I already have a blog wherein I talk about my thoughts, my feelings, and my activities. This here is a theme blog.
Since I have two anti-"Twilight" posts, and I show no signs of ceasing to complain about those "books," I figured I'd consolidate all my "Twilight" hate into one blog. So, if you don't want to read me whining about such an inconsequential topic, don't read this blog at all!
These are all the posts I transfered over from my other blog.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Oh, Stephanie Meyer, what have you done...
I have just finished the second installment of Stephanie Meyer's Twilight series, the latest books to set the hearts of rabid teenage girls (and their mothers) aflutter. I gave the books an honest chance, really, and I have come to one conclusion: I hate them. Honestly, I don't see even a modicum of appeal here. All I see is a glorified internet fic written to fulfill the wishes of a bored housewife. And by housewife, I mean an eighth grade girl. These are my main complaints against the books:
1) Bella and Edward are two of the most blatant Mary-Sue's/Gary-Lou's I've ever seen. Ever. (In case you don't know what a Mary-Sue/Gary-Lou is, click here. If you want to see for yourself whether or not they are Sue's, click here.)
2) The grammar and sentence construction reminds me of mediocre middle school writing.
3) The only semi-enjoyable character (Jacob) not only wastes his time on the book's rather worthless heroine, but he's not even getting any tail in return, despite the fact that he seems like a much better match/boyfriend than Edward would ever be. (For example, Jacob can crack a joke more than once a decade.)
4) I get it already. Edward is hot. Shut up, please.
5) I get this too: Bella is not as hot as Edward. Or she, at least, seems to think she isn't, but from the description of her appearance in the first book and by her classmates' reaction to her, it's safe to assume that Bella isn't what you'd call ugly.
6) I always thought it was poor form to make your reader wait until page 372 of a 498 page book to throw in the plot.
7) There is nothing new in this book. The sexy, flawless vampires (well, flawless except for the melodrama, which also is not new), the forbidden romance, the somehow captivating, yet mortal woman who wins the impossible-to-win heart of the demigod, none of it.
8) The heroine seems to have no flaws...oh, wait, she's clumsy, never mind. (She's also an idiot, considering, among other things, that she still can't believe her boyfriend loves her after multiple savings of her life/riskings of his own, but I'm sure that flaw was unintentional.)
There are more reasons, but I'd rather not bore who ever decides to read this. If I wanted to bore you, I'd recommend Twilight.
1) Bella and Edward are two of the most blatant Mary-Sue's/Gary-Lou's I've ever seen. Ever. (In case you don't know what a Mary-Sue/Gary-Lou is, click here. If you want to see for yourself whether or not they are Sue's, click here.)
2) The grammar and sentence construction reminds me of mediocre middle school writing.
3) The only semi-enjoyable character (Jacob) not only wastes his time on the book's rather worthless heroine, but he's not even getting any tail in return, despite the fact that he seems like a much better match/boyfriend than Edward would ever be. (For example, Jacob can crack a joke more than once a decade.)
4) I get it already. Edward is hot. Shut up, please.
5) I get this too: Bella is not as hot as Edward. Or she, at least, seems to think she isn't, but from the description of her appearance in the first book and by her classmates' reaction to her, it's safe to assume that Bella isn't what you'd call ugly.
6) I always thought it was poor form to make your reader wait until page 372 of a 498 page book to throw in the plot.
7) There is nothing new in this book. The sexy, flawless vampires (well, flawless except for the melodrama, which also is not new), the forbidden romance, the somehow captivating, yet mortal woman who wins the impossible-to-win heart of the demigod, none of it.
8) The heroine seems to have no flaws...oh, wait, she's clumsy, never mind. (She's also an idiot, considering, among other things, that she still can't believe her boyfriend loves her after multiple savings of her life/riskings of his own, but I'm sure that flaw was unintentional.)
There are more reasons, but I'd rather not bore who ever decides to read this. If I wanted to bore you, I'd recommend Twilight.
Shakespeare and Austen would be ashamed.
Twilight, and indeed, its author, have no idea that it's trashy "chick-lit." Sadly, neither do its millions of screaming, rabid fans.
Perhaps one of the things that annoys me most is the insistence that Meyer's books are based off of good books by great authors, like Jane Austen, Will Shakespeare, and Emily Brontë. I admit, I've never read Wuthering Hights, and all I know of it comes from a) the Wikipedia article I just read two minutes ago or b) from the Monty Python version of Wuthering Hights in Semaphore Code. However, I have read Pride and Prejudice and "Romeo and Juliet," so I can say with certainty that Mrs. Meyer completely missed the point of both of these works.
Twilight is supposedly based on Pride and Prejudice. I can sort of see this. Lizzy and Darcy don't like each other at the beginning of their novel. Edward pretends to not like Bella because he wants to feast on her blood so damn bad, so she thinks he doesn't like her. So, yeah, that's completely the same. And at the end, Lizzie and Darcy love each other, and Bella and Edward love each other. Clearly, same story, right?
No.
The point of P&P is not, "These characters didn't like one another and now they do." Lizzie and Darcy both grew as characters, they got over their personal PRIDE and PREJUDICES against one another and realized that once they put petty differences aside, they were compatible. With Darcy and Lizzie, it was a true marriage of spirit and mind. They were not in love because he is SO SUPER HOT OMG!!!111ONE111! and she smells good.
The second book, New Moon, is meant to be based on Romeo and Juliet. Just in case the whole "forbidden love" part hadn't sunk in enough for you.
Meyer actually mentions something that could have been interesting if she had talent as a writer - the idea that perhaps Juliet would have loved Paris if she had never met Romeo. But thank god she has no talent, because it's so much easier to hate a book with absolutely no redeeming qualities, yes? Aside from another guy vying for Bella's affections (which now brings our grand total up to five...not bad for a "plain" girl who's only lived there a year) the resemblance to Shakespeare is only in Meyer's head.
The way I think of Romeo and Juliet (which is by no means the "right" way to read it, but I like it) is that their love was intense and life-altering, but it simply couldn't last. We don't live in a world of perfect loves like that. Cole Porter said it best in the song, "Just One of Those Things":
In Shakespeare's story, the lovers die at the end. Their love was ultimately destructive. And let's face it, that's a helluva lot more exciting than what we all know would have happened if they had led long, happy, married lives: their love would have faded. At best, to a sustainable, boring, everyday kind of love; at worst, it would have faded completely.
In Meyer's version, the two not only manage to sustain the initial "OMG I LOVE YOU SO MUCH I WANNA DIE" feeling for a normal lifespan, they both become immortal in the end.
So please, Ms. Austen and Mr. Shakespeare, stop rolling in your graves. That bitch just crazay.
Perhaps one of the things that annoys me most is the insistence that Meyer's books are based off of good books by great authors, like Jane Austen, Will Shakespeare, and Emily Brontë. I admit, I've never read Wuthering Hights, and all I know of it comes from a) the Wikipedia article I just read two minutes ago or b) from the Monty Python version of Wuthering Hights in Semaphore Code. However, I have read Pride and Prejudice and "Romeo and Juliet," so I can say with certainty that Mrs. Meyer completely missed the point of both of these works.
Twilight is supposedly based on Pride and Prejudice. I can sort of see this. Lizzy and Darcy don't like each other at the beginning of their novel. Edward pretends to not like Bella because he wants to feast on her blood so damn bad, so she thinks he doesn't like her. So, yeah, that's completely the same. And at the end, Lizzie and Darcy love each other, and Bella and Edward love each other. Clearly, same story, right?
No.
The point of P&P is not, "These characters didn't like one another and now they do." Lizzie and Darcy both grew as characters, they got over their personal PRIDE and PREJUDICES against one another and realized that once they put petty differences aside, they were compatible. With Darcy and Lizzie, it was a true marriage of spirit and mind. They were not in love because he is SO SUPER HOT OMG!!!111ONE111! and she smells good.
The second book, New Moon, is meant to be based on Romeo and Juliet. Just in case the whole "forbidden love" part hadn't sunk in enough for you.
Meyer actually mentions something that could have been interesting if she had talent as a writer - the idea that perhaps Juliet would have loved Paris if she had never met Romeo. But thank god she has no talent, because it's so much easier to hate a book with absolutely no redeeming qualities, yes? Aside from another guy vying for Bella's affections (which now brings our grand total up to five...not bad for a "plain" girl who's only lived there a year) the resemblance to Shakespeare is only in Meyer's head.
The way I think of Romeo and Juliet (which is by no means the "right" way to read it, but I like it) is that their love was intense and life-altering, but it simply couldn't last. We don't live in a world of perfect loves like that. Cole Porter said it best in the song, "Just One of Those Things":
If we'd thought a bit about the end of it
When we started painting the town
We'd have been aware that our love affair
Was too hot not to cool down
In Shakespeare's story, the lovers die at the end. Their love was ultimately destructive. And let's face it, that's a helluva lot more exciting than what we all know would have happened if they had led long, happy, married lives: their love would have faded. At best, to a sustainable, boring, everyday kind of love; at worst, it would have faded completely.
In Meyer's version, the two not only manage to sustain the initial "OMG I LOVE YOU SO MUCH I WANNA DIE" feeling for a normal lifespan, they both become immortal in the end.
So please, Ms. Austen and Mr. Shakespeare, stop rolling in your graves. That bitch just crazay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
