Books with….
Graph by: bsewcicma via Graph Jam Builder
Make your own using our Graph Builder or upload your own files, images or videos. All our charts are user-submitted.
« Previous Time Spent at Six Flags | Why men wear sunglasses Next »
Make your own using our Graph Builder or upload your own files, images or videos. All our charts are user-submitted.
« Previous Time Spent at Six Flags | Why men wear sunglasses Next »
First.
Ate it. I’ve had better.
The center section should be “Terry Pratchett books.”
One: Imagine it is bigger. Two: Because it would be longer than yours? Three: it’s Discworld, and awesome.
no it should be George Orwell
Yeah… in response to both of you: I’m pretty sure there’s more than one author who has written good literature.
Yeah
Next up…..
A jonas bros “meme”
Perhaps we can combine the two and go with the fact that if the vampires sparkle from lameness, perhaps the jonas bros should sparkle too???
Wait. . . Just throw some glitter on the Jonas Brothers. I doubt they’d mind.
it would go nicely with their guyliner.
AHAHA. You’re so right!
Wow, really? Someone decided to make a graph about how little they like the Twilight series? How insightful and original.
what kills me is all anyone complains about is how they sparkle. The main character is a flat, static Mary Sue. The main character is more infatuated with her boyfriend than in “love.” It’s unoriginal.
there are worse problems with that book than the quality of writing, honey.
Really? Is that possible?
Worse problems in a /book/ than bad writing? Short of plagiarism, I don’t think that /is/ possible…
So, number-person, enlighten me, what in a book is more important than the writing?
He/she means the QUALITY of writing isn’t good. There are other things that determine what makes a good book, like good storyline, originality, etc.
actually, I’m all for including the plot/characters/etc. under the blanket term “quality of writing.”
plot and everything is the quality of the writing. And ZZzzZZ, you mentioned everything I did, but with less elaboration?
In any case, what is worse than the writing?
“uh, blatantly regressive social implications for the young, impressionable female audience? seems like a pretty startling problem with the book that has little to do with the quality of the writing.”
Isn’t that more related to the reception than the book itself? Stephanie Meyer didn’t write the book to make little girls subconsciously decide that women should be completely dependent on their significant other. She wrote it for complete fulfillment. Now I don’t know what’s so fantastic about an overprotective, blood drinking, stalker of a boyfriend, but she didn’t have some evil plan in mind when she decided to pollute the bookshelves and send it to a publisher.
and you don’t find that problematic…?
intentional or not, it’s still an issue with the book. you asked for an example, and I gave you one. I’m sure she didn’t mean for the “quality of writing” issues, either, but they’re still there.
i agry intentionly or not asbdf.smadfbl
I think the fact that she did it be “accident” is even worse than if she had an evil plan behind it. To think that those themes would just naturally come out in her writing is frightening to say the least. When someone knows not what they do, they can leave a lot of damage in their wake.
…and there’s no reason to bash him/her further for defining “quality of writing” differently than you did, since we’re all mostly agreeing here.
Alright here’s a few things that suck:
The Plot
Shallow, undeveloped characters
It’s merely a book that lonely women with no self-worth delve into in desperate attempt to find a man… a fictional man…. who’s a vampire!
And Who Sparkles! Because Sir Elton John Is taken!
i agree that book is.. *looks over shoulder* stu OH GOD THE SPARKLES
I agree. The relationship was also shallow. The Bella liked Edwards Adonis like qualities, Edward liked how Bella(or her blood?)smelled. It vaguely reminds me of the book, Hunter’s moon by C.T Adams and Cathy Clamp. Real good book right there.
when a book spawns a movie that is more queer than broke back mountain, yeah it has problems.
ps. I’m not a homophobe, and I didn’t say that. I’m actually quoting what my friend said during double dinner date with His boyfriend and my girlfriend!
uh, blatantly regressive social implications for the young, impressionable female audience? seems like a pretty startling problem with the book that has little to do with the quality of the writing.
Yes.
It’s a very easy concept to ridicule, though — It is a representation of how ridiculous the book is. It’s not a book that was written to be good, it was a book written to capitalize on the teenage girl’s fantasy man.
Right. I find that this sort of portrayal of “vampires” is a pretty shallow representation of the well-established, and already problematic “bad boy” aesthetic.
Well, that’s a pretty concise summing up, Andrea. Thanks *g*
I suppose we have to keep in mind that these books were written for teenage girls, and teenage girls do tend to be rather obsessed in the boy department. I might be wrong, I know I want to thwap people who say Potter is for kiddies, and I also know Twilight has a lot of adult fans who also adore Potter. Perhaps I should read a Twilight book to figure it out.
No. These books were written for the self-satisfaction of someone who is mentally still a teenager, not for ACTUAL teenagers. That’s just an aside.
Actually, it was specifically written for conservative Mormon* teenage girls.
The series is full of classic LDS themes and overtones (the “setting feminism back 40 years” being a big one).
Also, there are some really gruesome bits that hint at the author’s issues about sex and childbirth…
*(Apologies to any Mormons here. I don’t mean all of you, just the ultra-religious fangirl types.)
I was never that teenage girl.
Thank you
Agreed. I’m a guy and I read the first three, I’ve NEVER stopped mid-series on books before. But these…
It made me nauseous reading them. And I read them BEFORE I met the fangirls.
So you read all four books. And didn’t like them. Couldn’t you have stopped after the first one?
I don’t know, who says it was for pleasure? Say you’re a women’s studies major who wants to do a project on anti-feminist themes in the modern media. Then you’d want to read the entire series as research, but that probably means you aren’t going to enjoy reading them.
how is a guy dating a 17 year old girl a pedophile when teenagers nowadays have their first sexual experiences at around 13-14 on average?
furthermore: how is a romantic story designed for women and read mostly by women a threat to feminism?
oh and as for breakfast and stuff: it is called retarding (not retarded) elements and they are an essential tool of literature since before shakespeare.
the sparkling is idiotic, though.
Because the moral of the story seems to be, “When life gets hard, run away with your much older boyfriend, who does not have much going for him besides stalking 17-year-olds.” How is that an appropriate lesson for teenaged girls, and how is it remotely romantic?
The age part is strongly arguable as the sparkle guy is supposed to be 17 (for a while) and I do not see how his emotional age is much higher than that.
And how is light fiction supposed to be ANY lesson for ANYBODY?
oh and as for romanticism. go look the word up on wikipedia, especially the romantic epoch in literature and see how many romantic motives are there in the book (a lot).
I’ll give you 1/2 stalking point since I do not know whether the definition of stalking does or does not inclute the stalked person being freaked out about it.
Anytime you read anything, there’s an implied moral lesson.
So, for example, a large portion of romance novels portray a couple where the man is angry and abusive, and the woman does everything in her power to cater to that anger and abuse. It’s light reading, sure. But does it okay? The author is choosing to portray that type of couple, with the ending lesson being that these two characters are “soulmates” and therefore belong together.
Does that mean you shouldn’t read romance novels? No, but you shouldn’t pretend that it’s okay for them to glorify that sort of relationship.
As for the “emotional age” business, I’ve heard plenty of 70-year-olds admit that they still feel about 16. Does that mean they should try to date teenagers?
you act as if the “implied moral lesson” is some kind of venom that is injected into your system and you cannot fight it. imho humans usually tend to be reasonable human beings and reflect on the input they get from their invironment. Any person who derives their moral values directly from a book with sparkling vampires without reiterating them deserves no better.
as for 70yolds: if the relationship works out, why hinder it? especially when the older part is immortal -.-
I’m not arguing that we have the power to reject those lessons. Obviously we do. But they shouldn’t exist the way they do, period.
It’s ignorant to claim that because a woman wrote it, it’s automatically better for women to read than if a man wrote it. It’s still teaching a bad lesson, and if girls are celebrating that lesson, clearly they’re not choosing to fight it, are they?
You make way too much sense here.
why fight? why not just “understand that the book is still a work of fiction and different from the real world”? I’d even argue that most young girls will automatically start comparing the vampire boy to their male environment and fairly soon come to the conclusion that he can never ever be real and thus, they will distance themselves from the book as a source of moral attitudes.
Also, I never did claim anything like what you are imputing to me. the author’s gender sometimes has an impact on the gender of the average reader but that is as irrelevant as unnecessary.
although it’s a very slippery slope, I’d like to push the following analogy: violent computer games are being played by millions of young boys across the world. still, except for a very few mindsick exceptions (who always turn out to be affected by other unfortunate circumstances oftheir lives), the games do not make them mindless killers.
Oh, my mistake. You said, “how is a romantic story designed for women and read mostly by women a threat to feminism?” and I took that statement at face value.
If you’re celebrating a story where there are one or two problematic elements in the middle of literary greatness, that’s one thing. If the sole merit of a story is something as problematic as this one, then I have trouble understanding why I’m supposed to tolerate the bad lesson. Just like I take issue with violence for the sake of violence in video games or movies, because at some point the violence does affect those boys’ behavior.
1. the face value of my statement was exactly what I wrote: “designed for women”, not “written by a woman”.
2. your entire environment constantly affects your behaviour and not always in a good way. do you want to lock every human up in a small black box without lightholes to avoid it?
and as for the “sole merit”: I read the four books and I enjoyed them. that is merit enough for me and I am quite sure that a lot of people feel the same.
So, you dislike violence for the sake of violence? What about violence for the sake of stopping people from destroying your town in an epic fireball? Is that kind of violence better? There are far more games with Mission-based or Goal-based violence then the ones with pointless destruction, but they’re harder.
The implication of the phrase “designed for women” in this context is that women should take pleasure in the sort of naivety present in the book. That’s like saying that something “designed for men” is full of tools and football, a joke they used to pull all the time on Home Improvement, and the punchline was that it’s an exaggerated parody of what men are “supposed” to be like.
I think it’s regressive to teach and expect preteen girls to celebrate this sort of thing as adult women. Not that they shouldn’t enjoy it, but that they shouldn’t celebrate it. It’s called a GUILTY pleasure for a reason – you know it’s bad for you, but you keep coming back to it anyway.
I see too many preteen girls upholding the Bella/Edward dynamic as the ultimate love story to believe that they can tell the difference. Like those teenaged boys who watch too much wrestling, and then try the moves on their baby sisters, these girls are going to try to be like Bella. Obviously they aren’t going to think that vampires are real, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t going to find a human equivalent to follow out of their little angsty lives.
It’s original – Most manuscripts written similarly are never actually published. It becomes unoriginal when all main characters in other literature are deep and the plot has substance, which is thankfully most good literature out there alongside Twilight.
We all know that, but we focus on the sparkly part because..well they ruined vampires for the next decade ._. and our generation will be remembered as the idiots who thought that was cool.
No one sparkles in Twilight, twit.
Me? *I’m* a twit? I never said they sparkled.
I think he meant me, however I didn’t say they sparkled either, I just said that people complain about them sparkling.
And actually, if you read that scene in the book, they aren’t described as sparkling. If I recall correctly.
They do sparkle in the book, actually. Passage from book 1:
“Edward in the sunlight was shocking. I couldn’t get used to it, thoug I’d been staring at him all afternoon. His skin, white despite the faint flush from yesterday’s hunting trip, literally sparkled, like thousands of tiny diamonds were embedded in the surface.”
Yes, I have the books, it’s a guilty chick pleasure. Though I can agree as a book it sucks, for some reason I still somehow like reading them. It boggles the mind. Though the books are still nowhere near as bad as the movie. lol
(link is to random parody)
Epic fail, iEatCrayons.
I think YOU are the twit. In Twilight, when the vamps go into sunlight, they sparkle. I frequently protest that if vampires existed, they would not sparkle!
I think that if vampires existed and they went into the sunlight, they would sparkle in exactly the same manner as a sparkler sparkles.
“Ooooh pretty! Oop, he went out. Get a fresh one!”
Win XD
rAmen
LOL! Cute. The thing is, though, that in Twilight they avoid sunlight because they sparkle and it will get noticed, not because it will destroy them.
Gee, how borinks.
True that.
I’ve never laughed so hard at a comment in my life. Mind if I draw out what you said?
Oh, man, I would love to see a picture of that!!!
Click on my name and it will take you to the site where it’s uploaded. I hope you like it!
HAHAHA, that’s amazing.
Actually? They don’t even *have* fangs.
…
Okay. So…they’re just immortal cannibals that don’t cannibalize people, then?
Cuz…fangless, sparkly creatures with no physical aversion to sunlight are just long lived glam rockers. David Bowie is the first Cullen, by this definition of vampires.
Actually, I think they better fit the fantasy genre’s definition of “Elves”- Long-lived, possibly immortal, pale and shine-tastic, refuse to eat their natural food source (usually meat), and are often physically and mentally “perfect”. I.E, pretentious jackasses.
your so right .. they dont like twilight so they are going to waste there time obsessing about how much they dont like the series … yet in the end they still obsessed over twilight
If you liked the series, and you KNEW what this graph was about… Hmmmm… Can’t quite finish this sentence. DIE TWILIGHT DIE
Doesn’t matter how unoriginal Twilight-hate may be, it’s still a hilarious graph.
amen
If you are going to make a chart bashing the Twilight series, you should at least make an attempt to offer books that fit into the intersections of the Venn diagram you made.
It is probably your opinion that the majority of books are better than Twilight, but if you don’t cite any better books, you are no better than the people who blindly support Twilight.
yes, there shoud definitely be an addition to the “sparkly vampires” circle… maybe something like “repressed magic using teenagers”…
Bad-tempered dwarfs? Short people with hairy feet?
hairy feet! Ow. That hurts. That hurts me badly. I am going back to Bag End now.
I dunno… I like it better this way. If the creator of the graph had added in books he (or she) preferred, it would have just turned into one big argument over which books everyone likes or hates, and it would completely miss the point.
Exactly! The graph is fine as it.
You’ve obviously missed the point, Blue. Things more your speed can be found in the Slow Learner section of the library.
That probably went over your head, too… retard.
LOL its a silly graph CALM DOWN lets not make this into some controversial diagram here. Its nice to write a very intelligent looking response but when you make yourself look like an ass while doing so, it kind of defeats the purpose don’t you think?
PS: If people want to be fanatics about a book or movie they should not have to worry about people like you teasing them. Ease off k? LOL
About the P.S. – Yes, they should have to worry about being teased. Fanatics of any kind worry me, especially about such a shallow-plotted book that ignores so much of recent feminism. So no, no one needs to ease off here about how damn annoying the fans are. Would you rather people who are annoyed by raving, mindless fans teased them in real life, if you want us to ease off on the internet?
*dons flameproof suit*
Just in case.
apparently this generation has a phobia of sparkles.
seriously, get over it already!
Seriously, Stephanie Meyer blatantly disrespected a well-followed sub-genre of fantasy, and for that she should be punished. Almost all vampire literature follows *most* of the “rules” for the vampire myth, wanting to eat humans, dying in the sun, etc., and she did an unoriginal story about vampire/human infatuation, but she took a word from a *completely* unrelated topic, and tried to change the entire NATURE of the species. The sparkles just made it worse. Vampires in general are a “dark and cool” thing for fantasy fans, not some bright, shiny sparkly sexual fantasy my perfect man is abusive crap.
Wow dude. Get over it. At least the author tried to do something different with her books, rather than conforming to the “rules” (of which I see none). I’m sure you would all be complaining that she plagiarized if she had held true to the commonly accepted “rules of the vampire myth.” Bottom line: vampires are entirely fictional creatures. No matter how they have appeared in other works of fiction, any author is free to interpret them as they like. She’s not disrespecting anything. See, that’s the amazing thing about works of FICTION: they have no limits, or rules!
Besides, I’m sure her books wouldn’t have been half as popular if they fit into the “well-followed sub-genre of fantasy.” I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but her general audience, mainly young females and the occasional female adult, are not the same demographic as the typical fantasy fans. If anything, she’s opened up the world of vampires to millions of teenagers who would never have read “traditional” vampire novels to begin with. Think of it as a gateway book. Unless you’re so elitist that you don’t *want* them reading *your* books and encroaching on *your* “dark and cool” vampire-lit scene.
Case in point: please step off your literary soapbox.
Dude, stop trying to be a mediator and just deal with the fact that some things just can’t be twisted into an unrecognizable parody of their former self.
And by “typical fantasy fans” of course you think of male geeks sitting in their parents’ basement playing D&D? There are many, many girls and women who enjoy reading fantasy and no, we don’t all walk around in medieval-style velvet selfmade dresses (no offense to those who do, I just prefer my jeans
) and/or wear very dark make-up.
Stereotype FAIL.
Um. Because vampire novels haven’t been intermixed with romance novels for the past century or anything. You are completely unaware of fantasy literature or the female demographic that it panders to.
Thank you, luna.
I remember back then.
I didn’t even check these comments for a few days, and I doubt I could’ve said it better.
Oh, and HI JAM!
You’re a regular on failblog
Jam, I understand how, yes, Stephanie Meyer has no obligation to follow the “rules” set about for vampires by earlier generations, but I feel that she’s lost the whole purpose of why vampires were created. With Dracula, he was the personification of lust; a hideous being that has to be invited into the host being’s one home and sanctuary and then hold’s the host under his spell so they have no control over their actions. That he drinks blood adds to his vulgarity, and a bit to his appeal, seeing as some see drinking blood as a sensual experience. But now Mrs. Meyer is trying to redirect the entire genre, trying to change their personification from “lust” to “love” (which I consider a merely over-hyped infatuation) and trying to make them considered the knights in shining armor. And yes, I understand she is just trying to appeal to the readers she’s attracting, but she could have done that with a more suited fictional species. Perhaps Elves.
Case in point (you didn’t even use that phrase correctly so why should I?): A genre is a genre because it deals with aspects that can be grouped together. I am ashamed that by one word, vampire, this novel is grouped with all the other hideous, despicable, creepy-crawly vampire books that have worked hard to make sure they aren’t appealing to crazy female fan hoards.
YES! they are elves! clearly elves! I say that elsewhere on this thread, too
More like knights in sparkly armour.
x3
I don’t think she should be punished for writing the book – it was written, after all, as mindless entertainment for a friend in the hospital, right?
Punish the publishers that decided a) it was appropriate for publication, and b) they should market it at teenagers. Why has bad writing become synonymous with YA (or children’s) lit? Let’s give them something intelligent to chew on.
Jesus, what a concept! But we have a long social tradition of confining decent literature and rational inquiry to the classroom, and promoting dumbed down romps in absurdly non-reflective fantasy for our children and ordinary folk. Why mess with something tried and true, which is leading us inextricably towards Idiocracy?
ZING!
Instead of ’sparkly vampires’ we would have also accepted, ‘female vampire hunters who longer hunt vampires.’
If that’s supposed to be a rip on Buffy, then that’s uber lame (besides the fact that it isn’t a book). Also… what do you mean “longer hunt vampires?” That makes no sense.
I think Mo might have meant Anita Blake and probably intended that sentence to read “female vampire hunters who no longer hunt vampires”.
And there are in fact books of Buffy and Angel.
i tink Sparkly vampires might also fall unner teh cat-gory o’ Insightful Themes. Teh insightful theme of coruse beeing dat u shudent put sparkly vampires into books or dat books wif sparkly vampires shuld be cat vampires wif glitter stuck in furs.
Jesus Christ, sir. Turn your internets in and your brain at the nearest salvation army. Give someone else a chance.
Da vampires has teh pointee endz.
Yus!
HA! Graph WIN!
Twilight jokes are just losing their spice.
It WAS funny, the first 193482740689375689756 times.
>.<
Agreed.
You can only say “lawltheysparkle” so many times before it’s like, dudes, get a new joke.
At least Chuck Norris jokes, though old as dirt, use different spins on the same theme every time.
This is just… blah.
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris is just as badass as here, because there is no such thing as Soviet Russia anymore.
Or so they would have you believe.
But seriously, Twilight is a respectable book.
(In Narnia)
Another sparkly vampire joke? Have we completely run out of new material?
Naaaah, it’s just that Twilight is so easy to make fun of.
And they do sparkle. ‘…skin sparkled like diamonds…’
Eugh. Excuse me. That was painful.
I haven’t seen Twilight. You’re all wusses.
Any woman want a real man, look me up.
HA! Love it. That’s magical. Totally true, too.
4get twilight and all who read/watch it. ^x.x^ *basement kitteh’s kousin cant understand why peoples made such a big deal out of an ugly sparkling cannibal wif a bad hair day.*
Get off my internet, you illiterate twitard.
Um, this site was originally for LOLcats, and this person is speaking after the manner of said cats. You can get mad at them for being a Twihard, but leave their supposed “illiteracy” alone on. They’re trying to be silly.
Sure, but you’ve got to go all out with lolspeak — misspelling the odd word is poor form.
Don’t make me hurt you.
Some of the LOLcats are just the odd word here and there, some are perfectly coherant sentences, and some of them are full-blown LOLspeak.
This site is intended for laughs, lighten up.
And on that note…
Lul, teh sparkleh vampires be refoosin’ to nom teh bludz! OH NOES!
I think they’re trying to say they dislike twilight fans and Edward, Andrea.
I hardly think they’re a twitard if they think that, now do they?
Yeah. Seriously. Twilight-themed graphs are incredibly annoying now. Get over it already. Besides, the people who make fun of Twilight and GD sparkling vampires are probably closet Twihards anyway. It’s been done, re-done, re-done, re-done, re-done, re-done, and re-done x 10,000,000,000,000 already.
Lame.
It’s the George Lucas syndrome.
Only on something they don’t own.
I’ve always loved that argument: “Because someone hates ‘X’, they must obviously secretly love it!”
Because, you know, people can never actually dislike anything, really. Same with wars, the two countries may say they hate each other, but the leaders of both are secretly in love. The war in the middle east was created to distract the public from an affair between Bush and Osama.
Logical fallacies plumb new depths of self-righteous idiocy on the internet. I think my favorite is along the lines of “If you’re upset by what I said, that proves I’m right.”
So does that mean I can create a paradox by being upset in an argument, while upsetting the other person? Cool!
XDDDD
I dunno, I guess it kinda makes sense…It’s saying that books that have the three qualities aren’t going to have sparkly vampires and books with sparkly vampires aren’t going to have those qualities…Which is totally true.
Perhaps they’re not insightful, but I sincerely doubt Twilight would be such a huge success if the plot *weren’t* highly engrossing for many people and the characters very interesting to fans.
The characters are two-dimensional, except for Jacob, who would probably be also if he didn’t have the whole angst bit going for him.
Really, the plot is about a girl who moves away from her mother, is getting settled in, meets an abusive gargoyle (hence all the white marble skin references), who she proceeds to enter a relationship with due to sheer lust, and her life is all better after his relentless isolation and manipulative actions towards her.
I still say that I’ve read better writing on internet fan-fic sites.
*nods*
Yeah, I have to agree with you there.
Lots of genres of music, literature, etc. become behemothian successes, despite a great deal of people finding them excruciating.
*cough*Generic Pop*cough*
Well, regarding Pop Culture in that way is a good example. Okay, try to think this through… Pop Culture, albeit controversial and somewhat the juggernaut of the music industry, has everything to do with sex, conformity, and love (notice how love and sex aren’t together.) The whole thing with Twilight is commercialism. One lonely depressed adolescent teen-aged girl picks up a book about vampires and she tells all her friends, much like a song. And if any girl doesn’t like the song or book (Twilight), everyone in the pop-loving demographic pretty much gets shunned by everyone else.
Instant Classic among young girls who haven’t experienced REAL love rather than lusty admiration.
I feel the books show a rather immature take on love and overall the writing is cliche but it’s different for young women. They never felt love before and they need something to tell them what it’s like. However, this series does a bad job of explaining things and feelings but does an AMAZING job at conveying lust and blind love. No offense, but I see a lot of similarities between Twilight and the whole Jonas Brothers thing.
{i meant “pretty much shuns that person) first paragraph, last line.
You know those “tall, dark stranger” lovestories of lonely women swept off their feet into a stormy romance that they have at the supermarket, the ones with the terribly corny titles? A lot of women are suckers for that kind of stuff too, but that doesn’t mean it’s good writing.
Did I say good? No, I said engrossing and interesting. Get a dictionary.
HAHAHAHAHA really? It blew more than Linda Lovelace in the early 80’s. There was absolutely nothing interesting about any of the characters, The author just decided, how can I take something scary like vampires and make it romance. Well, Anne Rice already did that, and not poorly by any means. So then I guess they decided, I know, I’ll make them flamboyant and sparkly and write a whole chapter about chisel sculpted chests, and throw in some glitter.
Actually, she wrote the first book as an attempt to figure out the backstory of dream she had in which a vampire was in love with a human girl and sparkled in the sunlight.
Dear god, the sparkling. WHY?!?
I’ve read better works of fiction churned out by people participating in NaNoWriMo!
Sarah, that’s just it – the plot itself might have been engrossing, IF THE PLOT EVER HAPPENED. The first book was 80% Bella mooning over Edward. The 20% that might have been an interesting plot felt tacked-on and hurried (mostly because it was, well, tacked-on and hurried.) Same with the second book – Bella spends the vast majority of it moping about Edward (while surrounded by werewolves, so hey, it’s fresh and new!), and then, in the last 5th of the book, OMG plot! Better hurry and squeeze it in there! The third book – I remember it HAD a plot, but I can’t for the life of me recall what it was. (Except that it apparently necessitated Edward sabotaging Bella’s car to keep her from visiting Jacob. ‘Cuz nothing says “love” like keeping the girl a prisoner in her own home.)
To be fair, however, the fourth book did have a plot. A HILARIOUS plot. Which made all the pain worth it.
This thread delivers
Seriously guys, it’s not worth all this. I read all four books, I watched the movie. The movie sucks. Kristen Stewart and Rob Pattinson don’t fit. Actually, she would have done quite well with a better script and a *much* better co-star…
Even if the movie had turned out to be the best movie ever made, it still would have been based on BOOKS that were MADE UP. None of it is real, so just drop it already. Jeez.
It’s a form of escapism. Sadly.
Neil Gaiman’s literature should the the middle. :3
You guys are all way to macho for you own goods, I personally love the Twilight Saga and literally cried at parts, who cares if its not the best writing or character development, its fun to read and its a source of entertainment.
Macho my ass.
I love Narnia.
But Twilight just fails.
It’s not fun for me, neither does it entertain me.
It just makes my eyes bleed and my brain cry because people actually like it.
On a side-note:
Apple apple!
I don’t think men who read Twilight are gay. I think they are wimps who are probably gay.
after reading HALF of the first book, i set it down, and refused to pick it back up again. being a girl it consumed me in a world of fantasy romance with shiny vampires. i felt awkward and ashamed for letting myself get sucked back into high school, within vapid books that have weak story lines, and meanings. you read the book, and you think “wow i want to fall in love with a sparkly vampire.” you read other books and you think, “wow i want to go on an epic adventure, and pursue my dreams.” want some good science fiction? read some terry brooks. not books that make you feel like any man is inadequate unless he sparkles and sucks blood.
You are a winner, Sir/Ma’am.
So full of win I can sense it from here at my interweb station
Very good point. I applaud you.
And what if you actually WERE a strong enough personality to bear the imperfection of the real world compared to the world described in the book and were NOT ashamed of being an emotional person?
what has your point got to do with Cora’s critique of the novel? She disliked the emotional experience she had whlie reading it – it doesn’t mean she’s a robot in real life. there are emotions beyond the scope of Twilight – might I suggest you explore some of them?
My point has everything to do with it. Just imagine: there actually ARE people who are strong and mature enough to enjoy the books without being ashamed and/or “want to wall in love with a sparkling vampire”. Why put them off with terry books (which are actually very boring once you understand the mechanics of their humor)?
Strong and mature, eh? Cora’s critique was of the BOOKS. You in response, attacked her. Attacking a person by saying they are not “strong enough personality” does not lend you credence as a strong or a mature person. if you enjoyed the books, fine. Find the strength to accept that not everyone has the same tastes as you. If you feel the need to respond to an argument, do so without flaming.
I have personally enjoyed some pretty tasteless literature – but I recognise its flippant and shallow nature.
No matter what anyone says, straight men who read Twilight, wear pink, et cetera, are not strong and unafraid. They are pansies. Gay men can be either. Women can be either.
make it STOP!!!
It will never stop! Even the people who hate this go out of their effing way to talk about! It’s either that good, or the only people that don’t like it have the same lack of lives as the people that sit around praising it on the internet. It will never go away.
I think most people are just so ashamed (they shouldn’t be but they are) for liking it, that they have to overcompensate by bashing it even when the people wo actually DIDN’T like it are long gone and don’t care any more.
Sparkle sparkle! 8D
You have a really weird look on life, do you know that? x3 I met the fans of Twilight before I read the book itself. At first, I thought ‘Hmm… could be worth a look.’ Ten minutes later, I wanted to top myself. MAKE IT STOP! And yet, there were still people rambling on about it. Therefore, before I’d even seen the cover of the first book, I hated the series. I read it, and it was alrightish for the first word or so. There forwards was just… no. There aren’t words.
But that has nothing to do with anything. The point is, that just because you happen to like the book, and there are some people who don’t like it, it doesn’t automatically mean that the way you think is real. It doesn’t automatically mean that you’re right.
That said, you’re not going to pay attention to these words, you’re just going to twist the words to your own means and tell me that I love it deep down.
I don’t.
Yeah, that makes sense. They hate it, so they must love it. That makes perfect sense. Why should you be ashamed to like Twilight? I hate it, and I’m not ashamed of that, so, what’s the deal with your half- brained logic?
LEAVE TWILIGHT ALONE!!!! WHAT DID IT EVER DO TO YOU!!! THEIR HAVING PROBLEMS AS IT IS!!! DO YOU THINK IT’S EASY TO PAY FOR CHILD CARE ON A HALF-VAMPIRE BABY?!?!? DO YOU THINK IT’S EASY TO LIVE ON ANIMAL BLOOD INSTEAD OF HUMAN BLOOD FOR YOUR ENTIRE LIFE? THE SERIES COULD INSTEAD BE ABOUT VAMPIRES KILLING PEOPLE AND SUCKING OUT THEIR BLOOD WHEN THEY’RE SLEEPING! MAYBE THE VAMPIRES WILL GO DO IT TO YOU!!! THEY’RE NOT HUMAN! AND ALL YOU WANT TO DO IS MAKE JOKES ABOUT HOW THEY SPARKLE! HOW WOULD YOU LIKE IT IF YOU SPARKLED? EVERYONE WOULD THINK YOU WERE A FREAK! YOU’D HAVE TO STAY OUT OF THE SUN OR ELSE EVERYONE WOULD THINK THAT YOU WERE GAY! AND IF YOU’RE A GIRL, THEY WOULD THINK THAT YOU WERE SOME FREAKING POPSTAR THAT HAS A TOTAL SELF-IMAGE PROBLEM. HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE COMPARED TO BRITNEY SPEARS? I KNOW THEY’RE NOT HUMAN, SO YOU CAN’T REALLY RELATE TO THEM, BUT THAT DOESN’T MEAN WE SHOULDN’T CARE ABOUT THEM. MAYBE THEY’LL JUST CLIMB IN YOUR WINDOW ONE NIGHT AND SUCK ALL YOUR BLOOD OUT AND LEAVE YOU DEAD. DID YOU EVER THINK OF THAT? LEAVE TWILIGHT ALONE!
….. Best. Comment. EVER.
x3 It made me lul.
Seriously, I think I just came because of this comment. Its not physically possible? But I think I managed.
lmao… wow. just wow. there are no words.
It’s a Chris Crocker reference.
And sarcasm.
people like you make me want to kill myself, wait strike that… it makes me want everybody else die so i don’t have to deal with idiots ever again… EVER.
Double C = Chris Crocker. It’s sarcasm.
ahahah your stupid twilight queers
Ok… its a chris crocker joke, srlsy.
epin win
HAY GUIZE I HERD DER’S DIS BUK ABOUT SPARKLY VAMPIRES OR SOMETHING WHAT’S UP WIF DAT? WY HASN’T NEONE MADE FUN UV DAT YET?!?
Seriously, can we get some new material here, people?
you’re on an online thread about Twilight. whatcha expect, a deep discussion about the merits of Romatic fantasy elements?
Aww, you could go farther and put things in the cross sections! Think hard, you can do it!
Ahhhh.. this never gets old. *Sets feet up on a foot rest* I love to hear the complaints of Twilight. I just wish it would sink into the heads of all those retards that actually *like* the series. Seriously. The book should be some kind of episode of Cops or something, what with her boyfriend messed up and her thinking it’s ok to be like that. And, later in the series, when they screw and she gets knocked up, that should be on some.. I don’t know.. Hick (whichIamallowedtosaybecasueIamaMississippian) series? DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES.. ..would she fit that bill?
Book number 15: She has disabled legs and what not from all his *LOVING*, 20 kids and is living off welfare while her boyfriend is in an urn, staked by none-other-than Buffy with the help of Angel and Spike (who had something to say about the retard).
Count Chocola’ would even be ashamed..
No, the center section is Elmore Leonard, Donald Westlake, and Jon LeCarre.
And the vapires sparkle because they’re chick books. They like sparkly things.
The Thing, Frankenstein, and The War of the Worlds should fill the cross sections.
This is made of win.
I’m just going to play the devil’s advocate here, just for the hell of it.
Riddle me this- how is the plotline of this any worse than stories like Romeo and Juliet?
It’s kind of similar, if you think about it. Romeo and Juliet is, in my opinion, just as sickening with teenage infatuation as Twilight. The story is supposed to take place over the course of about three days- within those three days Romeo and Juliet meet, “fall in love,” plan to marry, and kill themselves in vain over eachother.
I wonder why Romeo and Juliet is considered a classic, when it has just as crappy of a plotline as Twilight.
Romeo and Juliet sucks the big one.. no serious academic believes that was Shakespeare at his best. His dramas were lackluster at their best. I don’t understand why high school English teachers include R&J and Macbeth in their curriculum and exclude masterpieces like Hamlet and The Maltese Falcon(to stray away from Shakespeare). People don’t understand what insightful, well written literary pieces of work truly are.
Twilight is not a work of art, its a steaming pile of refuse, a sorry excuse for a series and a skid mark on the underpants of society.
Well…
On the one hand, it’s true that Romeo and Juliet is a story of teenage infatuation, just like Twilight, and even while reading it it’s hard to restrain the urge to tell them both to go take a cold shower and slow it down a bit.
On the other hand… first of all, in R&J teenagers were considered old enough to marry, and in fact Juliet’s father was in negotiations for her to be married. Which gave the plot a certain urgency. Also, there were other themes going on in the play. The idea of the feud that’s gone on so long no one can even remember why it started, but that’s kept alive as more and more people are killed on both sides, has a certain relevant resonance even today. I’d even argue that the fact that it was a tragedy makes it better – the senselessness of Romeo and Juliet killing themselves over this three-day-old romance just serves to underline the tragic waste of feuds like that.
Not to mention – Romeo and Juliet is just flat-out better written. Shakespeare is enjoyable to read, whether he’s being poetic or funny or both, which is a lot more than I can say for Meyer.
Oh, how original, a joke about Twilight!
Now all we need is someone to do a Jonas Brother graph. Goody!
+1!!! I’m tired of everyone’s Twilight obsession!! Gosh, and Robert whatever-the-name is not even good looking!
the book was written to sell money obviously, and that is also why the movies are being made. And in that point it has succeeded.
The books are fine if you don’t mind turning your brain off, but the movie is just stupid and shows no acting skills that the stars actually do posses. I blame the directing not the writing, because in the books they do have chemistry and more than just whining.
But no matter what it’s still not smart material.
Sheesh. It’s a book. All these “this book is better” comments are making this into a “mine’s bigger than yours” type of competition. Yes, Twilight had many grammatical errors. Yes, the plot and characters were simple. But guess what? Kids like it. You don’t have to. But while you’re at it… *starts popping some Popcorn*
And those of you who are adding writers…they still have books that aren’t grammatically perfect. NO ONE is perfect.
“Well-written” and “grammatically perfect” are really not the same thing. Yes, I’d prefer grammatical errors be kept to a minimum, because it breaks me out of the flow of the story and it can hinder comprehension. However, I promise you that for the people complaining about Twilight, grammatical errors are the least of their complaints.
wooo sparkly vampires!! Twilight is a love story just like romeo & juliet because it’s forbidden love: the vampire can’t be with the human as he might kill her. romeo & juliet couldn’t be together because they were in rival families.
people writing comments about how much they hate the twilight saga shows that they don’t have anything better to do than criticise a series of books stephanie meyer spent so many years writing for people to enjoy. the book isn’t for everyone but that doesn’t mean people can spoil it for the people who do like it!!
Twilight is loved by so many people because people can relate to the different characters. When reading the books, you can actually place yourself as one of the characters because Meyer does a good job explaining the way each person shows their emotions for someone–people who have a love as strong as Bella and Edwards or wish for a love like that, people who wish for a different life though they have everything they’ve ever wanted like Rosalie. This series help people believe that their soulmate is out there and that no matter what the hard ships, love will always prevail and that’s what makes this series so good–it’s a modern Romeo and Juliet.
Of course not everyone’s going to like it because it’s about vampires or they think it’s cheezy, but don’t spoil it or make fun of others who do like it.
I agree as well tha the movie was not like the book at all. The relationships between some of the characters were not fully developed and the acting was a bit on the down side.
O.o What the hell. I don’t picture myself to be clumsy and stupid. That I wish I had a boyfriend that watched me sleep at night without me knowing… The whole book I couldn’t picture myself at all. I don’t obsess over how someone smells or want to repeat school over and over again.
Probably at most the only think I could relate to was moving to a different town and starting a new school. That’s about it.
The characters were so boring and predictable that no one would WANT to relate to them in anyway.
>Twilight is loved by so many people because people can relate to the different characters.
Because too many people sit in front of sparkly shiny boxes for 80% of their waking hours and have no real concept of genuine emotion.
Seriously– Bella is a vapid teenage girl. Edward has no real semblance of personality. He’s manipulative and borderline abusive.
How different is that from real life?
Bitches, don’t diss my book. It’s a great book.
…if Edward Cullen ever actually said “Bitches, don’t diss my book,” I would take back everything mean I ever said about Twilight.
That would be far more awesome than any comment he ever made in the entire series.
bet i could chuck a pigskin over dem mountains
Ahahaha, that was genius xD
wtf is so wrong with Twilight? I mean, really. Sparkly vampires aren’t that bad. I thought it was unique, actually.
I don’t think it’s necessarily the book. It’s more how… fangirl all the fangirls are getting. You can’t walk into a bookstore without seeing a display for Twilight, or talk to someone who likes the saga without them mentioning it. Plus, the other day my cousin called Stephenie Meyer a genius. I’m not even sure Meyer knows how to use a thesaurus, and I’m pretty sure geniuses know how to. Seriously, how many times do I need to hear that Edward’s body feels like marble and is as cold as ice?
Or….we could just not take this so seriously. It’s a book. You read the first one, you don’t like it, WALK AWAY. You don’t have to aggressively try to convert everyone else to your opinion. Not everything has to be educational and intelligent and “Ooh, let me up my cred by putting this bugger on my shelf!”
The end.
Edward, their making fun of me! Make them stop *bursts into tears*
Can I just say that “Liz” is a moron? Twilight was trash. I would not call it literature. It’s porn. It’s porn for old people! Twilight should not be considered ‘Young Adult Fiction’.
The lady literally took her sexual fantasies and wrote a book about them. She should be committed. If you even look into any psychological aspect of any of the characters… they are 100% certifiably insane.
That’s the problem. It’s obvious that Meyer isn’t smart enough to create characters that are this crazy, without it be a complete reflection of herself. She’s a plagiarist anyways. She has no imagination. Period.
BTW: She stole the sparkling… from effing Anne Rice’s “Vampire Chronicles.”
That couldn’t be further from the truth, Twilight had all of those things.
Yeah..it’s been done. Get over it.
ha!
Just to comment on the Romeo and Juliet thing…
I actually like The Merchant of Venice much much better. Subtle comments on modern society, funnily enough.
And with regards to Twilight, I’m one of those nerds who reads all the thinner, less nerdy looking books and doesn’t actually read Harry Potter or Twilight.
Which means that my brain cells are happy, and so are my eyes.
(now, don’t get me wrong, I haven’t read much so the books may well be good, I’m just saying that they have a RETARDED audience. Most of the Twilight fans at my school are those girls with tons of piercings who like to act tough and/or scream their heads off at remotely hot, sissy guys in skinny jeans.
And the Harry Potter fans are those who take 2 years to read the first book.
My sisters love this series, my nine year old sister tryed to get me to read the book/watch the movie. She claimed it was an action book because; “There was a fight scean, and someone’s arm broke!”
I always would like to give her one of the real vampire books, Midnight Mass comes to mind, but those include gang raping people; I guess that’s considered bad for nine year olds. At least that was a vampire apocolipese, not some crappy love story.
The next time you have to sit next to someone who is waring a Twilight T-Shirt, just remember your entire family could like it, my mom, my two sisters, my little brother, fourtionalty not my dad though.
HEY. I’m a teenage girl and i really don’t appreciate people saying these books are for me… Even I noticed how terrible the writing was, especially the dialogue. I read all 4 too, mostly because I was trying to comprehend what people (at my school) find fascinating about these books. Saw the movie, and it was worse if possible because of some crap acting. Whoever said it’s the author’s wish fulfillment is right. This is Stephanie Meyer’s fantasy high school experience
Stumbled upon.
So I’m a women who omg likes the books. I am well aware of (and agree with) the fact that they little or no plot and the characters are atrocious as is the writing. They are not by any means a good vampire, love, or vampire-love story. They are not good literature of any kind but I still enjoy reading them. I like them partially because they are trash. Some times it’s okay to just read something with out the literary Annalise we would give to Milton or Shakespeare.
witch
Back in my day,Vampires didnt sparkle,they burst into flames.
me, too. oh, how i miss the days when even the gay vampires didn’t sparkle.
CALL ME GAY but I like Twilight