are a number of other things, several of which would be vastly more appropriate. Mythological gods, for instance. Or aliens.
As are a number of other things, several of which would be vastly more appropriate. Mythological gods, for instance. Or aliens.By this kind of logic, nothing can be called a vampire because you can say that about anything that has vampire attributes. Guess the "vampires" on Buffy the Vampire Slayer were all aliens.


The Twilight vampires explicitly do not have fangs.My goof, sorry. I was remembering they had really sharp teeth and for some reason that just translated to "fangs" in my mind.


And while older stories may not have featured vampires burning up in the sunlight, they often were weaker,Not that often, from what I can tell...that seems to mostly have started with Dracula. Varney was fine in the sunlight, for example.


or even lifeless come sunup.This is kind of true. The issue is that the vampires that were "lifeless" come sunup were, again from what I can tell, the kind that were more akin to the modern idea of a zombie.

Coidzor
2011-11-24, 12:13 AM
The problem is that that's true of quite a number of modern ideas about vampires.

So? Some things the audience just won't accept because they sound too stupid to them and they're not willing to turn off their brains. This isn't some kind of personal failing we're talking about here, disliking sparkly vampires and their lack of influence on the mythos of the universe they live in.

Forum Explorer
2011-11-24, 12:13 AM
Or toss them Carpe Jugulum instead.

Then proceed to slowly increase the number of Pratchett books in their house so that their suspicions are not aroused...

Then, with the final book, the seal is complete and they are forever trapped within the Pratchett Zone.

.

Ahhhh, the weaponization of L-space is a beautiful thing.

Lord Seth
2011-11-24, 12:15 AM
So? Some things the audience just won't accept because they sound too stupid to them and they're not willing to turn off their brains. This isn't some kind of personal failing we're talking about here, disliking sparkly vampires and their lack of influence on the mythos of the universe they live in.What does this have to do with the portion of my post you responded to?

TheCountAlucard
2011-11-24, 12:33 AM
By this kind of logic, nothing can be called a vampire because you can say that about anything that has vampire attributes.I'm not saying "nothing can be called a vampire," I'm saying that something that can be called a vampire can probably go by any number of other names, and, at least with the Twilight vampires, such an option should have been considered...


Guess the "vampires" on Buffy the Vampire Slayer were all aliens.I'd be way more okay with Buffy vampires being aliens than I am with Twilight vampires being vampires.

Then again, Buffy could probably have explained it better. :smalltongue:

Lord Seth
2011-11-24, 12:46 AM
I'm not saying "nothing can be called a vampire,"One can easily dismiss every "vampire attribute" by pointing out it can just as easily be applied to other things such as aliens. Which is exactly what you did. That was my point.

I really am confused as to why people keep insisting they're not vampires and have to come up with contrived reasons as to why they're not. They're vampires. Are they poorly written? Of course; I've never claimed they're not. Someone could make a laundry list of things that just don't make sense about the vampires in Twilight. But that doesn't mean they're not vampires. It just means they're poorly written vampires.

Truth to tell, I honestly do think the sparkling was an interesting idea and could've worked. It was a new twist and provided an explanation for why they would want to avoid sunlight. The problem is that the fact they're so superpowered and without weaknesses that humans are no threat to them makes you wonder why they would've even bothered hiding in the first place.

Helanna
2011-11-24, 12:53 AM
Truth to tell, I honestly do think the sparkling was an interesting idea and could've worked. It was a new twist and provided an explanation for why they would want to avoid sunlight. The problem is that the fact they're so superpowered and without weaknesses that humans are no threat to them makes you wonder why they would've even bothered hiding in the first place.

My biggest problem (besides the 'exactly zero weaknesses' thing) is one that was already brought up - why do they sparkle only in natural light? I mean, okay, I guess I can buy that nobody gets suspicious enough to check out why they all vanish whenever it's sunny out, it's a small town, people'll buy the hunting explanation, but seriously. Does anything actually sparkle only in natural light and not at all in artificial light?

Also, my other big problem is that if I recall correctly, Meyer's given reason that female vampires are unable to have children is because vampire bodies are 'unchanging' and don't release eggs. Sooooooo how come male vampires can impregnate people?

Coidzor
2011-11-24, 12:54 AM
What does this have to do with the portion of my post you responded to?

It mostly has to do with the bit where you're really going into this discussion in the first place and that was the most convenient segue.

Like "Oh, modern vampires do all kinds of things" is a great way to invalidate a dislike for an element that became the focal point of the differences in taste and so on and so forth.

SamBurke
2011-11-24, 01:22 AM
Just give them jetpacks. Problem solved.

YOU KNOW WHO BERGSTEIN IS?!?!

You rock, sir. And it so, so, true.

I return now to my calf muscle exercises.

Lord Seth
2011-11-24, 01:50 AM
My biggest problem (besides the 'exactly zero weaknesses' thing) is one that was already brought up - why do they sparkle only in natural light? I mean, okay, I guess I can buy that nobody gets suspicious enough to check out why they all vanish whenever it's sunny out, it's a small town, people'll buy the hunting explanation, but seriously. Does anything actually sparkle only in natural light and not at all in artificial light?See, this sort of thing is why I wonder she felt the need to try to give some kind of scientific explanation for why things like that work. No one needs an explanation for why vampires sparkle in sunlight any more than they needed an explanation for why they're killed by sunlight or how humans turn into wolves by the full moon. It's magic and we can accept it. By trying to give a "proper" explanation, the whole thing just makes less sense. It's like Midichlorians.


Also, my other big problem is that if I recall correctly, Meyer's given reason that female vampires are unable to have children is because vampire bodies are 'unchanging' and don't release eggs. Sooooooo how come male vampires can impregnate people?Well, the eggs get released on a roughly monthly basis throughout life whereas the release of sperm is on a less timed basis. I think the implication (or maybe it was outright said somewhere, no idea) is that, hey, that was in Edward all this time, and just was never released until now!

Although I guess by that logic it means any female turned into a vampire could be impregnated before the current egg is lost...


It mostly has to do with the bit where you're really going into this discussion in the first place and that was the most convenient segue.I'm still not really seeing how it relates to or disproves my point.


Like "Oh, modern vampires do all kinds of things" is a great way to invalidate a dislike for an element that became the focal point of the differences in taste and so on and so forth.It's a good thing that's a strawman of my argument and not my actual argument, then!

RabbitHoleLost
2011-11-24, 10:05 AM
Being a fan, I'd like to point out that everything everyone says about Edward being a rapist or an abusive boyfriend/husband is wrong. So Bella wakes up with bruises because he gripped her too hard during sex- it happens.
The REALLY disturbing thing about Twilight?
Bella rapes Edward. Really. She pressures him into sex in the last book because after the bruises, he's all "WE NEVER GONNA SEXYTIME AGAIN". And she cries and throws a fit and tries to seduce him over and over and over again until she finally corners him into it.

I had completely forgotten this tidbit until I saw the movie (drunk) last night. And I was like "...OMG BELLA DONE RAPED EDWARD."

Eldan
2011-11-24, 10:11 AM
So? Some things the audience just won't accept because they sound too stupid to them and they're not willing to turn off their brains. This isn't some kind of personal failing we're talking about here, disliking sparkly vampires and their lack of influence on the mythos of the universe they live in.

So, you want slowly shambling corpses that are not affected by sunlight? Or perhaps invisible demons? How about blood-sucking witches that transform into wolves at night?

Those would all be mythological vampires.

Herpestidae
2011-11-24, 10:29 AM
Being a fan, I'd like to point out that everything everyone says about Edward being a rapist or an abusive boyfriend/husband is wrong.

I've never heard of Edward being called a rapist. Just a stalker. You know, with the whole "watching her sleep without her permission" thing.

Also, while Edward isn't physically abusive (I can't blame the guy for not knowing his own strength, and I'm not surprised in the least that Bella sort-of gets off on being hurt), well, let's look at The Domestic Violence Guide's characteristics of domestic violence:

constantly criticize you and your abilities as a spouse or partner, parent or employee?
behave in an over-protective manner or become extremely jealous? Check
threaten to hurt you, your children, pets, family members, friends or himself? Check
prevent you from seeing family or friends? Check
get suddenly angry or "lose his temper"? Check
destroy personal property or throw things around? Check
deny you access to family assets like bank accounts, credit cards, or the car, or control all finances and force you to account for what you spend?
use intimidation or manipulation to control you or your children? hit, punch, slap, kick, shove, choke or bite you?
prevent you from going where you want to, when you want to, and with whomever you want to? Check
make you have sex when you don't want to or do things sexually that you don't want to do?
humiliate or embarrass you in front of other people?

The Succubus
2011-11-24, 10:30 AM
The Twilight vampires explicitly do not have fangs. That, in turn, makes the fact that Edward gives Bella a C-section with his teeth all the more disturbing. :smallsigh:

Oh God, that seriously happens in the book? :eek:

You know, each time I read a Twilight thread, I found out something I really, really wish I hadn't. Like how humans and vampires have "sex", in the strangest sense of the word. I don't have the relevant comic strip to hand but I recall the girl being undered unconcious, and then waking up with bruises or something and being totally ok with this? :smalleek::smallyuk:

What on earth does Meyer have against people having sex? Because I read recently that the Breaking Dawn directors were unhappy about the two leads making the scene look "vaguely realistic".

Eldan
2011-11-24, 10:38 AM
Eh, there's pretty strong arguments about the entire book being a pro-abstinence argument.

Herpestidae
2011-11-24, 10:40 AM
Like how humans and vampires have "sex", in the strangest sense of the word. I don't have the relevant comic strip to hand but I recall the girl being undered unconcious, and then waking up with bruises or something and being totally ok with this? :smalleek::smallyuk:


I'm not surprised in the least that Bella sort-of gets off on being hurt

Just sayin'

starwoof
2011-11-24, 10:51 AM
I challenge you for self-awarded title of Biggest Twihard in the Playground.
Because I don't think anything needs to be changed at all.
For what it is- a personal fantasy for woman- it does what its supposed to. My opinions are mostly outlined and explained better by this (http://ideas.time.com/2011/11/21/the-harsh-bigotry-of-twilight-haters/) article, but, in short, Twilight wasn't meant to be a standing point of literature.
It was (and is) a kooky romantic fantasy. Escapism.
And it does it well enough.

I just wanted to say that that article completely changed my opinion of Twilight and I think made me a better person. Thank you.

H Birchgrove
2011-11-24, 11:27 AM
I didn't say anything about True Blood, so you replying to my message with this confuses me.

Sorry, I forgot to point out (including to myself) that it was Krazzman who edited in True Blood in the quote he got from your post. (I edited in other stories.)

TheCountAlucard
2011-11-24, 11:31 AM
So, you want slowly shambling corpses that are not affected by sunlight? Or perhaps invisible demons? How about blood-sucking witches that transform into wolves at night?

Those would all be mythological vampires.And I would be cool with all of these things.

No, really. That'd be pretty damn awesome.

Herpestidae
2011-11-24, 11:43 AM
Truth to tell, I honestly do think the sparkling was an interesting idea and could've worked. It was a new twist and provided an explanation for why they would want to avoid sunlight. The problem is that the fact they're so superpowered and without weaknesses that humans are no threat to them makes you wonder why they would've even bothered hiding in the first place.

That's why they hide from humans, actually. Because if it became common knowledge that vampires existed, everyone would be searching out vampires so they could be turned.

H Birchgrove
2011-11-24, 11:43 AM
I challenge you for self-awarded title of Biggest Twihard in the Playground.
Because I don't think anything needs to be changed at all.
For what it is- a personal fantasy for woman- it does what its supposed to. My opinions are mostly outlined and explained better by this (http://ideas.time.com/2011/11/21/the-harsh-bigotry-of-twilight-haters/) article, but, in short, Twilight wasn't meant to be a standing point of literature.
It was (and is) a kooky romantic fantasy. Escapism.
And it does it well enough.

So Stephen King is a bigot now? :smallconfused:

“Harry Potter is about confronting fears, finding inner strength and doing what is right in the face of adversity. Twilight is about how important it is to have a boyfriend.”
- What the man said.

Also, it's not like James Bond, Tarzan, Conan the Barbarian, Doc Savage, The Shadow, The Spider, Fu Manchu, Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, Bulldog Drummond, Mike Hammer and super-hero comics and other generally male-oriented fiction haven't been critizised for giving unrealistic and prejudiced worldviews.

James Bond does at least have a female boss since the 1990's. Stuff like Twilight is a step back.

RabbitHoleLost
2011-11-24, 11:45 AM
I've never heard of Edward being called a rapist. Just a stalker. You know, with the whole "watching her sleep without her permission" thing.

Also, while Edward isn't physically abusive (I can't blame the guy for not knowing his own strength, and I'm not surprised in the least that Bella sort-of gets off on being hurt), well, let's look at The Domestic Violence Guide's characteristics of domestic violence:
[LIST=1]
constantly criticize you and your abilities as a spouse or partner, parent or employee?
behave in an over-protective manner or become extremely jealous? Check
Right here, I'mma stop you. If my girlfriend spent time with a man she had feelings for and obviously had feelings for her as well, and who also threatened my life, I'd be ridiculously jealous too.

threaten to hurt you, your children, pets, family members, friends or himself? Check
When did Edward ever threaten anyone of Bella's family or friends, aside from Jacob, who wanted to kill him first? Granted, he does try to kill himself, after he thinks Bella is already dead. Silly, but, as I've said before, its a silly escapist romance.

prevent you from seeing family or friends? Check
I think preventing Bella from seeing her best friend that she cheated on Edward with is reasonable. Again, if my girlfriend was in a situation that Bella is in with Jacob, I would prevent them from seeing eachother to the best of my ability.

get suddenly angry or "lose his temper"? Check
.... its not sudden if Jacob is threatening his life. Or Bella is like "OMG, Edward, I'm in love with Jacob, your mortal enemy, too." Frankly, as this the only time Edward is angry in the whole series (which is part of his godly, ideal charm), I'd say its pretty understandable.

destroy personal property or throw things around? Check
Yeah, the truck disassembling thing was stupid. But, again, all back to her cheating bit.


prevent you from going where you want to, when you want to, and with whomever you want to? Check
Aside from, once again, the whole cheating thing, I remind you that Jacob is a werewolf who Hulks out frequently. Frequently. I can't imagine Charlie (Bella's dad) would have allowed her to hang out with Jacob if he knew Jacob was a werewolf. Granted, I can't imagine he'd be okay with her hanging out with vampires if he knew, either, and Edward being all "he's a dangerous monster" is a little pot calling the kettle black, but I still stick to the defense that none of these qualify Edward as being abusive. He was perhaps stupid and, in my opinion, should have left Bella after the whole Jacob thing, but he's meant to be a perfect idealization. Porn for women. And what greater fantasy is there than emotionally cheating on a man and him forgiving you, to the point where he's completely and totally over all of the jealousy in less than a week and allows you to snuggle up with the other man?



So Stephen King is a bigot now? :smallconfused:

“Harry Potter is about confronting fears, finding inner strength and doing what is right in the face of adversity. Twilight is about how important it is to have a boyfriend.”
- What the man said.
The man isn't a god. Love the man, own all of his books (even if I haven't read ALL of them yet) relate to him with our love of Boston's sports teams, but I don't take his opinion as my own and can look separately on it. Also a huge Harry Potter fan- still don't agree with this quote.


Also, it's not like James Bond, Tarzan, Conan the Barbarian, Doc Savage, The Shadow, The Spider, Fu Manchu, Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, Bulldog Drummond, Mike Hammer and super-hero comics and other generally male-oriented fiction haven't been critizised for giving unrealistic and prejudiced worldviews.

James Bond does at least have a female boss since the 1990's. Stuff like Twilight is a step back.
Again, I'm not saying, and I have never said, that Twilight is a pro-feminist wonderful piece of literature. Its crap. I know it is- but I also know what it is meant to be. And its meant to be a guilty pleasure, an escapist fantasy, something unrealistic but delicious.
Its like every other contemporary romance novel out there, but it managed to be hundreds of times more popular than the rest of them. Not sure why, but, frankly, I find the hate to be ridiculous and ludicrous, and often reaching for ideas of why everyone should loathe the series and burn the books at any chance possible.
When, infact, its just a bad book. It doesn't instill feelings in young women that its okay to be abused, or that its okay to marry someone when you still have feelings for someone else. It doesn't lead young woman to believe that stalkers are alright- my sister, who is a bigger Twihard than anyone else I know (also with several full-rise scholarships to several schools offered), got her stalker locked away in jail. And the dude wasn't bad looking, either.
My defense of Twilight is never that its an upstanding piece of literature- its that its a well welcomed fantasy, even for someone like me, who prefers the company of my own gender over the males, and who is fairly certain she'll never, ever get married or rely on a man.

As John Green says in this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkoBoF9FDXg) video
"And yes, I think Edward and Bella's relationship dynamics are troubling, and that you shouldn't conflate obsession with love. But we all romanticize the people we adore, particularly in high school. And Edward Cullen and Jacob Black are both really, really well idealized romantic others. And by well idealized romantic others, I of course mean that they are hot. So, Hank, I just saw New Moon the movie, and to be honest, I thought it was kind of stupid, but it reminded me of what I really do like about Twilight. Its fun, it distracts me from the pain and brokenness of the world, and it argues that true love will triumph in the end, which may be a lie, but if it is, it is the most beautiful lie we have. That's why the question of whether Harry Potter or Twilight is better is, as the buddhists say, a question wrongly asked. As series, I don't think they're after the same goals, and I'd like to think that we can read broadly enough to live in a world that includes both of them. And more. Like my books."

comicshorse
2011-11-24, 12:03 PM
Well, the eggs get released on a roughly monthly basis throughout life whereas the release of sperm is on a less timed basis. I think the implication (or maybe it was outright said somewhere, no idea) is that, hey, that was in Edward all this time, and just was never released until now!


What 200 yeats and never ! No wonder he's a bit screwed up

Pokonic
2011-11-24, 02:42 PM
To create a "good" version of the twilight saga, I will try to do it using the
World of Darkness. (Shoot me.)


Naturaly, every other supernatural in the area ( ranging from your average garou pack to a Mage), will notice if a person is sparkling all over the place. Your average changeling will probably see them as too close to there former capters and will try to harm them when they can. A Werewolf ( or any other shapeshifter, for that matter, if the OWOD applies.) will see them as the walking dead, and I dont think one in warform would have issues shattering one to tiny chunks. A Mage would most likely have a few spells on hand that could bind/shatter/fetter one to there will/ect. A Hunter group would have some info on hand that they could harm them with the right equiptment. Prometheans would not see them in a good light, as well, because they kind of stopped caring about there humanity in the first few years of existance.
Of course, there is always some super-genius who wants to know how your "venom" works, and is all too willing to find out on the pain of death.

In a way, there sparkling is a glamor that they have no inherent control over. While it is true that humans have no resistance to it, supernaturals are almost immune to it. In a way, much like baseline WoD vampires, they are one of the individualy weaker factions, exept, in Twilight, vampires are at there strongest after being freshly turned, meaning that, in a way, the oldest vampires can only get there way from restraint.


There you have it folks. A world where your existance is athema, where your most powerful faction is based on keeping your existance secret. A world in which your oldest members only gain there power from political power. A world in which, dispite your powers, is almost unfairly stacked against you. All your abilities can be mached by any one of your enemies, from speed to endurance to longitivity, and nearly all of them are more powerful than your master and his master and so on and so forth. Your only way to interact with mortals is in slavery or mind-control, due to your cursed skin that prevents any true relationships with mortals.

Welcome to Vampire: The Sparkling
A game of Pathetic Angsting.

(Note: Read the books, thought they where bad. Saw the movies with a friend to mock, found them sutable. Still good for a cheap laugh, tho, because Christan Stewert has, say, five facial expressions, and I was surprised they did not spend half the movie staring into each others eyes.)


The man isn't a god
Yet. Its about time, actualy. If man kind vanished in the 1980's, there is no doubt he would have beengiven that status by the next intelligent creatures that would have come along.

Lord Seth
2011-11-24, 04:44 PM
That's why they hide from humans, actually. Because if it became common knowledge that vampires existed, everyone would be searching out vampires so they could be turned.Because a vampire can't just say "no, not interested" or just kill/maim the human?
Because I read recently that the Breaking Dawn directors were unhappy about the two leads making the scene look "vaguely realistic".This is kind of confusing. Were they unhappy about the vaguely or the realistic part?
Its fun, it distracts me from the pain and brokenness of the world, and it argues that true love will triumph in the end, which may be a lie, but if it is, it is the most beautiful lie we have.The problem is that, quite frankly, there's not that much "true love" between Bella and Edward. Everything about their relationship seems extremely shallow. Bella's totally in love with Edward just because he looks hot and Edward's in love with Bella because...uh...actually, I'm not sure it ever says. I'm just not seeing the "true love" in the book.

It's reminiscent of Romeo and Juliet, with the key different that Shakespeare clearly didn't intend their relationship to be seen as ideal, as demonstrated by the fact the play was a tragedy.
What 200 yeats and never ! No wonder he's a bit screwed up200? I thought Edward was turned in the early 20th century? He's only a little above 100.

KingofMadCows
2011-11-24, 06:11 PM
I thought this was the good version of Twilight:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmTg7ROPssc

RabbitHoleLost
2011-11-24, 06:32 PM
Because a vampire can't just say "no, not interested" or just kill/maim the human?
He did say "no". Over and over again, and she kept trying, over and over again, until it happened. Many people say no to their rapists/manipulative significant other. It obviously doesn't always work.
As for maiming/killing, not if you love someone.

The problem is that, quite frankly, there's not that much "true love" between Bella and Edward. Everything about their relationship seems extremely shallow. Bella's totally in love with Edward just because he looks hot and Edward's in love with Bella because...uh...actually, I'm not sure it ever says. I'm just not seeing the "true love" in the book.

It's reminiscent of Romeo and Juliet, with the key different that Shakespeare clearly didn't intend their relationship to be seen as ideal, as demonstrated by the fact the play was a tragedy.
Have you actually read the novels, or is this just what you've heard/seen in the movies?
Because, while not a perfect piece of art, the love story is covered fairly well in the first book. Developed over a period of time, with plenty of conflicting feelings on both sides- the pointless infatuation that starts any highschool relationship but grows into something more. Its not an overnight, fall in love on first sight freak incident like people like to paint it as. The first half of the Twilight novel is Bella seesawing back and forth over whether Edward is a really hot jerk and why is he such a jerk and god what is his problem. Essentially, its about as believable a love story as any teenaged romance-genre reader can expect.

Lord Seth
2011-11-24, 06:47 PM
He did say "no". Over and over again, and she kept trying, over and over again, until it happened. Many people say no to their rapists/manipulative significant other. It obviously doesn't always work.
As for maiming/killing, not if you love someone.I was referring to vampires in general. Not Edward in particular. Look back at my message and read what I was replying to.


Have you actually read the novels, or is this just what you've heard/seen in the movies?Both. Why the heck the two are supposedly so rabidly in love is never really explained outside of Bella constantly going on about how super handsome Edward is and Edward...uh, again, he's just attracted to her because the romance plot needs him to. It's certainly not their personalities that make them attracted to one another! (unless, as I once saw someone do, you interpret them as a sadist and masochist getting together...then things make sense)

Partysan
2011-11-24, 07:07 PM
Right here, I'mma stop you. If my girlfriend spent time with a man she had feelings for and obviously had feelings for her as well, and who also threatened my life, I'd be ridiculously jealous too.

When did Edward ever threaten anyone of Bella's family or friends, aside from Jacob, who wanted to kill him first? Granted, he does try to kill himself, after he thinks Bella is already dead. Silly, but, as I've said before, its a silly escapist romance.

I think preventing Bella from seeing her best friend that she cheated on Edward with is reasonable. Again, if my girlfriend was in a situation that Bella is in with Jacob, I would prevent them from seeing eachother to the best of my ability.

.... its not sudden if Jacob is threatening his life. Or Bella is like "OMG, Edward, I'm in love with Jacob, your mortal enemy, too." Frankly, as this the only time Edward is angry in the whole series (which is part of his godly, ideal charm), I'd say its pretty understandable.

Yeah, the truck disassembling thing was stupid. But, again, all back to her cheating bit.


Aside from, once again, the whole cheating thing, I remind you that Jacob is a werewolf who Hulks out frequently. Frequently. I can't imagine Charlie (Bella's dad) would have allowed her to hang out with Jacob if he knew Jacob was a werewolf. Granted, I can't imagine he'd be okay with her hanging out with vampires if he knew, either, and Edward being all "he's a dangerous monster" is a little pot calling the kettle black, but I still stick to the defense that none of these qualify Edward as being abusive. He was perhaps stupid and, in my opinion, should have left Bella after the whole Jacob thing, but he's meant to be a perfect idealization. Porn for women. And what greater fantasy is there than emotionally cheating on a man and him forgiving you, to the point where he's completely and totally over all of the jealousy in less than a week and allows you to snuggle up with the other man?

You know, I'm perfectly fine with the "it's just stupid escapist crap and you shouldn't take it so seriously" argument, considering that it mirrors my own opinion even though I'm more of a hater than a fan. I am however very much sure, that the hatedom of twilight is a response to its rabid fandom.
Twilight does not deserve the attantion it gets, but meh, that's our world.

What makes me very very uncomfortable is you defending Edward's behaviour. It is NOT acceptable. Apart from jealousy being a purely destructive and unhealthy emotion anyway, even if you feel entitled to be jealous there is NOTHING you can do to make someone stop seeing someone you don't like besides telling them you don't want them to and (if you're a ****) saying you will end the relationship if they don't. That's it. Dismantling someone's car or kidnapping them is not acceptable, even if the victim is stupid/infatuated/obsessed/traumatized enough not to leave you for it. And breaking into someone's room to watch them sleep is not romantic.

RabbitHoleLost
2011-11-24, 07:16 PM
Both. Why the heck the two are supposedly so rabidly in love is never really explained outside of Bella constantly going on about how super handsome Edward is and Edward...uh, again, he's just attracted to her because the romance plot needs him to. It's certainly not their personalities that make them attracted to one another! (unless, as I once saw someone do, you interpret them as a sadist and masochist getting together...then things make sense)

Really? Because I saw it as reasonable as any teenaged romance. She found him attractive, but then was repelled because he seemed so standoffish and jerk-ish. She's been an outsider her whole life- the typical smart girl is lonely trope.
There's one scene in the first book that stands out to me in this conversation. The second biology class they shared, working together, and they both started out with the feeling they were going to have to carry the other through the lab, because they'd never had anyone with drive as their lab partner before. And they surprise eachother because they're both intelligent and motivated and willing to work- and it may not be much, but, lets face it, its more than "just being hot".
Edward stimulates her intellectually, something we've been lead to believe hasn't happened before in her life. He's artistic and creative (something displayed by his composing a lullaby for Bella), charming and intelligent and witty, sensitive- what girl wouldn't find him attractive? He's described over and over again as a Grecian god, yes, but he's given any other number of attributes because the female reader was meant to fall in love with him.
As for him falling in love with Bella, you know, I'm not sure. I've already gone over my opinion on why I think everyone's got it reversed and that Bella is infact the abusive (or "sadistic", if you want to put it that way) one. I can certainly understand his initial interest in her- she smelled friggin delicious and she's the only one who's mind he can't read. Okay. Fantastic.
But the more I think about it, the more I remember Bella wasn't fleshed out for a reason. Her purpose is to be an audience surrogate- the girls who initially read Twilight were girls like me. I'd already read all of the Vampire Chronicles, The Vampire Diaries, Camilla, Anita Blake (or, what was available at the time). I was a voracious reader, a nerd, a weekend goth- a quirky outcast.
Bella was just enough weird and lonely for lonely, angsty sixteen year old me to sympathize (good god, that was six years ago..)
In anycase, there wasn't a real good reason for Edward to reciprocate Bella's (in my mind, logical) feelings, but, frankly, to steal a line from the Ginny/Harry Shippers in the Harry Potter fandom, sometimes love isn't equal or rational, and sometimes one party doesn't deserve their significant other.
Actually, I'd say most romance novels don't really make sense in the deserving sense...


You know, I'm perfectly fine with the "it's just stupid escapist crap and you shouldn't take it so seriously" argument, considering that it mirrors my own opinion even though I'm more of a hater than a fan. I am however very much sure, that the hatedom of twilight is a response to its rabid fandom.
Twilight does not deserve the attantion it gets, but meh, that's our world.

What makes me very very uncomfortable is you defending Edward's behaviour. It is NOT acceptable. Apart from jealousy being a purely destructive and unhealthy emotion anyway, even if you feel entitled to be jealous there is NOTHING you can do to make someone stop seeing someone you don't like besides telling them you don't want them to and (if you're a ****) saying you will end the relationship if they don't. That's it. Dismantling someone's car or kidnapping them is not acceptable, even if the victim is stupid/infatuated/obsessed/traumatized enough not to leave you for it. And breaking into someone's room to watch them sleep is not romantic.
No, no, I agree. I don't put up with jealousy, ever, and, like I said, Edward should have just peaced out and cut his losses- I don't think it makes someone a **** to say they'll leave their cheating girlfriend if they don't stop seeing the person they're cheating with at all.
The sleeping thing was always something I found creepy, but something I discovered most other girls found okay in fiction but not at all in real life. Its like in romance movies, after sex scenes, when the man is watching his wife sleep- you think, aw, how sweet, but if it ever actually happened you'd be a little disturbed.
If any Twihard, no matter how vehemently Team Edward they were, found a boy had slipped into their room and watched them sleep, I can only imagine how quickly restraining orders would be issued.

What I'm saying is that its reasonable, and if I wanted to be with a girl despite her cheating on me (which wouldn't happen because I don't put up with any crap like that), I would put that limit up. I would tell her she couldn't see him anymore. I wouldn't dismantle her friggin' truck, but, again, I think that was removed from the jealousy and part of Edward's pot-kettle-black "WEREWOLVES ARE LESS CULTURED THAN US VAMPIRES AND DANGEROUS" tirade he went on.
Being in the middle of an almost war with Jacob's tribe might have encouraged that thought process, though.

For the record, not that anyone cares, I'm Team Jasper, so I feel that, while I may be biased towards Twilight in general, my defense in either direction of Bella's love triangle is clear-minded.

Adanedhel
2011-11-24, 07:54 PM
You could try Luminosity :)

(twilight 'fan' fic, in which they only start of with one thing in difference, namely bella's character, for example, as a quote from Bella
"My favorite three questions are, What do I want?, What do I have?, and How can I best use the latter to get the former?
Actually, I'm also fond of What kind of person am I?, but that one isn't often directly relevant to decision making on a day-to-day basis")

Zale
2011-11-24, 09:05 PM
One thing..

In the books, Once Bella was turned into a vampire (Inevitable), she and Edward go frolicking in the woods. Bella smells some hunters (Not sure if they were injured or not). Being a blood thirsty new vampire, she runs towards them to drain them of blood.

And manages to stop herself.

Let's examine this for a second. Now, all the other vampires have had decades worth of experience at controlling their hunger, and even they find it hard at times.

But Bella, the newly made and untrained vampire, manages to resist the lure of fresh blood completely.

Was no one else vaguely bothered by Bella's seeming immunity to one of the only almost-flaws vampires have?

TheCountAlucard
2011-11-24, 09:18 PM
Was no one else vaguely bothered by Bella's seeming immunity to one of the only almost-flaws vampires have?But her ability to overcome it is evidence of how special she is!

Yeah, no, that's B.S., naturally. :smallannoyed:

Lord Seth
2011-11-24, 10:38 PM
As for him falling in love with Bella, you know, I'm not sure. I've already gone over my opinion on why I think everyone's got it reversed and that Bella is infact the abusive (or "sadistic", if you want to put it that way) one. I can certainly understand his initial interest in her- she smelled friggin delicious and she's the only one who's mind he can't read. Okay. Fantastic.I can understand that as initial interest also, but that doesn't really translate to any kind of actual romantic feelings. She's certainly not a particularly nice person if you look at it objectively.

But the more I think about it, the more I remember Bella wasn't fleshed out for a reason. Her purpose is to be an audience surrogate- the girls who initially read Twilight were girls like me.Thing is, it's possible to have audience surrogates who have actual character.


I'd already read all of the Vampire Chronicles, The Vampire Diaries, Camilla, Anita Blake (or, what was available at the time).Interesting you bring up The Vampire Diaries book series, because Elena is written more like Bella should've been. The book series seems to actually recognize she's a legitimately flawed character (unlike Twilight, which seems to be unaware of her flaws) and has some actual character development in which she gets past those flaws. Unfortunately, despite being better written than Twilight, the first two books in the series were also more boring than Twilight...I really only read them because I really liked the TV series and was curious what the original books were like. At least quality went up in the third. But I digress...


The sleeping thing was always something I found creepy, but something I discovered most other girls found okay in fiction but not at all in real life. Its like in romance movies, after sex scenes, when the man is watching his wife sleep- you think, aw, how sweet, but if it ever actually happened you'd be a little disturbed.I'm not actually sure how your example would be disturbing even in real life, but the key difference is this: In Twilight, Edward did it without Bella know he was doing it at all. It's not even the staring so much as it is him breaking into her house and doing it without her knowing. In your given example, they would know the other is in the room with them because they just, y'know, did it.

Y'know, it's funny you mentioned The Vampire Diaries earlier, because in the TV series, there's a bit early on where Damon stares at Elena while she's asleep, and it's appropriately portrayed as creepy. I actually wonder if they put that in there as some kind of indirect jab at Twilight...

Also, why do I keep getting myself into these Twilight discussions when for the most part I don't care about Twilight at all?

Moff Chumley
2011-11-24, 11:27 PM
Vis a vis the "fluffy escapist fantasy" thing, Harry Potter's not a fair comparison whatsoever. This'll probably sound weird and I'll admit this argument may not work, but far as I can reason, Twilight is kinda comparable to Atlas Shrugged. They're populated by unapologetic Mary Sues, exist in pretty nonsensical interpretations of the real world, raise deeply questionable, if not disturbing, philosophical issues, and otherwise do not reflect particularly well on their creators. Sure, Rand's prose is a hell of a lot better than Meyer's, and she at least had a pretension towards legitimate philosophy, but both of those are pretty inconsequential.

It's possible to read and enjoy either of them, while acknowledging that it's a load of crap. I read Atlas Shrugged in four days, and I enjoyed every page of it. Except the 80 page monologue. I skipped the 80 page monologue. Every five minutes or so I thought something like "wow, this woman should be locked up", but I throughout enjoyed it nonetheless.

...on the other hand one of the biggest things I liked about Atlas Shrugged was the prose. Haven't read Twilight cover to cover, and I don't plan to, but the snippets I've seen are hardly high art. :smalltongue:

Emmerask
2011-11-24, 11:59 PM
And here I thought twilight was a psychological case study of a psychotic woman who tries so hard to emulate human emotion without actually having any...

Forum Explorer
2011-11-25, 12:06 AM
One thing..

In the books, Once Bella was turned into a vampire (Inevitable), she and Edward go frolicking in the woods. Bella smells some hunters (Not sure if they were injured or not). Being a blood thirsty new vampire, she runs towards them to drain them of blood.

And manages to stop herself.

Let's examine this for a second. Now, all the other vampires have had decades worth of experience at controlling their hunger, and even they find it hard at times.

But Bella, the newly made and untrained vampire, manages to resist the lure of fresh blood completely.

Was no one else vaguely bothered by Bella's seeming immunity to one of the only almost-flaws vampires have?

Yes it was really disgusting how much of a mary sue Bella was in the last book.

Coidzor
2011-11-25, 01:32 AM
I'm still not really seeing how it relates to or disproves my point.

It's a good thing that's a strawman of my argument and not my actual argument, then!


So, you want slowly shambling corpses that are not affected by sunlight? Or perhaps invisible demons? How about blood-sucking witches that transform into wolves at night?

Those would all be mythological vampires.

I'm starting to more get the idea that Twilight itself has some kind of metaphysical impact on our ability to understand one another.

H Birchgrove
2011-11-25, 09:18 AM
I'm starting to more get the idea that Twilight itself has some kind of metaphysical impact on our ability to understand one another.

Maybe it applies to pop culture in general?

Oh, the days when I read Erich Maria Remarque and Günter Grass (not for school!) and planned to read Fyodor Dostoyevsky and Hermann Hesse. Mainstream literature, forgive me!

The Succubus
2011-11-25, 09:46 AM
I'd like to see some Hellsing/Twilight crossover fiction. :smalltongue:

Eldan
2011-11-25, 09:52 AM
I'd like to see some Hellsing/Twilight crossover fiction. :smalltongue:

Has probably already been made. Let me google that...

Ayup. Two pages of titles on fanfiction.net (http://www.fanfiction.net/Hellsing_and_Twilight_Crossovers/1356/2458/) :smallwink:

Tiki Snakes
2011-11-25, 10:03 AM
Having read a couple of these threads, it strikes me that the easiest way to resolve a lot of the issues with Twilight and sidestep a lot of the uncomfortable bits in particular is to change the narrative viewpoint.

Simply by having the story told from a more removed vantage-point, or through the eyes of some other, neutral character, you lose a lot of the (Intentional? Unintentional?) discomfort from having the book imply support for Bella's and Edwards actions.

RabbitHoleLost
2011-11-25, 11:45 AM
Thing is, it's possible to have audience surrogates who have actual character.
Well, the whole point of audience surrogates is to have just enough character that people find themselves easily relating, but not enough that they find themselves thinking "Ugh. I don't like that about her.", because then you lose the whole sympathizing aspect. So, Bella's clumsy, she's lonely, she hates where she lives, she loves her mother, and has an awkward relationship with her father. She reads classic, pro-feminist romances. Great, we have a skeleton of a person, with just enough quirks to be special but nothing anyone could find objectionable.
This tactic isn't passable in most fiction. Infact, its typically solely used in pop!fiction aimed at younger readers who won't be bothered by the presence of a empty husk of a character.
But we need to believe Edward loves her, even though she has nothing of value to offer him in a romantic relationship. The best way? To think of ourselves as Bella. Because some well-balanced, normal chick in Washington may not deserve beautiful, charming, creative, God-like Edward, but a girl I perceive to be like me? I deserve Edward, and suddenly, its very believable.

Escapism is a hell of a drug.


Interesting you bring up The Vampire Diaries book series, because Elena is written more like Bella should've been. The book series seems to actually recognize she's a legitimately flawed character (unlike Twilight, which seems to be unaware of her flaws) and has some actual character development in which she gets past those flaws. Unfortunately, despite being better written than Twilight, the first two books in the series were also more boring than Twilight...I really only read them because I really liked the TV series and was curious what the original books were like. At least quality went up in the third. But I digress...
As I said above, Bella has her flaws (shallow as they are). But, yes- she doesn't have to overcome them. Because this perfect man loves her entirely, flaws and all, and then she becomes a perfect gorgeous sexy sexy vampire and any imperfections she saw in herself are now dead and magically fixed.
As for Vampire Diaries, I meant to get around to watching the show, but I haven't read the books since I was fourteen/fifteen, and can't remember a damn thing. I went the the library to check them out, but, of course, now that there's a popular TV series, the books I used to be able to devour in peace are now all checked out with a two week waitlist. I suppose I'll just have to borrow a friend's or buy them myself.


I'm not actually sure how your example would be disturbing even in real life, but the key difference is this: In Twilight, Edward did it without Bella know he was doing it at all. It's not even the staring so much as it is him breaking into her house and doing it without her knowing. In your given example, they would know the other is in the room with them because they just, y'know, did it.
Trust me- its creepy all the same.
Edward explained a little bit better in the half of Midnight Sun that Meyers wrote and gave up on in a hissy fit because someone leaked it.
If you want a really creepy look on Edward, and something that proves his vampire nature, that's where to look.
He creeps into her room, initially, because she smells delicious and he doesn't care about the repercussions, dammit, he's going to eat her. Of course, once he's there he freezes and can't make his mind up, only to leave at dawn and return for a few nights, where he continues to have his inner battle. Eventually, as he overcomes the urge to eat her like a pomegranate, he just does it because he wants to (which, yeah, is creepy, but lets face it- the alternative was him devouring her)



Also, why do I keep getting myself into these Twilight discussions when for the most part I don't care about Twilight at all?
Frankly, I'm usually a closet Twilight fan. You know, the girl who makes fun of all the other girls who are open Twihards, and then goes and reads Twilight under the safety of her bedcovers where noone can see her.
I hate and mildly like Twilight at the same time.
I just can't stand it when the Playground goes wild about Twilight. Its calmed down from how it used to be- I remember in the old days frequently being told I wasn't intelligent for liking Twilight and that I was clearly going to end up in an abusive relationship because anyone who reads Twilight can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality.
And since those days, I've been incredibly defensive, when, in reality. Twilight doesn't even come close to my favorite book series. It doesn't even get a space on my book shelves- its in a box in the attic.

Starbuck_II
2011-11-25, 12:01 PM
Whenever someone gets the idea they should watch or read Twilight, tell them to read Percy Jackson and the Olympians (and not take the easy way and watch the movie) and the sequel series, The Heroes of Olympus.

Although I don't think Greek and Roman gods feed on blood. Ares, maybe... :smalltongue: And there are vampire-type creatures.

Vampires (emposai) in Percy Jackson books have one donkey leg and one bronze one (if you see their true form)... and explode into fireballs for fun (instead of gaseous form like D&D).
So don't tell them to read that: they might be angry again.

I never read Twilight, but I liked the movies.
I did'nt like Vamp Dairies, but True Blood was good. Syupernatural and Buffy vampires are better though.

NineThePuma
2011-11-25, 12:12 PM
Having read a couple of these threads, it strikes me that the easiest way to resolve a lot of the issues with Twilight and sidestep a lot of the uncomfortable bits in particular is to change the narrative viewpoint.

Simply by having the story told from a more removed vantage-point, or through the eyes of some other, neutral character, you lose a lot of the (Intentional? Unintentional?) discomfort from having the book imply support for Bella's and Edwards actions.

Tell the first book from jacob's PoV, the second from, say, one of Bella's human friends or a pack mate. Third from, I wanna say, Alice's. Fourth from Charlie's. Because daddy needs some love.

Alternatively, Carlisle (sp?) would be good.

(I was a fan of twilight earlier in life, but since the movies started, I've been more distanced. My favorite character was Bree.)

TheCountAlucard
2011-11-25, 12:37 PM
Well, the whole point of audience surrogates is to have just enough character that people find themselves easily relating, but not enough that they find themselves thinking "Ugh. I don't like that about her," because then you lose the whole sympathizing aspect.It's a shame, then, that the author included enough details from the narrator's perspective for a reader to realize that Bella is a hypocritical sociopath. :smallsigh:

RabbitHoleLost
2011-11-25, 01:24 PM
It's a shame, then, that the author included enough details from the narrator's perspective for a reader to realize that Bella is a hypocritical sociopath. :smallsigh:

...The narrative is from Bella's perspective, and I don't really understand where the sociopath comment comes from. Or the hypocritical, either. Anyone who's read knows I'm not a Bella fan, but aside from pushing Edward to have sex (and, you know, GOOD for Edward for refusing until marriage. Even though she still forced him into it after) and becoming obsessed with him, I don't really see it.
She has no charm, she couldn't manipulate herself out of a paper bag, she feels so much remorse and shame its actually fairly annoying, and she obviously has the capacity for love (or crazy hard infatuation, but both things are unknown to sociopaths, by definition).

Sunken Valley
2011-11-25, 01:39 PM
One thing..

In the books, Once Bella was turned into a vampire (Inevitable), she and Edward go frolicking in the woods. Bella smells some hunters (Not sure if they were injured or not). Being a blood thirsty new vampire, she runs towards them to drain them of blood.

And manages to stop herself.

Let's examine this for a second. Now, all the other vampires have had decades worth of experience at controlling their hunger, and even they find it hard at times.

But Bella, the newly made and untrained vampire, manages to resist the lure of fresh blood completely.

Was no one else vaguely bothered by Bella's seeming immunity to one of the only almost-flaws vampires have?

Word of God explanation here. Bella was the only and first person in the world who willing decided to become a vegetarian vampire. Further, she spent 18 months in a friendly environment with vampires. She knew what to expect. Also her Mind Blank sla might have helped.

Further, I see there is a debate about Bella's flaws. Stephanie says that she is totally surprised that people liked Twilight. Because it's so totally ludicrous a premise. She got the initial idea from a dream with Edward sparkling and telling Bella his species (who else dreams up their ideas? Jenna Silverblade!:smalleek:). But seriously, that was the only thing from the dreams. She made up the rest herself. She thought it was a ridiculous idea and was not expecting it to be big. It became new york bestseller.

New point. On it's own, Twilight is a pretty decent book. Originally there were just going to be two books, but then meyer realised that proto-Breaking Dawn did not have enough conflict (victoria not being threatening enough), so she put in the volturi. Who needed a book to explain them. Then she thought they should be in a seperate book from victoria. She also wanted a love triangle. Bam, 4 books.

Moff Chumley
2011-11-25, 01:50 PM
...The narrative is from Bella's perspective, and I don't really understand where the sociopath comment comes from. Or the hypocritical, either. Anyone who's read knows I'm not a Bella fan, but aside from pushing Edward to have sex (and, you know, GOOD for Edward for refusing until marriage. Even though she still forced him into it after) and becoming obsessed with him, I don't really see it.
She has no charm, she couldn't manipulate herself out of a paper bag, she feels so much remorse and shame its actually fairly annoying, and she obviously has the capacity for love (or crazy hard infatuation, but both things are unknown to sociopaths, by definition).

I think it's less "sociopath" and "appallingly weak-willed and messed up", and I'm not sure one's any better than the other. At least a sociopathic character doesn't whine all the time; drowning in a character's self-pity's really, profoundly obnoxious.

TheCountAlucard
2011-11-25, 02:10 PM
I don't really see it.Then let's not look at it from the vampire side for a sec, shall we?

Let's start with the definition.


a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.


Someone whose social behavior is extremely abnormal. Sociopaths are interested only in their personal needs and desires, without concern for the effects of their behavior on others.

Okay, first things first...

While it's true that Bella appears to engage in social interaction in Forks, we can see everything from her point of view, and she holds no interest in the people around her. Not even her father. It's clear from her words that every bit of interaction, every conversation, is sheerly from the demands of courtesy. It's clear that her ability to bond with those near her isn't quite normal.

Her classmates go out of their way to be warm and welcoming to the new girl, but we quickly see that Bella judges everyone she meets, and even insults them.

The only time she doesn't go through the motions of social interaction are in New Moon, where she engages in patently antisocial behavior for months at a time.

Let's go with another example. How about how she only calls her father "Dad" to his face, and otherwise shows no signs of respect for him? She lies to him about her boyfriend and every other little thing, permits Edward to sneak into the house every night, and even states she doesn’t think she needs her father’s permission to go on a long road trip alone to an unfamiliar city. Bella never shows signs of remorse for those things and outwardly apes a gracious and respectful daughter throughout.

Let's not forget that when she sees the Cullens, they become the only people in town that Bella can be bothered to take interest in. Specifically, their looks, wealth, and exclusivity from society. "The isolation must be their desire; I couldn't imagine any door that wouldn't be opened by that degree of beauty." Edward, her way into this life, becomes the key to Bella’s own happiness, fulfillment and meaning in life. She quickly becomes obsessed with what he has to offer her.

This sort of stuff continues throughout the series, but it's all-too-evident just from the first book...

Shall I continue? I have some paragraphs yet about her lack of a social conscience...


I think it's less "sociopath" and "appallingly weak-willed and messed up", and I'm not sure one's any better than the other.No, I said "sociopath," and I meant "sociopath.

All her whining does is show how even when people are dying, it's all about her.

RabbitHoleLost
2011-11-25, 02:33 PM
Then let's not look at it from the vampire side for a sec, shall we?

Let's start with the definition.





Okay, first things first...

While it's true that Bella appears to engage in social interaction in Forks, we can see everything from her point of view, and she holds no interest in the people around her. Not even her father. It's clear from her words that every bit of interaction, every conversation, is sheerly from the demands of courtesy. It's clear that her ability to bond with those near her isn't quite normal.

Her classmates go out of their way to be warm and welcoming to the new girl, but we quickly see that Bella judges everyone she meets, and even insults them.

The only time she doesn't go through the motions of social interaction are in New Moon, where she engages in patently antisocial behavior for months at a time.

Let's go with another example. How about how she only calls her father "Dad" to his face, and otherwise shows no signs of respect for him? She lies to him about her boyfriend and every other little thing, permits Edward to sneak into the house every night, and even states she doesn’t think she needs her father’s permission to go on a long road trip alone to an unfamiliar city. Bella never shows signs of remorse for those things and outwardly apes a gracious and respectful daughter throughout.

Let's not forget that when she sees the Cullens, they become the only people in town that Bella can be bothered to take interest in. Specifically, their looks, wealth, and exclusivity from society. "The isolation must be their desire; I couldn't imagine any door that wouldn't be opened by that degree of beauty." Edward, her way into this life, becomes the key to Bella’s own happiness, fulfillment and meaning in life. She quickly becomes obsessed with what he has to offer her.

Shall I continue? I have some paragraphs yet about her lack of a social conscience...

No, I said "sociopath," and I meant "sociopath.

All her whining does is show how even when people are dying, it's all about her.

You're reaching, and not even researching sociopaths.
Bella doesn't care about the townspeople. Okay.
But she doesn't even try to appear to care- she blows all of her regular friends except Angela off. Sociopaths appear to care in an attempt to manipulate. She doesn't have the grandiose sense of self that is required to diagnose sociopaths, because she is constantly going on about how not worthy of the Cullens she is. She feels shame and guilt about how many people get hurt protecting her (because she's essentially useless in all the battles the Cullens and the werewolves engage to keep her safe from Victoria), she obviously has deep feelings (again, it might not be love, but obsessional infatuation is still an emotion, and sociopaths don't feel anything for anyone but themselves). She does lie to her father a lot, but its not compulsive or pathological- she's in love with a vampire and there's a lot of monsters running around town. To be honest, this is a common factor in paranormal teenage romances, and it makes sense. If I were dating a supernatural monster, and there were other supernatural monsters trying to kill me, I wouldn't tell my dad, either, and I love him.
Furthermore, the book never gives any support that she only cares about the Cullens because of their wealth and beauty. As I've stated before, Bella has plenty of reason to love Edward, and this extends to all of the Cullen family, aside from Rosalie. They are all accepting and friendly and witty and intelligent.
The worst that can be assigned to Bella is that she's an angsty, antisocial teenager with a serious case of ennui and world-weariness who finds one thing that makes her happy and goes absolutely crazy clinging to it.

Moff Chumley
2011-11-25, 02:49 PM
Let's start with the definition.

That's not what a sociopath is.


No, I said "sociopath," and I meant "sociopath.

I'm sure you meant sociopath. Love ya, man, but you're wrong.

TheCountAlucard
2011-11-25, 02:51 PM
That's not what a sociopath is.So you're saying the dictionary definitions are wrong? Eh, guess that's fine.

RabbitHoleLost
2011-11-25, 02:53 PM
So you're saying the dictionary definitions are wrong? Eh, guess that's fine.
Try looking it up in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual and seeing the indepth description. Or even googling for the diagnostic behaviors of a sociopath.

Moff Chumley
2011-11-25, 02:58 PM
Yes I'm saying the dictionary definition is wrong. Obviously you can't find the DSM online because that'd unravel their whole corrupt game, but this covers it nicely (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder). Sociopathy is a technical term with a technical definition.

TheCountAlucard
2011-11-25, 02:59 PM
Either way, my point is, SMeyer failed to present us with a likeable protagonist or audience surrogate.

In your own words,


Well, the whole point of audience surrogates is to have just enough character that people find themselves easily relating, but not enough that they find themselves thinking "Ugh. I don't like that about her," because then you lose the whole sympathizing aspect.

RabbitHoleLost
2011-11-25, 03:03 PM
Either way, my point is, SMeyer failed to present us with a likeable protagonist or audience surrogate.

In your own words,

Nobody was arguing about Bella being likeable. Nobody likes Bella. But there are plenty of valid reasons to dislike her without making stuff up.

H Birchgrove
2011-11-25, 07:18 PM
In order to make me interested in Twilight in any media, it needs:

Count Dracula (in film played by Christopher Lee or Gary Oldman)

Blade

Vampirella

The Goddamn Batman

At least one pulp hero

Daleks

Lots and lots of puppies and kittens

Zale
2011-11-25, 08:37 PM
Word of God explanation here. Bella was the only and first person in the world who willing decided to become a vegetarian vampire. Further, she spent 18 months in a friendly environment with vampires. She knew what to expect. Also her Mind Blank sla might have helped.


I know. I saw that explanation.

However...

Tell me, does Bella strike you as a person with a great deal of will-power and control over her emotions and impulses?

The girl who spent at least half a book moping about her boyfriend leaving?

This is the person who managed to resist vampiric blood-thirst?

Coidzor
2011-11-25, 08:41 PM
Having read a couple of these threads, it strikes me that the easiest way to resolve a lot of the issues with Twilight and sidestep a lot of the uncomfortable bits in particular is to change the narrative viewpoint.

Simply by having the story told from a more removed vantage-point, or through the eyes of some other, neutral character, you lose a lot of the (Intentional? Unintentional?) discomfort from having the book imply support for Bella's and Edwards actions.

...Heh, just have that one guy from the Great Gatsby be the fly on that wall, eh? :smallamused:


Twilight doesn't even come close to my favorite book series. It doesn't even get a space on my book shelves- its in a box in the attic.

...So that's why there's never been anything under my girlfriends' beds... I should've been checking in the attic!

Guess I should've figured books would make the mattress lump up too much. x.x

Lord Seth
2011-11-25, 11:00 PM
I did'nt like Vamp Dairies, but True Blood was good.How much did you see of The Vampire Diaries? The early episodes are easily the weakest stretch of the show.
As I said above, Bella has her flaws (shallow as they are). But, yes- she doesn't have to overcome them. Because this perfect man loves her entirely, flaws and all, and then she becomes a perfect gorgeous sexy sexy vampire and any imperfections she saw in herself are now dead and magically fixed.Thing is, that does nothing to remove her problematic personality. When people complain about Bella's flaws, they don't complain about the stuff that's awkwardly inserted into the book (e.g. her being clumsy, which is repeatedly told to the reader and then is completely forgotten about whenever it's convenient for the plot), they're talking about the problems with her personality that the series seems completely unaware of. And that's the issue.


As for Vampire Diaries, I meant to get around to watching the show, but I haven't read the books since I was fourteen/fifteen, and can't remember a damn thing. I went the the library to check them out, but, of course, now that there's a popular TV series, the books I used to be able to devour in peace are now all checked out with a two week waitlist. I suppose I'll just have to borrow a friend's or buy them myself.You don't need to read the books to understand the show. After the first few episodes it pretty much goes off in a completely different direction, and even those early episodes had some pretty large departures from the books.

bluewind95
2011-11-26, 02:37 AM
I found Bella's clumsiness to be utterly ridiculous. Seriously. I'm clumsy. I have real problems with balance due to damage in the inner ear, and if you're as clumsy as Bella is made out to be, you can't walk. I'd know because I've been THAT clumsy with vertigo attacks and it's not that you can walk and suddenly when you want to take a bigger step (like walk across puddles without stepping on them) you are suddenly rendered unable to do any of it. No, no. It takes you a while but you manage. A little shaky yeah. MAYBE you'll fall once or twice. But it won't be this impossible task it was made out to be. Unless, of course, you're having a severe vertigo attack. In which case you can't take a single step, let alone a bigger one. But the way it's portrayed, she's perfectly functional... except when the plot demands she is not. That's... ridiculous, and as a person with REAL balance issues, I'm outright offended at that portrayal.

I also found her obsession with Edward creepy at best. Seriously. She gets what she wanted at first: friends. And they're nice to her and accepting and everything. But because she's so obsessed with Edward (and at this point she doesn't even KNOW the guy, so that's not love), she shuns them. What? I mean, she's quite okay with her new friends, she's getting comfortable with them and then... just that one glance at Edward and it's like her mind can't get off him. He's less terrible than she is at this stage even with his creepy-stalker tendencies. Although it seems that even though he can't read her mind, her obsession is kind of contagious because he starts stalking her big time even following her shopping to the next city. But hey. We know he wants to nom her and that actually makes it more understandable that he'd be stalking her like that (and those books would be SO MUCH BETTER if that was more apparent).

Then there's the fact that she can smell blood without even being close to it, or even being a vampire? Really? Some people do have a sense of smell good enough to smell blood... but not at such distances and not at such small amounts as would be required for blood types. And then Edward forces her to go home and forces her not to drive. Thoughtful of him, but the way he does this, forcing her into the car and whatnot.. really comes off as abusive. And yet it's played as completely beautiful and protective and romantic. And no one questions this! Not the narrator (who is completely unreliable, due to her obsession anyways), not anyone. Never do we have people warning Bella about her obsession, no one questions it, they're just... phased out. All the questionable things are passed off as perfect in some way, and no one seems to care. They all agree.

And really, this is the point that makes me dislike the stories. I dislike them for what they could have been. They could have been great and deep. There was SO MUCH potential in this. SO MUCH. And you still could have had love triumph at the end without it being a shallow victory because there was nothing of importance to really overcome, or anything to question, or any growth at all. As it is, it feels shallow and inconsequential and it leaves a bitter aftertaste because it just feels so wrong if you think about it. It just feels empty and hollow and there could have been so much more. But there wasn't. You're just "supposed" to take it at face value. It's kind of like... force-feeding someone sugar. It's sweet, it's maybe somewhat enjoyable (... or really enjoyable, it's a matter of taste). But it's... just not *filling*. And it could have been SO much better. I get that it wasn't "supposed" to be good. But the fact that you can see that it could have been and yet it wasn't, that's what makes it, to me, impossible to really enjoy. That, of course, aside from the objective complaint of "the grammar REALLY needs work". Because it does. It's not well-written at all. I shudder to think about what kinds of editors looked at it. I mean, at least it should have been well-written.

Also, I think I know what the problem with vampires sparkling is and why people say "But that's not a vampire!". Thing is, vampirism, in all the mythos I've seen/read aside from this, are creatures cursed by the darkness. It's always a curse associated with death and darkness. It doesn't matter if they're affected by light or not. But they're supposed to be associated with the darkness and the death. Twilight vampires, by virtue of sparkling, are not associated with a curse or darkness or death. The sparkling, which makes them so "dazzling and beautiful" and whatnot completely inverts the concept and instead... blesses them with light, even if they find shame in this. I think it's just a hard thing to pin-point, but it's the whole inversion of the concept that irks people. Hence why they keep saying "But vampires are killed by light, they don't sparkle!". Yes indeed they die by light in some mythos... because in some mythos light destroys the darkness (while in others this isn't done so literally). And that'd be... because vampires are creatures of darkness and death. In Twilight, they are not, and hence why the concept is disliked by many. Not by all, but by many. (At least this is my theory, from what I've seen)

OK. Long post and I'm tired, really tired, it's waaay past 1 am. I hope I made SOME sense.

Zale
2011-11-26, 05:59 AM
And of course, Bella's "Clumsiness" vanishes when she becomes a vampire.

I recall Edward saying something about how she was graceful even for a vampire..


So much for flaws..


Over all, I didn't really hate the Twilight series when I read it. I thought it was mushy and romantic, but I can live with that. I was seriously bored..

It wasn't until breaking dawn when things started to annoy me.

But eh, It's not so horrible. If you like sappy romances, then who am I to judge?

Just keep them away from me.

H Birchgrove
2011-11-26, 06:13 AM
Bella was a mutant before she became a vamp. Hence the good sense of smell. :smalltongue:

Zale
2011-11-26, 06:23 AM
Mind Blank as a SLA. :smalltongue:

What was the DM thinking?

Terry576
2011-11-26, 10:19 AM
Alright, let's get cracking.

I have read every single Twilight book for one sole reason:

Alice and Jasper. Jasper's story is a book that my friends all agree we would totally read and unironically enjoy. He's a war hero who was turned, and then became an even cooler war hero. And Alice is a legitimate psychic who was being hunted for her ability. That's pretty rad in itself. Hell, Carlisle had a cool plot too, one that was never bloody expanded on.

"Yeah i ran around with the lead vampires for a while." That's cool. Can we get like a, y'know, story about that? No? Okay.

Admittedly, I kinda hate the Percy Jackson series now, mostly because I only shipped Percy/Thalia, and Annabeth was such a priss in the last book that I ended up hating her. I reread them from time to time, but I always end up thinking "Dammit Perc, you shoulda become an immortal and hung with Thalia for ETERNITY MAN"

But yeah. I couldn't really get into Twilight because Alice and Jasper were so much cooler than the rest of the cast, and Jasper's story in book 3 deserved a series waaay more than Twilight in itself did. It pissed me off too, because it showed that Smeyer could have had a totally cool plot with sweet characters (Jasper's personality review of his former friends from the Newborn Wars made me like them a lot more then the main cast,) but instead she went with the unlikable heroine and the creepy stalker love interest.

TheCountAlucard
2011-11-26, 11:28 AM
Sadly, even the "good bits" are full of problems - like how a tall, well-built sixteen-year-old would have to lie about his age to get into the Army during the Civil War. :smallsigh:

Worira
2011-11-26, 12:27 PM
Er... I'm pretty sure he would. I mean, it could be a "Yes, I'm TOTALLY 18, wink wink" type of lie, but I'm pretty sure the actual legal minimum age of recruitment was 18.

Forum Explorer
2011-11-26, 12:29 PM
Alright, let's get cracking.

I have read every single Twilight book for one sole reason:

Alice and Jasper. Jasper's story is a book that my friends all agree we would totally read and unironically enjoy. He's a war hero who was turned, and then became an even cooler war hero. And Alice is a legitimate psychic who was being hunted for her ability. That's pretty rad in itself. Hell, Carlisle had a cool plot too, one that was never bloody expanded on.

"Yeah i ran around with the lead vampires for a while." That's cool. Can we get like a, y'know, story about that? No? Okay.

Admittedly, I kinda hate the Percy Jackson series now, mostly because I only shipped Percy/Thalia, and Annabeth was such a priss in the last book that I ended up hating her. I reread them from time to time, but I always end up thinking "Dammit Perc, you shoulda become an immortal and hung with Thalia for ETERNITY MAN"

But yeah. I couldn't really get into Twilight because Alice and Jasper were so much cooler than the rest of the cast, and Jasper's story in book 3 deserved a series waaay more than Twilight in itself did. It pissed me off too, because it showed that Smeyer could have had a totally cool plot with sweet characters (Jasper's personality review of his former friends from the Newborn Wars made me like them a lot more then the main cast,) but instead she went with the unlikable heroine and the creepy stalker love interest.

Yeah the rest of the family is pretty awesome. Except for the Rosalie but even she's gets her 5 minutes of fame. Anyways Alice is the best vampire followed closely by those Romanov old vampires.

TheCountAlucard
2011-11-26, 12:40 PM
Er... I'm pretty sure he would. I mean, it could be a "Yes, I'm TOTALLY 18, wink wink" type of lie, but I'm pretty sure the actual legal minimum age of recruitment was 18.For the North, maybe, but the South had a real problem with manpower during the Civil War. The general ages of Confederate soldiers was mostly between sixteen and twenty-eight.

Worira
2011-11-26, 01:05 PM
Yes, but the actual age of an army and the legal minimum age of recruitment can be two different things. I know for a fact the Confederate Army never conscripted below 17, and while I don't know off-hand the minimum age for volunteers, it would hardly be the only army in history to accept soldiers under that age as long as they said "Yeah, I'm toootally 18. That's me all right. Not 16 at all." And either way, it's hardly an inexcusable error on Meyer's part even if 16 was the legal age to enlist.

The Glyphstone
2011-11-26, 01:27 PM
Agreed on that - even if it is an error, it's incredibly minor compared to pretty much anything else nitpickable in the series.

Lord Seth
2011-11-26, 04:04 PM
Oh, I can't believe I didn't post a link to this (http://www.collegehumor.com/video/5818242/hardly-working-twilight-bros) video.

Zale
2011-11-26, 04:11 PM
Oh dear, someone's fan-age is showing. :smallbiggrin:

NineThePuma
2011-11-26, 05:01 PM
Something just occurred to me, rereading the "Bella is a sociopath" argument.

If the dictionary definition is wrong, what the heck is the dictionary definition referring to? Cause that sounds like a disorder too.

Starbuck_II
2011-11-26, 05:35 PM
Oh, I can't believe I didn't post a link to this (http://www.collegehumor.com/video/5818242/hardly-working-twilight-bros) video.
Regarding Video:
And Twilight Vamps can beat Werewolves. Diamonds are hardest objects. Vamp = diamond, so vamps beat werewolves. Granted, they technically aren't werewolves but shapechangers (this tribe just perfers wolves).

Jacob has the issue he might rage and wolf out scratching Bella with a horrible scar with his claw if they got into an argument. We know it can happen as it did to another person in the book by another were.

Lord Seth
2011-11-26, 06:15 PM
Oh dear, someone's fan-age is showing. :smallbiggrin:Is this in reference to me? I'm confused.
Regarding Video:
And Twilight Vamps can beat Werewolves. Diamonds are hardest objects. Vamp = diamond, so vamps beat werewolves. Granted, they technically aren't werewolves but shapechangers (this tribe just perfers wolves).

Jacob has the issue he might rage and wolf out scratching Bella with a horrible scar with his claw if they got into an argument. We know it can happen as it did to another person in the book by another were.Heh. Though personally, the reason I liked the video was the fact it spoofed haters by pointing out that they seem to get into the books just as much, if not more, than the actual fans.

Herpestidae
2011-11-26, 07:14 PM
Heh. Though personally, the reason I liked the video was the fact it spoofed haters by pointing out that they seem to get into the books just as much, if not more, than the actual fans.

This has more to do with avoiding the "You haven't even read the books" rebuttal that you get from Twihards* when you criticize... just about anything about the books.


* By "Twihard" I refer to the kind of Twilight fan who that buys Twilight Brand Glitter Lube or underwear with a picture of Edward's mouth at the crotch.

Coidzor
2011-11-26, 07:51 PM
Though personally, the reason I liked the video was the fact it spoofed haters by pointing out that they seem to get into the books just as much, if not more, than the actual fans.

That's still novel enough to get a chuckle? :smallconfused:

The Glyphstone
2011-11-26, 08:27 PM
That's still novel enough to get a chuckle? :smallconfused:

It's more than a year and a half old - when they made it, it was relatively novel.

Coidzor
2011-11-26, 08:32 PM
It's more than a year and a half old - when they made it, it was relatively novel.

No, no, the bit where hatred or dislike for something can result in paying a lot of attention to it.

Pokonic
2011-11-26, 08:38 PM
* By "Twihard" I refer to the kind of Twilight fan who that buys Twilight Brand Glitter Lube or underwear with a picture of Edward's mouth at the crotch.

Wat. Those...actualy exist?!:smalleek:


And I thought the My little Pony fandom was slightly insane. In a good way. This, on the other hand, is almost as creepy as bellas lack of anything besides a need for self-gratifacation.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-11-26, 08:47 PM
Admittedly, I kinda hate the Percy Jackson series now, mostly because I only shipped Percy/Thalia, and Annabeth was such a priss in the last book that I ended up hating her. I reread them from time to time, but I always end up thinking "Dammit Perc, you shoulda become an immortal and hung with Thalia for ETERNITY MAN"

For a moment there I thought I was back in the "stories you hate to admit you once liked" thread.

And I really need to read all my book series again (except Redwall series, there were always some bad ones in that), now with a critical eye for every bit of characterization. Despite having read Harry Potter twice, Percy Jackson three times, and Heroes of Olympus (so far. Why do I have to wait a year for the next book to come out again? Oh yeah, 'cause Riordan's working on that Kane Chronicles and trying to fill the massive plot hole that is the Greeks existing in the same world as the Egyptians, each with their separate afterlives that everyone goes to, by saying that there are "alternate realities" even though Carter saw a pegasus when he was looking across the Brooklyn/Manhattan river and wondering about what his uncle meant by "other gods". /end rant) about three times (four for Lost Hero, two for Son of Neptune).

Herpestidae
2011-11-26, 09:37 PM
Wat. Those...actualy exist?!:smalleek:

You have no idea (http://io9.com/5407713/the-30-most-disturbing-twilight-products/gallery/1).

Link to Glitter Lube proof (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1660069/robert-pattinson-twilight.jhtml)

Pokonic
2011-11-26, 09:52 PM
My...oh...my...


This proves it. Ponies officaly make more sence than this fandom. I think i died a little inside with every click.

bluewind95
2011-11-26, 11:15 PM
I... I'm speechless. :smalleek:

.... I think I'm going to have nightmares due to some of those...

Zale
2011-11-27, 05:22 AM
Is this in reference to me? I'm confused.

Heh. Though personally, the reason I liked the video was the fact it spoofed haters by pointing out that they seem to get into the books just as much, if not more, than the actual fans.

That's what I meant. :smallbiggrin:


And.. that.. why would you want those things?

And those things actually SOLD?

Tyndmyr
2011-11-28, 07:25 AM
just write the review smashed :smallamused:


Now how to make it good? Don't make it a movie. Or if you must, actually run it from Bella's prespective with her narrating the film and her thoughts.

I wish...I totally was going to. But sadly, the drinking ended up being canceled..and I wasn't going to watch it sober!

I regretfully admit to reading all the books, but in my defense, I was very bored, and I'd read everything else in the house already. Everything people recommended as reading instead of Twilight? Read it all beforehand(and yes, you are all correct).

It was kinda like a train wreck. It's not actually enjoyable as such and you feel kind of bad for watching, but it's not like you're gonna stop.

Themrys
2011-11-28, 08:04 AM
I don't like Twilight and don't think it could be made into a really good movie...but it could be made much better by:

-removing Edward's uninvited visits to Bella's room and his other nasty character traits. (For example, instead of him forcing her to go to the ball, she could actually want to go. Wouldn't change anything.)

-removing the "Imprinting" thing of the werewolves and changing the plot so it isn't needed for Renesmees survival. (Jacob should not fall in love with a baby at any point in the story. It's creepy.)

-making Bella a friendless outcast at school, so more people can identify with the wish-fulfillment element of the series. (Also, her friends and the boys who are interested in her don't serve any purpose besides showing what a special snowflake she is, anyway. She has Jacob, that's enough. Also, that would explain why he is so important to her despite the fact she doesn't love him)

-shortening the parts where nothing happens. I don't want to see Kristen Stewarts face for minutes and minutes. It is NOT interesting.
Same goes for the face of Robert Pattinson.

-Carlisle is allegedly a good person. Therefore, he should not approve of other vampires "hunting" humans, neither in Forks nor anywhere else. No, not even if they offer to protect the creepy baby.
Also, what would it hurt to mention that he gives to charity, treats homeless people for free, and so on and so forth? The time could easily be spared if less close shots of Eddy and Bella were shown.

-Bella could sympathise a bit with Edward regarding her injuries after they had sex...instead of just trying to seduce him against his will. Allegedly, she loves him - why doesn't she seem to care how he feels after he hurt her?

-Edward, on the other hand, should respect Bella's intellect and opinons more, and therefore, if she tells him that her injuries aren't that bad, just believe her instead of whining all the time.
(Actually, I do think that Bella is a stupid child who can't take care of herself, but a boyfriend shouldn't think like that.)
Also, he should respect her wish to become a vampire and her wish to die in childbed instead of patronising her the whole time. Since his unsympathetic character traits are rarely mentioned, let alone exposed, he should be as perfect as Bella thinks he is.

Alternatively, of course, their unsympathetic traits could be discussed more. But since Smeyer clearly intended them both to be perfect...

-The creepy baby (Renesmee) is a problem of it's own and should be solved. I don't know exactly how this could be done, but it should be done.

Maybe she could be removed from the movie, which could insted end with the wedding of Leah and Jacob...of course after Sam left Leah out of his own free will - the imprinting thing is crap, but the emotional stress Leah gets from hearing what everyone thinks about her, "the bitter ex", is interesting.


-Magic should exist. There is no other way to explain vampires and shapechangers, and, even more important, the "scientific" explanation for Bella's pregnancy is crap...unless Edward is so cold his sperm was frozen all the time.
(The explanation why female werewolves are infertile is even more crappy...but that could be changed easily without changing the plot.)

Herpestidae
2011-11-28, 08:14 AM
It was kinda like a train wreck. It's not actually enjoyable as such and you feel kind of bad for watching, but it's not like you're gonna stop.

Are we talking about Breaking Dawn here? Because that one was the best of the movies by fer, because every time something stupid happened, Jacom bade this face, this beautiful, beautiful face that perfectly encapsulated what every guy forced into watching the movie was thinking.