Twilight - Love it, or Hate it?

[RabbitHoleLost]

You do realize the risk if she starts picking up John Ringo books at random after liking those, right? If dark concepts are liable to make her swear off reading, the wrong Ringo book might knock her all the way into aphasia.

Considering her preferences and reading level, I don't find this to be a risk we'll run into for quite some time.

[mangosta71]

Well, yeah, eventually.
But I don't really want my extremely immature fourteen year old sister reading it now, kthnx.
She wouldn't enjoy it, and, if she could force herself to read it, I think it would scar her for life.
However, since I'm a "nerd" and had already been exposed to such things at her age, it was a fine read by me, if a little long and dry (Anne Rice can be accused of such things, really...).

The problem here is that my sister is intelligent (beyond most of her grade level, anyways), and yet she enjoys stupid things. She's not nerdy, she wouldn't enjoy Pratchett or Gaiman, and so even getting her to read Twilight was a victory for me.

Carpe Jugulum? I think that's what it's called - vampires on Discworld. Gogo!

[Nameless]

Carpe Jugulum? I think that's what it's called - vampires on Discworld. Gogo!

Hogfather beating the cripe out of Edward.

[DamnedIrishman]

Carpe Jugulum? I think that's what it's called - vampires on Discworld. Gogo!

Which provides a nice satire of Our Vampires Are Different, and thus is extra-relevant to the discussion.

[chiasaur11]

Dang right.

Anyone who doesn't at least try Pratchett is missing out.

Man is a heck of a student of human nature.

[bluewind95]

You wouldn't be the first. It's been culturally acceptable in many parts of the world for hundreds of years. Including Europe.
If I do say 'there aren't teenagers'? Being a teenager is arguablly a cultural phenomenon.

No, no, it isn't. There's actual biology behind that. You see, the neurons in the brain develop a myelin sheath as we mature, which insulates them and makes them much more efficient. This and they gain connections by use which let the brain perform more complex actions. That's (very basically) what causes maturity, and, therefore, mental adulthood. That's not cultural at all.

Now, you mention that for hundreds of years, teenagers have been acceptable for things like marriage in many parts of the world. That may be true, but you might want to consider that there have been studies that suggest that the myelin sheath in neurons is developing later in people nowadays than in previous generations. This leads to the estimate that people generations ago matured faster than people in general nowadays. This may account for the fact that teenagers were accepted for things like marriage before, but that it is becoming less acceptable now as people realize that teenagers are not mature enough for it.

Additionally, you treat maturity as a discrete (and binary) variable. It's either there or not. Thing is, that is not correct. Maturity is a continuous variable. The difference between a child brain and an adult brain is very large and the things that bridge that gap and make a child brain adult don't just pop into existence one day. They develop over time, much like growth. And like any good continuous variable, there comes a point in which you're more or less in between two values. That would be a teenager.

What is cultural about teenagers is basically, the expectations of what they like and dislike. But their maturity? That would be biological, hardly cultural.

Anyways. About Twilight. I am, personally, fascinated by it. Yes, I think it's terrible. I have only skimmed through a few pages at a store (and snickered over how it's written), but I watched the movie and I've read the comments here about the whole thing (might be biased because of that!). I think some of the ideas could have been so much better handled. The tracker vampire, for example? Most anticlimatic thing EVER. And it could have been good, if only some time had been dedicated to that. The gifts the vampires have? I like how some of them were done. Like Alice's gift of seeing the future. It's not terribly useful all the time since the future can change. But I like that mentality of the future not being set in stone. I think that's a nice way to handle the prophetic visions. I hear the poor character was tossed into the story as a plot device, though. That's quite a shame, really. It's another idea that could have been better handled. I heard about the baby, too and.... gods.... that is disturbing. Same with the sex thing. I definitely think that the nice ideas she could have had... are simply handled very poorly. And what she does go into proper detail about.... uh.... Edward's physique... sparkles.... dazzles..... uhh... yeah. I know there's people who enjoy that kind of thing.... I'm not one of them. I'm also highly disturbed at how she made Jacob basically a pedophile. I know she believes in predestination of soulmates... but isn't part of the whole charm to slowly discover it rather than creepily set it in stone like that?

So yeah. I don't really like the story. Then why do I find it fascinating? It's the appeal that story has. I mean.... seriously... how CAN such a poorly-written story have such an astounding appeal? I've thought about it, and I've come to the conclusion that it's basically a kind of... global mary-sue phenomenon. Before I go on, I'd like to veer a bit into the whole phenomenon of "getting into the character". The human brain is an astounding biological machine. It does things no current computer could even hope to emulate (though it's out-performed in others). And one of these things is the whole social connection. And there's a whole brain system dedicated to this. Part of this system is what they call the mirror neurons... and these are the ones responsible for one almost feeling pain if they watch a person, say, bump their head into something really hard. They're what enable empathy. And I think that they're also the reason why we can relate to things like characters. We let ourselves see the characters and these neurons (apparently they can't quite tell these characters aren't real) do the job of connecting us to the characters and story. Now, generally, this identification with the characters happens when the character is real enough that we can actually connect to the character instead of other parts of our brain going ".... Is this a cardboard cutting?" and our empathy systems finding nothing to connect us to. It may be akin to the fact that while we can connect to some animals (like dogs and dolphins who display human-like emotions), we cannot so easily connect to other animals (a roach, which displays reactions, but not really any emotions). Characters that we call one-dimensional are much like the roach or other bug in that they don't display enough emotion to make our brain identify it as human-like and create a connection. It's why we generally tend to dislike those characters, or we just like that one aspect they represent, but nothing more. And with characters that we call "three-dimensional", we more readily like them or at least have some sort of emotional connection to them, much like we would a dog or cat or other such emotion-displaying animal.

Now, what is it about Twilight that draws so many people? It's strange, for it seems to contradict the whole "1-D is hard to connect to" thing. Taking a look at Bella.... she's a girl with nothing much that defines her save her relationship with Edward. Quite.... bland and one-dimensional. So why does she draw people into the story? Apparently, there's also two facets of her: one is what she sees, which is.... I dunno, I guess some sort of deformed, clumsy monster, since from what I know, she doesn't like herself and thinks no one will like her and so on. Okay, up to here, one can begin to understand her appeal. People with self-esteem issues will find enough to connect them to the character just there. I'll get back to that particular trait in a bit. The second facet Bella has is what others see of her in the story. It's a strange opposite of what she sees. People see her as perfect... completely perfect. They all like her, take her advice, listen to her, and want to be with her. I think this facet is perhaps what attracts yet another group of people: those who have, even for a moment, wished that people would like them more. Bella here is their wish-fulfillment. And I think there's yet another group which may be drawn to Bella. I am given to understand that, prior to moving to... the place where the story takes place (...Forks..?), Bella was bullied and mistreated. And after moving... people liked her. I think that people who would wish for a new start like that would also tend to be drawn to Bella's character in an escapist kind of dream. So... it's quite a fascinating thing... that a one-dimensional character would be made of just a dimension that would have the potential to draw SO many people. Very fascinating and certainly not a very common thing. It's one reason why other bad writing goes completely unnoticed by the general public... the one-dimensional characters don't draw in as many people.

On Edward... I don't think that people are so much drawn to him as... well.... fascinated by him just because he's seen through Bella's eyes. I do think that if he were presented by a third-person narrator with omni-presence (that is... not going by the point of view of any character), Edward would not hold even half the appeal that he does. He is not defined by anything except by "dazzling" and his relationship with Bella. He's alien enough that it's harder to identify with him. He lives forever, drinks blood... and generally isn't very human. But we see him through Bella's eyes and he is perfect to her and if you have identified yourself with Bella, chances are you'll see him as perfect too.

One other thing that seems almost contradictory is the fact that the characters would have so much appeal and yet be labeled as Mary Sues/ Marty Stus. Common sense indicates these characters are to be generally despised, no? And yet, these characters are generally loved despite the accusations. Does this mean the accusations are wrong? No, not really. A Mary Sue tends to be colloquially known as an "author insert", but it really is a bit more complex than that. It's not an author insert that makes a Mary Sue, but rather the purpose of the insert... and not just of the author, but of any character. Who, in their childhood, did not create stories about them befriending their favourite super-hero or such character? The purpose here wasn't so much the actual insertion of the author, but rather the fulfillment of a fantasy. The author need not insert themselves into a story... it suffices to insert a character that may not even be at all based on the author so long as the purpose is the fulfillment of a personal fantasy. The reason a Mary Sue character tends to be widely disliked is that my fantasy does not equal your fantasy. And if you're going to read a story about my fantasy, you're going to be irritated at wasting your time with MY fantasy when you want to fulfill yours... or at least read a decent story. What is ideal for me, may not be ideal for you and, almost by definition of being wish-fulfillment, Mary Sue is created to be ideal (albeit... ideal in the author's head). So you won't find Sue ideal and you won't like her. And it's going to be annoying to see all the characters seeing her as ideal (you'll be saying "But she isn't!" all the while) and the whole story bowing down to its Empress. A Mary Sue, also, tends to be very one-dimensional since her dimension is basically the wish-fulfillment. She's not a person. She's a wish come true and that's all there is to her. If your wish happens to be the same as mine, you'll love her as much as I will. If your dream is different... you'll hate her. Given how particular most of these fantasies are... it's no wonder Mary Sue is so universally disliked.

But here... we have a bit of a difference. Stephenie made one HUGE correct move in her story. She took the fantasy of millions and millions of girls (and boys) and wrote it into a full-blown wish-fulfillment feast. And here is where so many people get alarms ringing and where it can get a bit dangerous... Bella is created in such a way that many, many readers who get into the books will insert themselves into Bella's character. It's not hard... she has just enough substance to create empathy, but not enough to stand out in the mind as a separate person. And the book is written in first person. Think of a time when you were faced with a challenging task. Did you not, at some point, in some such task, whisper or think to yourself "I can do this. I really can do this!". Notice the use of the first person there. When we read, we pretty much repeat the words to ourselves. Now, if you're already allowing yourself to BE the character.... reading time and time again "And I enjoyed the rough sex. It was perfect" and "And he was perfect for me." and "His stalking me was very romantic for me".... well, you might see where the worry lies. As it has been mentioned, a mentally healthy person will be able to separate it all... but a person who isn't is very likely to actually be affected by it and really, truly believe such things are okay. Especially if the person has a low self-esteem (and that is one of the groups Bella is so "perfect" for). A person with low self-esteem is very easily swayed. And if they get into this fantasy and a similar real-life version presents itself to them... it's really easy to see how they would be drawn to it and how it would be harmful for them. I therefore think that the concerns this particular series creates that way is pretty valid. I do not think, though, that it calls for people to insult others based on their liking of the book. But to worry that it may be hurting people out there? Yes. Definitely. Low self-esteem makes people vulnerable and this book is written in a way that definitely will draw those kinds of people to it. Instead of banning it, though... the only real thing that could possibly be done is, well, counsel these people.

And... that's why I find Twilight to be so fascinating... but at the same time... I find it very frightening.

[DamnedIrishman]

*snippety doodah, snippety day*

And... that's why I find Twilight to be so fascinating... but at the same time... I find it very frightening.

Indeed. There are some hideous monsters in the human id which never should be unleashed upon the world.

[Hadrian_Emrys]

In regards to the movie:
1. It was a fair amount better than the book. That, alone, is a warning sign. Movies should NEVER overshadow the base material.
2. I'm looking forward to watching the next film because the special effects budget is now marked with an 8 dropped on it's side. The effect of the Jacob character transforming ALMOST makes up for Kristen Stewart's lack of talent.

[Nameless]

The Vampires Glitter... They don't even glow... THEY FRACKING SPARKLE!
Why on earth would you get a romantic, dark and blood-thirsty creature of the night and make it SPARKLE?!?!?!

[bluewind95]

The Vampires Glitter... They don't even glow... THEY FRACKING SPARKLE!
Why on earth would you get a romantic, dark and blood-thirsty creature of the night and make it SPARKLE?!?!?!

Because it's your intimate fantasy? Like I said, the whole series is nothing but that.

[Collin152]

Hogwash, if we did that we'd be no better than the japanese! That is assuming we're still discussing non-japanese countries.

Oi! Oi! Oi! Nihon wa ichiban subarashii kuni da ze! America yori Nihon ha seijin****a Tiineeja ga motto takusan iru da yo!*

With regards to the next movie, a better budget for special effects will cut the Narm factor by about 12%, but I'm concerned about the narmtastic lines that will most definitely be present.

*Hey! hey! Hey! Japan is the most wonderful country! Compared to America, Japan has many more mature teenagers, you know!

[Nameless]

Because it's your intimate fantasy? Like I said, the whole series is nothing but that.

She… She ruined Vampires for ever! Whenever I say “Vampire novel” to someone they say “Twilight”
She also ruined one of my favourite words by giving the book that name!

[PhoeKun]

Considering her preferences and reading level, I don't find this to be a risk we'll run into for quite some time.

I've never really understood the concept of a "reading level", at least beyond the point where they're still teaching basic spelling and grammar. Not to say there aren't maturity levels, and screening books based on violent or sexual content is at least as wise as screening movies for the same things. The writing itself, though? I dunno, I just don't think people are too stupid to adapt to higher diction or more complex narratives. If there is such a thing as a reading level, it can only do good to encourage people to raise it by picking up more intricately arranged narratives.

...I'm developing a bad habit of running into this thread and quoting Rabbit, aren't I? It's like I'm following her or something. <.<

Ok then, new topic! I want to touch on the idea of gateway and escapist literature for a second, before the thread runs screaming away back to Meyer/Cullen/Whatever bashing. You keep fighting the good fight, kiddies.

Anyway. "If it gets people to read, it must be doing some good". If I hear someone say this, I generally have to nod my head in agreement. With all the other forms of media out there, reading books as a means of entertainment isn't exactly a given anymore. But reading stimulates your brain in ways TV and movies don't, so reading is good. Reading better books is even better. But does reading Twilight really encourage young people who hadn't touched a book before to start seeking out other books and devour them the same way? Does Eragon? Does Harry Potter? I've thought about it, looked around and come to a conclusion: no.

There are two problems here. The first one is academic. In schools, books are thrust quite insistently into children's hands. They are told to read x number of pages by next class. There will be a test. In short, it's made into work. Busywork, at that. And a funny thing about people is that, normally, they don't like work. So what are we doing in school? We're teaching kids to hate books.

Case in point: Wuthering Heights. Nearly everyone has read it. Most people hate it. The ones I've met who don't? Read it outside the context of high school. The very environment stifles the book. You can't help but hate it in school, its so inextricably linked to all those stupid book reports. Did you ever wonder how much better a book would go over with a group of kids if all they had to do the day after reading a chapter was sit around with their classmates and talk to each other about what they read, what they liked and didn't like? Even if they all universally hated it, getting them to talk about what they hated and why helps build comprehension and analytical skills, with the added bonus that now they get to have a bit of entertainment making fun of something they hated. I think they just might be a little more receptive to the idea that they could like a book, then.

Brief tangent: when I was 9 years old, I read Grapes of Wrath as part of my school's "Accelerated Reader" program. It wasn't that the school made me read it - I technically could have chosen Fox in Sox had I been so inclined. Actually, teachers were lining up to discourage me from taking the dense, symbolist tome home with me. The head of the program, especially, insisted I pick something "easier". I would fail the test, she told me. I ignored her, earned her undying hatred for the rest of my years there, read it over the course of a weekend, and then came back and aced the test. I enjoyed the book, too. I bring this up because I don't believe I'm some sort of prodigy. People can be much smarter than you'd be inclined to give them credit for; always encourage them to challenge themselves while reading.

Where was I? Oh yeah, kids hate books. It's part of school culture. Some like reading in spite of it, but they tend to be crucified by their peers for it. And this has bred a tendency I've noticed in some of the younger people I've talked to - when they latch onto a Twilight or an Eragon, they become convinced that the book is an exception to that insipid little thing called literature. They also get mad at me for using a confusing word like insipid, which is another problem altogether. I can't convince a Paolini fan to pick up Tolkien, because they've heard the rumblings (gaining popularity by the day, by the way) that it's boring. By the way? It isn't. The Lord of the Rings is written in a bit of an archaic style, yes. It might take some getting used to. But if you think Tolkien can't tell a story, then my advice to you is to try reading it again, and pay a little more attention to Sam. You might be surprised.

Gah, tangents! Away, foul creatures, away! <.< *ahem* My point being, so called "gateway literature"... isn't. Not on its own, at least. And the problem with this is that there's another belief steadily gaining momentum in the hearts and minds of young people (and some not-so-young people, as well): Stephanie Meyer(s?) and her ilk are better writers than anyone who came before. The Bronte sisters? Snobs. Steinbeck? Booooring. Anthony Trollope? Just who the hell is he, anyway? Oh yeah, and Shakespeare was, like, totally overrated. Rage Against the Literary Canon.

If you don't think its a problem, realize we're pushing towards an era when even the likes of Pratchett and Gaiman will be spit on in favor of the next Twilight. Or maybe season 56 of Lost. The more I've learned about English and writing, the more I'm looked down upon (in general, not on this site) for it. My sister won't touch a book except to burn it, and anymore has trouble even following along with Family Guy. She's not stupid by any stretch of the imagination, but her willingness to look below the surface of... well... anything, and her ability to keep her grip on a narrative is slipping. Before I moved away and we went to see a movie together, she had to tap me on the shoulder close to a dozen times to ask for help keeping up to speed. The movie we were watching was Iron Man. If she is in any way indicative of the wave of the future, you will never convince me the lack of interest in reading is not a major issue.

Wrapping up: if Twilight gets people reading, I am all for them reading it. But it's not enough, and we shouldn't really be praising the book just for that. If you have an interest in literature, then you and I and everyone need to do what we can to change the culture of books. We need to help people realize that it is both ok and fun to read, and that they're missing out. A world where you can pick up a conversation about Dostoevsky while waiting for the bus is a world worth fighting for, I say.

*exhale* 'Kay then. You can all go back to not caring about me again.

[DamnedIrishman]

Because it's your intimate fantasy? Like I said, the whole series is nothing but that.

Or is it because Mormons believe that good people are white?

[mangosta71]

She… She ruined Vampires for ever! Whenever I say “Vampire novel” to someone they say “Twilight”
She also ruined one of my favourite words by giving the book that name!

On the plus side, it gives all new meaning to the title "Twilight Vanquisher" in WoW.

[Nameless]

On the plus side, it gives all new meaning to the title "Twilight Vanquisher" in WoW.

Good point.

[bluewind95]

Or is it because Mormons believe that good people are white?

But he was talking about the sparkles.

I'm white and I don't sparkle! I'm told I almost glow in the dark, but I don't sparkle.

[Coidzor]

So that's why I never noticed any real change in my peers despite all of the hype about Harry Potter getting kids reading and all of the petticoat-hangers-on trying to capitalize on HP's fame.

...And that might also explain why my mom constantly nags my dad about what's going on in a movie when they've both been watching it from the beginning. x.x

[DamnedIrishman]

But he was talking about the sparkles.

I'm white and I don't sparkle! I'm told I almost glow in the dark, but I don't sparkle.

When I say that, I don't mean caucasian. I mean literally shiny, sparkly white. Everyone in heaven is shiny sparkly white perfection. Description of the angel Moroni who appeared before Joseph Smith:

"He had on a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness. It was a whiteness beyond anything earthly I had ever seen.… His hands were naked and his arms also a little above the wrists.… Not only was his robe exceedingly white but his whole person was glorious beyond description" (Smith 1838). According to Smith's sister Katharine, the angel "was dressed in white raiment, of whiteness beyond anything Joseph had ever seen in his life, and had a girdle about his waist. He saw his hands and wrists, and they were pure and white. (Salisbury 1895, p. 11).

(from wikipedia)


On the topic: Twilight teaches Mormonism?

[bluewind95]

When I say that, I don't mean caucasian. I mean literally shiny, sparkly white. Everyone in heavy is shiny sparkly white perfection.

On the topic: Twilight teaches Mormonism?

I see. Well, then, it's her intimate fantasy of being with Mr. Perfect-Mormon!

I don't personally find it appealing, but hey.

[Dienekes]

On the topic: Twilight teaches Mormonism?

Oh dear an author that lets their background influence their writing! Say it isn't so!

to the original topic. I would probably be placed in the hate pile for Twilight. I hate what has happened to vampires, I grow bored when reading romances, I noticed the prose is pretty average if not below. But I've never felt compelled to go out and rant about how bad it is like some people do. I've read my fair share of trash (ahh comics, how much I enjoy thee) so why would I begrudge others theirs? The one thing I've heard is that they dislike the popularity of the series. But still hasn't bothered me. Good for Meyer, enjoy the wealth ya got. You appear to make a lot of folk happy (and more than a few annoyed), so live it up.

[Draxonicar]

Pedophile Stalkers Beneficial Werewolves who are out to help..

[Lord_Gareth]

@PhoeKun - Oh, it's not that I think Tolkein can't tell a story. He told a great story. It's that I would have greatly preferred to read the damn story and not, say, waste my time finding out that they did absolutely nothing in Brill for several months. LotR's biggest issue is that it's full of egocentric crap that he put in just to show off the pretty little world he made, and no one ever edited that crap out because, at the day and age Tolkein wrote in, having one's degree in literature placed one well above editing.

[mangosta71]

Wait a sec - we have someone saying we should live and let live? THE HERETIC MUST BE PURGED! >.>

Anyhoo, I should admit that I have not read any of the books, nor seen the movie. Based on the comments of sources I trust to be in line with my tastes, I cannot imagine anything that would give me the desire to experience it except by the snide remarks of those poor fools that have been suckered into it.

[H. Zee]

The first one is academic. In schools, books are thrust quite insistently into children's hands. They are told to read x number of pages by next class. There will be a test. In short, it's made into work. Busywork, at that. And a funny thing about people is that, normally, they don't like work. So what are we doing in school? We're teaching kids to hate books.

A solution presents itself. Make Twilight compulsory reading in schools, and force kids to write long, dry essays on it.

Soon they'll be begging for some Wuthering Heights.

[Collin152]

When I say that, I don't mean caucasian. I mean literally shiny, sparkly white. Everyone in heaven is shiny sparkly white perfection.

Having grown up with the stuff, both sides of the white coin are unfortunately accurate, but that's a little religiousy for these forums, isn't it?
I'd love to discuss it offsite, though. If anyone is so inclined.


I've decided to give the best musical number in my... musical... (redundant word choice) to James. He got almost no characterization, and was a generally boring part of the "plot", and that'll just make it rub all the more.

And Edward's first song will carry all the creepy stalkerisms we know him for. Kyahahaha!

[Cracklord]

I hate Twilight so much I can't even go into bookstores anymore.
I mean, christ, it's like she's had a bad, overused idea, used her own medicore tallent to put it in something resembling a book, and yet it's been sucsessful.
I dream at night of burning her on a great pile of her books. My one regret is it will allow her to enter the atmosphere.

[Starscream]

= Kiefer Sutherland kicking the crap out of Cullen for 24 hours.

Heck, the two Coreys could do it.

Terry Pratchett, on the other hand, just gets better as he writes more. The way that experience is supposed to work.

Yes. The guy is a genius. He deserves his knighthood.

I'd also highly reccomend anything by Neil Gaiman

This is what teenagers who want to seem deep should be reading.

[chiasaur11]

A solution presents itself. Make Twilight compulsory reading in schools, and force kids to write long, dry essays on it.

Soon they'll be begging for some Wuthering Heights.

Happily, the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the US constitution and the Geneva convention prevent this.

Sadly, they do not also permit the burning of all Twilight related materials.

Such is life.

[Agrippa]

Interestingly enough I met a 15 or 16 year-old girl who read the Twilight novels. When I found this out I told her about the time Ebednezzer McCoy dropped a Soviet spy satilite right on top of the Red Court's warlord Duke Ortega. She said she'd like to see that happen to Edward. I then told her about the Red, Black and White Courts of the Dresden Files and Discworld's Magpyr family, in detail. Apparently she feels cheated by Stephanie Meyers sparkly vampires and want's something more frightening and monsterous. She was a bit spoiled for Twilight by Salems Lot. As you can tell she prefers Stephen King.